Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

That puts us back into the same situation, folks. We have now gone over two hours. I am looking at everyone to see who wants to say goodbye. I see a lot of hands waving in this direction, so I'm assuming that you want to call it a week and get ready for your weekend.

I will put something on your radar, though, if that's okay. It won't take very long.

As you know, we passed a motion on March 26. It says, “That the committee extend the hours of its meetings during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10”. That's on the extension of hours. The second thing it calls for is that we “hold any additional meetings required to make the necessary changes to the outdated Broadcasting Act and move the bill to third reading”. That was adopted by the committee, and that's why we had the meeting last night. It tells me that I should endeavour to find meetings during the break week if we are still on Bill C-10 and considering clause-by-clause.

I'm saying this because it is the will of the committee, and I just want to give you a heads-up a week and a bit before the break week, so that you can plan accordingly when we get close to that date.

Thank you, everyone. It was a great debate. It's good to see you all.

Have a good weekend.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must admit that I find it a little hurtful to see that some people are asking for the meeting to be adjourned when we have talked so long about freedom of expression and the importance of being able to speak. To me, that also includes an obligation, if only out of respect, to let others speak, which I am happy to do at this time. I'll still try to keep it short.

How did we get here? It's quite worrisome.

First, we agree that the Liberals fell short by removing the proposed section 4.1 without immediately taking precautions to reassure users of their freedom to share their content. Various anti-Internet-regulation advocates jumped on the bandwagon and pointed to this loophole as a potential threat to freedom of expression.

The cultural industry is caught between the Liberals' negligence and the Conservatives' reaction. I have heard my colleagues Mr. Rayes and Mr. Shields testify and profess their love for culture, and I don't doubt it for a second. I don't think anyone can sit on this committee without a deep affection for culture. Having said that, culture is currently paying the price for this struggle we are having a hard time resolving.

We often quote Mr. Geist, whose expertise I recognize, but other experts have said other things as well. Let's talk about Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who published a letter in Le Devoir. Pierre Trudel is not just anyone. You know the content of the letter, and I am sure that everyone is aware of their opinion: “Bill C-10 creates no risk that the CRTC will one day start regulating videos produced by individuals...” That's it; you can read the letter. I don't want to take up too much of your time doing so.

Pierre Trudel is also a law professor, at the Université de Montréal. He has written books on the right of access to information and media law. He works extensively on the subject of Internet regulation. He and Ms. Simard were part of the federal expert panel on the review of the legislative and regulatory framework for broadcasting. So I think they have some credibility too.

I agree that we must rely on experts. However, when you want to listen to the views of experts in a field in which you don't have expertise yourself, you have to listen to those who advocate a point of view that is not necessarily the one you spontaneously adopt. You have to be open. Wanting to better understand the issue also means wanting to understand the point of view of all parties.

Right now, the cultural industry is wondering why we are wasting so much time talking when there is an urgent need to act. Ms. Yale mentioned this urgency last year in her report, which was co-signed by Ms. Simard. We all agreed on that. At this point, I think we must not speak for the Liberal Party, the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, but we must speak for those who will be most affected by this bill: the people in the cultural and media industries.

The Internet giants are doing a lot of damage to our industry and to our Canadian broadcasting system, and that is why we are here. Yes, concerns need to be addressed. We need to reassure those who fear for their freedom of expression, I agree with that 100%. That's why, up until now, I've been keen to have that point clarified. I think Mr. Housefather's proposal today is a compromise that deserves to be considered by all parties.

I want to pick up on the point that Ms. Harder and Mr. Rayes made earlier. It would be impossible not to go backwards if the Minister of Justice did not provide us with a new opinion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that supported Bill C-10. It would be impossible not to go backwards, because refusing unanimous consent to change sections would be tantamount to killing the bill. No one who wants to see this bill succeed would refuse to come back and change sections of the bill if it did not have the full support of the Minister of Justice through his new statement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is room for good will and good faith. We will get the new statement on the charter, we will have a visit from the two ministers, we will have the answers to our questions and we will not have to put this bill to a vote until we have those guarantees. The Bloc Québécois would never support any bill if we had the slightest suspicion that it posed a real risk to freedom of expression.

