Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-9.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I would like to withdraw my comment, upon further clarification. At the time, I had heard “Indian language”, but I withdraw my comment. Thank you.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I hope we can continue with Bill C-9's clause-by-clause.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
On a point of order, I want to make sure that no precedent is set, further to an exchange you had with Mr. Brock.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Baber, you and I just had a conversation. I'm not going to entertain a discussion about a legal interpretation of relevancy.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Chair, I'm not proposing that we have a discussion about the definition of relevancy.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I'm proposing that what is relevant to this committee is considerably wider than what you've just interpreted with Mr. Brock.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That's an entirely different issue from the one Mr. Brock and I were talking about. It's not a relevant point of order. You raised a point of order relevant to the discussion Mr. Brock and I had. That's an entirely different subject. It has nothing to do with subjective versus objective.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Chair, I don't believe it is proper of you to now overrule me without allowing me an explanation for what I believe has just happened. I seek clarification from the chair so we know how to guide our submissions accordingly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I will continue to deal with issues of relevance the way I have throughout this entire meeting. If you want anything further than that, we'll deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Baber, that's the end of the discussion. I'm sorry.
Ms. Kronis, you have the floor.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to recap where we are for the people who are watching at home. What we're debating here is a subamendment to an amendment.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I have a point of order.
I'm sorry, Ms. Kronis.
Let me finish the sentence, James.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
What is relevant to the subamendment, by implication, has to be relevant to the amendment, because the subamendment amends the amendment, and the amendment amends the Bloc amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you for stating the obvious. Some other day, you'll have to explain to me how that has the slightest thing to do with what Mr. Brock and I were talking about.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
You said that submissions pertaining to PMO discussions with the minister's office on whether this bill is to proceed or not were not relevant, further to an objection brought by my friends on the other side. I submit to you that everything—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No, Mr. Baber. Now you're questioning a previous ruling. You had an opportunity then to challenge my ruling. We're not doing it now.
This is the end of this discussion, Mr. Baber. I'm sorry. You're trying to go backwards and overrule a ruling made earlier today. We're not doing that.
Ms. Kronis, you have the floor. Please go ahead.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to situate my questions within the amendment. As my colleague just pointed out, we have a subamendment to an amendment to an amendment. What that comes down to is that we have an amendment that would remove the good-faith defence from the section of the Criminal Code dealing with hate speech. My colleagues, through their amendment and subamendment, are trying to put back in the idea that nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with—and this is where the subamendment comes in—freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.
While I was waiting for my turn to speak, I got a message from one of my constituents, who is very concerned that people could go to jail and be criminally charged under these provisions in a different way, because when you change a law, there has to be meaning to it, so presumably there's some form of change. He was also concerned about the bail provisions that relate to those kinds of criminal charges.
He'd very much like us to consider Bill C-14, but if we're not going to move on to consider Bill C-14, he would like me to ask some questions of the lawyers about how bail would work if someone was criminally charged under the section of the Criminal Code that would be amended by Bill C-9 .
If one of the able counsel here representing the Department of Justice wants to answer my questions, I'm happy to have either one of them jump in. I'm wondering if you can explain how the current bail provisions work with respect to offences with hate motivation.
