Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Mr. Shields, I just want to update everybody on where we are right now.

We had a motion from Ms. Harder. Then we didn't have a subamendment by Ms. McPherson, but rather another amendment. To paraphrase, it talks about the maximum of 10 days. Then Ms. Dabrusin wanted to move a subamendment on that, but because it was materially different from the amendment of Ms. McPherson, I had to rule it out of order.

Right now, we are still on Ms. McPherson's amendment to the main motion of Ms. Harder, just so everybody is clear. We're still on that amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Firstly, I must apologize for last Friday. Normally we had been, for many years, sitting in committees, and all sorts of MPs sitting around tables might not have been the official ones. Mr. Chair, I apologize for my mistake and not remembering that under this video world that we're in of Zoom, we are in a different practice.

Moving on, I appreciate a lot of the information that has been shared, and the debate and the emotion. We have a lot of smart people sitting around the table, and usually I like to listen to a lot of the smart people we have on this committee. I would agree that there's been a lot of conciliatory work done, and lots of votes that may not agree, but it's been done professionally. I always appreciate working with people who want to do it in that way.

I'm a little concerned about the delays that supposedly this is creating. It's been mentioned that it's taken six years to write a piece of legislation. That's a long time, so there's been lots of time. I'm not sure there's a reason that we won't be here next week, next month, this fall, next spring. I don't see anything about an election being proposed, so I don't think we're going anywhere, so we have some time. Ten days, maximum, is not a lot of time in that framework.

What is astounding to me and a lot of other people is that there were so many amendments. Sure, I've been in situations in which people have written policy without thinking of all the consequences, and that's why you share it, work it through and find the consequences of the policies. It's so you can make those corrections. However, in my history in the House, I've never seen a piece of legislation come from the government with the number of amendments that they've brought here. These are huge numbers. Who was drafting this thing?

We were conciliatory to a point, but the reaction that I have seen since Friday in the media.... This is not me, but all the various media out there reporting it. This precipitated, then, my inbox just filling up with things that people had read in the media. I wasn't causing it; the media were reporting on this, and the experts were then quoted. A lot of people who have responded to this particular amendment didn't feel it was right, and a lot of media have been reporting. There's been a lot of attention.

I haven't had this much attention in a committee over an amendment in the number of years that I've been here. This is huge in the sense of responses that I've received, but it was because of the media that they were seeing this. It's just a real challenge. When you talk about stakeholders pushing it, I have 115,000 stakeholders, and trust me, I heard from a lot of them. I think a 10-day maximum that MP McPherson has put forward gives us an opportunity to deal a little more with this, because the public isn't seeing it as something that makes sense.

We've had goodwill, and I think this is a motion that continues to give us goodwill in proceeding in a very volatile situation. There are lots of opinions. I have nine to 10 weekly newspapers in my riding, and those letters to the editor are pretty volatile on both sides of many issues. Somebody asked if those newspapers that have digital formats are going to be at risk of being taken off because of letters they produce in a digital format? I have no answer for that. We have people who are expressing their opinions in the weekly newspapers in my riding who are the owners of those papers. They are independent, many of them. They are a little concerned that when they put that on social media platforms—that's where they're putting their digital papers—they're at risk. I don't have an answer for that.

These are some more of the questions that we haven't had a chance to discuss and to get a legal opinion on.

We have a motion here. I know Ms. Dabrusin, whom I've known for some time, has a further motion that she's going to make, but I think the one that we have on the table now is a positive one, and I hope that we pass it. I'm not sure that the one that Ms. Dabrusin is considering putting on next does what needs to be done now. We need to take a break and take some time to get an expert opinion. We need to have some time to get things clarified. If we don't, we are not going to get good, rational thoughts and questions answered. It's time we do exactly what this motion says.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Shields.

Go ahead, Mr. Aitchison.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I want to comment briefly on some of the language I've heard today.

I will admit that I am not a lawyer like Mr. Housefather or Ms. Dabrusin; I'm just an old small-town mayor. One thing I do know is that language matters. Language counts. The way clauses are worded matters and what people say in committee matters.

I would suggest quite strongly, to what Ms. Dabrusin said about aiming to get this right, that it's not good enough to aim to get it right; we have to get this right. The concern that's been raised, and not by me, because I certainly didn't catch it, but by other people who are far smarter and more knowledgeable on this issue than I am, is that taking proposed section 4.1 out opens a window for the potential to regulate individual users' content by regulating the forums they use or the platforms they use to post their content.

Despite Minister Guilbeault's rather fumbling attempt at trying say he didn't want to do that, the intention to not want to do it isn't enough. We have to make sure that this window is not opened in any way. This has to be airtight. This is a fundamental freedom. The freedom of expression has to be protected.