In the meantime, we can work on other clauses to move this bill forward for the benefit of the cultural industry, which is crying out for us to do so. I know that the Canadian and Quebec cultural industry is important to you. I also know that, regardless of the party affiliation, you all want to make progress. So I invite you to be open.

We will ensure that freedom of expression is protected by all means necessary and by all means that satisfy us. In the meantime, I believe we have a duty to continue to work to improve this bill, which we all agree needed a lot of love to become acceptable to everyone. We also have a duty to respect the democratic process, my friends. In this regard, if we respect the democratic process, we must accept that the members of the committee can all vote together on a motion that seems acceptable to me.

In any event, even if we wanted to go back to Ms. Harder's motion, as the Conservatives seem to be asking, we would first have to deal with the motion before us now. So I think we should vote on that motion and give the committee a chance to continue the democratic process. I think that's reasonable and makes good common sense. We owe it to our creators in Quebec and Canada. We owe it to the media and cultural industry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's time to move on, with this good compromise.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I was saying we have been waiting six years for the Liberal government to bring forward this legislation.

Everything was going smoothly. The minister was the one who gave the instruction to remove an element from the bill. In a major interview, he couldn't even explain why the section had been included in the first place or why he had asked for it to be removed. Then, he assured us that everyone would be protected. Two or three days ago, the minister announced in a tweet that further amendments would be brought forward to clear everything up. Then, we—not the minister—are accused of lying and misleading Canadians when we say that the bill does not protect users. The Liberals, however, are the ones bringing forward further amendments in an effort to remedy the problem they, themselves, created by removing the section. That means they put forward bad amendments, on top of it all. I find that worrisome.

To be frank, as I said at last night's meeting—which was added—I have lost confidence in the minister. As happens in regular life, we sometimes lose faith in friends and loved ones, so that confidence has to be rebuilt. People often say it takes years to build a friendship but only an instant to destroy it. It is incumbent upon the minister to regain that confidence. It is up to him to show us that he is being sincere, and the best way to do that is to not stand in the way of the committee hitting the pause button for a few days.

I would say that, since we started talking about this, the Minister of Justice has begun preparing a written opinion. He has to consider everything that is going on to prepare that opinion. Like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, he must have a multitude of public servants and political advisers watching each of our meetings to know what's being said. Regardless, in his motion, Mr. Housefather is ultimately calling on the minister to issue a new opinion.

If the bill is as clear as the government says, why not take a short pause, so we can get everything cleared up and go back to making good progress like before?

Some are even saying we should go back to the drawing board. That says a lot. The loss of confidence is so great that some experts on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression are starting to point to a serious problem. Are we being hoodwinked? It feels that way. That confidence goes to the heart of this very work, as we try to get answers to all of our questions.

Mr. Housefather's motion suggests a genuine desire to find a compromise, but a compromise in response to what? We already had a compromise, and everything was going fine.

The government caused all of this by deciding to remove proposed section 4.1. Had the government not done what it did, we might have been finished our study of Bill C-10 by now. Nevertheless, the mistake was made, and it has to be fixed. We need a new opinion from the minister before we can go any further. What's a few days after a six-year wait?

Enough with the accusations that we are pushing culture to the side and that we don't want to help those in the sector. We even submitted a unanimous report regarding our study on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors so the government could make good budget decisions.

The organization Friends of Canadian Broadcasting had even raised a red flag over proposed section 4.1, pointing out that it also applied to users, so they needed to be protected. The organization did not recommend removing the proposed section altogether. Worst case, it could have been amended, if necessary.

The minister was aware of those positions and explanations. He consulted the same groups we, the opposition parties, consulted before we got to this point.

I am very concerned about where the committee goes from here. It's clear where things are headed. Some would have us keep going, amendment by amendment, but freedom of expression is too important of an issue to sidestep.

