Evidence of meeting #31 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 amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
It's interesting that a number of members from the red team have determined that my voice should not be heard, that I am somehow out of line and that the things I am discussing somehow miss the mark in terms of this motion. If you recall, just a few months ago, at the ethics committee, Liberal members initiated a debate on boxers versus briefs.
I find it interesting that somehow that had to do with the WE Charity Foundation and money that was given—
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Harder, I think I may take the initiative on this one. I appreciate where you're coming from. I've been in enough filibusters in my life to surpass the years I spent in high school, and that's quite a lot. However, to be quite honest with you, I think I addressed what Madam Bessette said.
How about you stick to the motion and I'll deal with any objections that come forward? Thank you very much. I enjoyed the question, but nevertheless we have to move on.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would be happy to continue. Thank you. I appreciate it.
As I was saying, it is a widely held belief in free countries that the content individuals post on social media should not be regulated, because as soon as it is regulated, it becomes an imposition on their freedoms. Then we go down a path of censoring what is okay and what is not okay to be said, what is okay and what is not okay to be expressed, what is okay and not okay to think or feel, what things are okay to like and what things are not okay to like.
The government talks about Canadian content. Then they talk about preserving “social culture” or “Canadian culture”. Who defines these things? I am curious. Who is going to be the arbiter of what preserves Canadian culture? Since when is respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not considered an utmost point within protecting Canadian culture? Shouldn't that be the very first thing we would want to do, if we truly desire to preserve Canadian culture? Should we not then want to allow Canadians the freedom to express their opinions, to hold their own beliefs and to put up a video they wish to post?
I understand, when we go down the road and we get into things like hate speech.... I understand that. That's why we have the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code protects people from such things as hate speech. What we're talking about here today, however, is the content that an individual posts on their social media page, because it's the public square. That's where they engage in conversations with friends and family and the general public. The content that individuals post there, the things they say there, the videos they share, the beliefs they express, should not be subject to regulations. This bill would mandate that this would in fact be the case.
It has been raised by many that this implicates freedom of expression and that it raises a huge number of questions with regard to people's charter rights.
For us to continue considering this bill in its current state would be a mistake, because then we would be considering this legislation as it stands now. It has already been stated clearly, by multiple experts on the topic including former CRTC commissioners, that this legislation goes too far, that it is overreaching and that it infringes upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
To suggest that we keep going and then, once we get to the end, seek a charter statement, and even then, once we have that charter statement.... To go back and make changes wouldn't necessarily be permitted. It's not guaranteed that we will get to make those changes, because making those changes would require unanimous consent from the members around the table.
Canadians don't want us to go there. Canadians don't want us to bind our hands, and that's exactly what would be happening. We'd be handcuffing ourselves.
It's better that we get the charter statement now, before continuing. If we get that charter statement now—if we seek that legal opinion before continuing—it allows us the opportunity to then consider this bill under that precedent. Then we can make the changes that are necessary as we go along. The ability to do that then allows us to rightly protect the precious freedoms that Canadians hold.
It is incumbent upon us to push the pause button. It's incumbent upon us to seek that refreshed charter statement, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed and the dramatic change that results from that. Canadians deserve that. Canadians deserve to have their voices heard. Canadians, more importantly, deserve to have their rights and freedoms protected. Canadians deserve the ability to express freely their opinions and their beliefs and to be able to participate in what is now the new public square.
They should be able to do that, free from having their content scrutinized, regulated, taken down or bumped up in priority, based on what the CRTC, and whoever within the CRTC becomes the czar of truth, determines. Canadians deserve better than that.
The motion in front of me, which calls for us to continue and promises, at the end, that a charter statement will be sought and that the committee will hear from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage as soon as possible to discuss the revised charter statement, that motion is not good enough. It's just not. It's not good enough for Canadians. They deserve better.
Rather than proceeding with that motion—or rather than voting in favour of that motion, I should say—I would suggest that we seek the charter statement now, before continuing rather than at the end.
I think I'm done for now.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin my intervention, I would like to mention two minor things.
First, I would like you to tell me what order we are speaking in, considering all the raised hands I am seeing.
Second—
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I think we have a problem with the interpretation. Don't we?
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I think we have.... Could you just tell me about your riding again. In one sentence, tell me how wonderful it is so that we can do a test.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was saying that, before I begin my intervention, I have a question and a request.
First, considering all the raised hands I am seeing, could you tell us in what order the speakers could take the floor, be it here by the end of today's meeting or next time, when we continue the debate?
Second, as the meeting has been going for an hour and 10 minutes, I would like to take the five–minute break you allow when we request it. After the break, it would be my pleasure to talk to you about my honourable colleague Mr. Housefather's motion.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Rayes.
I'm going to take you up on that bio break if everyone is in agreement, for five minutes. Before I do that, very quickly, I 'll say, if you look at the side of your screen, your name automatically goes to the top if you do something. My screen here, however, has the actual list of people who did key in when they were supposed to key in, or tap in—whatever the right word is.
Right now, sir, I have you. Following that, I have Mr. Champoux, Mr. Aitchison, Mr. Manly, Ms. Dabrusin, Ms. Ien, Madam Bessette, Mr. Louis, Ms. McPherson, Mr. Waugh and Mr. Shields. Apparently, everybody's talkative on a Friday afternoon. That's quite a list.
Folks, we'll pause for five minutes or less. I'll look for you to come back on screen, and we will reconvene.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We'll resume.
Welcome back, everybody, from a little bio break. It's good to see everyone.
