Canadian Heritage Committee on May 6th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madam Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear a lot of mention and discussion about experts, but I think it's interesting that in this conversation I don't hear the Conservatives referring to other experts as well who have been very much in support of the approach we've taken, including Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who put their opinion in Le Devoir recently.

I'm talking about their article “Pas de risque pour la liberté d'expression avec le projet de loi C-10”.

Also, Janet Yale worked with Monique Simard on the Yale report, in which it was also recommended that social media be included in our modernization. There are experts who, perhaps, Mr. Rayes would also like to consider when he's talking about this.

Pierre Trudel is a professor in the University of Montreal's Faculty of Law.

He is quite an esteemed expert as well.

As far as the original point is concerned, I will reiterate that proposed section 2.1 remains and has already been confirmed as part of this bill, and specifically—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. There's no more interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's from English to French, I gather.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'll just keep talking until you give me the thumbs-up and then we'll be ready to go.

Ms. Dabrusin, as you were.

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

Proposed section 2.1 was confirmed by this committee in the bill, and it specifically excludes user-generated content.

When we got to clause 3, the Conservatives had in fact proposed an amendment that would have included social media web giants within the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. That was amendment CPC-5, I believe.

Then we moved on. Proposed section 4.1 was removed, and we have been very clear that when social media web giants are acting as broadcasters, they ought to be treated as a broadcasters. There shouldn't be a free pass for social media web giants.

I have been very clear, when I have been talking about how we're proceeding through this bill, that we move clause by clause, because we're moving sequentially through the bill, but ultimately the bill must be considered in its entirety and, as we move through the different sections, we need to be talking about what the different sections entail.

We are now in the order-making section of the act, the CRTC order-making powers. What this amendment that I am moving does is it shows clearly that the CRTC's order-making powers would be restricted to when we're talking about social media web giants that are acting as broadcasters. The powers would be restricted, as set out in this amendment, to the expenditure obligations that had been put forward in amendment BQ-21, the financial information being provided by the web giants and discoverability of Canadian creators' programs. That is how that fits into the picture.

It doesn't replace something earlier in the act. It is part of the review of the bill in its entirety when we're looking at the order-making powers. It just helps to clarify those as part of a full act.

As we go, all of the parties have proposed amendments and will continue to add more so that we will have a fulsome bill once we have completed our clause-by-clause, which I am so happy we are finally at that point of being able to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just following up on that and some of the aspersions that have been placed on us by people saying that we're not interested in culture, protecting culture and being part of culture, I have my membership for the National Arts Centre here. Do any other members have one for the national art gallery? I'm an MP and I don't live here, but I have a membership and I support the national art gallery in Ottawa. I'm also a regular attender at the National Arts Centre for plays. I do that within Ottawa. I attend The Gladstone theatre here in Ottawa and the Ottawa Little Theatre.

Those aspersions I'm taking pretty personally, because back in our communities we go to these, but do you as MPs on both sides of this...? Are you members of the national art gallery? Do you go to the National Arts Centre? That aspersion cast on us as Conservatives by saying that we don't support culture, I have a problem with that.

We've quoted many experts tonight—many experts—and I would like you to take just a minute a listen to an expert who I would like to quote. It's through a letter from a constituent I have never heard from before.

She sent me this: “Though my letter is intended for the Government of Canada as a whole, it is [up] to you that my letter must find keeping. First let me begin by apologizing for an inept understanding of [how] complicated cogs and wheels that run the country I reside in. But much like I don't understand the intricacies of how a cellphone works, it doesn't mean that, as a long-time user, I wouldn't be unable to critique it's basic functions and form opinions on whether it is working for me.”

She continues: “I can tell when my cellphone is working, and likewise, I can tell when it is broken. Equally as a lifetime resident of this beautiful country I have felt the failures of my government. I'll be honest with you, this is the first time in my life I've felt such a need to reach out to and inform you of your failings. I don't wish to be rude or crass, simply poignant and direct. With this Covid-19 Pandemic causing so much confusion and destruction in the world I can't say that I know the right move, I cannot even comprehend the stress that must be...[for] those who are expected to make those decisions.”

She states: “And now my government has placed”—or broken—“the final straw, the thing I cannot sit idly by and allow [is] Bill C-10.”

As well, she says: “If allowed to pass, my government would effectively have the legal right to police social media content, produce and distribute approved [agendas, have] propagandas, and have full power of censorship. Slipping it through the [crack of confusion] during a time of extreme [COVID] citizens...amidst a crumbling of political trust, my Federal Government decided now would be the time to gain control over media and internet content regulation. As I've mentioned, I know little in the way of government operations, but...[t]his feels wrong. This feels dictatorial and in fact, in its most basic form and definition Bill C-10 IS non-constitutional. How can it possibly be allowed to pass when it goes against the basic...rights of free speech and expression...that self-same government was elected to protect?”

She adds: “While my government claims that those changes Bill C-10 represents will only apply to 'professional content' this bill would effectively allow them to censor and regulate social media providers and users in Canada. I was shocked upon reading the words of Peter Menzies, the former CRTC commissioner, in an article available on the National Post that said that “[Bill C-10] doesn't just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it...and, through it, [to] the foundations of democracy.”

