Where Online Harms Have Real World Consequences Legislating Against Harm and Hate

May 14, 2024

The Empire Club of Canada Presents

Where Online Harms Have Real World Consequences: Legislating Against Harm and Hate

Chairman: Sal Rabbani, President, Board of Directors, Empire Club of Canada

Moderator
Mike Van Soelen, Past President, Empire Club of Canda

Distinguished Guest Speakers
Erin Taylor, Public Policy Program Manager, Meta
The Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada
Penny Favell, Vice President, Indigenous Relations, Hydro One

Head Table Guests
Andrew Bowyer, CEO & Founder, Legal Innovation Forum (LIF)
John Campion, Partner, Gardiner Roberts LLP, Past President, Empire Club of Canada
Sumeet (Sonu) Dhanju-Dhillon, Partner, Torkin Manes LLP
Saleema Khimji, B.A., LL.B, LL.M, President, Struqta Global
Atrisha Lewis, Partner, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Director, Empire Club of Canada
Nika Pidskalny, CEO, Splendr Solutions Inc.
Ajani Williams, OSSD Candidate, Class of 2024 SATEC @ WA Porter Collegiate Institute

Introduction
It is a great honour for me to be here at the Empire Club of Canada today, which is arguably the most famous, and historically relevant speaker’s podium to have ever existed in Canada. It has offered its podium to such international luminaries as Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Audrey Hepburn, the Dalai Lama, Indira Gandhi, and closer to home, from Pierre Trudeau to Justin Trudeau; literally generations of our great nation's leaders, alongside with those of the world's top international diplomats, heads of state, and business, and thought leaders.

It is a real honour, and distinct privilege to be invited to speak to the Empire Club of Canada, which has been welcoming international diplomats, leaders in business, and in science, and in politics. When they stand at that podium, they speak not only to the entire country, but they can speak to the entire world.

Welcome Address by Sal Rabbani, President, Board of Directors, Empire Club of Canada
Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Empire Club of Canada, the country's go-to forum for conversations that matter, for 120 years now.

To formally begin this afternoon, I want to acknowledge that we are gathering today on the traditional, and treaty lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and the homelands of the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat Peoples. We encourage everyone to learn more about the Traditional Territory on which you work, and live. This is an essential first step to Reconciliation, and each, and every one of us has a role to play.

Today, we welcome the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, and Attorney General of Canada, representing the Government of Canada. Welcome to the Empire Club, Minister. Minister Virani is here to discuss a very important topic: creating a safer online environment. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-63, to establish a new Online Harms Act. The objective of the Online Harms Act is to ensure protection for children online, and better safeguard everyone in Canada from online hate, and other types of harmful content.

Before we proceed, I'd like to acknowledge our sponsors, who generously support the club, and make these incredible events possible, and complimentary for our online viewers to attend. Thank you to our Lead Event Sponsors, Meta, and Hydro One, and thank you to our Season Sponsors, AWS, Bruce Power, and Hydro One.

We spend most of our days in front of screens. I believe last stats I've seen indicate that Canadians spend more than six hours online each day, with about two hours on social media. We also see an increase in hate crimes, and hate speech online. Many voices have been long advocating for increased need to regulate our online environment, especially for kids, and younger Canadians, who are often more susceptible and more vulnerable to online dangers.

The Online Harms Act is a comprehensive exercise. It proposes a new legislative, and regulatory framework, amendments to the Criminal Code, and establishing a Digital Safety Commission, and a Digital Safety Ombudsperson. It's my understanding that the government aims to deliver a "Swiss Army Knife" piece of legislation to address a wide range of challenges, and objectives related to online harms, and hate crimes.

As with all significant topics, the Online Harms Bill has sparked some debate. Some think it goes too far, while others feel it doesn't go far enough. Today is an excellent opportunity to hear from the minister, and put forward your questions, hear about the practical implications of the bill, and what it will mean for all of us. For those of you in the room, you can undertake to scan the QR code found in your program booklet, and for those of you online, you can ask questions through the Q&A portal under the online video player.

Bold conversations on important issues are critical to moving a country forward. This is not only the best way to progress; it's the only way. The Empire Club of Canada is the house of public dialogue, the tribune where, with transparency, and inclusivity, we bring you information, and clarity on important topics like the new Online Harms Act. I'm looking forward to the Minister's speech, and before we get into that, it's now my pleasure to introduce Erin Taylor, Public Policy Program Manager for Meta, to offer the welcoming remarks. Erin?

Opening Remarks by Erin Taylor, Public Policy Program Manager, Meta
Hello, good afternoon. I'm Erin Taylor, Public Policy Program Manager at Meta. In my role, I'm fortunate to work closely with people at national organizations, nonprofits, in academia, and across all levels of government. Through this work, I have witnessed firsthand how digital empowerment plays a critical role in unlocking forums for expression, storytelling, and cultural sharing for partners, creators, entrepreneurs, and especially, for underrepresented, and marginalized voices. But people cannot fully express themselves, if they don't feel safe. We believe people should feel free to express themselves, while also remaining safe on our services.

Which is why we have invested more than 20 billion dollars in teams and technology since 2016, with around 40,000 people focused on this work. As we shared when Minister Virani introduced the Online Harms legislation, we support the federal government's goal of helping young people have safe, positive experiences online, and have spent more than a decade developing industry-leading tools, and policies to protect them. Adding to this, we built more than 30 tools, features, and resources, to help teens have safe experiences, and to give families, and parents simple ways to set boundaries for their teens online.

This critical work is informed by parents, and experts in mental health, in psychology, youth privacy, and online child safety, to ensure that we offer protections that are effective, and that meet the needs of teens, and their families. In Canada, our expert partners include Dr. Barbara Perry at the Centre for Hate, Extremism, and Bias—of which Meta was a founding partner—as well as [indiscernible], the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), CIJA, and as well as YWCA, OneChild, MediaSmarts, NEDIC, and Equal Voice, who are all very proud to be here with today. Thank you for the opportunity to take up this work alongside you, and thank you for all your efforts. I’d give you a round of applause.

Young people are Canada’s future leaders, supporting their well-being, and safety across our platforms is our most critical work. We will continue collaborating with lawmakers, and industry peers on our longstanding priority to keep Canadians safe, and I look forward to hearing more on this from Minister Virani. Thank you.

Sal Rabbani
I'll take this opportunity to invite the Honourable Minister Virani.

The Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada
Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here, it's quite an honour to be here. The last time I was in this room, I was here as a spectator, probably invited by John Campion, and things were a little bit different back then, including not having a trilingual interpretation of the national anthem. So, une grande merci, merci beaucoup [Remarks in French]. So, I wanted to begin by acknowledging that we are on, in Toronto, the Traditional Territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Wendat, more recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. And I think Sal was putting this well when he was talking to me earlier, and also talking at the mic, about the history of this forum, and the history of this club; it is quite a deep, and long history, that has seen a number of different issues discussed, and pressing matters addressed in Canada. And it is an honour to be part of this thoughtful discourse on current events. What I would say, just at the outset, is that we need this kind of dialogue. Unfortunately, we live, now, in a world of quick takes, a world of a lot of polarization, as Sal and I were discussing. When actually thinking through an issue seems to be judged as a bit of a liability; being fast and furious is the norm, in the society we're living in now. So, I welcome this invitation to speak to you today, and I look forward to the question-and-answer session afterwards with, with Mike.

I also wanted to give a nod to our two sponsors, who I was just sitting with, to Hydro One, and especially, to Meta. It would not be breaking news to you to understand that the bill I'm here to talk about—Bill C63, the Online Harms Act—will impact companies like Meta quite directly. And their willingness to step up for this event is a sign of very good corporate citizenship, and great collaboration, which I want to see more of. I think debating hard issues is difficult, but a good debate makes legislation better. And this event is part of that debate, and this event is going to help.

So, let me start by setting the frame for you, about why do we need legislation? It starts from a very simple premise: that all of us expect to be safe in our homes, neighbourhoods, and in our communities. We should be able to expect the exact same kind of safety in our online communities. We all want our children, and grandchildren, to be able to talk to their friends, to play, to watch videos, and to learn online. But fundamentally, what any parent or grandparent wants is for those children to be safe. And that means, protecting them from sexual exploitation, from bullying, form harassment, and from hate. It means consequences for people who break the law online, it means accountability for social media platforms. It also means having a safe environment for robust debate everywhere, for those who want to engage in that debate, in that civic discourse, regardless of their age.

However, we all know that our online world falls well short of these very basic standards. Bad actors target, regularly, our most vulnerable, including our children. They spread vile hate, they encourage impressionable and vulnerable people to commit violence, or to self-harm. We know the harms we experience online can have real-world impacts, with tragic, and sometimes fatal consequences. And those who want to engage in civic discourse online are unfortunately, right now, in 2024, intimidated, and cowed, and cannot exercise their own important, expressive rights. Much of this goes unchecked online. This reality is what has prompted us, and our government, to introduce the Online Harms Act. And we are not alone—this is a really important point to understand. We are following in the footsteps of many governments around the world, who have already introduced similar legislation. I've just returned from the G7 in Italy, where I discussed different legislative initiatives with our G7 allies. I welcome, today, the opportunity to talk about this bill, about why we need it, and what it will do. Just as importantly, I want to talk to you about what it will not do.

But let me start with why this bill is so significant for me, personally. It won't surprise anyone who knows me in this room—and I've definitely seen some familiar faces, thus far—because they will know that this work, to me, is more than simply a mandate letter of commitment, that was issued by the Prime Minister. I went to law school at UofT, and then ran for office, to do some very basic things: to promote equality, to combat discrimination, and to advance human rights. That is what I have strived to do throughout my adult career, as a constitutional and human rights lawyer, ten as a parliamentarian, and now, from the perch, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I'm a refugee. My family fled to Canada when we were expelled from Uganda under Idi Amin's brutal leadership, in 1972. While Canada was a welcoming haven to us, and to many others like us, my sister and I grew up in a place where most people didn't look like us. They were not brown-skinned South Asians from East Africa, who practiced the Muslim faith. My formative years took place in a world with no Internet, before social media, and smartphones, and algorithms, and things like deepfakes. But we didn't need to doomscroll through social media feeds to know that prejudice and intolerance lurked outside the door of our family home. I just invite you, for those of you old enough, to recollect Toronto in the 1970's, in the era of "Paki bashing" on the TTC.

But my family was fortunate, because we had a safe, and loving home, where we could be ourselves, and be part of our Ismaili Muslim community. Today, however, millions of people, young people, are immersed in a world where closing the front door does not block out the world, even if their home is a safe space. Their screens are their constant companions, and those screens expose them to an astonishing volume of content every day. A lot of that content is wonderful—it is educational, it is indeed fun. But we know there's a darker side to the digital world, and it is as frightening as it is borderless. Bullies and sexual predators exploit the lack of oversight, and anonymity, to target children, and to target vulnerable people. I'm the father of two young boys, who are at the age where they are clamouring to move from a flip phone to a smartphone. And how to keep my children safe, literally, keeps me up at night. Like so many parents, people in this room, I do my best to protect them, by setting appropriate limits and controls on their online activities. But I know that we must do more to make our online spaces safer for them, and safer for all Canadians. I find it very troubling, and quite puzzling, to be frank, that we have rigorous safety standards for virtually everything that our kids play with, save for the most dangerous items in our own homes—the screens that our children are on. The Lego in my basement right now is subject to stricter safety regulations than the digital world that my kids inhabit, and that all of our kids inhabit. This bill will remedy that juxtaposition.

And while this legislation is largely about protecting our young people, it is also about keeping everyone safer, in an online world that can feel more dangerous, and unfortunately, more toxic, each and every day. So that women, racialized persons, transgender people, can dare to think about maybe going into politics, or becoming journalists, without facing a barrage of abuse, racist comments, or even death threats. So that people of diverse faiths and backgrounds can go to their places of worship, their community centres, their schools, without fearing that online threats might turn into real-world danger. As a Muslim, I know that the hatred that festers online is radicalizing people, and that that radicalization has real-world impacts for my community, and for so many other targeted communities. I just mentioned to you I was at the G7, literally last week. Canada has the unenviable record of being tops in the G7 for the number of deaths attributed to Islamophobia; in the last seven years, there have been 11 murders in this country. And the men who slayed those worshippers at the Québec City Mosque, and the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, admitted, in open court, to having been radicalized online. That is the hatred we are targeting. It is the hatred we must root out, to keep everyone in Canada safe.

So, how do we set baseline standards, while protecting our right to freely express ourselves, to debate openly, and yes, to even dislike, and perhaps ridicule one another. This is the issue our government has been studying for literally five years. We undertook exhaustive research, extensive consultations with experts, victims, and advocacy groups, some of whom are in this room right now, with our international partners, and with the public, because we had to make certain we were taking a measured approach, one that holds social media platforms to account for harmful content, while at the same time, providing a safe environment for users to learn, to share, to create, and to debate.

