Thank you, Mrs. Brière.
I would like to underscore one thing, since you've raised the same topic as Mr. Moore.
Online hatred has real-world consequences. Again, talk to the Afzaal family and to the families of the six men who were killed at the Quebec mosque. Talk to them in terms of those real-world consequences.
Second, Conservatives seem to be operating in this make-believe world where hatred isn't already regulated in Canada. We have sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. Those have been upheld in Canada as reasonable limitations on speech because hatred is not protected in this country.
The proposition we are bringing forward is this: If hatred is not protected in the real world, why should it be protected in the online world? That is where we have a difference of opinion, Mr. Moore, and I think it's something that you need to address for yourselves in terms of trying to understand why groups like the NCCM and CIJA are behind this bill. It's because they want to see a curb on that very hatred.
With respect to your question, Madam Brière, of whether the hatred definition will help to protect children, absolutely it will. Again, this is not my definition. This is the definition entrenched by the Supreme Court of Canada. I didn't make it up. The Prime Minister didn't make it up. The courts have already established this definition. That's the definition that we use, and it will keep kids safe as they move into adulthood because we need to keep everyone safe. It's not just about targeting children.
I'll point out for Mr. Moore's edification that Australia moved on children alone in 2015. Nine years later, it's moved much beyond that. That's important to understand—that the whole world is moving in that direction, including Conservatives in Britain. I'm just puzzled why Conservatives here are afraid to do so.
Lastly, Madam Brière, you asked me about prevention and the notion of prevention assisting against hate. This is a very important question. We already have, in certain defined circumstances where reasonable grounds can be made, the ability to effect a thing like a peace bond to prevent harm against a woman facing domestic violence. That includes preventative restrictions on speech, prior restraint of speech.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about a man estranged from his former wife who cannot, because of a peace bond, post revenge porn about her. In certain circumstances, we allow this. We know this is significant. That's why we've injected in this legislation the safeguard of getting the local attorney general's consent. That is critical because it serves as that safeguard to ensure that this is not used in a manner that is overly restricted, and that it will be found constitutional.
Thank you.