I repeat: this is not about pitting culture and freedom of expression against one another. We must stand up for both. The Minister of Justice issued a charter statement relating to freedom of expression on November 18 or 20 of last year. I don't recall the exact date, but it's available on the federal government's website. The people following our proceedings right now may not know this, but every single government bill has to undergo a review by the Minister of justice for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The minister issued his recommendation taking into account proposed section 4.1, which the bill would have added to the Broadcasting Act. Now that the proposed section has been deleted, the opinion has no leg to stand on. It's like pulling the foundation out from under house. It reminds me of that game where you construct a tower with a bunch of wooden blocks. Those who have played before know how it works: players pull out blocks one at a time, but as soon as someone pulls out a block from the bottom, the tower comes crashing down. Allowing this to go forward would be akin to cheating, holding up the tower with our hands to keep it from crumbling.

We are asking for a pause. We want the Minister of Justice to quickly issue a new opinion so we have the clarity we need to move forward. It would show a modicum of good faith to put Mr. Housefather's motion aside and move forward accordingly.

Why do I say that?

I brought up Peter Menzies earlier. After our meeting yesterday, comments were posted on Twitter. I'm sure all the committee members read what he posted, given his eminent expertise in the field. I will try to recap what he said.

Mr. Menzies wondered how Mr. Guilbeault's amendment to Bill C-10 clarified the CRTC's regulation of user-generated content. He stated that, for the past week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Guilbeault, promised to address widespread concerns over Bill C-10, the bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. After the issue became the subject of growing debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Guilbeault indicated that the Liberals, too, wanted to make sure content uploaded by users to social media would not be deemed programming under the act and thus not be regulated by the CRTC. He added that that was why the Liberals would be bringing forward another amendment to ensure that this was absolutely clear.

The Prime Minister reiterated the message on Wednesday in the House of Commons, saying and I quote:

We have been clear that this is not about individual users or about what individual Canadians post online. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, we will be bringing forward an amendment to ensure that this is absolutely clear.

He had just contradicted his own minister, who actually contradicted himself by denying that users were impacted by the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.

I want to cite Mr. Geist, because the sequence of events is crucial to understand why we cannot keep dealing with the bill one amendment at a time and hoping for unanimous consent in the end to revisit certain amendments. It would be more reassuring if the Liberals were to agree in writing, in the presence of counsel, to give us the ongoing ability to revisit amendments at the end of the process, should we wish to propose others. I doubt they would, however.

Last night, at a somewhat strange Canadian heritage committee meeting, Liberal member Ms. Dabrusin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, brought forward the promised amendment. Instead of confirming that the content Canadians upload to social media would not be deemed programming under the Broadcasting Act, the amendment does precisely the opposite.

First, the amendment does not reinstate the exception that was set out in proposed section 4.1, which was touted as a safeguard against the regulation of user-generated content. Second, not only does user-generated content continue to be subject to regulation, but the amendment also confirms the CRTC's regulatory authority, including a new power specifically designed for social media. In other words, instead of backing down in the face of public criticism, the government doubled down on its plan to regulate the Internet. It's madness.

I am trying to untangle it all. The minister and his officials initially proposed adding section 4.1 to the act to protect users, but then took it away on the pretext that users were protected regardless. At the end of the day, that is not true, and the government is putting forward a new amendment. According to the experts, the government is actually making things worse with its new amendment, G -11.1

We agreed to set amendment G-11.1 aside in order to consider Mr. Housefather's motion.

As Mr. Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and subject matter expert, goes on to explain, amendment G-11.1 adds to the list of conditions the CRTC can impose on online undertakings. As amended, the provision would read as follows:

9.1(1) The Commission [the CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting … (i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs …

According to Mr. Geist, the proposed amendments establish some regulatory limits that restrict what the CRTC can do in relation to user-generated content, but the overall approach is indeed supposedly crystal clear. User-generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10, and as a result, the content of millions of Canadians' feeds on social media will be subject to regulation.