So, let me turn now to the details of the bill itself. Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, is guided by four objectives. The first is that it aims to reduce exposure to harmful content online, and to empower, and support you, the users. It secondly addresses and denounces the rise in hatred, and hate crimes. Thirdly, it ensures that victims of hate have recourse to improved remedies. And lastly, it strengthens the reporting of child sexual abuse material, to enhance the criminal justice system's response to this very heinous, and prevalent crime. The bill has two main parts. The first part—and Sal was referring to some of this—is, the first part of the proposed new act, the Online Harms Act, requires social media services, including livestreaming and adult content sites, to put in place special protections for children. It also creates a duty on platforms to remove child sexual abuse material, and so-called revenge pornography, including sexual deepfakes, within 24 hours—and yes, the term "deepfake," is entrenched in the legislation. For all other kinds of harmful content targeted by the bill, including material that induces a child to self-harm, material that bullies a child, material that incites terrorism, violence, or foments hatred, platforms will be required to give users the tools that they need to report harmful content, and reduce their exposure. Many platforms have already developed some of these tools and systems, which is a fantastic development. Our bill does not make them reinvent the wheel. We are simply setting baseline standards, and holding them accountable to a new, independent ,oversight body, the newly created Digital Safety Commission.

The second part of Bill C-63 proposes to amend laws that are already on the books. So, the Criminal Code is a key feature of this. We are amending the Criminal Code to codify the Supreme Court's definition of hatred, creating a new stand-alone hate crime offence, we are increasing penalties for the four existing hate propaganda offences, and establishing a new type of peace bond to prevent the commission of a hate-motivated crime. The Canadian Human Rights Act is also being amended, to restore the ability of individuals and groups to file complaints against users who post hate speech online. This provision was in the act until it was repealed in 2013, despite having been held up as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor—I know there's lawyers in the room, so I won't give the pinpoint, Andrew Bernstein, but I'll give you the case reference. I wanted to say briefly that regardless of your view of whether it was right or wrong to repeal the old Section 13, I think it's fair to say that the context of online hate has changed tremendously in the past 11 years. We've also made some important changes to the former provision to make it work better, which I will address momentarily. And finally, in terms of legislation that we are amending, we are making strategic amendments to the Mandatory Reporting Act, which deals with Internet child pornography. So, what we will do is clarify that all types of Internet service providers, such as online platforms, must report the distribution of child pornography. It also proposes more tools and resources to help law enforcement detect, and respond to this heinous crime.

The fact is that we need rules, and standards. Doing nothing at this point is not an option for our government, or for Canadians. But like many changes, we understand there is anxiety, there is concern. People have worries about their voices being silenced, their Charter rights being infringed. I want to be really clear on this point: I take a very distinct oath of office, as the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, that is different to all my cabinet colleagues. My oath of office includes a duty to uphold the Constitution, including the right, under 2(b) of the Charter, to freedom of expression. I take that duty tremendously seriously. Some fear that the measures that are proposed in this bill will stifle free speech, and land people like comedians in jail, for telling a distasteful joke. They believe that any legislation is tantamount to censorship, and it will turn Canada into an authoritarian regime. No, it will not.

Bill C-63, I want to address these concerns head-on. First, is the basic idea that free speech in this country does not include hate speech. Canadians are already protected from hate speech in the physical world; through Bill C-63, we are simply extending that protection to the online world. This begs the question of how are you defining hatred, in the Criminal Code, and the Canada Human Rights Act? And so, let me start exactly there. The new definition is based on decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence; it is rooted in how our country has already been defining, addressing, and prosecuting hatred in the physical world for a long time. It is centred on the concept of "detestation," and "vilification." That is the terminology that has been used by the Supreme Court to define hatred. Detestation and vilification based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and other grounds. For the lawyers in the room, again, we are simply codifying the Supreme Court's definition of hatred that is contained in the Whatcott decision from 2013. This is an extremely high bar to meet. I cannot emphasize this enough. We are talking about speech that portrays a group as inherently violent or dangerous, as inhuman, or worthy of execution. I spent time, prior to politics, as a genocide prosecutor at the Rwandan War Crimes Tribunal. The terminology that was used there analogized the ethnic group in question, the Tutsis, to cockroaches. That is what we're talking about, when we're talking about hatred. We will not capture what is, what I call and what others have called, "awful but lawful" speech. So, we will not capture offensive and humiliating comments, jokes, insults, expressions of disdain or dislike, or political dissent. In very mundane terms, there is a qualitative difference between insulting a racialized person, and calling for an entire race to be exterminated. The latter would meet the S.C.C. definition of hatred; the former would not.

Law enforcement has been asking for years for a standard definition of hatred in the Criminal Code itself, to promote uniform application across the country. That is simply what we are doing with this legislation. I've also heard concerns about the proposed new Hate Crime Offence. In fact, the Canadian Criminal Code already has ways to address crimes that are motivated by hatred, on the grounds of things like race or religion. But it is only considered at the back end of a prosecution, after a conviction, as an aggravating factor at sentencing. We have heard calls loudly and clearly from communities, from law enforcement, that it is necessary to include hate motivation as a consideration at the outset, when the charge is first laid. This is to ensure that evidence of hate motivation is collected consistently around the country, and to make sure that hate crimes are actually prosecuted as hate crimes.

This new charge-laying provision would capture any offence in the Criminal Code, or any other Act of Parliament, that is motivated by hatred, from a threatened act of vandalism all the way to murder. We are giving law enforcement a tool; it is not a new tool. In fact, freestanding hate crime offences exist in 47 of the 50 states south of the border; only three do not have standalone hate crime laws. And I would put it to you that the existence of these statutes in the United States has not resulted in a constitutional crisis south of the border, nor will it here. Hate crime is not something to be taken lightly. People who target others because of hatred towards someone's religion, their sexual orientation, their race, should be punished accordingly. And this is what we are proposing. The actual sentence imposed will vary, depending on the seriousness of the underlying offence, and the degree of the responsibility of the offender. That is what is statutorily required, under the Criminal Code.

Separately, we also propose to increase the maximum available sentences for existing hate crimes. Most of them are increasing from a maximum sentence of two years to five years, to recognize the serious harms that promoting and inciting hatred can have on victims. This is critical, given the alarming rise in hatred we are seeing in Canada right now, especially hatred targeting Jews, and Muslims. We are also, in response to case law from the Supreme Court of Canada, fixing what I view as an oversight in our criminal law around the maximum available sentence for the offence of advocating genocide. Advocating or counselling genocide is an international crime, under the Genocide Convention. It requires a very high degree of evidence, and has a very high legal standard of proof. Under existing laws right now, if you counsel or tell someone to commit a single murder, or even an attempted murder, you can be punished with up to the same maximum life sentence as if you had committed the offence yourself. I would put it to you that it simply does not make logical sense for counselling genocide—in other words, mass murder—to attract a less serious maximum sentence than counselling a single murder. It is the harmonization that we are attempting to achieve through this provision that is at the root of what we are doing. This offence and sentence will be harmonized with domestic and international laws, by raising the maximum available sentence for counselling genocide or advocating genocide to life in prison.

I want to touch on another aspect that's generated some concern and commentary, in terms of the press corps, about the proposed new peace bond. I want to be clear that a peace bond is not an attempt to silence innocent people, as some have claimed, nor is it a thought crime, or a pre-crime. A lot of misleading and inaccurate things have been written about this part of the bill. A peace bond is a tool that criminal courts frequently use to try to prevent an offence from occurring. The new peace bond would allow a judge to impose conditions on an individual to try to deter, to try to stop them from committing a hate crime, if evidence has been put forward to show that they are likely to do so.

