Canadian Heritage Committee on April 30th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Sorry, Ms. Dabrusin, but I don't want to further that debate.

Ms. Harder, now that I've heard what you.... I think I know where you might be going. I'm assuming that in this particular case, I repeat, you want to revisit something that's already been addressed by clause-by-clause here. Is that correct?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your patience. What I would like to do is seek unanimous consent to move the following motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Ms. Harder. I can't let you move a motion in the middle of a point of order, but, for the sake of fairness, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to suggest something, but I have to confer with the table staff before I do that, okay? How about I do that first, as you mentioned earlier, as you recommended? I will be as quick as I can, and we'll come back and reconvene.

Now I know that you wish to propose a motion. You're seeking unanimous consent. I'm going to come back to you and see what I can do on that particular ruling.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Simms, if I may, very quickly, as you go and approach the clerk to confer on this, I would contend that there is a significant issue here with the removal of the proposed section 4.1 in this legislation, and we must do our best as members of this committee to contend for Canadians and their freedoms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, Ms. Harder. I have no doubt that we'll address that. I appreciate that; I really do, but I have to go now and try to figure out how to fit what you want to do within the confines of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, so please, if I could just suspend for a few moments, I'll come back to you with the appropriate way of doing this, as you wish to do.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right, folks, we're going to suspend for a few minutes. I'll be back shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to this meeting.

I want to apologize to those listening abroad to this webcast. We had some technical difficulties as we went down. These seem to be fixed, and everything seems to be okay. We'll keep you posted.

Ms. Harder, I may have a suggestion for you. The reason I couldn't let you expand on the points you were making is that in the beginning you put up your hand and I asked whether you were on a point of order. You said yes, and we moved from there, so this is probably as much my fault as yours.

That being said, if you wish to bring up the points that you wish to make, you may proceed when these proceedings and the debate begin.

I'm going to call for amendment G-10, which reminds me to tell everyone, don't forget about the “raise hand” function on the side, because it makes life a lot easier for me and everyone else technically. Also, let's not try to talk over each other. Because of interpretation, it makes life extremely difficult, and also for our folks at Hansard it makes it very difficult.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you look to page 1064 of the fabulous green book we have that guides the procedure in these things, you will see a section that outlines the protocols with regard to unanimous consent.

It's my understanding that I have the ability to seek unanimous consent to move a motion, and if I'm granted that unanimous consent, then I am able to move a motion during a point of order.

I would wish, then—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, please. Just nod in my direction if I'm getting this right.

You can seek unanimous consent on a point of order to proceed with your motion. This is what you're asking.

You can do that, or you can withdraw your point of order and then we can launch into amendment G-10, concerning which I would advise you to raise your hand at that point, if you wish to discuss what you wish to discuss.

I'm not playing; I'm just trying to make things easier for you, because I know you want to get your opinion in.

Do you wish to withdraw your point of order, or do you want to seek unanimous consent to proceed with a motion within your...?

I'm sorry. To be very clear, what I'm saying to you is that you can withdraw the point of order and we can begin debate, for which you could be recognized from the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If we begin the debate and I am recognized from the floor, it is within the context of clause 10. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Not necessarily. I'm pretty easy about the way things proceed here. I can be quite flexible on these things. If we proceed to clause-by-clause and you raise your hand, I'll give you the floor.

I'm not trying to trick you, Ms. Harder. I'm just trying to make this path easier for you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay, Mr. Simms, I'm going to trust you and I'm going to wait until you get started with clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm assuming you're withdrawing your point of order?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

In good faith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Indeed.

Okay folks, we're back to the meeting.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry for the technical difficulties in between. They happen from time to time, but this is the first time this has happened to us.

As you know, we're picking up clause-by-clause once more. Don't forget about your “raise hand” function, as I mentioned earlier.

We left off last time on amendment G-10.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Simms, thank you so much for giving me the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You're quite welcome.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I understand that this committee is doing, I believe, its best to get through this legislation quickly and to move it to a point that it can be voted on in the House of Commons. I believe, however, that there are some things that need to be considered before getting to that point.

As I've outlined previously, clause 3, or proposed section 4.1, was removed from the legislation last week. When that took place, the nature of this bill changed.

There is a charter statement that was provided by the justice department under the name of the justice minister. That charter statement determines whether or not this piece of legislation, Bill C-10, would be in agreement with or within the purview of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That statement is now null and void, because a significant portion of the bill was removed last week. That being the case, I believe this committee needs to seek another statement with respect to the charter and whether the charter rights of Canadians are in fact being respected within the new outline provided within this bill.

