Canadian Heritage Committee on May 6th, 2021

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. On what I understood, I understand now what she said and I understand how you've ruled. It's just that it's not what I believe the people who were voting as a committee thought they were doing.

I understand your ruling and I understand what the clerk had to say, but I don't believe it was what a lot of the people in the room thought they were doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields, that's duly noted. Thank you.

Mr. Rayes, you had a point of order.

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

I would like to understand what the difference is between the first vote, where unanimous consent was required for Ms. Dabrusin to ask to have her motion in amendment withdrawn, and the other process where she was able, without having to obtain unanimous consent, to not only withdraw her motion but to stop the whole process. Perhaps the clerk can explain that to me.

Perhaps I am not sufficiently versed in the rules, but with my rational mind as a math teacher and administrator, I can't figure out the sequence of events as far as our rules are concerned. I would like clarification, because from what I am hearing right now, I voted without knowing what the vote was on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, since you're specifically asking the clerk, I'll let her respond.

[The Clerk]

Certainly, sir.

It's just to say that a motion, once it has been moved by a member, belongs to the entire committee. Therefore, a member does not have the right to unilaterally decide that they do not wish to move that motion anymore. As it belongs to the committee, unanimous consent of the committee is required to be able to withdraw it. If unanimous consent is not received, a decision must be taken on the amendment. It can be negatived. It can be adopted. That is why unanimous consent is used for withdrawing a motion.

What Mr. Housefather proposed was a dilatory motion and the motion to adjourn debate. While he did say it was a motion to adjourn debate on the amendment of Ms. Dabrusin, the reason I clarified is that, once you propose an amendment to a motion, the amendment must be disposed of before you can return to consideration on the motion. Therefore, the act of adjourning debate on the amendment also means the act of adjourning debate on the motion.

I apologize if my precision was not more clear, but that is why I did say it before we proceeded to a vote—to be clear that we were also adjourning debate on Ms. Harder's motion at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Please don't look at this as something nefarious that we have cooked up between us. This is the way it works. I'm sorry if there was confusion.

Folks, now we have to move on to clause-by-clause.

I assume that everyone received the newer version of G-11.1.

I'm looking to Mr. Méla to confirm that's where we are starting.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

We were sent a new amendment from the government this afternoon, called G-11.1, and it would come just before BQ-23. It would be the first in line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Does everyone have that?

On G-11.1, Ms. Dabrusin, would that be you?

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

That would be me. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before we start, can I ask everyone to lower their hands now that I've recognized Madam Dabrusin?

Thank you very much.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

This was one of the amendments I mentioned earlier this evening. It deals with two separate issues.

It restricts the CRTC's order powers for social media web giants to expenditures, discoverability of Canadian creators of programs and financial information for web giants. This is restricted order powers for the CRTC in respect of social media web giants specifically.

Specifically the wording in respect of discoverability would be that:

in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs;

This will add clarity. When we talked about what the entire bill would look like as we were moving forward on this piece about social media web giants, this adds to that picture about the restricted CRTC powers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The department is with us tonight. I would love to have their opinion of what this particular addition means.

If it is the crystal clear piece that the minister has been talking about for days, the crystal that we're looking through, I would like to have the department respond as to exactly the meaning of this particular clause, which we have not had much time to deal with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.

I would be happy to speak about what the effect of the amendment would be.

What the amendment would do is in proposed new section 9.1 of the bill. It would add an additional order-making power for the CRTC with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service. That order-making power would only be with respect to social media services. It would give the CRTC the ability to make orders with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs.

In addition, the amendment would clarify that with respect to social media services, only specific order-making powers apply. There are three of them that are listed.

The first is a reference to an order-making power that was introduced through BQ-21, if I'm not mistaken. That speaks to expenditures to be made by persons carrying on broadcast undertakings for the purposes set out in section 11.1. In other words, the CRTC would have the ability to seek expenditures or financial contributions from social media services.

The second order-making power that would apply with respect to these services is the new one that Ms. Dabrusin laid out with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators.

The third power speaks to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(j), which is information-gathering powers that are provided to the CRTC. In other words, the CRTC would be able to seek certain information from online undertakings that are social media services in carrying out its duties. All the other order-making powers listed in 9.1 would not apply to social media services.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like the officials to explain the difference between this amendment being proposed by the government today, the one we received this afternoon, and the new section 4.1 that was originally proposed and the Liberals removed.

