Evidence of meeting #28 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome back, everybody.
This is meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
We are doing this, of course, virtually—
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, I wish to move a point of order. It has come to my attention that this committee was provided with a charter statement from the Minister of Justice, and that this charter statement was prepared on the bill based on its original form on November 3.
At that point in time, our party was largely in favour of making the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act and other acts in order to modernize them and create a level playing field between streaming services like Netflix and the Canadian broadcasters, and the justice minister's charter statement was in good standing. However, that was before the bill was amended, and as you know, there are some significant changes that have since taken place.
One of the things that was stated in the justice minister's charter statement was that, and I quote, “clause 3 would specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded by unaffiliated users [for example, you and me] to social media services for sharing with other users, and in respect of online undertakings whose only broadcasting consists of such programs.”
When the bill was amended, however, to remove clause 3—the portion that I just read his opinion on—the entire scope of the bill was changed. Given that the entire scope of the bill has now changed with the removal of that clause, the statement no longer stands as accurate.
Last Friday, those changes were made, taking away the protection for individual users—again, such as you and me—for the things we post on Facebook, the things we post on YouTube, the things an aspiring artist posts and the cat video that my grandmother posts in order to share with her friends and engage with them. When this change was made, it removed the protections that were once offered to individuals who use these platforms.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Harder, just one second. I appreciate the recognition of the content that you're providing here with the removal of the clause.
Can you get a little more specific about how this is counter to—
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The removal of proposed section 4.1 from Bill C-10 fundamentally changes the legislation and dissolves the ground on which the charter statement stood to justify charter compliance. Therefore, the original charter statement should be considered null and void if this committee wishes to do due diligence. Therefore, I would propose to you that we need a new charter statement from the justice minister, based on the transformational edit that was done on Friday.
Mr. Chair, I believe this is extremely important, because it's about protecting Canadians and their freedoms.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Harder, could I get you to summarize what you're reading right now, very quickly, so that I can go to Ms. Dabrusin? It sounds like you're going into the arguments on the content of what you're talking about. I need you to, again, be specific as to the point you're trying to make. I assume you're trying to withdraw or cease what we're doing right now. Is that correct?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
No, I'm not. If you'll just oblige me for a moment here, I need to outline my case, and then I am happy to summarize or to conclude.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
At the end of the day, this is about Canadians. This is about standing up for their charter rights and freedoms. I understand that this committee wishes to get to clause-by-clause. However, I believe that in the best interests of Canadians and respecting their charter rights, the bare minimum we can do is to take the next three minutes and allow me to explain why this is of such crucial importance.
Protecting Canadian's rights and freedoms and making sure—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hold on, everyone, one moment.
Ms. Dabrusin, I'm going to let you step in. Go ahead.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
We are midway through a clause-by-clause, and in this virtual world, it's a little different from when we normally do it. We would be through it quite a bit more quickly, but we are still midway through in this clause-by-clause process. I am not sure what this member is seeking to bring forward, but don't believe she has clearly stated what she wants to do. At this point, it seems that it is putting the cart ahead of the horse, as far as what we're working on.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To follow up on the remarks of my honourable colleague, Ms. Dabrusin, I feel that Ms. Harder has the privilege of speaking in committee and that she has something important to bring to our attention. As we see it, both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression itself were cast aside when the committee adopted an amendment to the bill to eliminate a section that it was proposing to add to the Broadcasting Act.
I feel that Ms. Harder deserves a few minutes to express her point of view and to tell us what she wants to propose. The least we can do as a committee is to listen to her arguments and then decide together. Mr. Chair, if I may, she has a perfect right—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Rayes, I'll get to her point, but I have to move on from you in order to do that. I see what you're saying.
Before I go back to Ms. Harder, I have a question.
Were you about to move a motion?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Well, I can't do that on a point of order. The Standing Orders state that you may bring a point of order and then tell the committee why we're out of bounds, as it were. Within that, according to the Standing Orders, I'm just going to pre-empt by saying that you can't move that motion or seek the permission of the committee, as you say, within the realm of a point of order, which is what you're doing. That's why I want you to get to the reason we're going outside of the rules of this particular committee.
Go ahead.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, thank you. I understand that it is your perspective. Perhaps in just a moment you can confer further with the clerk.
I would like to outline context for the request I'm going to make to the committee, and I believe it is appropriate for me to do so on a point of order.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
How about I confer with the clerk first, and then I'll come back to you?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, I respect your request. However, you don't yet know what my request is, so if I could continue outlining the context, as is my privilege as the member of Parliament for Lethbridge and as a current member of this committee—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I understand what your privileges are, Ms. Harder, but the thing is, on a point of order.... You're going to describe now, I'm assuming, why you raised this point of order and why we're outside the realm of the rules standard to the procedures of committee.
Go ahead.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the original intent of this legislation was to modernize the Broadcasting Act. However, by removing this clause 3 of Bill C-10—the proposed new section 4.1 of the act—there's a significant difference in what this is now, and I would argue that it potentially impedes upon the freedoms of Canadians that are granted under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Social media platforms are the new public square. That's where people engage in conversation.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Sorry, Ms. Harder, this is the third time now. I'm trying to give you as much latitude as I can, but we're arguing about content on which a vote has taken place. There are ways by which you can move a motion and seek consent.
Are you asking to revisit something that was done previously in this committee? May I ask that?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, I understand the desire to rush through. I understand the desire of the members of the governing party to move this through as quickly as possible, and I understand that there is an attempt to squelch my voice right now.
I would ask to be given the opportunity to speak and to make the points that are appropriate to make at this point in time, and then to seek the committee's support.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Harder, I'm not trying to squelch you. I could have cut this off a long time ago. I'm just trying to get to the point here, because you called up a point of order, and as chair I have to make this flow the way it should, as given to us by the Standing Orders.
I'm trying to figure out.... If you want to do a motion as such, there's a place to do that, but when you bring up a point of order....
I see you, Ms. Dabrusin. Did you want to respond?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
No. I simply wanted to say that it has veered into debate, and I just wanted to—