Finally, she says that, as with some other things federally, our voice “must be respected and there must be consequences for...breaking those...Constitutional Rights by their 'trusted' and elected leaders. I used to feel pride in being a Canadian, and I still do feel [we have] pride to be a part of this land and country. But I do not feel [proud] being a Canadian Citizen under this government. I feel swindled. I feel overlooked. I feel betrayed. And I call for...change. Please restore my faith in this government. Stop the crumbling”—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, Mr. Shields.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I hate to interrupt my colleague Mr. Shields, but I would just like some clarification on where we are in the debate. Are we debating amendment G-11.1 now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, Mr. Champoux, we are talking about G-11.1.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields, did I guess correctly that you're just about done?

As a quick reminder, if you're reading from a letter, you may want to slow down a bit more for the sake of our interpretation.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I'm sorry. I wanted to get through it and not hold up people on it.

The point is that we've quoted many experts, and Ms. Dabrusin was again referring to experts on one side of the opinions as we maybe referred to different ones. I just want to bring to light that our citizens are our shareholders. They are our stakeholders. They are why we are here. This is a constituent I've never heard from before, who has never written to an MP before, and I just want to bring that real voice.

We've quoted experts. Ms. Dabrusin quoted experts in support of her amendment. Many experts have been quoted, so I want to quote who I believe are the true experts: the people who read the media out there. She didn't follow me and get this from me. She read it in one of our major media publications, and this is how this person feels in this time of COVID and frustration and confusion. She feels that Bill C-10, from what she has read, really is the last straw.

I just want to bring the voice of a person, a citizen, and how they feel that this piece of legislation personally affects them.

It isn't the experts we've quoted that we think are the doctors and academics. It's a citizen and how she feels. I think that is so valuable. We must not forget that the experts are our voters. They are the citizens in our country. How they perceive this legislation to affect them in their places, in their lives in this country... That's a voice that hasn't been represented when we've talked about experts and this particular amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Aitchison.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'm probably going to speak again about my state of confusion still. What I'm struggling with here, Mr. Chair, is.... I understand that this amendment has been proposed by Ms. Dabrusin, because of the removal of proposed section 4.1, in an effort to make things, I guess, more crystal clear than they were before. I guess I remain frustrated by my confusion about the committee process, because I still think that what we ultimately need to do here is to get that new charter statement on where we're at.

What I would suggest is that perhaps these new amendments Ms. Dabrusin has proposed can form part of our request to the Minister of Justice. We had a charter statement based on Bill C-10 back in November before it came to our committee, and that was all well and good. Then we took out proposed section 4.1, and all these questions got raised. We were told that it was crystal clear. Apparently, it's not crystal clear, and now we're bringing this back. It begs the question: Does this new amendment actually do what proposed section 4.1 did as effectively? Does it do it at all?

I only got this earlier today. I don't think that is entirely fair for a rookie like me to truly get my head around it.

I'll be honest, Mr. Chair. I'm so used to municipal politics, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, where we get along and are all about the good of our communities. I don't have a lot of trust right now. I feel like because I.... I've been called an extremist because I've expressed some legitimate concerns from the people I represent about whether this bill does, in fact, infringe upon freedom of expression. All of a sudden, I'm wondering if I am I not an extremist now and was quite reasonable in my earlier request, because now Ms. Dabrusin has brought this latest amendment forward. Am I not an extremist?

Maybe I'm looking for an apology from Mr. Guilbeault for calling me names. However, if I'm not an extremist and my concerns were legitimate about the removal of proposed section 4.1, then I have to assume that everyone understands that my concern remains on this latest amendment brought forward by Ms. Dabrusin, who last week was telling us that we were all crazy.

Maybe “crazy” is not the word—I apologize—but she was telling us that we were all overreacting and that the Conservatives were spreading misinformation about this situation. Now she is bringing an amendment forward to address those concerns, and I'm just supposed to sit back and say, “Hey, that's great. You've addressed our concerns,” without having a chance to really dig into this.

As I said, I don't know who has the time to do a thorough analysis in the course of a couple of hours in the middle of a regular workday on Parliament Hill, but I certainly don't. I just think that it is unfair to call us extremists one day and say it's crystal clear, and then come back with an amendment, saying, “Oh, this will make it more crystal clear. You have nothing to worry about. Just trust me. Everything will be fine.” I don't. I simply don't.

I don't know if I can do this or not, Mr. Chair, but I would move that we put Ms. Harder's motion back on the table and send this to the Minister of Justice. Whether there are new amendments to replace proposed section 4.1 or not, we've fundamentally changed this bill. Canadians are justifiably concerned. I think we can probably establish that I'm not an extremist and that it's a legitimate question. The justice minister should have a look at where things are at—including these latest proposals that have been thrown at us in the final hours—to see whether, in fact, with these proposals, the charter statement we had before is still valid or whether we need to make even more changes.