I'll give you an example of how this could work. Let's say, somebody posts on social media that they plan to burn a wooden cross on the front yard of a home of an interracial couple and their five children. The terrified family seeks a peace bond, perhaps with the help of a community group, the police, or the local Crown Prosecutor. They obtain the consent to do this procedure, from the relevant provincial Attorney General, to bring the application, as the law would require under our bill. Once accepted, the judge would call a hearing and invite all of the parties to attend, and determine if there is a reasonable fear that the defendant would commit a hate crime, or what's called a "Hate Propaganda Offence." If, and only if, the judge is satisfied that there is reasonable fear of this event happening, they can impose a peace bond with tailored conditions, such as: do not go within 100 meters of that family's home. Conditions could be imposed for a maximum of 12 months. If the person breaches those conditions, they could be charged with a criminal offence. The cross-burning example I’m giving you is not actually a hypothetical, nor is it from the American South. This actually happened to an interracial couple in Hants County, Nova Scotia, in 2010. Thanks to this bill, we are providing more tools to keep people like that couple in Hants County safe from this kind of crime. Let me also emphasize that a peace bond does not, as some have suggested, mean automatic house arrest. A judge could, in an exceptional case, impose a condition that an individual remains at their residence during specific times, only if doing so is deemed necessary to prevent a harm from occurring.

Finally, I want to address the proposal to restore Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which I alluded to earlier. Restoring this provision would allow individuals and groups to once again file complaints against people who post hate speech online. Again, here we are talking about content that meets the high bar of hatred. We're not talking about simply humiliating or offending someone, as unpleasant as those things may be. The goal of the complaints process is to remove hate speech that is online, and to minimize, and address the harm that is done. It is not to prosecute offences, or to punish anyone. We are not proposing to simply reenact the old Section 13 provision that existed prior to 2013. We have made a number of important improvements, to streamline how exactly it would work. What am I talking about? We've introduced the idea of giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission the authority to rapidly dismiss complaints, so a summary dismissal procedure, for something that plainly does not involve hate speech, or something that is frivolous, vexatious, or brought in bad faith. We've also added a provision whereby the Commission could order costs against someone who tries to abuse the process.

In conclusion, I just want to say I'm very much looking forward to robust debate on Bill C-63 in Parliament. In the meantime, I've been heartened by the strong support for this bill from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from tech experts, from parents, from teachers, from members of diverse communities, and from law enforcement. I think that reaction speaks to a fundamental Canadian value. We are reasonable, we want our digital spaces to be safe for everyone. We also expect that new laws will not limit our ability to freely speak our minds, and disagree with each other. I'm confident that with the proposed legislation, we can build safer online communities, where our kids can flourish, where hatred that is already illegal in the physical world is captured in the online world, where citizens can better engage in civic discourse vigorously, and in political debate, without fear of being targeted by threats, by violence, or by hatred. I want to say thank you very much for being here today. I appreciate the space and the time to talk about this very important issue. Merci beaucoup.

Sal Rabbani
Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. I'd now like to take this opportunity invite my friend, my dear friend, Mike Van Soelen, past president of the Empire Club of Canada, to moderate today's discussion.

Mike Van Soelen, Past President, Empire Club of Canda
Thank you. Minister, great to join you. Great to join you. Minister, they asked me to do this, because they knew I'd ask you tough questions, like do your kids really have flip phones?

The Hon. Arif Virani
Only one of them does...

Mike Van Soelen
Yeah.

The Hon. Arif Virani
...the other ones too little to have a phone of any kind.

Mike Van Soelen
All right. Okay, so, if people—I have a number of hard-hitting questions like that one prepared, but if, if people have questions that they want to send my way, please do, and I will be able to, to get them here. But let's start with this: the Prime Minister's office sends you your mandate letter. And they said, "Well, we have this simple job for you. The toxic sludge that is the Internet? We want you to fix that." So, why didn't you just run, run away right away, as opposed to trying to take on what seems like a pretty difficult problem?

The Hon. Arif Virani
Masochism.

Mike Van Soelen
Masochism, yeah. Yeah, that seems the obvious answer.

The Hon. Arif Virani
Well, I mean, the genuine answer is that it's obviously a difficult task; it's a bit daunting. But I'm, you know, I wasn't making that stuff up when I was talking up at the front. Like, I do firmly believe that it's incumbent upon elected officials to use their positions to try and influence public policy in a way that they feel serves their communities, and who they are elected to represent. And for me, combating discrimination and promoting human rights has been sort of part of my DNA from, literally, my years as a teenager. And I've unfortunately seen—even in the short time between 2015, when I was first elected, and 2024—a rise in that polarization, and then it's manifesting online in a way that people feel empowered and emboldened, because they find a community, because they're alone and it's three in the morning, and they're in a basement. So, a lot of the social ostracism that might have happened by picking up a phone, or writing a letter, or appearing at a rally during the daytime, has gone out the window. And I think it's incumbent upon all of us to try to cure that, in a way that is very respectful of the amazing things that social media can unleash, right? Like, think about the Maidan in Ukraine, think about the Orange Revolution, et cetera, you name it, there are amazing things that can be empowered, but there's also very troubling things that can be empowered. And as a dad, it took on a whole new dimension, to be...

Mike Van Soelen
Right.

The Hon. Arif Virani
...to be totally honest, in terms of keeping my children safe. Because a lot of the violence we're seeing is now boys, boys my kids' age.

Mike Van Soelen
Right. So, as a young refugee, refugee family in Canada, you said, you know, outside the front door of your house, there was hate, and I'm sure you encountered some of that, at times, growing up. But you believe that the Internet is, is magnifying this in ways that require address by the federal government. So, you know, there are laws, hate crime laws exist in this country already—the Criminal Code speaks to a lot of these matters. What is it that was insufficient with the current legislation that required this legislation?

The Hon. Arif Virani
Well, I think a number of things, one is that we do a pretty decent job in this country of targeting hate in the physical world; we don't do a good job of targeting hate in the online world. So that's a first sort of baseline sort of broad perspective. The second point is that the tools that we currently have in the physical world also required some recalibration, in terms of expressing the sort of seriousness of what we're seeing. It is undoubted that we are seeing spikes in hate, you can see that from Toronto Police Services statistics...