What I just told you is madness. When an articulate and eminent expert in the field makes a comment like that, I understandably have concerns about the honourable member Mr. Housefather's motion.

Mr. Geist points out that content on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube will now be approved by the CRTC, because it sets the conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content. By regulating user-generated content in this way, Canada will be an outlier with respect to Internet regulation. In a previous post, Mr. Geist stated that even the European Union, with its extensive regulations, ensured that video sharing platforms were not subject to regulatory requirements to prioritize some user-generated content over other content.

Mr. Geist goes on to say that there is good reason to not regulate user-generated content in this manner, since it has implications for freedom of expression and raises a host of questions. I want to stress how important those questions are, questions we have every right to ask. For example, how will companies determine what constitutes Canadian content? Will Canadians be required to surrender more personal information to big tech companies as part of the new rules? What requirements will be established for individual feeds?

Now we are getting into people's personal information—information the tech giants could force users to provide. That is to say nothing of the algorithms these companies use, which raise a whole slew of other questions. We don't have the necessary expertise at this time to arrive at an informed opinion.

As someone who used to represent educators, I cannot overstate how much it bothers me to make a decision that is uninformed.

That brings to mind an important rule of project management. It has four parts. First, know the project. Second, understand the project. Third, support the project. It will then be possible to, fourth and finally, implement the project. Since I'm having trouble knowing and understanding just what the government is proposing, I can't go on to support or implement it. It's basic decision-making.

I'm conflicted right now. Given what the experts are telling me, I am not in a position to make an informed decision on Mr. Housefather's motion.

Mr. Geist's analysis of amendment G-11.1 doesn't stop there.

I might add that amendment G-11.1 is the next amendment we are supposed to examine, despite the fact that we don't know where the Minister of Justice stands. If we adopt Mr. Housefather's motion, we will be going ahead without the benefit of the minister's expertise or the answers to our questions. Later on, if we feel the need to backtrack, it won't be possible to do so without unanimous consent.

Given the attacks of Mr. Guilbeault and his parliamentary secretary over the past two weeks, I don't feel confident that I would get the unanimous consent needed to propose amendments, if the Minister of Justice came to the conclusion that any part of the work we were doing here was not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I say that, I have trouble believing that anyone would be against charter compliance.

Back to Mr. Geist's post. He states that Canadian Heritage officials removed any doubt about the implications of the amendment. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to repeat this next part, given the critical tone, but these are the professor's comments. Regardless, criticism is a necessary part of the process to move forward and make things better. I'm sure departmental officials have already seen what he had to say. I don't mean to suggest that there was any bad faith on their part. I am simply saying that people's thinking is informed by their own understanding and by the people who influence them.

According to Mr. Geist, department officials told members of Parliament that the amendment to proposed section 9.1 of the bill would give the CRTC an additional power, the power to make orders with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service. That order-making power would apply only to a social media service. It would give the CRTC the ability to make orders with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators' programs.

Mr. Geist points out that, in response to another member's question—it might actually be a question I asked, I'm not sure—officials reiterated that proposed section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming that was uploaded on social media by someone who was not affiliated to that social media. The motion put forward by Ms. Dabrusin, amendment G-11.1, defines what regulatory tools under proposed section 9.1 can be used vis-à-vis social media.

I'm nearing the end of Mr. Geist's analysis. I'll wrap up by telling you where I stand on the motion.

Minister Guilbeault and the government promised to remove the parts that give the CRTC the power to regulate user-generated content. Instead, yesterday, they effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place.

As Navneet Alang states in the Toronto Star, in a column critical of Facebook, the right to speak on social media includes the right to be amplified and to be free to have an audience. That part is key. It means we should be requiring greater algorithmic transparency from Internet companies, not substituting their choices for those crafted through government regulation. That is the difference. That is the hook around which demagogues rally, making people believe—because the issue is so complex—that users, big tech, culture and freedom of expression are all at odds.

