Evidence of meeting #29 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, look what I've started. Thank you for that.
It seems we are now back. I've just heard the interpretation, so we'll go back to Mr. Rayes.
You have the floor. Go ahead, sir.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will now set aside the debate over poutine and return to Bill C-10. I'll start over more or less from the beginning because I don't know at what point the interpretation stopped.
First of all, I'd like to thank all the committee members for having agreed to continue to debate the motion put forward by my colleague, Ms. Harder. The principle she is defending in her motion—freedom of expression—underpins the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that it is an issue that all members of Parliament, whatever their political party may be, should take into consideration in any future plans.
Some people listening in may not know it, but for every bill, the Minister of Justice has to table recommendations, or at least an opinion, to ensure that the bill complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and freedom of expression.
That being the case, I would ask all committee members and those who are listening to consult the public statement published by the Minister of Justice on November 18, 2020, concerning BillC-10. He had done an analysis of the bill's proposed clause 4.1. However, now that the Liberals decided just over a week ago to delete this proposed clause, the minister's analysis of issues pertaining to freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can no longer be applied in the same manner.
Last weekend, in the media and on social networks, the Liberals, in this instance Minister Guilbeault and his friends tried to convince Canadians and Quebeckers that the Conservatives were against culture, did not want to defend culture and were opposed to the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. I want to emphasize that this is not at all the case. That's not what the debate is about.
On the contrary, from the very outset, I think everyone would agree that all members of the committee showed a genuine desire to move this admittedly imperfect bill forward. This is demonstrated by the fact that after various consultations, 118 amendments were put forward, including 27 by the government itself and by Liberal MPs on the committee. This shows just how poorly the bill had been cobbled together from the getgo.
According to our analysis, by deleting this clause from the bill without prior notice just over a week ago, the government gave the CRTC the power to regulate social network users who stream content, instead of going after the major players, the GAFAs of the world, as it claims to be doing. Basically, we agree that regulation is needed to make online undertakings subject to the Broadcasting Act, on the same basis as conventional broadcasters.
We're not at war against culture; the motion we're debating today has nothing to do with that. By deleting clause 4.1 as proposed in clause 3 of the bill, the government itself is in violation. We can now no longer continue our work without obtaining a new opinion from the Minister of Justice who, in passing, is a Liberal. I therefore have trouble understanding why my Liberal colleagues and the department are opposed to our request, which is that we obtain a new opinion from the Minister of Justice. We would like him to appear before our committee to clarify the matter and tell us whether the deletion of this clause from the bill constitutes a violation of freedom of expression
Furthermore, it's worrisome to see that the minister, while taking part in a broadcast over the weekend, was unable to explain why the bill had proposed the addition of this clause to the act initially, nor why he had afterwards decided to completely delete it without providing any other information or context.
If the opposition parties, namely the Conservative party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green party, were the only ones to ask questions about it, then the people listening to us might think that they are only doing so on a partisan basis. However, numerous experts on freedom of expression or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including university professors and former CRTC commissioners and administrators, raised a red flag to say that a genuine violation had been created by the government itself.
Some previous quotes from the Prime Minister and the minister himself indicated that they were in favour of Internet regulation and Internet content. That, believe me, is scary. So when that in last Friday's debate on freedom of expression, the government tried to muzzle us by putting an end to the debate, it became even scarier.
We need to take the time to do things properly. Even if, in order to protect freedom of expression, we have to prolong our study of Bill C-10 by a week or two weeks or even three weeks, then we will be able to feel very proud of having done so.
We are not challenging culture. We want to protect our culture and our broadcasters. We all want to make sure that regulation is fair and equitable for online undertakings and conventional broadcasters. At the moment, a violation has occurred in the process through which we are ruling on amendments clause by clause. We will not be able to continue our work until we have received an answer on this matter.
As I said earlier, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said in an interview that Bill C-10 not only contravened freedom of expression, but was also an all out attack on it, and consequently on the very foundations of democracy.