Mike Van Soelen
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Arif Virani
...you can see that from RCMP statistics, and StatsCan statistics. More and more hate is prevalent, and it is having an impact on individuals. And what I frequently like talking about is the fact that, if people are communicating now, if the public square is now a virtual public square, then people really need to be able to participate in that virtual public square; they need to be able to participate online, because that's where so much civic discourse is happening, online. And what we're finding is, is that people are cowed and intimidated from participating in that online discussion, because of the invective they're facing. And when we launched this bill, you know, I think Erin, you mentioned NCCM and CIJA are part of the group that you're working with, and that's terrific. NCCM and CIJA were behind me at that podium—and that was a pretty significant moment, because we all know what's been happening in this country since early October of last year—NCCM and CIJA haven't been in very many rooms together. But on this issue, they and many other equity-seeking groups are united in the need to curb the amount of hatred and, and invective that we're seeing online. So, in terms of how do we do that, people talked to me about it, and we literally studied this for years. You know...

Mike Van Soelen
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Arif Virani
...there's people who often say, "You're taking too long, guys, what's going on?" On this one, we had to get it right. And I’m sorry to go into such a laboured explanation, but...

Mike Van Soelen
No, no.

The Hon. Arif Virani
...but we looked at international models. We're not the first mover here. Australia has done this, Germany, the UK, Ireland, the EU. We looked at what worked, and we looked at what didn't. Germany said, take it all down; we said, we've got seven categories of information. There's no space in the public domain for child sex material, and revenge porn. That's gotta come down. For these other five—hatred, terrorism, violence, bullying, inducements to self-harm—you've gotta have tools that empower you to say, "I don't want to see that," flag it to a commissioner, that says to a Meta, to a different group, "Your safety plan needs to address this." So, we're calibrating it. Going too far would have been blatantly unconstitutional; going not far enough and only dealing with one part of the problem was not on the table, in 2024. Right? Other nations had done that incrementally, back in 2015. We're taking the steps that arerequired in 2024.

Mike Van Soelen
Well, you mentioned, you mentioned Erin, and her comments. She suggested in her remarks, she already has 40,000 people working at this, you know, trying to make sure that her, those, those platforms are safe. Social media companies, of course, you know, are working on this, and I think you've given them some credit for that. With the Digital Safety Commission set up, like, what is your hope? What does, what does this working relationship look like, and maybe as a social media user, how does my experience change for, for this Act coming into force?

The Hon. Arif Virani
Well, I think the—so I'll answer the, the second part, first. So, I think the key feature is that it empowers you, like, it literally does, because you, Mike, will be able to now either block someone's information appearing in your feed; secondly, you can flag that information for the Digital Safety Commission, or potentially for a platform such as Facebook. And what the new regime will do is require a Digital Safety Plan to be created by those individual social media companies. And they will say, "This is our plan; these are the steps we're going to take to address what we feel is harmful content," and then the Digital Safety Commission can weigh in, and sort of say, "This is what's working, and this is what's not." And what I think is important is that people always ask me, rightfully, "Well, who's deciding?" You know, "Is this Justin Trudeau's agenda about teasing out the good from the bad, from his ideological perspective?" I say categorically: it is not. We've tried to demonstrate that, in terms of this legislation, by doing things such as ensuring the head of that Digital Safety Commission, that commissioner, is going to be voted on by every member of the House of Commons, and every member of the Senate, regardless of your political stripe. That is critical, that is very rare as a tool. But what we're trying to ensure is the confidence of Canadians. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you're on, or what your position is. What we want to do is ensure that civic discourse is empowered, and that harmful content is not empowered. But going back to your point about the individual, Mike, Mike now gets to curate his experience a little bit more, and he gets to determine more of what's appearing in his feed, which I think is really critical.

Mike Van Soelen
I suppose one of the challenging things, you know—and we see a lot of debate about it—is hate speech is, on one hand, when you hear it, you know it, but on the other hand, it's a particularly thorny thing to get your hands around. Even the Supreme Court has struggled, at times, to define it. It certainly has, it has, in certain cases, defined hate speech and made rulings about it. But of course, we've also seen very strong, dissenting opinions at times, even where there was a decision. But you referenced, you referenced the definition. Talk to me about that definition, and your confidence that that will be something that will be useful in this context of this legislation.

The Hon. Arif Virani
So, let me start from sort of what's not useful, right? What's not useful is the checkerboard pattern that we now have in Canada, where we've got some hate crimes units around the country, depending on which province, or which city you may live in, and we've got differential application of sort of what is hatred by different Human Rights Commissions, provincially or nationally, and different police forces around the provinces, and around the cities. And when they asked me for a uniform definition, they were virtually unanimous, in terms of coherence, in terms of the approach. And then, again, that begs the question about what definition? Well, generally—and I know I'm going to sound lawyerly, but I am the Attorney General and Minister of Justice—we looked to the top court in the country, and we said, "Well, what's the definition that they've been using?" And in this Whatcott decision, it's around paragraphs 42 to 47—yes, that was for Andrew Bernstein—in those, in that portion of the judgment, they talk about what we are hitting, when we hit hatred. And it is not meant to be that awful but lawful material, it is not meant to be about comedians. This is not about Russell Peters, if I remember his name correctly, and sort of what he's, the accents he puts on about, you know...

Mike Van Soelen
Right.

The Hon. Arif Virani
...the West Indian diaspora in Toronto. You know, is not what we're talking about. We're talking about material that rises to the level of detestation and vilification, and targets a community for violence. That's really, really critical. So, the definition comes out of the Supreme Court jurisprudence, because that is the highest court in Canada, and we believe that that is a good working definition to work from. And that also should give people some, some comfort, in understanding that it is not my definition, it is not the Prime Minister's definition, it is not the Digital Safety Commission's definition; it's the Supreme Court's definition. And that gives it an element of...

Mike Van Soelen
Which...

The Hon. Arif Virani
...objectivity, which I think is critical.

Mike Van Soelen
Right. And I think a lot of the debate around this legislation is, you know, in the hands of, the safe hands of the Supreme Court, they were able to come to this definition, and that's useful for us. With your legislation, you're moving this into the hands—in certain matters—into the hands of the Human Rights Tribunals. Now, these aren't judges, you know, these are political appointees, you know, who make up these tribunals. And so, you know, these folks with less training, I suppose, are being asked to make decisions as to whether this, you know, this act or this speech qualifies as hate speech. And I think that's why there's been concern about it, that's why the previous, previous Harper government got rid of it. Talk to me about your confidence in the Human Rights Tribunals' handling these types of questions going forward.

