Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2021

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's correct. Just a moment ago I indicated to you that I intended to bring forward a dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Oh, I see.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You commented that G-11 needed to be taken care of first before you could hear from me. However, on Friday you gave the dilatory motion precedence, so I'm wondering why those two rulings are incongruent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't know. That's a good question. I'm going to talk to the clerk about that and see if it was done by mistake.

Nevertheless, you can certainly raise it. Do you want to do your dilatory motion now or do you want a ruling on that?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You can confer with the clerk, but I'm happy to move forward with my dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. I'll do the clerk thing first, and then I'll come back to you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll suspend for a couple minutes. It shouldn't take long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We are reconvening.

Ms. Harder, I had a little discussion about this, and you have a good point. You brought up a dilatory motion. I should have heard you out on that point, and I did not. I sincerely apologize for that. I started the other debate and I was focused on that one. It never registered that your motion was dilatory and I should have heard you out.

We dispensed with G-11, so if you wish, go ahead now and move your motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

My apologies again for that. You were in the right.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you for seeking clarification. I very much appreciate that.

Mr. Chair, I wish to return to a motion that was brought forward to the committee on Friday, at the last meeting.

The motion that I moved at that point in time was that we would request the Minister of Justice to 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.

This motion further said that we would 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 that we would 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) of this motion.

The reason I moved this motion on Friday was that the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-10, has undergone significant change since it was first brought forward in the fall, and at that point in time, in November, was provided with a charter statement. Of course, that charter statement was up to date at that time. However, because section 4.1 has been removed, and thereby protections for the content that an individual might post to their social media account is now subject to government scrutiny, I do believe that it is in the best interest of this committee to seek another charter statement in order to make sure that it is in compliance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Sorry, Ms. Harder, I need some clarification. You did say it was a dilatory motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You want to make a motion to resume the debate that commenced on Friday. Is that correct, just so I get that straight?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I do.

Chair, I would move that we debate the motion that was originally brought forward on Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Just so that everybody is clear, the dilatory motion is the resumption of debate that took place on Friday. The reason that it's dilatory is for the same reason that a debate should be adjourned, so we have to go to the debate right away.

You've now heard the clarity around the motion. We're going to proceed to the vote on the resumption of the debate on the motion from Ms. Harder.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to the resumption of debate following that motion.

I have the list here. Ms. Harder, you're up first.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that very much. I also return my thanks to the committee for hearing me out on this.

Mr. Chair, as stated, this piece of legislation, Bill C-10, has undergone significant change with the removal of proposed section 4.1. As a result, it is questioned whether an individual will actually be allowed to put up content of their choice on their social media platform or use apps on their phone, based on Bill C-10. In other words, it is presumed—not just by me but by other experts—that individuals' rights will actually be brought under attack by this legislation.

It seems, then, very important for the members of this committee to receive an updated charter statement. Of course, what this would do is take the bill in front of us—Bill C-10 as it exists now, in its amended form—and put it up against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This charter statement would be delivered by the justice minister and it would state whether or not this bill holds up.

The reason this is so important is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land, and paragraph 2(b) protects freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and freedom of belief. When we are at a point in Canadian history where we are using social media platforms as the public square, it is important to protect the voices of Canadians and how they express themselves in those spaces.

The government has gone too far when it imposes itself—or empowers the CRTC, which of course is directed by the government, to impose itself—on people and their freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of opinion and starts regulating what people are saying or posting.

Of course, I am offering my own take on it, as well as the takes of many other experts who have analyzed this piece of legislation. What I am asking is that this committee also request the take of the justice minister. Again, this would be accomplished by a charter statement.

One of the reasons this is so crucial is notwithstanding the most important one, which is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. It's been interesting over the weekend as I watched as the Minister of Heritage responded to the concerns raised around Bill C-10. One of the accusations that was brought out by Minister Guilbeault is that all of the individuals expressing opposition or raising questions or concerns with regard to Bill C-10 are suddenly being called “extremists”. If you disagree with the government, if you have a question about a bill being brought forward by the governing party or are opposed in any way, you are now labelled an “extremist”. If that is happening in this small fraction of time, I can only imagine the types of stipulations that would be put in place by this same minister should the legislation be successful.

If he and his department are responsible for telling Canadians what they can and cannot post, then anything that might be against the ideology of this government would be flagged. Anything that would raise questions with regard to a government decision would be taken down. Any material that an individual posts that would make someone feel uncomfortable or at which someone might choose to take offence would be removed.

It has a silencing effect, and it's wrong. It must be stopped. Canadians must be protected. Their charter rights must be preserved.

I am asking for something that I believe is extremely reasonable, which is that we push the “pause” button on this committee for a very short time and that we seek this statement from the justice department. We would be looking for an opinion as to whether Bill C-10 does, in fact, align itself under the charter. If it does, okay, but if it doesn't, this committee has some work to do in terms of making sure the charter rights of Canadians are indeed protected.

With that, I have put a motion on the table asking for that statement and asking to hear from the Minister of Heritage. I would ask the members of this committee to vote in favour of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Monsieur Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased that the committee agreed to take the time today to continue to debate the motion put forward by my colleague, Ms. Harder. Her proposal is based on the main reason why we work here in Canada's Parliament, which is to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Just over a week ago, at the meeting held on Friday, April 23, the government decided without any advance notice to do away with an entire clause in the bill...

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, Monsieur Rayes.

I think I know what you're getting at, Mr. Aitchison. It's that we're not hearing the interpretation right now. Is that it?

Yes, it is. We're not hearing the interpretation right now.

Let's do a test.

Hello, everyone. My name is Scott Simms, the chair of the committee.

How are we doing?

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

Would you like me to speak in French to see if the interpretation is working?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Are we okay now? No, we're not. I'm sorry, folks.

I'll give you the floor again, Mr. Rayes, once we get this fixed. Just hang in there one moment. Actually, tell us about your wonderful riding.

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

Gladly, Mr. Chair. I hope one day to have the opportunity to welcome you to my magnificent riding. It's very close to Mr. Champoux's riding, I should point out. Our two ridings are engaged in a battle that will never end, about the origins of poutine.