Canadian Heritage Committee on May 6th, 2021

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, without the motion that I put forward.... It houses, if you will, the amendment put forward by Ms. Dabrusin, so if we consider strictly the amendment—in other words, just those key little phrases that say “in writing” instead of “appear before the Committee” or “as soon as possible” instead of “10 days”—I guess all I would be talking about then is writing.

I could talk about writing. I'm happy to talk about writing. Would we prefer that we talked about “writing”? That's one word in her amendment. “As soon as possible” is another—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll go back to you in one moment, Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

No. Listen. I'm seeking verification—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Harder, please, I'm asking you, number one, please don't yell into your microphone.

That's what happens when we elevate the conversation.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. You have my apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Number two, on a point of order, I have to cut it off at that and listen to the point of order. I do it for you, and now I have to do it for Ms. Dabrusin.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. I apologize.

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

The point is that I would think the debate would be why the amendment can't be withdrawn and not why it is a bad idea, given that in fact I sought to withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry. I think we just had an interpretation issue. I'm assuming that it's cleared up now.

Let's go back to Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly didn't mean to raise my voice. I do apologize.

My point is this. If we restrict ourselves only to the few words that make up the amendment, then the only words that I am permitted to debate are “explain in writing” and “as soon as possible after clause by clause is completed”. Those are the only phrases that I would be permitted to debate or discuss.

Mr. Chair, I think you would agree with me that it would not make for a productive conversation if those were the only phrases that I was allowed to discuss. Indeed, I do reference the motion that houses the amendment that has been brought forward, as is appropriate to do so, because it is the motion that gives the amendment context. Otherwise, we would all be wasting our time.

I will continue.

Mr. Geist is a legal professor and he has said quite a bit about this piece of legislation. He has raised some very serious, very significant concerns. He says, in reference to the removal of proposed section 4.1, “This is a remarkable and dangerous step in an already bad piece of legislation.”

He goes on to say:

The government believes that it should regulate all user generated content, leaving it to regulator to determine what terms and conditions will be attached to the videos of millions of Canadians on sites like Youtube, Instagram, TikTok and hundreds of other services. The Department of Justice's own Charter analysis of the bill specifically cites the exclusion to argue that it does not unduly encroach on freedom of expression rights. Without the exclusion, Bill C-10 adopts the position that a regulator sets the rules for free speech online.

What he is saying here is that, with the removal of proposed section 4.1, this bill, in its current state, would allow regulators to set rules around free speech, which then infringes upon paragraph 2(b) of our charter. Again, what I'm asking for is that we push the pause button and that we give opportunity for the justice department, for the justice minister, to take a thorough look at this legislation as it currently stands and to determine whether or not it does in fact fall in line with the charter. That's not a lot to ask.

I'm asking the elected officials around the table to give consideration to the rights and freedoms that are granted to Canadians. I'm asking the elected officials around this table to put the well-being of Canadians—their rights—before the interests of industry groups, before the interests of lobbyists, before the interests of friends. I'm asking this group to listen to the voices of experts, but not just to stop there, not just to stop with the voices of experts, but to actually refer this legislation even higher to the Department of Justice, to the justice minister, to seek a formal legal opinion.

Again, I'm not the only one asking for this. There are people who are far wiser than I am who understand this legislation to a far greater extent than I do who are advocating for this.

They include former CRTC commissioners, who, I would imagine, have a pretty good understanding of what is necessary and what would fall within the charter and what would not, and how we should go about this. If they're raising a red flag, then I think it's incumbent upon all of us to do the same.

While Ms. Dabrusin would like to continue to consider this bill in its current state, and while there are a couple of members here tonight who would like to silence my voice and take away the opportunity I have to speak to this important point, I would appeal to the committee that we take this bill and we allow it to undergo a thorough examination. The reason for this is that Canadians have concerns. Ultimately, we are accountable to them. Again, I would say that it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the charter rights of Canadians are protected.

One thing I find interesting, of course, is that today there's been an attempt made to silence me. In addition to that, what I've noticed is that whether it's on platforms of public media or in the House of Commons in question period, there is this attempt to silence. There is this attempt to incriminate those who would speak out about this legislation, or even those who would ask questions, maybe even just curious questions, but questions. Heaven forbid that you would ask a question. Heaven forbid that you would disagree. Fall in line.

I have an issue with that. In the House of Commons, any time a point has been raised that has been verified by any one of the experts I listed off earlier, the Minister of Heritage calls it fake news. Well, really, is it fake news? The piece of legislation is right in front of us. Legal experts have spoken out. I don't know that it's fake news. If questions are asked, if curiosity is had, if concerns are raised, the minister refers to those individuals as “extremist”. Really? Since when did we become a country that doesn't allow for disagreements?

Again, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects that dialogue. We should be able to have it here at this committee, but Canadians should also be able to have it out there on social media platforms, in what they call the public square.

In addition to that, the Minister of Heritage went a level deeper, took a step lower and launched attacks on me—my personal beliefs, my personal values—because I dared to ask a question about this legislation. That's wrong. Again, I think it says a lot about the minister and his creation of this legislation, and whether or not it does in fact respect the charter. I mean, just the responses within the House of Commons certainly have not. Why would we trust that the legislation itself does? Again, the experts are calling for a review. They're saying this is “dangerous”—their words.

Further to that, Ms. Dabrusin said—and the Prime Minister has as well—that this legislation is crystal clear. They're basically saying that those Canadians and those experts who are raising concerns with this legislation are just silly, they just lack intelligence, and that this legislation is crystal clear that it protects their freedom—crystal clear.