We also heard from Michael Geist, emeritus professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He is so well known in his field that the government funds his projects. He is anything but a Conservative or a Liberal; he is completely non-partisan. He was even very critical of the former Conservative government. Anyone who has done their homework properly and checked his comments on Google will know this. He said that he had never, in the history of Canada, seen a government that was so anti-Internet.
There were also all the other witnesses and groups that defend rights and freedoms that made public statements, including the director of OpenMedia.
I'm also thinking of James Turk, the director of Ryerson University's Centre for Free Expression, who said that the Trudeau government, by amending Bill C-10, was planning to give the CRTC the power to regulate content generated by users of websites like YouTube. He believed that this was dangerous, that the government was going too far, and that it had to be stopped.
I'm not making any of this up. I'm not even citing all the policy analysts who deal in such issues. Unfortunately, I must say that we're not hearing much about this in Quebec yet. The idea is only beginning to percolate. However, I believe that analysts in English-speaking Canada have understood what the Liberal government tried to do.
I hope that my colleagues will be able to set partisan considerations aside. God knows that there ought not to be any when it's a matter of freedom of expression. We need to wait until we have a clear opinion on this matter before we can continue to do a clause-by-clause study of the bill.
If anyone should feel responsible for the fact that the process is taking a long time, it's the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself. To begin with, his government prorogued Parliament. Secondly, this government, which has been in power for almost six years now, spent all this time introducing a bill to enact broadcasting legislation. Thirdly, it decided on its own to delete an entire clause from the bill, the end result of which was an attack on freedom of expression.
For all these reasons, we need to take the time required to do things properly. The minister can attack us all he wants, but at least I'll be able to sleep at night because I know that I'll be working to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers. I can rest easy for having done so when faced with a government that is trying to attack these freedoms.
I hope that my colleagues will support us so that we can ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice for clarification, on the one hand, and also ask the Minister of Justice for a new legal opinion so that we can continue to do our work as the Parliament of Canada's legislators.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleagues for bringing forward this conversation.
Obviously, for me as well the charter is one of the most important things to ensure that we are in alignment with and are supporting. The NDP has always fought for freedom of expression. It's very, very important that we protect that and work on that. I think it's also very important that we get this right. This is very important to broadcasters across the country. This is very important to all Canadians.
I agree very much with some of the things I've heard my colleague Mr. Rayes say today. I'd like to propose a subamendment to Ms. Harder's amendment. I think one of the things we need to ensure as a committee is that we are trying to move this bill forward as rapidly as we can, that we are doing our due diligence and that we are doing what we need to do to ensure that we have the best legislation coming forward. This is—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. McPherson. I'm sorry to interrupt. I apologize.
Before you start, just as a matter of clarification, it's an amendment to a motion. You don't have to subamend, because we're not dealing with an amendment. It's Ms. Harder's motion, of course.
When you do the amendment, do you have a copy to send to the clerk?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I do. Would you like me to send it to the entire committee or just to the clerk, who will then forward it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
How about to the clerk, and then we'll distribute it through the entire committee?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I can describe it to everyone. It is not terribly complicated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Please do. The only thing I ask—and again I'm sorry for the interruptions—is that you do it very slowly so it gives us time to write it down and take notes.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Simms, you wouldn't be saying that I speak too fast on a regular basis, would you?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador. You all speak too slowly, so my apologies.
That said, if you could take your time with it, that would be great. Thank you.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Really all that I am looking at is imposing a bit of a time constraint on the request to the Minister of Justice to produce the charter statement so that the committee can continue to work once we have received the information back from the minister.
I would be proposing that we would request to have that information back within the next 10 days.
In paragraph (a) of Ms. Harder's motion, it would say: request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated “Charter Statement” in the next 10 days, under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act
In section (b), the addition would be:
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, in the next 10 days
In section (c), I would be including:
suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 for a maximum of 10 days, notwithstanding the Committee's decision of March 26, 2021, provided that it has received the updated “Charter Statement”
It's simply adding a time constraint, because I know everybody on this committee is very keen to get back to work to make sure that we are doing the job that our constituents have sent us to Ottawa to do and that we are in fact improving what I think we can all agree is a very imperfect bill that does need, as Mr. Rayes pointed out, almost 120 amendments from various parties.