I have shown nothing but good faith since I have been on the committee. I was elected vice-chair and even had the privilege of standing in for you a few times, Mr. Chair. I can attest to what a feat it is to run a meeting like this, ensuring its orderly conduct in accordance with all the rules. Although we challenge your decisions at times, it does not mean that we question your ability or authority. I can certainly speak to that.

No matter how you slice it, despite Mr. Housefather's genuine desire not to delay the bill's passage, it is clear to me that this is a specious debate. All we are asking for is to hit the pause button for a few days. It would take just a few days to obtain the Minister of Justice's legal opinion.

Had there been support at the outset for what this motion seeks to do—obtain a new legal opinion—the matter would have been settled by now. Today, we would know whether the removal of proposed section 4.1 has any repercussions on freedom of expression. If the minister determined that there were none, we could have carried on with our study as per usual. If not, I think we would have had one heck of a problem. I think we have one heck of a problem right now, for that matter. That is why I am so adamant about finding some way to put the study on hold. We are not trying to delay helping the cultural sector. I repeat, all we need is a few days.

The expert panel that had previously endorsed Bill C-10 even had to write another letter of support because some of its members no longer wanted to support it. Right now, people across the country are opposed to the bill. I can tell you that I feel pressure, not from my party, but from Canadians and Quebeckers who feel attacked. I must respond to them.

It doesn't matter whether the minister likes this or not. He's trying to grandstand. By the way, it would be nice if a Liberal member could send him the message that his attacks slide off me like water off a duck's back. They really don't work. They won't change my commitment to freedom of expression at all costs.

As I said before—I can't remember whether it was in this committee or in an interview—my parents are Egyptian. You may say that my comments are off topic. However, my point is important because it explains why I'm so strongly opposed to this motion. My parents came to Canada from Egypt. When I had the opportunity to speak to my father about why he and my mother decided to move our entire family from their beloved home country to Canada, I remember his answer like it was yesterday. He often repeats it when we talk about major political and social debates. He and my mother came to Canada so that we could enjoy freedom of expression and religion; choose our own paths, whatever they may be; and access the Canadian justice system. Although this system isn't perfect, we should always strive to change it. This is in my DNA.

During the oral question period, the minister tried to attack one of the values that I hold so dear by suggesting that I was misleading the public. Goodness knows the Speaker of the House quickly called him to order. He then tried to sidestep the issue, but he subsequently respected decorum. I want to thank him for that.

I can't go on like this. I'll do everything in my power to defend freedom of expression. I invite the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats to do the right thing if they really want to make progress on our work for the sake of Canadian culture and creators, whether the creators are Quebeckers, francophones, anglophones, indigenous people or other people. The very basis of the Canadian, Quebec, francophone and Acadian identity in this country is freedom of expression. This freedom has been attacked.

I know Mr. Guilbeault a little bit. He isn't a bad person. He has an activist background. We all wondered why he joined the Liberals. We all thought that he would run for the Green Party—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague Mr. Housefather.

As I said before when I took the floor, I really like Mr. Housefather, and not only because he is a Quebecker and a Canadian. The openness he has shown in various debates and his willingness to work in partnership have often been highlighted by the members of all parties in the House of Commons. However, that does not mean we are always in agreement. I see him smiling; he knows what is coming. I don't have only praise for him, but I don't want to criticize him, either.

Before I begin, I want to come back to the fact that he raised a point of order to underscore that, had my colleague not taken time to speak, the committee could have already voted on his motion, and even on Ms. Harder's motion, if necessary. I have two things to say to him. First, we would have liked to vote on Ms. Harder's motion, but the Liberals ended the debate by moving a motion to adjourn. So we did not even have the opportunity to do that. Second, since the beginning, we have been calling for the committee to suspend its operation, while waiting for the Minister of Justice to provide us with a new statement and for the two ministers to appear before the committee. Had this proposal been agreed to, we would have already had the minister's new statement and we would already be working on the amendments to the bill—in other words, proceeding with the clause–by–clause consideration of the bill.

