MP Brian Storseth opened the debate on a private member’s bill to kill section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to mixed reviews in the House of Commons on Nov. 22. Storseth called on colleagues across the aisle to support Bill C-304, saying free speech is the “bedrock” upon which all other freedoms are built, in his opening remarks.
Debate will continue on Storseth’s bill in February and go to committee for technical amendments before third reading and a vote.
“Without freedom of speech, what is the use of any other freedoms, such as the freedom of assembly or the freedom of religion?” he asked. “As we were reminded only a few short days ago during Remembrance Day, tens of thousands of Canadians have given their lives to protect these fundamental freedoms.”
A person can be investigated under section 13 for having “likely” exposed a person to hatred or contempt, he said, calling the term vague and not a legal definition.
Under section 13, “intent is not a defence. Truth is no longer a defence. The person would no longer have the right to due process, the right to a speedy trial, or even the right to a lawyer to defend himself or herself,” Storseth told the House of Commons, which can be read in the online Hansard.
“When the people of Westlock-St. Paul hear about this, they are shocked. This is simply not the Canadian way.”
When the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) appointed Richard Moon to review section 13, he recommended its repeal, Storseth added.
Calling Bill C-304 a “courageous and principled initiative,” Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney asked Storseth to speak to the support of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Association of Journalists, Muslim Canadian Congress, the Toronto Star and National Post, in the debate.
The bill is not about left versus right, replied Storseth.
Section 13 has been used to prosecute Christians in 100 per cent of cases before 2009, noted Storseth, in an interview with the Journal.
Hate speech inciting genocide or violence against a group or individual should go through the Criminal Code, he said. In 91 per cent of investigations, defendants could not afford an attorney, he added.
The private member’s bill has received the support of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, something Storseth called “a good first step” in the early stages of the bill.
PEN Canada, an organization of writers, issued a statement calling section 13 “inconsistent with the right of free expression,” last week. Storseth’s bill received support from several religious organizations in Canada, including the Catholic Civil Rights League, and within the Westlock-St. Paul riding.
“We have people across the spectrum supporting this bill. Quite frankly, they should be,” said Storseth after the debate.
Some Liberal members have told the local MP they will support it when it comes to a vote.
Storseth has not yet been successful in finding NDP support, but he hopes to see one of the NDP leadership candidates support Bill C-304.
The NDP filibustered debate on the bill, which was scheduled to occur the week prior. NDP MPs cheered after successfully delaying debate, recalled Storseth.
During the debate on Nov. 22, Francois Boivin, an NDP MP from Gatineau, Quebec, said she has a difficult time believing the merits of the bill.
Calling the burden of proof “very difficult” required by the Criminal Code, Boivin said the burden of proof is different under the Charter.
“The freedom of expression does not give me the right to strongly criticize someone for any reason, to make that person feel like he is a nobody who does not really deserve to live,” said Boivin.
Liberal MP Irwin Colter for Mount Royal, Quebec, said he agreed freedom of expression is a bedrock principle, but called the premise of the bill, of free speech as an absolute right, “misleading.” He recommended modifying section 13.
David Sweet, a Conservative MP in southern Ontario, compared section 13 to the movie Minority Report, where a “pre-crime” department labels people criminals before they commit a crime.
“Every journalist, writer, webmaster, blogger, publisher, politician and private citizen in Canada can be subject to a human rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth on any given issue.”
Conservative MP for Edmonton-St. Albert, Brent Rathgeber, identified laws against perjury, the torts of libel and slander and sections of the Criminal Code as “real hate speech protections.”
“A distinction must be drawn between hate speech and hurt speech, or the so-called counterfeit right of hurt feelings. One does not have a right against having his or her feelings hurt. I am sorry but that is not a right that exists in common law and it is not a right that exists in free and democratic societies.”
