Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 26th, 2021

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

I would like to continue because it is important for the decision that we will have to make.

I hear very clearly what Ms. McPherson is saying with regard to what is happening in Australia and I think that we all share that concern. However, this request is in connection with Bill C-10. But, as we all know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage unfortunately did not see fit to include social media and how to share and distribute the revenue, preferring to do so in a future bill

Given the number of meetings we have, we are feeling a lot of pressure to move quickly with this bill. We want to hear from a number of witnesses and our schedules are full. I think it is good to hear from the Facebook officials. However, I am wondering whether it would be more appropriate to do so when we are debating social media, once the minister has introduced a bill that deals with them. I doubt whether he will do that in the short term, but we hope he will because it is a major issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for your input.

I give the floor to Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I want to very quickly give my opinion on what Mr. Rayes has just said. I agree that it is not urgent to hear from the Facebook officials because, at the moment, it is true that there is nothing about social media. However, a number of speakers have told us their concerns with regard to Bill C-10's silence on social media. We are thinking about the issue. Without really being for or against, I feel that it would not be inappropriate to discuss it with the Facebook officials. Is this a good time to do so? Let's discuss that, but I would not dismiss the idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

I'm just going to hold on for less than one minute. I want to address the concern that Mr. Shields brought up, if you just give me one second.

Okay, folks. I just want you to bear with me for a moment as I'm going through the Standing Orders in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition.

I wanted to provide this as clarification on where I'm going. It talks about the motion itself as amended:

An amendment must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend. It must not stray from the main motion but must aim to refine its meaning and intent. An amendment should take the form of a motion to....

In other words, what they cite here is that:

it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice)

There is, in my opinion, a substantial amount to deal with in this particular amendment. Therefore, I have to seek unanimous consent to allow this motion to be debated.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, all of these could be done through two or three separate amendments. They were done as one amendment. The only thing that changes in this motion is that, one, it adds Mr. Zuckerberg to Mr. Chan as a proposed witness, and two, it directs you to find a time during a non-sitting week in March for the meeting, based on Facebook's availability.

There is nothing else in there that is a substantive change from the original motion put forward by Ms. McPherson. Therefore, I disagree entirely with the ruling that you just made, because I could easily take Ms. McPherson's original motion and make smaller amendments to do this. I think that to save time for the committee, it was easier to do it this way. I disagree that there were any changes that were beyond the scope of the original motion or that make great changes.

I could have just proposed to add Mr. Zuckerberg to the original words of Mr. Chan being invited. I could have just proposed to add the time that you would be asked to invite the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. The substantive issues that I would invoke here are that there is a new date involved and that Mr. Zuckerberg is now involved in this.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, again, I have dealt with motions before. It would be a proper amendment to Ms. McPherson's original motion for me to suggest that Mr. Zuckerberg be added as a witness. There is no possible way that you would rule that was not a receivable amendment.

There was no time frame given for the original meeting date. I have seen many motions in the House of Commons where, when no time was given, we would instruct the chair as to when to call such a meeting—and that was a receivable motion.

I'm having difficulty understanding why these wouldn't be very normal amendments to a motion given at a committee. I find the ruling quite surprising.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Well, let me just deal with your shock and awe for just a moment. Let me consider what you just put forward.

Does anybody else have a comment on this? This is just my initial reaction to what I'm looking at right now. I will take that under advisement, and I will read this once again. As you know, I got this during committee hearings. Unless anybody else has a comment, I'm going to take a few moments to read this again. Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, here's the predicament we're in. The motion that was put forward by Ms. McPherson has been amended per se. If you look at the original motion, after the word “that”, it takes on a completely different form. At first blush, I have to look at this and say that it has been substantially changed, enough that you need to seek unanimous consent.

I understand what you're saying about the language of a person involved and just a date. To me, these don't seem like substantive matters. I know that.

Mr. Rayes, I will let you proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that we all agree on the principle. Asking for unanimous consent could speed things up. Unanimous consent would allow you to accept what Mr. Housefather and Ms. McPherson are proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I was fine with that, but I think Mr. Housefather was quite adamant about what he wanted to speak about. I entertained the idea of whether we should or should not seek unanimous consent.

Now, if you so desire, I can seek unanimous consent.

I'm turning to Mr. Housefather. Would you like to weigh in on that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm fine to seek unanimous consent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do we have unanimous consent to substantially change this particular motion? Is there any dissension?

Seeing none, we now go to the vote, unless someone else would like to talk about this.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you very much, everyone.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's not a problem.

All right, seeing nothing else, if we are done, then I can wish everyone a happy weekend.

For those of you on the subcommittee who want to attend, please be there this coming Monday. For March 8, we have the minister for two hours, and the department as well.

Thank you, everyone.