Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Okay.

Ms. Laidlaw, the platforms already have their own rules, and we know that they sometimes don't follow them.

Therefore, do you believe that Bill C‑63 will be able to hold them in check?

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Please answer yes or no, Ms. Laidlaw.

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

Yes, it's about minimum standards.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you.

I will now take the floor for six minutes.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Boucher, Mr. Côté, Mr. Hatfield and Ms. Laidlaw, your participation is invaluable.

Ms. Laidlaw, on the subject of hate, Bill C‑63 provides that “A person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit...”.

Are you not concerned that this wording is a little too vague and that it could lead to abuse?

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

I do want to emphasize that my support for what should be fast-tracked for study is part 1. I fully support separating the bills. I think that parts 2 and 3 are fundamentally different.

With that in mind, with regard to the peace bond provisions, I defer significantly to criminal lawyers who are practising because my understanding is that there are so many hoops to jump through to be able to obtain a peace bond that this isn't the easy win that one would think, in going to court and chilling expression.

That said, the prospect of it can have that chilling effect. That's why I think much broader consultation is needed on that type of provision. I also am not sure if it's already needed. If the fear is of property crime, you can get a peace bond for that as it exists right now. I remain to be convinced that it is a tool that will be worthwhile.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Ms. Laidlaw.

Mr. Hatfield, I'll ask you the same question. What is your opinion on the possibility of whistleblowing when there are reasonable grounds to fear that an offence will be committed?

[Matthew Hatfield]

We're very seriously concerned by parts 2 and 3. If those were still included in the bill, our presentation and our recommendations would be quite different here.

However, our understanding is that we now have the opportunity to see only part 1 and part 4 pass together. That is what we're potentially supporting.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. Boucher, has Droits collectifs Québec taken a look at this issue?

Do you have any comments you'd like to share?

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

Could you repeat the question?

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I'm referring to part 2 of the bill, which deals with hate. The minister announced that he was going to split the bill in two. I obviously agree with that, since it was the Bloc Québécois that made the request in the first place. We agree that the bill needs to be split in two. However, until this actually comes to pass, we are conducting a prestudy of Bill C‑63in its entirety.

I'm taking the liberty of asking you this question, even though I, too, think that my question should be asked as part of another study.

The bill reads as follows: “A person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit...”.

Does that sound reasonable? Are you not concerned that this could open the door to abuse in terms of whistleblowing?

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

I would ask Mr. Côté to answer you.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I believe Mr. Côté doesn't have the House of Commons headset. The one he is using could be harmful to our interpreters. That is why, unfortunately, we will not be able to get his opinion, even though it would have been very valuable.

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

I would first like to say that our testimony was not about this very specific issue. However, I agree with the opinion of the experts who testified before this committee. It seems obvious that it would be a good idea.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you.

Mr. Boucher, are you able to tell us about the definition of the word “hate” as proposed in Bill C‑63?

You may have heard the comments made by the witnesses who appeared in the first part of the meeting. The Barreau du Québec has expressed its opinion on this definition. We were told about a Supreme Court decision, the name of which escapes me. In that case, a judge looked at that definition.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

How should that word be defined and what are the parameters that would make it possible to frame this concept?

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

My colleagues from the Barreau du Québec seemed to be saying that, basically, the Supreme Court did a relatively good job of defining what hate speech could be.

In a way, I think it's—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

On a point of order, we're not getting any interpretation.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Just a moment, Mr. Boucher. There's no interpretation.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Does he hear the interpreter?

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Mr. Boucher, I'm sorry, but I've just learned that you don't have the right headset either. What I understood is that you and Mr. Côté received headsets last May, but the headsets—

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

It's a headset that I purchased.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Unfortunately, neither of you is able to testify because of this reason.

In my opinion, this was a mistake made by the House of Commons. From what I understand, those headsets were sent to you last spring, but you didn't get the new headsets.

Please know that if you would like to come back to this committee, we can invite you at a later date.

That said, if you wish, you can simply send us your comments or answers to the questions put to you in writing. Those answers must be sent to all committee members without delay, and they will be taken into consideration.

Again, if you wish to be invited back, I will personally ask that we invite you at a future meeting. At that time, we'll send you the right headsets.

I apologize on behalf of our committee. If you are able to send us your observations and comments in writing, I would appreciate it.

Please know that we take this issue very seriously. It's important to know that interpreters have suffered damage to their hearing. I didn't know it could happen. I learned that during the pandemic. Since then, we've been using videoconferencing a lot, and we need to protect our interpreters, whom we really need to do our job.

Do let me know if you want to testify again. I will make sure that you are invited at a later date.

Thank you.

I had one minute of speaking time left, and I'm going to allow myself to ask my question right away.

Ms. Laidlaw, when it comes to maximum sentences, we're talking about life sentences for certain aggravated offences related to hate speech. For example, someone who committed a hate-related offence could be subject to a life sentence.

In your opinion, is this the right sentence here? Should we review that provision?

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

This should be revised. I think that the risk of life imprisonment for a speech crime is wholly disproportionate.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I see Mr. Hatfield nodding. I'm very happy.

Thank you, Ms. Laidlaw.

My time is up, so we'll go back to Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with what you said about the interpreters. You made an important and fair call. The interpreters must be properly protected at all times. They really are one of the foundations of our Parliament. It's a shame to have to interrupt a witness's testimony, but you did the right thing and acted responsibly.

I want to come to Ms. Laidlaw.

Thank you very much for your presentation today. You talked about algorithm issues as well. I want to come back to you on that issue.

We have before Parliament, as you know, Bill C-292, which is an act respecting transparency for online algorithms. To what extent do you think—in addition to part 1 of the bill—we need to look at legislation or perhaps need to incorporate portions of that bill to ensure that we actually have a situation where Canadians can see the transparency around algorithms, and in that way, as well, we can ensure greater safety?

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

Thank you for the question.

I agree. Algorithmic accountability should be added to Bill C-63. Earlier when I spoke, I said that it's loosely covered, but it requires a leap of faith. We need more in the legislation because the duty to act responsibly would leave it to the digital safety commission to develop codes of practice and regulations. There is scope there for algorithmic transparency and algorithmic amplification to be covered, but that kind of digital safety by design and the algorithmic accountability need to be embedded in the legislation itself.

The same goes for the children's provisions. It does cover algorithms when it comes to safety by design, but it's one very short provision. If we take your bill and some of the provisions in that, and if that becomes a blueprint to flesh out those parts of Bill C-63 in part 1, then I think that we would be in a good position