However, that is not the decision the committee made. A motion to adjourn was proposed to end the discussion on Ms. Harder's motion, even though the NDP and the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment to impose a deadline on the minister to quickly submit a new statement to us, so that we could continue our work.

We are now dealing with a new motion. Some people feel that this is an acceptable compromise to Ms. Harder's proposal. The motion enables us to continue with the committee's operations and to avoid slowing the process down. What is more, depending on the minister's new statement, we will have an opportunity to propose new amendments, as needed, at the very end of the process.

That said, Ms. Harder highlighted one of the major flaws of Mr. Housefather's motion. I sincerely don't think that Mr. Housefather acted in bad faith. I think that, when he moved his motion, he truly wanted to find an acceptable compromise, so that we could get back to our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Nevertheless, an element was forgotten, although I am sure it was not intentional. We found that flaw upon reading the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—the big green book.

The motion proposes that we work together on amendments before we even get the minister's statement on the central element of this debate, the deleting of the initially proposed clause 4.1. After we finish our work, if, in light of the minister's statement and despite the amendments that have been adopted or rejected, we note that the bill still has real flaws, we could amend the bill further. However, since we need unanimous consent to return to an amendment, members of the government or of another party will have the power to block the process.

I think that is the motion's major flaw. We are not pausing committee work while we wait for the statement from the Minister of Justice and hear from him and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as it was requested. The motion also does not impose a deadline to avoid this taking too long. A deadline would help our work mover forward nicely, as the case was before the fateful moment when clause 4.1 was deleted and clause 3 of the bill was proposed.

I want to tell people who are listening to us that this is not a debate between culture and freedom of expression. Those are two important elements. We all agree with defending culture. Unfortunately, the minister and his parliamentary secretary, I think, are saying things in the media that are misleading us. I apologize, Mr. Chair, I should not be saying this. Even the minister tried to accuse me of misleading people during question period, and he had to apologize for that. Let's rather say that the wrong message is being sent to cultural stakeholders by making them believe that culture is not important to us. Our desire to defend freedom of expression, which is the very foundation of our job as members of Parliament, is implying that we are opposed to culture, and that should not be the case now.

This is why it is important to clarify that matter before going further. I am personally not comfortable continuing the process, knowing that, at the end of the day, we may not be able to make the amendments we deem necessary, based on the Liberal minister's statement, to protect users who generate content on social networks.

This is not about creating a war between major social networks, on the one hand, and users, on the other hand. I think users' freedom of expression must be protected and precedent setting avoided. We must avoid a well-meaning group being able to decide what is good and what is not. I think this is important and want to point it out.

My colleague Mr. Shields felt the need yesterday to show his love for culture. I also felt that need. I was sincerely offended, upset and shocked to see our will to protect the French fact and Canadian culture questioned. In reality, we have been responsive to organizations in these areas. We have even proposed a number of amendments and subamendments that show this.

Two weeks ago, a shocking event occurred that no one saw coming. On a Friday afternoon, with no warning, the government proposed that a clause from Bill C-10 be deleted. That took us by surprise. The change caused a huge outcry across Canada by citizens, experts and university professors. Some well-known experts have already been named, but I could name some others. I took the time to name a few during oral question period.

Among those who are often named is Peter Menzies, former commissioner at the Canadian Radio–television and Telecommunications Commission. He made a scathing comment, which is making me reluctant to support Mr. Housefather's motion. I am not fully convinced that we could ultimately make changes to the amendments, as that would require the committee's unanimous consent. So I implore my NDP and Bloc Québécois colleagues to be careful about this element, which I did not see coming right away either, when we received in our emails the idea of Mr. Housefather's amendment.

Mr. Menzies said this was a full–blown attack on freedom of expression and the very foundations of democracy. He finds it difficult to understand the level of pride or incompetence, or both, that may lead someone to believe that such an infringement of rights is justifiable. Those are pretty strong statements from someone who has been commissioner of the CRTC, when we consider all of that organization's powers.