The Hon. Arif Virani
Okay. And that's an excellent question. What I would say to you is that I'm very confident in the ability of a Human Rights Tribunal to, to manage this. The significant concern that was raised to me is that, at the outset, there were concerns about how many complaints will be coming in, will people be sort of testing the waters, et cetera. And we are working to respond to that, both there’s a financial budgetary component about what kind of resources the Commission would need, but secondly, they said, in terms of the potential influx of complaints that might come in, we need a ready tool that will allow us to deal with matters that are completely unmeritorious. That's why we added in this provision about a summary dismissal procedure, so that they could say, "This is plainly not arising to the level of hatred on that Supreme Court definition, it is out, and we are dismissing it out of hand." Secondly, they said there are people that might still get into the system, but we need to ensure that they're not abusing the process of the courts, or of the tribunal system, in that regard. Therefore, we added a provision where you could see costs. Seeing costs in an administrative setting is very rare, in terms of law, so this is a very significant step in the right direction. But I would say to you, further to the point, that when I referenced the Supreme Court's definition of hatred, that definition of hatred was them assessing and analyzing the jurisprudence, not just from the Superior Courts of Canada, but also from things like the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission. So, the expertise that they've developed is actually quite rigorous, in terms of assessing and identifying what is hate, and what is not hate. And that helped inform the Supreme Court's distilling of that definition.

QUESTION & ANSWER

Mike Van Soelen
Right. And I think people can appreciate, in the hands of our most esteemed justices, you know—and it took them a lot of work to get there, so there's some nervousness. And so, a question from the floor, which maybe gets into the thorniness of some of these issues—the words of the writer— "Given how hate speech laws have been used to silence Palestinians, how will you guarantee this bill addresses anti-Palestinian racism, and protects those critiquing Apartheid, and genocidal governments?" Question from the floor.

The Hon. Arif Virani
So, I think, I mean, in terms of the application of the bill to sort of what is transpiring, sort of right now, on the streets of Canada, et cetera. I think what's important is that freedom of expression is fundamental to what's entrenched in the bill. It's fundamental in our Charter, it's fundamental to the oath of office that I mentioned that I've sworn to uphold. But in terms of how it works with the Digital Safety Commission, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission system, and with the Criminal Code, Section 2(b) and that Charter protection informs all three, sort of components of the bill. And what I would also say is that, in particular, we've doubled down on this idea that, whether it's the decisions that are made by—so, in the first part of the bill, we talk about the Digital Safety Commission, and we talk about the social media platforms having a Digital Safety Plan. And we thought about this. Well, let's say, a whole stream of information that tends to be addressed by the social media company, looks at things like a Pride March, but it seems to be targeting the lesbian content that relates to the Dyke March, at the Pride March, for example. If there was a pattern that was discernible, we've entrenched protections, under the legislation, that there cannot be a discriminatory approach to the social media calibrating it's Digital Safety Plan.

There also cannot be a discriminatory approach to how the Digital Safety Commission oversees the social media company's plan. So therefore, I think what we've done is we've worked in protections and safeguards, such that there cannot be a one-sided sort of approach to the content. The content is not based on sort of ideology or geopolitical conflict; it is based on seven simple categories, two of which we said, again, have no place in Canadian society: child sex material, and material that is the non-consensual sharing of an image, revenge porn. The other five, it is for the user to put up their hand and say, "I don't want that material, I'm going to flag that material, I think this is harmful." Those other categories are hatred, terrorism, incitements to violence, bullying, or inducements to self-harm. By not immediately imposing a takedown, what we're trying to assure people, including the questioner, is that your material is not going to be subject to an immediate takedown. Your material might come under the aspects of the safety plan proposed by a social media company, or the Digital Safety Commission—but at all times, they have to abide by the Constitution, and by our provisions that work to protect against discrimination.

Mike Van Soelen
You know, I'll ask, you know, one of the political criticisms that has been raised about how this plays out over time, is that, you know, right now, you know, your government's been in place for nine years; you appoint people to the, to the Human Rights Commission. And the fear is that, you know, there's a world where this becomes politicized a little bit, especially when discussing what qualifies as proper speech, versus not. There's a question from the floor that has received a bunch of votes, here, about how do, how do vulnerable communities ensure that they do not become inadvertent targets—and this was asked in a Palestinian context, but I'll just broaden it to—you know, how do we have confidence that, you know, that sure, the Human Rights Tribunals today would take a certain view. In a world where there's another government with a, you know, a different ideology, you know, appointing people to these Human Rights Tribunals. Are you comfortable with it being in the hands of the tribunal system? You obviously are, you've put it forward—but explain to me where that, the source of your confidence is, that this is the best place for it.

The Hon. Arif Virani
Well, I think, I think I would actually, sort of question, sort of the foundation of the question, because I think it really points out this idea that partisanship is informing everything that people are doing, when they're making appointments. I am involved in a number of appointments...

Mike Van Soelen
Sure.

The Hon. Arif Virani
...as you're aware. I'm involved in appointing judges, I'm involved in appointing adjudicators to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. What I'm always looking for are top legal minds in those roles. If those top legal minds also emphasize and reflect the diversity of the population they serve, so much the better, because I do believe in a representative judiciary, and a representative set of adjudicators at the Human Rights Tribunal. So, I think it's important to reflect on sort of how appointments are being made, and the quality of people that are being appointed. And I've been very happy with being able to appoint 106 members of the Superior Courts thus far, and a host of other adjudicators to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. But I think what's important is that those individuals, regardless of which government is appointing them, are there to do a job. In the context of tribunal adjudicators at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, they're applying the Canadian Human Rights Act, the same way people at the Ontario Human Rights Commission apply the Ontario Human Rights Code. I have tremendous confidence in those legal minds, and their ability to execute their task free from influence, and free from sort of political direction. That's a hallmark of what we do in Canada, both at the national level, and at the provincial level. Does it require vigilance to maintain it? Absolutely, it does—I'm not trying to sound naive here. But what I think is that the context—and I mentioned this in my comments—the context that we had, with the repeal of that provision, that allows you to say this is hatred in the real world. If I said it, or did it, or distributed a pamphlet at Yonge-Dundas Square, why should it be permitted online? The answer from my perspective is that it shouldn't. The context of the distribution online, in 2013, that was happening? Now it's happening a lot.

Mike Van Soelen
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Arif Virani
A great, great deal. And the amount of invective that we're seeing, and the hatred that we're seeing online, is having a huge impact. We've got to respond to the moment that we're in. And I don't have a crystal ball for 10 years from now, but I doubt the train that is the Internet, and sort of social media, is going to be slowed. In fact, it's just going to take different deviations and incarnations, but it's not going away anytime soon.

Mike Van Soelen
And the legislation, you've outlined this a bit, has different pieces to it, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association asked, you know, put to you, with support from many academics and others, to whether part two and three should be separated, and debated individually in Parliament. I don't know if you've responded to that request. But, you know, this is your chance.

The Hon. Arif Virani
Sure. And I've heard that commentary. And people have said to me, you know, that the it seems like, you know, the low-hanging fruit is protecting kids. And what I'll say to people is a number of things. One is that, again, we looked at international examples.