I think Ms. McPherson has proposed an excellent amendment to our motion by proposing some time frames to this. We agree with that. We're not trying to delay things. We're not trying to filibuster, as we've seen go on in so many other committees. This committee has worked really well. I like all of you. Mr. Housefather and I have been on television together, talking about how we can disagree without being disagreeable. We're not trying to be disagreeable. We're trying to make sure we get what all Canadians want, what I think all members of this committee want, which is to make sure that we get this right so that those protections are there and there's no wiggle room anywhere to affect Canadians' rights online.

I recognize the comments that have been made about waiting until the very end and we've done clause-by-clause study, but my concern is that this is fundamental enough in terms of changing the intent of the bill. What we hear from the minister of Justice, the legal decision and the legal opinion on this change, I think is substantive enough. The charter statement may affect some of our decisions going forward on some of these other amendments, so it's well worth taking 10 days to make sure we get it right, because we're not merely “aiming” to protect Canadians' freedoms of expression; it is an absolute. We must do it.

To my friend Mr. Housefather, who suggests that this is a manufactured crisis, respectfully, it's not manufactured. You, as a former mayor.... This is something we do have in common. When you hear concerns raised by your constituents, you don't just dismiss them as manufactured; you address them. That's what we have heard as Conservatives. I've heard over and over again about this, so it's important for us to address those concerns. That's what we're doing. That's my approach to this issue, and I think it's the approach of every other member. I think Ms. McPherson's amendment is a respectful approach to it as well in that it keeps the ball rolling, because we all recognize the importance of getting this done. We all want to level the playing field. We all want to protect that Canadian cultural industry, and not just protect it but enhance it.

I'd love to see the rhetoric toned down a little bit and see us work together. I love Ms. McPherson's very constructive amendment. I think this is the way committees are supposed to work—constructively, across party lines, to make sure we get this right and that we protect Canadians while also ensuring that there is a level playing field and that Canadian culture is not lost in the mix.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate my colleague's thoughts and comments. I agree with him that we can definitely disagree without being disagreeable, and this committee has shown that in the past.

What I want to say, because people have raised the issue of law, is that what you wouldn't do is ask for a charter statement in the middle of amending a contract. This is the real issue here.

We have a clause that has come out. We have other clauses that might go in or might not go in, depending on the vote of the committee. I'm totally okay with the idea that at the end of the committee's work, when all the amendments that the committee wants to consider go forward, we ask for an amended charter statement and we don't send the bill back to the House, and in the event that we find that there is an incongruity of what we have done vis-à-vis the charter statement, we go back and fix that. It does not make sense to say that the charter statement should come right now, before we've adopted all the amendments that we intend to adopt on the bill, because then we're not considering what might come in after something else has gone out.

I'm going to vote for Ms. McPherson's amendments to put a 10-day time limit because I believe it's an improvement over the initial motion that had no time limit. However, I still will support further amendments to change this motion to actually make sense. One would be to remove the stopping of the clause-by-clause study and to continue clause-by-clause study so that we get to a point where there can actually be a proper review by the Department of Justice of what the end result of the bill is, instead of looking at the bill with half of the work done and half of the work not done. All that means again, of course, is that we can adopt another amendment and then somebody can say that there should be a charter statement now because that amendment changes the previous charter statement.

I will support this amendment, but I will support and propose other amendments until we get to a place where, to me, this makes sense, which is a charter statement that comes after all the amendments to the bill are actually adopted and we learn what the overall effect is, not what the effect is in the middle of the process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Harder is next.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I understand the argument that is being made by the party opposite in terms of putting this off until the very end. However, there's a problem there.

Former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies already 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.” That's pretty clear from a former CRTC commissioner, who I believe is probably one of the most qualified individuals in this country to comment on this legislation.

That said, the argument that we should just put it off until the end is like saying the legislation might already be bad, but let's make it worse, and then once it's really bad, we can go and seek out a charter opinion or a charter statement.

Why not just get it now? Why not get the charter statement now so that we can be building on a solid foundation as we go forward, rather than continuing to build on a weak foundation? It makes no sense to keep going. This is absolutely fundamental. We're talking about the charter rights protected under paragraph 2(b), and we absolutely should seek that advice from those experts before moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

As a reminder, folks, we're still on the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson.

Go ahead, Mr. Aitchison.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

To that point that Mr. Housefather raised, and I think Ms. Harder actually addressed it a bit as well, the concern has arisen based on the removal of this clause. In regard to asking for an updated charter statement based on the removal of a clause that has caused such consternation among people who are far smarter than I am, I agree fundamentally that it's well worth making sure, before spending any more time going through it clause by clause, that we haven't made some fatal flaw in the legislation. If this is some fatal flaw in the legislation that we're reviewing, we'll waste an awful lot of time going through other amendments if this negates the whole thing.

