Evidence of meeting #17 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Does everybody understand the amendment? I'm seeing a lot of nods.
Can we proceed to the vote on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go back to the main motion as amended, the motion from Ms. McPherson on the Governor in Council. I don't think I need to read it again.
Seeing no further debate, I call the question.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Ms. McPherson, I believe you have a second one.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I do.
Mr. Chair, I'm not exactly sure, but would it be best for me to read the initial one, with the amended version that Mr. Housefather and I worked on, or would you like me to read the second, amended version?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Let me provide some clarification on this. We're dealing with the Facebook motion. Is that correct? Can I use that term?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
The motion put forward by you and Mr. Housefather.... I've seen some of the wording that has been proposed. Because this is not germane to Bill C-10, you need a 48-hour requirement to do that particular motion. It is not committee business, and it has to be germane to Bill C-10 to do that.
However, your first motion dealing with Facebook, which was submitted some time ago, on February 19, that one we can debate.
What I propose is this. If you wish to put forward the new motion that you and Mr. Housefather worked on, I would need unanimous consent to proceed.
Which avenue do you wish to choose?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can I bring forward the one that I tabled on February 19, and then introduce the amendments to that motion that Mr. Housefather and I have worked on as an amendment to the initial motion, so that it would actually work?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Housefather, I'm assuming, is amending this motion from February 19.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Sure, Mr. Chair, but wouldn't Ms. McPherson put forward her...? If you want me to do it this way, wouldn't Ms. McPherson put forward her motion, and then I speak to the amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I was of the understanding that she just did.
Ms. McPherson, go ahead.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I can read the motion, but I think everybody has a copy of it.
There was a desire to have Facebook reappear in front of the committee, for a number of reasons. One was the recent news that we had out of Australia and of course the important implications that has for Canada and for the work of this committee. Also, there is some reason to believe that, intentionally or not, Mr. Chan may have misled the committee in some of the testimony he provided in his first visit to us this sitting.
That is why I've brought forward this motion, and I certainly hope that the committee sees fit to approve it today.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much.
I worked on the amended motion with Ms. McPherson. I have distributed it in writing and in both official languages.
Everybody would have their written version by email.
I think the proper amendment is that I would move that the words after “That the Committee” in the first motion be struck and replaced by the words in our revised motion.
The revised motion is:
That the Committee invite Facebook, Inc. for a follow up meeting regarding the subjects raised during its testimony before the Committee on January 29th, 2021 and also to address Facebook's recent actions in Australia related to the Australian Government's consideration and adoption of the News Media Bargaining Code.
That the Committee requests that both Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and Mr. Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Canada testify on behalf of Facebook Inc.
That the Chair be asked to find a time in a non-sitting week in March for this meeting, based on Facebook's availability.
There are two differences between the two proposals. First, we are asking the committee to summon Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Chan, because the decision in Australia was certainly made at Facebook's headquarters, not in Canada. Second, we want to find a date for this work in March when the committee is not already hearing from witnesses, depending on Facebook's availability.
Those are the two major changes to the motion. I hope that the committee will be able to accept the amendment and the initial proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask Ms. McPherson a question on her motion. When we initially accepted it, there was a direct connection to what had happened in Australia, but now that the Australian government and Facebook have come to an agreement, is it still as relevant for her? Does she have a view on that?
Could she give us her opinion before we move further forward into the debate?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank my colleague.
I think it is still very important and very relevant. The situation in Australia has not been resolved completely. We are looking at legislation, and we're looking at a study at this committee on how we will be interacting with Facebook in this country, so I think it is still incredibly relevant that we have this discussion.
I know that there has been some change since I tabled the motion, but it is certainly far from a resolved issue in Australia.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Chair, the Conservative Party of Canada has their convention on March 18-19 virtually. We would not be able to partake in a virtual meeting with the heritage committee on those two days.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like just a quick ruling, please. Is that an amendment, or basically a rewrite of a motion so it is totally different in intent? Can we just have a quick ruling? Is it an amendment, or have we really significantly changed it so we're dealing with a second motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I was going to get to that in just a few moments.
Mr. Rayes, your hand is up. Do you want to speak?
I'll get back to your point, Mr. Shields.
Mr. Rayes, go ahead.