Michael Geist was all also named numerous times, and I will talk to you about him a bit later to explain why Mr. Housefather's motion worries me. Mr. Geist said that this was the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history. Unfortunately, I have still not heard any Liberal members attack Mr. Geist by saying that his statements were demagogic or inappropriate. I don't know whether the Liberals are afraid of provoking him or they are all simply fully aware of his expertise level and of how right he is. It is true that, every time an issue is raised in his area of expertise, Mr. Geist is quick to react thanks to his relevant knowledge on international matters.

So I would like people to stop saying that we are opposed to culture because that's not true. Here is what I have to say to the committee members and to people listening to us. The government has been in power for six years. It prorogued Parliament for reasons I don't want to get into, as I will be told that I am getting off topic, but there have been scandals related to the WE Charity, which the government wanted to bury by trying to halt the project.

By the way, some are blaming us by saying that we are now filibustering. However, if we look at the list of committees, we see that a number of them currently have their work completely blocked because the government wants to avoid discussions on Liberal scandals, such as the allegations against Mr. Vance, the WE Charity, and so on.

We are speaking out to defend freedom of expression. I don't feel that I am filibustering, but rather fighting for Canadians who feel that Bill C-10 attacks their freedom of expression.

What I am getting at is that the Liberals have been in power for six years, and that is how long it took them to introduce this bill.

We have been debating in committee without issues since the beginning. I challenge anyone to find a single moment, before the proposed clause 4.1 was deleted, when the consideration of the bill was delayed. Despite what the minister and his parliamentary secretary said in the media and on social networks, can a single moment be found when the legislative process, which is managed by the government leader and his team, was delayed?

We agreed to conduct a preliminary study of the bill, so that the committee would start hearing from witnesses at the same time as members were using their legitimate right to express themselves on the bill in the House of Commons. Some felt that the bill was incomplete, or that it was a bad bill, while others thought the bill was basically good, but they wanted to improve it through amendments. Everything was going well, even in committee. Liberals were supporting Conservative amendments, the NDP was supporting the Bloc Québécois amendments, and vice versa.

Mr. Chair, I am hearing the interpretation in English.

It's okay, I think the problem has been resolved.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, the motion that has been put forward has to do with Bill C-10 and it has to do with whether or not we are going to continue to consider it in its current state and then, at the end, ask for a charter statement, or if we are going to vote this down and go with the amendment that I've proposed, which is to stop this imminently and seek that statement now. Perhaps we are going to go with neither of those motions. Perhaps there's a different motion that someone else would like to bring forward, or perhaps we'll just continue as if there is no motion at all.

Again, it is impossible to talk about this motion and my position on this motion, which I believe is what this debate is all about...allowing me to state my position and to try to rally support. It is impossible to do that without actually diving into Bill C-10. It would be irresponsible of me.

In order to make an educated decision, it is important to consider the things that experts are saying, so that's what I'm doing. I'm providing context and I'm making my argument, stating my position, which I believe, as an elected member of Parliament, I am permitted to do.

Of course, I believe I am also permitted—although this might be censored as well, soon, but I don't think it is yet—to use the words of another and to quote him in my statement.

Dr. Geist makes it really clear, then, that the content of millions of Canadians—the things that they post on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram—would in fact be regulated. That content would be mandated to discoverability criteria, which then would allow for some content to be prioritized over other content.

Again, that's a problem. It's a problem because it allows some values to be set at a higher place than others, which is an imposition on people's freedom.

If we were to seek a charter statement, it would allow us to understand the implications of the bill as it stands.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Let me revisit the motion here. I'll just read it out loud so that we all understand what we're talking about and I can also refresh my own memory. It says:

That the Committee:

1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.

2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter statement on Bill C-10—

Good. We're talking about Bill C-10. That's good.

—as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided—

We're talking about social media use. We're talking about the regulation of those programs. We're talking about a charter statement. Got it.