Mike Van Soelen
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Arif Virani
In 2015, Australia moved on protecting kids, kids alone, in 2015; Australia is way beyond protecting kids, just kids, in 2024. We're moving now, we're the sixth Western democracy to move. I think it's incumbent upon us to move to address the terms and the vulnerabilities where they exist. Not just moving on sort of the lowest-hanging fruit. Secondly, I would say is that the bifurcation seems to be that you have kids on one side, and you have adults exposed to hatred on the other. I think that misses the boat, insofar as kids are exposed to hatred as well. And if you think kids are being only exposed to sexual predators, they're being exposed to a number of things, including hatred. Thirdly, I would say, I think it's incumbent upon me, in my role as Minister of Justice, to always have a keen focus on the safety of Canadians. I mean, fundamentally, that's what my job needs to be...

Mike Van Soelen
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Arif Virani
...addressing the needs of our communities, ensuring that our laws are supple enough to address where people feel vulnerable, where people feel unsafe. And I've heard resoundingly about the need to address this from people like law enforcement, and I'm responding to that need. And I would say to you that I find it very troubling that some of those criticisms—not all, but some of those criticisms—come from the perspective of people that maybe have not faced any aspect of hatred. And I'd say to people in this room, I mean, put yourself in the position of your children, put yourself in the position of a young woman, put yourself, unfortunately, in the position of a guy named Carson Cleland, who is the shocking case in Penticton of a boy—literally, a boy—who made the mistake of thinking he was befriending somebody in some sort of online gaming situation. And in fact, that little boy had befriended a completely grown man, who was impersonating somebody, and got to the point of befriending them and sharing an intimate image, and now, was petrified that he was being extorted about that intimate image, and didn't have the wherewithal to talk to his parents, because he was afraid to, and didn't have any friends to turn to, and instead, decided to take matters into his own hands. Carson Cleland is no longer with us. Seventy kids per week report instances like that of extortion to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. That is a tragedy, and that's what we need to address.

But it's not just about addressing the child piece; it's about addressing whether Carson Cleland is a young woman, perhaps she's racialized, perhaps she wears a hijab, you name it, there's a lot of exposure points that people are facing. And I feel it is incumbent on me to address all of the harms that we are seeing. And some of the most instructive guidance for me has been from things like such as the hate crimes units from around the country that have pleaded with me to standardize the definition of hatred, to come up with a free-standing hate crimes offence, to address hatred that they're seeing. Because if you think this stuff stops at three in the morning in someone's basement, you're wrong. It actually translates into real-world violence, and it's that real-world violence that, fundamentally, all of us have an interest in stopping.

Mike Van Soelen
Well, let's talk about that, you know, translation into, into real violence, because I think in part, that's what your peace bond, you know, as a concept, is getting at. And, you know, to give, to give voice to some of the critics, you know, they think it's, you know, the idea that—you offered a great example of how it might be used—critics might say, "It's crazy that, you know, I can be locked up in my house because of something I might say." So, how do you address the cynic, or the critic, who suggests that this feels, feels like overreach? Easy to understand in a domestic violence situation where, you know, someone should be—a peace bond; that makes sense. But explain it, flesh it out for us, in the context of speech.

The Hon. Arif Virani
Sure. And so, a few things. One is that it's a high threshold to meet. And what some of the law enforcement folks have talked to me about is the fact that peace bonds are already a bit difficult to obtain.

Mike Van Soelen
Yeah.

The Hon. Arif Virani
So, that's what people need to understand. In criminal law, it's not that easy to get a peace bond. In this context, you would be seeking a peace bond against somebody because you have a reasonable fear that they're about to commit a hate crime, or what's called a Hate Propaganda Offence, which is advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred, willful promotion of hatred, Holocaust denialism or promotion of anti-Semitism. Those are the four categories. What's very important is that you need to have that based on something—so, you need to say, "Well, here's the credible instance." It might be that somebody's already desecrated that synagogue, somebody's already been to that Jewish daycare, somebody's already visited that mosque, okay? So there'd be antecedents. You need to gather up all of that evidence, and you need to go to court, and convince the judge about why you think they're going to do it again. And before you even get there, you've got to get the permission from somebody like me, or Doug Downie in this province, or Simon Jolin-Barrette in the province of Québec—a provincial attorney general needs to green-light it. Why? Because it's precious. You're potentially talking about limiting people's Charter rights, to prevent them from doing something, because you fear something may happen. That's where the attorney general weighs in. I think the amount of actual applications that you're going to see, given all of those steps that need to occur...

Mike Van Soelen
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Arif Virani
...is not very large. I think the number of successful applications you're going to see is even smaller. And that goes back to that earlier question, what does this do to my Charter rights? Your Charter rights are vindicated by legislation like this. Legislation like this is empowering civic discourse. It's not trying to limit it; it's trying to ensure that it happens, including happening online. Because again, going back to that press conference—I was mentioning CIJA and the NCCM being there—right next to me was a woman named Carla Beauvais, who had the temerity, as a Black woman in, in Montréal, to add her voice to the discourse after George Floyd was killed. And what she faced, the amount of horrible anti-Black racism, misogyny, and vile hatred, had her resiled completely from engaging at all. It's about empowering people like her...

Mike Van Soelen
Well, let...

The Hon. Arif Virani
...that's what's critical.

Mike Van Soelen
...let me come to your point, one point, you said, okay, well, you know, you'll have to go see a judge. A few lawyers in the room said to me before we came up here, well, ask him about appointing judges. Because it's one thing to say, go see a judge, of course. There are unfilled vacancies, and the court system is slowing down for that. What are you doing about that?

The Hon. Arif Virani
So, great question, and obviously I've heard it before. And what I'm doing is I'm working as bloody hard as I can to fill those vacancies. And what I would say to you, first of all, in terms of setting the tone, is that, yes, I was practicing law for 15 years. I haven't practiced since 2015. I appreciate, from what I'm hearing from lawyers, from what I'm hearing from judges, is that the state of affairs in courts is being impacted by a number of different factors, which are making things difficult. I get that, I understand that, I'm doing everything in my power to address that. But what I would also say is that, I could, if I could fill every vacancy tomorrow, I don't think the, the issue would go away. There are components that deal with how courts are administered, there are components to deal with whether things are settling, plea bargains are being entered or not, there are court staffing issues, there are court personnel issues, there are physical court structure and availability issues. So, we're trying to address this on a number of fronts. What I'd say to you is that I tried to do a diagnosis of this—I was joking around with John Campion, because we shared a firm a long time ago, and the other person that shared that firm is Alan Rock.

Mike Van Soelen
Right.

The Hon. Arif Virani
Like a good new minister, I contacted some old ministers. And Alan Rock said to me, "Diagnose the problem." And I tried to do exactly that, and then tried to work on fixing it. So, what have I done since then? Now, an individual Mike applies; the duration of your application lasts for three years instead of two. Now, a Judicial Appointments Committee is struck, and we've got our Articia and John on the appointments committee for three years instead of two years. Security was, amazingly, was being slowed down. I politely pointed out to the powers that be that maybe an application for the bench might be given prioritization, over an application for somebody who is, you know, maybe—I'm trying to be delicate here—but doing some less, perhaps less significant work with the Halifax Port Authority. That argument won the...