Then, Ms. Dabrusin comes today and talks about amendments that they would like to eventually move should they be given the opportunity to do so. The heritage minister, you know, he promised that it's crystal clear and there is nothing to see here, but that they are also going to amend it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

Of course, Mr. Chair, you probably know more about this than we do, and the clerk could certainly enlighten us, but it seems to me that in a debate like this, when a member starts repeating the same ideas over and over again, we can raise a point of order and ask them to come back to the topic being debated. I think Ms. Harder has clearly stated her ideas and arguments previously, and she is starting to repeat the same things. I think it's time to step in, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Again, I'd like to remind everyone of this: Let's try to keep one train of thought moving along in the same direction as far as your interventions are concerned.

Ms. Harder, there were a few times, yes, that we risked repetition, but of course, we do give a fair amount of flexibility here, as you know. You mentioned earlier your motion. Yes, let me be clear: Speak about your motion as amended by all means, but keep in mind that it's germane to what we're talking about right now, which is the consequence of Ms. Dabrusin's amendment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have another point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

There is no interpretation in French right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

There's no interpretation in French. I will just keep talking for the moment until I see you, Mr. Champoux, give me a thumbs-up once you hear that you're receiving your translation or your interpretation in French.

We're good. Okay, we'll go back to you, Ms. Harder.

Just one more thing, regarding Michael Geist, he's Dr. Geist. I'm sure he worked pretty hard for his Ph.D., and he would like to be known as Dr. Geist. Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I very much accept your point. That's excellent. He is Dr. Geist.

My point is this: You cannot, on one hand, say that this legislation is crystal clear and that it clearly protects individuals and their use of social media platforms, while simultaneously saying that amendments are needed and that you're going to bring further amendments in order to create further clarification. If it's already perfect, if it's already crystal clear, then it's good to go, but I think what is being admitted here is that this bill isn't perfect and this bill isn't crystal clear in its protection of individuals and the content they post online.

Again, it is important that we put this forward for that charter review.

I think Ms. Dabrusin would like to move that we have the charter statement at the end of this study, and I've been made aware that perhaps Mr. Housefather intends to move a similar motion that we would move the review to the end of clause-by-clause. Ms. Dabrusin has indicated that she would like to bring forward some other amendments to the bill as we go through clause-by-clause.

No. The review needs to be done now, because we're wasting our time if we talk about a piece of legislation that is so deeply flawed and we wait until the very end to get that review. We need that review now. Canadians deserve to know now. Canadians deserve to have us stand up for their charter rights now. That's not something that you put off. That's not something you wait for. That's not something you get around to when it's convenient. No. We're talking about Canadians' charter rights. We're talking about the supreme law of the land. We're talking about contending for Canadians. We're talking about the Canadians who elected us to be their representatives here in the House of Commons. We're talking about the Canadians who have entrusted us to put good legislation in place on their behalf.

We're talking about people who trust us to protect as much of their freedom as possible and about being able to justify concretely every tiny ounce of freedom that we might legislate or chip away at. We had better be able to justify that, because if we are not able to justify that, if we are not able to show that it is with good reason, then we are on our way to becoming a propaganda machine. We are on our way to becoming like China. We are on way to doing away with free press. We are on our way to doing away entirely with free speech, free expression and the ability to have our own opinions.

Mr. Housefather shakes his head, but history tells me that I'm right.

It's incumbent upon this committee to stop the clause-by-clause. Proposed section 4.1 was removed. It's an extremely important clause. This piece of legislation, in its current state, needs to go to the Department of Justice, to the justice minister, and it needs to be thoroughly reviewed.

Ms. Dabrusin would suggest that we need to be co-operative, that we need to collaborate, but the definition of collaboration that is being implied there is to do what she and perhaps the others on her team want us to do. Collaboration doesn't equal getting your own way. Collaboration means we have the discussion. It means we engage in robust debate. It means that we disagree. I mean, for crying out loud, this is how innovation works, folks. Someone puts forward a hypothesis, someone puts forward an antithesis and then there is a synthesis of new information.

This is how we grow. This is how we engage. This is how we become more sophisticated as a society. To shut that down, to ask us to turn off our minds, to fall in line, that's wrong

As much as I've just spoken of what is required here at committee in terms of respecting the voices that are around this table and allowing for dissent to rightly take place here, the bill at hand is far more about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms held by the Canadian public. It's not just a piece of paper. It's theirs, their rights, their freedoms. Again, it's incumbent upon us to protect them.

I yield the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Before Mr. Housefather takes the floor, can we have a quick bio break? We've been an hour now, and we usually take a quick break at about an hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, Mr. Aitchison, we can do that.

Folks, it's five minutes, and we'll start whether you're here or not.

We'll now have a five-minute suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll pick up where we left off on this. Once again, we are now discussing the amendment put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The previous speaker talked about respect. One thing that I've been very proud of as a member of this committee is that, until today, I found that the members of this committee showed incredible respect toward one another. There was never a time where someone asked to withdraw an amendment and unanimous consent was not granted.

What happened today was that Ms. Harder refused to grant unanimous consent for Ms. Dabrusin to withdraw an amendment that Ms. Harder is actually against, and then she proceeded to speak for an entire hour, wasting the time of the committee. We're not even going to get to the motion that Ms. Harder put before us because there's an amendment from Ms. Dabrusin that Ms. Dabrusin doesn't even want us to debate any longer. It's totally not acceptable.

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm very disappointed, and because I feel that this will just continue perpetually—and there's no purpose in debating Ms. Dabrusin's amendment because she does not even want it debated—I move to adjourn debate on Ms. Dabrusin's amendment.

[The Clerk]

Just to be clear, adjourning debate on the amendment effectively adjourns debate on the entire motion.