That would be my recommendation. I certainly hope that we can move forward and continue to work.
I struggle, of course. I'm a new parliamentarian, Mr. Chair, and I struggle when I see filibustering within committees. Unfortunately, I've experienced it in a number of committees I sit on, so I would hope that we could move forward and make a decision on this and continue our work for the people of Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. McPherson, there's no need to discuss your newness. I've been here 18 years and I started this meeting with a mistake, if that makes you feel any better.
I want to reiterate what you just said, so that everybody is clear.
In paragraph (a) of Ms. Harder's motion, you want to include the words “in the next 10 days”, following “Charter Statement”.
In (b), you want to end (b) by saying “in the next 10 days”.
In (c), you want it to say “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 for a maximum of 10 days”. I missed the other part. There was another part to that.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It was to add after “decision of March 26, 2021,” the words “provided that it has received”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It is “provided that”. Okay.
I'm assuming that Aimée has received or is in the midst of receiving the wording.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It has been sent. Okay.
Folks, we're going to get that out to you ASAP if you haven't received it already.
That being said, is that it, Ms. McPherson? Do you want to add to that? You still have the floor.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I'm waiting to see the exact wording of the proposed amendment to the motion, but I may be seeking to subamend that amendment once I actually see the proper wording.
There's been a lot of talk. I want to emphasize the importance of the charter right to freedom of expression, which I believe in very strongly, as I believe our government does as well. The 4.1 amendment dealt only with social media companies when they act as broadcasters. I think sometimes that when we're having this conversation, we're veering further away from that. That was originally what the exemption was. It would have prevented social media companies from ever being included as broadcasters, even if they were acting exactly as broadcasters. That was raised and flagged to us by a stakeholder, with the example of those in the music industry, who specifically said that to allow that to happen would actually put them at a disadvantage, specifically when we see that YouTube is the number one streaming service for music in Canada.
The change that was proposed was that social media companies—not their users, because their users are specifically excluded in 2.1—would be subjected to the same rules as other broadcasters if they're acting as broadcasters. As I mentioned with the YouTube example, this is really just about creating a fair platform and evenness in the way that we are treating different services that are doing the exact same thing and working in the same field.
I want to highlight the urgency of this bill. The cultural sector has been very clear that these changes are needed and that they want to see this bill passed. I am very concerned about the delays that are proposed by the Conservative motion.
I will add that having a charter statement before the bill is complete in its review and in all of the amendments doesn't really make sense because, as they know, there are amendments coming that will further address some of the concerns they have raised about user-generated content. There are amendments—for example, G-13—that will be going to some of the issues that they have raised. To have a charter statement in advance of that would be very tricky.
I'll just underline this because I'm having a bit of a tricky point with the Conservative upset about the removal of 4.1 and the statements about being taken by surprise. The Conservatives themselves proposed an amendment that would have brought social media companies in line and included as broadcasters if they were acting as broadcasters. The only difference was that they had a carve-out for the social media companies based on the number of users. CPC-5 clearly also covered that, so we would have the same impact of having social media being included as broadcasters when acting as broadcasters.
I'm not sure how they square that circle, if they started out also believing very much that social media companies acting as broadcasters should be included.
Again, I will need to see the exact wording before I can propose a subamendment. Just so people know—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Dabrusin, I apologize for interrupting. I do this for a very sincere reason.
Ms. McPherson, we only received your amendment in one language. As you know, the normal course of things is that you can distribute in one language only with unanimous consent.
Ms. Dabrusin, I recognize that you still have the floor; no worries. Ms. McPherson, do you want to clarify there? Do you have it in French as well?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
As it is about six words, I can very easily provide that. I am not confident with my own language, but I can tell you that I know how to say dix jours.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Congratulations. That was very good, but I do need permission. I need unanimous consent in order to have your email distributed from the clerk.
I will get back to you in a second, Ms. Dabrusin. I'm looking for—
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I can send you an updated version in the next minute, if that's appropriate.