—in particular, as it relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That's great. We're talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms too.

3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible—

I love that language. It's so descriptive and precise.

—to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill—

Now interestingly enough, “all votes necessary” would mean basically just one vetoed vote after another.

—once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.

Good. I've refreshed my memory, I now understand the scope of this amendment and I believe that everything I have talked about thus far still fits within this amendment, so I will proceed.

Dr. Geist.... I'm sorry, folks. I got interrupted. I'm going to start over.

In his statement, he said:

The amendments establish some limitations on regulation that restrict what the CRTC can do with regard to user generated content, but the overall approach is indeed “crystal clear.” User generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10 with the result that the content of millions of Canadians’ feeds on TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube will now be CRTC approved as it establishes conditions to mandate—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I would contend that it is unhelpful, possible but unhelpful, to consider the motion that has been brought forward without understanding the greater context of the bill. After all, the motion is being brought forward in reference to the bill, the legislation. The fact that all of my points have been directly related to Bill C-10, I believe, puts me on the right track and within the confines of what this is all about.

I'll go back to Dr. Geist because, like I said, I think he has some very helpful things for us to consider. He goes on to say:

The amendments establish some limitations on regulation that restrict what the CRTC can do with regard to user generated content, but the overall approach is indeed “crystal clear.”

He goes on to explain what that crystal clear looks like. He says:

User generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10 with the result that the content of millions of Canadians’ feeds on TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube will now be CRTC approved as it establishes conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Having gone through the last couple of meetings in the hopes of trying to come to a consensus, I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move:

That the Committee:

1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.

2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee’s changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill, once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.

Mr. Chairman, I have sent a bilingual version of the motion to the clerk to distribute to the committee. Then I'll speak to it, when you give me permission and presumably once the clerk has distributed the motion to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody.

This is the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

As we get into it, I now see a whole host of hands, which is now routine for us [Technical difficulty—Editor]. How about I just say that I'll go over to the floor, and I see that Mr. Housefather has his hand up.

Mr. Housefather.

Health

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his question, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka claimed that I had said those who oppose Bill C-10 were extremists. I said no such thing. I did point out that the Conservative Party of Canada was leaning toward the more extremist elements of its party when it comes to Bill C-10, but I did not say that those who oppose it are extremists.

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question, as it will give me an opportunity to continue listing the organizations that have come out in support of Bill C-10 in the past few weeks. I will continue.

On that list are the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, the Guilde des musiciens et des musiciennes du Québec, the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, the Travailleuses et travailleurs regroupés des arts, de la culture et de l'événementiel, ADISQ, the Association des réalisateurs—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage claims Bill C-10 is only about regulating web giants and protecting the interests of Canadian artists and musicians. If that is not fake news, then the response Canadians are demanding from him is simple. He should apologize and restore the full clause protecting their right to freedom of expression in the public square of social media. Constituents in my riding see him, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government as extremists on this issue.

Is he ready to prove them otherwise?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to read the list of supporting organizations throughout the country that have come out in support of Bill C-10: the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Professional Music Publishers' Association, the Canadian Media Producers Association, the Directors Guild of Canada, the Writers Guild of Canada, La Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, SOCAN, la Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the Canadian Federation of Musicians and APTN.

There is also the Union des artistes, the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques—

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 should be about helping Canadian artists and broadcasters succeed among web giants and foreign competitors. Liberals keep accusing Conservatives of not caring about Canadian content, but they keep jeopardizing the prosperity of artists to leverage their own political agenda and censor individual Canadians. As an artist myself, I am appalled. If the Liberals truly cared so much about artists, they would just fix the bill, and Canadians would not be so afraid of Bill C-10.

When will the minister stop flip-flopping and make it crystal clear to Canadians that democracy still has a place in Canada's government?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member opposite to actually read Bill C-10, where in section 2(3) it says, “This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.”

I expect the committee will be able to move forward on Bill C-10 without any further interference by the Conservative Party of Canada.