I struggle with this, Mr. Chair. I'm not used to being called names by a cabinet minister, but if the concerns were legitimate enough to bring forward a new amendment, then I think the latest amendment that is being proposed should be reviewed by the justice minister as well. We should take the time to do that, because I fundamentally believe, and I think you all do, that doing this right is far more important than doing it quickly.

Canadians expect nothing less of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope my frustration wasn't too long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask my next question, I'd first like to get an answer to what I asked the officials earlier. After I asked my question, we went to the next person on the list, Ms. Dabrusin, who took the floor and replied. I don't hold it against you, Mr. Chair, because I know things move very quickly.

My question was about Michael Geist, a recognized expert whose work and statements I have been following. I asked if they thought he had any credibility in this area. I asked not only Ms. Dabrusin, who did not answer me, but also the officials. I'm trying to get my head around the advice of outside experts in any area that is opposed to the advice of senior officials, whom I respect as well. It's possible that there will be confrontations. That's why people sometimes go to court; the parties offer testimony on both sides, and we try to find common ground or a solution.

So I would first like to hear whether or not officials at the Department of Canadian Heritage consider Michael Geist to be a credible expert. Then I'll ask my next question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You had two questions, one for the department and the next one was for Ms. Dabrusin. I'll leave that there. If Ms. Dabrusin wants to reply that's her choice.

In the meantime, here's Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.

Unfortunately, I'm not here to give my opinion on such an issue, but rather to support the committee by providing technical explanations of its work.

There is definitely a difference between the effect of the originally proposed section 4.1, which was withdrawn by the committee, and the amendment proposed by Ms. Dabrusin. Without the proposed section 4.1, social media that meets the definition of an online business is subject to the act. The purpose of Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is to clarify the three powers of the CRTC that would apply to these online companies. Proposed section 4.1 stated that these powers would not apply to social media that only offered social media programming. Now, the three powers mentioned in Ms. Dabrusin's amendment would apply to these companies.

I think that's the difference between the exclusion that was initially stated in the proposed section 4.1 in the bill and the approach proposed here by the government.

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

Thank you.

Can I ask my second question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

Given what Mr. Ripley just explained to us, I think everyone needs to understand the state of mind we're in.

As just explained, proposed section 4.1 initially changed the way the act did or did not apply to social media. It was removed. I think everyone saw the outcry that ensued. Even the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were pressured, so amendments were made to Ms. Harder's motion. We tried to find a compromise by setting a deadline, so as not to delay the process too much. We are asking to pause only long enough to get a new legal opinion from the Minister of Justice, to be clear on whether, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed, the bill infringes on the freedom of expression of Canadians.

I think everyone understands our frustration. For over a week and a half, we were told that our statements were false. Then Ms. Dabrusin and the Minister attacked us by saying that we were anti-culture and that it was not true that this government decision was hurting users. Now, we feel that the Liberals are subtly trying to calm things down by proposing other amendments without our having the necessary expertise to judge them properly, and at a time when we have lost confidence in this government. Indeed, it has been engaging in demagoguery and spreading confusion by suggesting to people in the cultural community that we are anti-culture. I salute Mr. Shields, who has shown us his love for culture.

I invite Ms. Dabrusin and Minister Guilbeault to come to my riding to talk to my constituents about everything I've done, as mayor of Victoriaville, with my municipal council, to serve our local cultural sector. We have worked on the construction of a cultural megacentre, the first of its kind in 40 years. We have also supported the Festival international de musique actuelle de Victoriaville, as well as the Théâtre Parminou, which performs guerilla theatre, particularly in indigenous communities. We have also set up exhibition halls. These are just a few examples.

So I find it deplorable that we are being attacked in this way by suggesting that we are against culture, when we simply want to defend freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our responsibility. Actions like this certainly make us lose confidence in this government.

This brings me to what I wanted to say about University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. A few minutes ago, he tweeted that Ms. Dabrusin was talking about a new amendment that the government believed would address public concerns. However, as department officials just explained, that's not even close. In fact, according to Dr. Geist, it would create a new power for the CRTC to deal with user-generated content as social media or programming companies.

So you can understand our confusion after we heard this expert say that.

By the way, I'd like to say that it wasn't my intention to put officials in opposition to an expert like that. I understand Mr. Ripley's uneasiness, or at least his response that he couldn't comment on the issue.

When the government attacks us at at time when we want to defend freedom of expression, and in so doing shows partisanship, it isn't just us that it's attacking, but all the experts who don't share its opinion. In fact, the government has changed its opinion along the way, which undermines its credibility in this regard. It's attacking these experts and the Canadians who have written to us. Canadians didn't just write to us. I know of Liberal members who have received feedback from their own constituents telling them that they are making a mistake.

When I read what Michael Geist is writing online, warning us that this isn't true, that this amendment won't address public concerns, and that it will even give the CRTC more power over user-generated content, I'm totally confused.

All we're asking for in Ms. Harder's motion is a new opinion from the Minister of Justice, who is also a Liberal. If the minister is so confident, before we continue the debate on all the other amendments of Bill C-10, which means that this loss of confidence—