Evidence of meeting #99 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was online.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
—and how courts would review these processes to ensure that liberty of expression is always maintained.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Minister.
Madam Chair, we'll have lots of time to debate Bill C‑63 in the future. I think the verdict is coming out very quickly on that. I want to use what's left of my time to now move my motion regarding former minister David Lametti on the issue of ex-judge Delisle, where the minister ordered a new trial.
I'm moving that motion now, Madam Speaker.
9 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Are you proposing to debate the motion now, Mr. Moore?
9 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Well, I'm assuming that there would be near unanimous support for it, in light of the stories coming out of Quebec right now about Minister Lametti ordering a new trial in the case of this judge who was found guilty of murder.
If it can pass by unanimous consent, or if we can have a vote on it now—
9 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Given that the minister is here at the request of all parties, and with enthusiastic support from the opposition, I would move that we adjourn debate on this motion and get back to the issues at hand. We have not only the minister here; the officials are here as well. I think we should use the time we have to discuss the issues that we're here to discuss.
9 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Chair, may I intervene concerning Mr. Maloney's motion to adjourn the debate?
9 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
We're actually voting on whether we want to adjourn debate on Mr. Moore's motion to allow the minister to answer our questions about the estimates and other matters, right?
9 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
If the minister refuses to answer, can we return to Mr. Moore's motion?
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Ha, ha! No.
The first hour of the meeting, which we are spending with the minister, isn't over yet.
Would you like a recorded vote?
(Motion agreed to on division: Yeas 6; Nays 5)
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We will therefore continue with the minister.
Mrs. Brière, you have the floor for five minutes.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Minister. I'd like to thank you and your entire team for being with us this morning.
We are living in an increasingly divided world. Even though everyone is entitled to their own opinion, people are either for or against different issues. We are quick to put people into categories, to see them as being on one side or another and slap labels on them. In this increasingly complex world, and perhaps as my previous role taught me, I think it would help if people were more caring, attentive and open to each other.
In your opening remarks, you referred to Bill C‑63, which aims to protect children online. We have been hearing a lot about this bill. I have two questions for you.
First, do you believe that the definition of “hate speech” in Bill C‑63 will really make it possible to achieve the goal of protecting children online?
Second, the bill seems to apply pre-emptively, even before a person has said or done anything. I wonder if you could tell me your thoughts on that.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
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.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you very much.
I would like to discuss a completely different topic—the appointment of judges—even though I know you answered a question along those lines earlier.
In my riding, we are still awaiting the appointment of certain judges. I'd like you to tell me what work you're going to accomplish on this matter in the coming weeks or months.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mrs. Brière, the work is still ongoing. I've added people to my team and I'm working closely with my deputy minister, the departments and the Privy Council. As I mentioned, I've already contacted the judicial advisory committees and sent a letter saying that this was one of my top priorities.
I'd like to point out that, in seven months, I've already appointed over 64 judges, and that other appointments will be made in the coming days. Because the matter is extremely important, I'll keep working hard on this file, with two objectives in mind. First, we have to appoint the most intelligent lawyers possible, who also have an excellent knowledge of the law. Second, we must ensure that the judiciary reflects our nation's diversity, particularly by appointing women, like you, Mrs. Brière.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much, Mrs. Brière.
I now give the floor to Mr. Fortin for two and a half minutes.
March 21st, 2024 / 9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Minister, with all due respect, you didn't have time to answer my question earlier. I'll just ask it again. I'd like a quick answer, ideally yes or no, because we only have two and a half minutes.
Are you for or against a bilingualism requirement for the nine commissioners to be appointed to the miscarriage of justice review commission under Bill C‑40, that this committee has just passed?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I support the bill and I agree that people must be understood in the official language they use during such a process. Translation will make this possible.
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Saying that people must be understood in their language is a rather vague statement.
My question is simple: Are you for or against these nine members being bilingual?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I support the bill. I'm against the Conservatives' filibustering—