Mike Van Soelen
That, that felt very specific. But I'll just roll on.

The Hon. Arif Virani
...that argument won, that argument won the day. And now our security clearances are coming in fast, and furious.

Mike Van Soelen
Right. Right.

The Hon. Arif Virani
So, where does that put us now? It puts us now in a situation where, in nine months, I've appointed 106 judges. Is that enough? No. Have I filled every vacancy? No, I have not. But just by way of comparison, the previous government would average 65 judges per year; in nine months, I've done 106. So, will I stop? You're damn straight, I will not stop. Because I will get through all of these appointments that need to be done. I will not compromise on quality, these are bloody good people that I'm appointing, and I would always seek out diversity. Because I think, I happen to think it's a good thing, that on the Supreme Court of Canada, in three straight appointments in a row, you've got the first racialized person, Mahmud Jamal, the first Indigenous person in Michelle O’Bonsawin, and now with Mary Moreau, you've got a majority of women on the Supreme Court of Canada for the first time in our history, and that leads to the G7. So, that's what we're doing. That's [indiscernible].

Mike Van Soelen
Right. Last, last question. Pierre Poilievre has suggested that he would use the notwithstanding clause to help enforce criminal law and, and I guess, in his language, see people put behind bars who deserve to be there. When, when is it appropriate to use the notwithstanding clause, and what, how would you comment?

The Hon. Arif Virani
So, just to make sure it’s crystal clear how the notwithstanding clause operates, before I even mention this. So, you’ve got the Charter Rights and Freedoms, and you’ve got certain protections. The notwithstanding clause allows you to say, "Despite the fact that you’ve got a freedom of expression right, a freedom of religion right, a right to equality, a right to a presumption of innocence, we’re going to change the law, and deprive you of that right. And we're just going to invoke something called the notwithstanding clause." It has never been used at the federal government level in Canada’s history, since the Charter was enacted in 1982. My approach to the notwithstanding clause is exactly the same as Prime Minister Trudeau’s approach. It will never be used by a Liberal government. The fact that you now have an individual who is mooting the idea of using it, at a recent speech to the Canadian Police Association, I think demonstrates quite aptly that there are different perceptions of the Charter of Rights in this country, and the importance of the rights that are contained therein. And what I would say to those people is that you need to consider what is protected under those Charter rights. Because if someone is willing to do it to, perhaps, subvert the presumption of innocence, you have a presumption to bail, reasonable bail, under Section 11 of the Charter, as well, you have a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, under Section 12. If someone is willing to wade into that area, I think it really begs the question about where else they might wade into.

And the things that you’ve seen at the provincial levels around the country, to me are concerning. When people are invoking the notwithstanding clause to trample upon the LGBTQ community, including youth, I think that is a legitimate concern for people of that province, and it would be a very legitimate concern for people at the national level. Reproductive rights, under the Morgentaler decision, were protected in this country under analysis that took place under Section 7 of the Charter. Section 7 of the Charter can be overridden, using the notwithstanding clause. That is not my idea of the Charter, is not my idea of the notwithstanding clause, and it is certainly not my idea of Canada. And I think Canadians need to be scrutinizing, they need to understand what’s at stake, and they need to understand that when they’re making decisions, including in the next 18 months. From my orientation—and I come at this from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer—that there are certain things that are sacrosanct. And the rights that are entrenched in the Charterare indeed just that. Including freedom of expression, equality rights, freedom of religion, freedom of association.

Mike Van Soelen
Thanks, Minister, for addressing that, because I know it’s been a recent topic. So, I’m sure there’s interest in the room for hearing you say that. And thanks for addressing the Online Harms Act, and explaining, I think you did a great job in your speech, and in our conversation. I hope the people in this room, and listening online, learn a little bit more about it. Thank you very much.

The Hon. Arif Virani
You’re welcome. I hope it wasn't too technical. There are a lot of technicalities in there, but....

Sal Rabbani
Thank you, Mike, and Minister Virani. I’d now like to take this opportunity to invite Penny Favell, Vice President, Indigenous Relations at Hydro One, to offer the appreciation remarks.

Note of Appreciation by Penny Favell, Vice President, Indigenous Relations & Sustainability, Hydro One
Great. Okay, thanks, everyone. I promise to be quick. As Sal said, I’m Penny Favell, and I’m the Vice President of Indigenous Relations and Sustainability at Hydro One. And I’m really proud to work at Hydro One. We do a lot of work in Reconciliation over the last few years, and we try every day to get it right, whether it’s, you know, meaningfully participating with our partners in our work, and in our project, or in our 50/50 equity model. But one of the things I was reflecting on, as I was sitting listening to the Minister, is, I’m also insanely proud to be a Canadian lawyer. In Canada—the Minister said something that really struck a chord with me. He said, “You know, difficult issues are hard, and we have to talk about them.” And I look at my colleagues—especially my legal colleagues at Hydro One—and every day, we think about that, we think about the hard things that we have to do. In Canada, we really have led the way with respect to Reconciliation; very few other countries are doing this. And I think we should take a moment, and be proud. But also remember that, like this legislation, it’s going to take a lot of work, and we don’t always get it right. We don’t always get it right in Canada. We try really hard.

And Hydro One is the same way. When we think about Reconciliation, to us at Hydro One, it has to be meaningful. And that means that when we have an equity model where we actually share 50 percent of the equity with the Indigenous communities in whose territory we’re building our infrastructure, that it’s meaningful so that they can participate as partners. And I think it’s the same when you look at a piece of legislation like this, that you don’t always get it right, but the work is meaningful, and it’s hard, and it’s important to do in Canada. So, I just wanted to encourage everyone in this room, whether it’s Reconciliation, or legislation against harm and hate, don’t give up the fight. Keep doing the hard work. And I want to say thank you to the Minister for that, because, if there’s one thing, like I said, I’m very proud to be working at Hydro One, but I’m also incredibly proud to be a Canadian lawyer. Because we do the hard work, we care about these issues. And we don’t always get it right, but we do the hard work every single day. And we wouldn’t be where we are with the duty to consult in Canada, if we didn’t do that. So, thank you so much.

Concluding Remarks by Sal Rabbani
Thank you. Thank you very much, Penny, and thanks again to all our sponsors for their support, and to everyone joining us today in person or online. As a club of record, all Empire Club of Canada events are available to watch and listen to on demand on our website. The recording of this event will be available shortly, and everyone registered will receive an email with the link.

On Thursday, May 23rd, join us for a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games with David Shoemaker, CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee. On Thursday, May 30th, also join us and the Honourable Prabmeet Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation with the Government of Ontario, to learn about his vision for a better, faster, safer transportation future in Ontario.

Thank you all for your participation, and support. Have a good afternoon. Take the time to network. This meeting is now adjourned.