I'm going to go very quickly.
You're all doing amazing work. Thank you.
Thank you particularly, Mr. Galloway, for bringing a voice that we haven't heard very often.
Shalini, we're very proud to always have SALCO at the committee.
Mr. Maharaj, I will pick up on where you left off and just say that it is critical, not just this year, but any year, that parliamentarians exercise discipline and appropriate behaviour. I will say that I am troubled when we have senators of this Parliament question white supremacy and its presence. I'm also troubled by reports today that we have elected officials potentially making announcements about immigration policy in front of hotels that were the site of arson attacks in Toronto. I'll leave it at that.
I have a question for all four of you that relates to section 13 of the CHRA. It's a bit specific because I'm a bit of a specific lawyer and we like to get into the weeds a bit.
The specific aspects are that the old version of section 13 had an exemption for the telecommunication provider. Do you think that should remain, or do you want more accountability for the telecommunication provider and the social media platform?
Second, can we quell the free speech antipathy by simply having a rider in there, which may be superfluous, saying that nothing in this clause is meant to derogate from the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression?
Third, do we need a definition of “hatred” incorporated into it? This was the suggestion by Irwin Cotler, a previous attorney general, in a private member's bill.
Fourth, should we have some sort of threshold for what constitutes the type of hatred that would trigger section 13 so that we don't get single instances but more of a mass-orchestrated attack?
If all four of you could opine on all or any parts of those, that would be terrific. Thank you.