As well, I fundamentally believe an updated charter statement, an updated analysis from the country's top lawyer, might actually inform many of the discussions on these next clauses. It's well worth taking the time to get it right, as opposed to potentially wasting time that we didn't need to waste.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Louis, please go ahead.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We need to move forward as fast as possible. We have amendments proposed from all sides that will improve this bill. What the opposition is doing here, especially in studying this motion with no time limits, is literally stalling, when we need to be working together. We have been working together. We have amendments from all sides. We need to move faster on this bill and work together.

As for the idea that we need a charter statement now, I don't understand that. We have amendments protecting user-generated content. That's not the intent of this bill. That's not what's going to happen. We have further amendments coming that are going to further protect user-generated content. That's not the scope of this bill. We have an arts community that needs our support, and these stall tactics are not helping. I wish we would move together.

I don't understand the idea of getting a charter statement now. A rough analogy would be that of a restaurant critic trying to get a review on a meal, and after every ingredient is added, you wouldn't bring it to the restaurant critic and say, “Here, review this meal”.

We have a chance to fix and improve this bill. We have a chance to work together to do this. I'm concerned that the opposition will do this every step of the way before these amendments are done. Let's wait until these amendments are fixed, and then bring in the charter statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, go ahead.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's important to recognize that the 10 days is the maximum. The Minister of Justice could bring back information sooner. We could continue on with our work. As many of the members have said before me, we have a lot of work to do on this. It's vitally important. I want this to happen as quickly as possible. I would urge that we vote on this, that the justice minister bring that back as fast as he possibly can for our consideration, and that then we continue doing the important work this committee was mandated to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further debate, we're going to go to a vote.

I'm going to recap what we're voting on. I'm not going to go through the whole thing. Suffice to say, from the main motion by Ms. Harder, we are voting on the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson. To paragraph (a), she adds “in the next 10 days”. In paragraph (b), again she adds “in the next 10 days”. In part (c), there are two changes: “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 for a maximum of 10 days” and “provided that it has received the updated charter statement.”

Is everyone clear on what we are voting on?

Let's go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back to the main motion by Ms. Harder, as amended.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned at the outset, I had a few amendments to this motion that I was going to be proposing as well.

The first part would be to strike the (c) part to this motion, which would suspend our clause-by-clause study. We have further amendments, as I have mentioned several times, including G-13 and others, that would be relevant to this, and stakeholders have indicated that they want us to continue working on this and to get this done. To show that we are still doing the work that needs to be done, that we are ready to roll up our sleeves and keep doing the work and that we absolutely believe a charter statement is helpful but that we want to make sure we are not stopping the important work we're doing, I would propose removing paragraph (c).

In addition, I would propose the removal of the preamble, which is the “That, given that the deletion of section 4.1” sentence. The reason is that if we are sending for a legal opinion without presupposing what the legal opinion would be, they know what they need to do with a charter statement. I would remove that.

In paragraph (a), the proposal would “request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated charter statement as soon as possible after clause-by clause is completed.”

That wording would be repeated again in paragraph (b). Instead of “to appear before the Committee to discuss”, it would be “to explain in writing the implications of Bill C-10 for users of social media services as soon as possible after clause-by clause is completed”.

It would be changing it to “as soon as possible”, allowing us to continue the work while we do it, and removing the preamble.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I think I got most of it.

The only thing is that the wording becomes a little awkward. When you look at the second paragraph, if that's your opening paragraph, for the second one we'd have to tighten up the language at the very beginning.

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

I think that you could just write “that given”. You could just insert “that”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Instead of saying “and given that”, you would just say “that the current”. Just start with the word “that” and eliminate “and given”.

Sorry; that may seem small, but I have to be sure about this.

In addition to that, you're proposing to eliminate paragraph 1 as well as part (c) in Ms. Harder's motion. Then within part (a), you're proposing that it be to “provide an updated charter statement as soon as possible”, and in (b), you're saying it would be to provide a written explanation instead of appearing before the committee.

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

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do you have anything to pass to the clerk?

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

I am sending it in both official languages to the clerk right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That is great. Thank you very much. In the meantime, you still have the floor if you wish to discuss it further.

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

As much as I would enjoy continuing, I think the points have been made. The short form is that it is important. I have no issue with getting a charter review of it; I think that is fine. I think the fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, are extremely important, so I'm absolutely fine with that.

The key issues I have here are about the amendments, which I have referred to several times. I think they would be a key part of that consideration and to making sure we provide a thorough record. If you're going to get a legal opinion, you have to give them the full record to analyze, or else you're not getting a full legal opinion. It's making sure that we can try to get that information, keep working and do what the stakeholders and the cultural industries have asked us to do, which is get it right and get it done. We're trying to get it done. That allows us to continue to do the hard work that we have ahead of us while getting that charter review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Ms. Harder.