I would draw the committee's attention to a few opinions or viewpoints that have been offered by experts. Most notably, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said that this legislation “doesn't just infringe on free expression; it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.”

Mr. Chair, that is an incredibly damning statement in regard to this piece of legislation as it stands now, because that clause was removed last week. That being the case, I believe this committee needs to take the responsibility of seeking another charter statement.

The argument has been made by some members at this table—and by other members of the governing party when this has been raised in the House of Commons during question period—that Canadians shouldn't worry; that there would never be an imposition on their freedom and what they post on social media.

At the end of the day, however, if it's not there, it's not there. In other words, if the protection isn't granted, then there's no protection. It's that simple. If the protection is not outlined in this legislation, then there is no protection for Canadians.

We're talking about a regular component of their daily lives. We're talking about a video they post of their cat, about a video they post of their kids, about a conversation they're having with a friend on a social media platform. This is a new form of public square, and based on the charter, our right to freedom of expression should not be imposed upon.

I would argue, and many other experts have argued, that they are being imposed upon. That being the case, I believe we need to seek a new charter statement based on this legislation as it stands now.

I want to move a motion for this committee's consideration. If I may, I would like to read it into the record.

It reads:

That, given that the deletion of section 4.1, clause 3 of Bill C-10, would extend the application of the Broadcasting Act to programs uploaded by users of social media services, which in turn could violate paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

and given that the current “Charter Statement” required under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10 directly states that “users of social media who upload programs for sharing with other users and are not affiliated with the service provider will not be subject to regulation” as part of its argument that Bill C-10 respects section 2(b) of the Charter, the committee:

(a) request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated “Charter Statement” under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10, as amended to date, on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

(b) invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to discuss the implications of Bill C-10, as amended to date, for users of social media services; and

(c) suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, notwithstanding the Committee's decision of March 26, 2021, until it has received the updated “Charter Statement” requested under paragraph (a) and has heard from the ministers invited under paragraph (b).

Mr. Chair, that is the end of my motion. I would reiterate how vitally important it is that this committee composed of legislators do its work responsibly and seek this statement from the justice minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, everybody understands the motion.

Have you sent a copy of this, Ms. Harder, to our clerk?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes, a copy has been submitted in both French and English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two points.

I would like to be very clear, because it keeps being talked around. There is a clear exclusion, which has already been passed by this committee, to exclude individuals posting to social media. I need to make that absolutely clear. There is an exclusion for individuals posting content to social media. Beyond that, the Broadcasting Act does not cover content. This is not about moderating content.

I will, however, go one step further and also indicate that we are in the middle of clause-by-clause study. We do not have a completed bill before us. We are still in the process of a clause-by-clause study, and it is simply premature to be taking any moment to review what the impact of the bill would be until we have actually completed the process of determining what the bill will look like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to start by saying that I agree entirely with Ms. Dabrusin. The preamble of the motion takes a position that I don't agree with. I think it's a flawed interpretation of the removal of clause 3 of the bill. I also believe, as Ms. Dabrusin said, that the bill will continue to be amended, so for us to stop at each point in the bill, which may not reflect the bill at the end, to ask for updated charter statements is illogical.

Furthermore, and more importantly, let me direct you to the Department of Justice website as to what the rules are with respect to charter statements.

These charter statements, which were put into effect by our government, the Liberal government, basically originally included charter statements only for justice bills. Then, on December 13, 2019, through amendments to the Department of Justice Act, we created a new duty on the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in Parliament for every government bill. The charter statements are a transparency measure intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a bill and help increase awareness and understanding of the charter.

The website explicitly states:

Charter Statements are intended to provide information to the public and Parliamentarians. Although a bill may change over the course of its passage through Parliament, Charter Statements reflect the bill at [the] time of introduction and are not updated.

Let me repeat that. Charter statements reflect the bill at the time of introduction and are not updated. It goes on to say, “Charter Statements are not legal opinions on the constitutionality of a bill.”

For a multiplicity of reasons, then, Mr. Chairman, I am against this motion: number one, that the legislation does not contemplate ever updating a charter statement, and it is explicitly stated that charter statements “reflect the bill at time of introduction and are not updated”; and second, because we are in the middle of a clause-by-clause debate on the bill, and if it were to be updated at any point for whatever reason, if that were permissible, it would make sense to do so only at the end of debate on the bill, once all the amendments had been adopted and one knew what the legislation would look like.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.