If feels like the government is trying to close the gap that was pointed out almost two weeks ago, even though the minister and his parliamentary secretary have repeatedly said that we were wrong and that it is not true that users are going to be regulated by the CRTC.

I will clarify my question.

What is the difference between this amendment and the section 4.1 that was originally proposed and then removed? I would imagine that the officials and experts in the department had a good reason for proposing the new section 4.1 in the bill in the first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.

As we discussed earlier, the original section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming uploaded to a social media service by someone not affiliated with that service.

The amendment just introduced by Ms. Dabrusin sets out the regulatory tools in proposed section 9.1 that can be used to regulate social media. These are the three tools I named in response to Mr. Shields' question. The three mechanisms will apply to social media, but the other mechanisms in proposed section 9.1 will not.

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Rayes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Aitchison.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'll actually pass and let you go on to Mr. Shields.

I'm trying to find my points in all this stuff. I have too many pieces of paper in front of me right now, and I am getting a bit confused because this is all going in circles for me.

Could you come back to me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes.

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, Ms. Dabrusin alluded to the things that she wanted to talk about. I would request that she, then, again rephrase those things now that it's actually on the table. I would like to hear, from her point of view, what she says this has done compared with what had been in proposed section 4.1.

We've had a lot of interesting things in the media, as she well knows. We have had the minister talking about its being “crystal clear”, and now it's going to be more crystal clear. As you can see, we're already struggling with what's clear and what's not.

Could you explain, from your point of view as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, how you view this now as being more crystal clear and different from what it was before? I think you were starting to do that earlier—an hour and a half ago—but I would like to ask you if you would do that now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I have Mr. Rayes next. I don't have Ms. Dabrusin in the queue, but I'm going to go to Mr. Rayes first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is related to the answer I got earlier from Mr. Ripley, if I'm not mistaken. I would appreciate it if Ms. Dabrusin could enlighten us when it is her turn to speak, since, as parliamentary secretary, she must be quite familiar with this subject.

I am on Twitter right now, and I see a post by Michael Geist. He's an expert in the field who has been quoted here several times. The senior officials will be able to confirm this, but I want to point out that I have never heard the minister or the parliamentary secretary criticize his expertise in the field. I imagine it must be precisely because of his expertise that the government has subsidized many of his projects. He has received several amounts of money in the past two years to continue his research and work in the area of freedom of expression and on various issues.

So, on Twitter, Mr. Geist writes that it's wrong to suggest that amendments G-11.1 and G-13 being considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage address the concerns about user-generated content. He clarifies that it is not the case, as he mentioned in a previous tweet.

So, I would like someone to explain this to me. The information we're getting is very technical. I'm not an expert in the field, but we have an expert here who is following this very closely, regularly posting on Twitter and doing interviews about it. He tells us that these amendments don't match what the Liberal government is implying with Bill C-10, and that they don't protect users who upload content to social networks. I'm not an expert, but I'm trying to figure this out myself. We are getting tons and tons of letters. Former commissioners, experts, and university professors are commenting on the issue and saying that it doesn't make sense.

As we speak, the government is refusing to allow us to get a new opinion from the Minister of Justice that will tell us whether the bill still complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed.

They are trying to put the blame us, the opposition. On top of that, the minister posted on Twitter that we are obstructing. I would like to tell everyone watching and listening that the one and only reason we are still here talking about this is because the minister had the gall to remove the original proposed section 4.1. He can't even explain to us why that section was originally proposed or why he removed it. He has been insulting us for two weeks, and then, all of a sudden, he tries to add things to correct his mistake.

I'm willing to listen to everyone, but I would sincerely like someone to explain to me how it is that this professor emeritus of law from the University of Ottawa is telling us that amendment G-11.1 will not fix the problem. I don't know if anyone can help me. I'd like to believe the department's experts, but other independent experts are saying the opposite right now.

As parliamentarians, freedom of expression is our responsibility.

Everyone is trying to make it sound like we in the Conservative Party are anti-culture, but that is not true. I am extremely insulted. The minister is watching us right now, and I hope he hears what I'm saying. He needs to stop repeating this to everyone over and over.

Right now, we are here to defend a fundamental aspect of our democracy, freedom of expression. We have experts stepping up and raising red flags. Some Canadians are concerned. I feel it's perfectly legitimate for us to stand up, ask questions and require further clarification, although the Liberals are trying to stop us from doing that right now.