Let's go back to Mr. Rayes.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague Mr. Housefather.
As I said before when I took the floor, I really like Mr. Housefather, and not only because he is a Quebecker and a Canadian. The openness he has shown in various debates and his willingness to work in partnership have often been highlighted by the members of all parties in the House of Commons. However, that does not mean we are always in agreement. I see him smiling; he knows what is coming. I don't have only praise for him, but I don't want to criticize him, either.
Before I begin, I want to come back to the fact that he raised a point of order to underscore that, had my colleague not taken time to speak, the committee could have already voted on his motion, and even on Ms. Harder's motion, if necessary. I have two things to say to him. First, we would have liked to vote on Ms. Harder's motion, but the Liberals ended the debate by moving a motion to adjourn. So we did not even have the opportunity to do that. Second, since the beginning, we have been calling for the committee to suspend its operation, while waiting for the Minister of Justice to provide us with a new statement and for the two ministers to appear before the committee. Had this proposal been agreed to, we would have already had the minister's new statement and we would already be working on the amendments to the bill—in other words, proceeding with the clause–by–clause consideration of the bill.
However, that is not the decision the committee made. A motion to adjourn was proposed to end the discussion on Ms. Harder's motion, even though the NDP and the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment to impose a deadline on the minister to quickly submit a new statement to us, so that we could continue our work.
We are now dealing with a new motion. Some people feel that this is an acceptable compromise to Ms. Harder's proposal. The motion enables us to continue with the committee's operations and to avoid slowing the process down. What is more, depending on the minister's new statement, we will have an opportunity to propose new amendments, as needed, at the very end of the process.
That said, Ms. Harder highlighted one of the major flaws of Mr. Housefather's motion. I sincerely don't think that Mr. Housefather acted in bad faith. I think that, when he moved his motion, he truly wanted to find an acceptable compromise, so that we could get back to our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Nevertheless, an element was forgotten, although I am sure it was not intentional. We found that flaw upon reading the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—the big green book.
The motion proposes that we work together on amendments before we even get the minister's statement on the central element of this debate, the deleting of the initially proposed clause 4.1. After we finish our work, if, in light of the minister's statement and despite the amendments that have been adopted or rejected, we note that the bill still has real flaws, we could amend the bill further. However, since we need unanimous consent to return to an amendment, members of the government or of another party will have the power to block the process.
I think that is the motion's major flaw. We are not pausing committee work while we wait for the statement from the Minister of Justice and hear from him and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as it was requested. The motion also does not impose a deadline to avoid this taking too long. A deadline would help our work mover forward nicely, as the case was before the fateful moment when clause 4.1 was deleted and clause 3 of the bill was proposed.
I want to tell people who are listening to us that this is not a debate between culture and freedom of expression. Those are two important elements. We all agree with defending culture. Unfortunately, the minister and his parliamentary secretary, I think, are saying things in the media that are misleading us. I apologize, Mr. Chair, I should not be saying this. Even the minister tried to accuse me of misleading people during question period, and he had to apologize for that. Let's rather say that the wrong message is being sent to cultural stakeholders by making them believe that culture is not important to us. Our desire to defend freedom of expression, which is the very foundation of our job as members of Parliament, is implying that we are opposed to culture, and that should not be the case now.
This is why it is important to clarify that matter before going further. I am personally not comfortable continuing the process, knowing that, at the end of the day, we may not be able to make the amendments we deem necessary, based on the Liberal minister's statement, to protect users who generate content on social networks.
This is not about creating a war between major social networks, on the one hand, and users, on the other hand. I think users' freedom of expression must be protected and precedent setting avoided. We must avoid a well-meaning group being able to decide what is good and what is not. I think this is important and want to point it out.
My colleague Mr. Shields felt the need yesterday to show his love for culture. I also felt that need. I was sincerely offended, upset and shocked to see our will to protect the French fact and Canadian culture questioned. In reality, we have been responsive to organizations in these areas. We have even proposed a number of amendments and subamendments that show this.
Two weeks ago, a shocking event occurred that no one saw coming. On a Friday afternoon, with no warning, the government proposed that a clause from Bill C-10 be deleted. That took us by surprise. The change caused a huge outcry across Canada by citizens, experts and university professors. Some well-known experts have already been named, but I could name some others. I took the time to name a few during oral question period.
Among those who are often named is Peter Menzies, former commissioner at the Canadian Radio–television and Telecommunications Commission. He made a scathing comment, which is making me reluctant to support Mr. Housefather's motion. I am not fully convinced that we could ultimately make changes to the amendments, as that would require the committee's unanimous consent. So I implore my NDP and Bloc Québécois colleagues to be careful about this element, which I did not see coming right away either, when we received in our emails the idea of Mr. Housefather's amendment.
Mr. Menzies said this was a full–blown attack on freedom of expression and the very foundations of democracy. He finds it difficult to understand the level of pride or incompetence, or both, that may lead someone to believe that such an infringement of rights is justifiable. Those are pretty strong statements from someone who has been commissioner of the CRTC, when we consider all of that organization's powers.
Michael Geist was all also named numerous times, and I will talk to you about him a bit later to explain why Mr. Housefather's motion worries me. Mr. Geist said that this was the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history. Unfortunately, I have still not heard any Liberal members attack Mr. Geist by saying that his statements were demagogic or inappropriate. I don't know whether the Liberals are afraid of provoking him or they are all simply fully aware of his expertise level and of how right he is. It is true that, every time an issue is raised in his area of expertise, Mr. Geist is quick to react thanks to his relevant knowledge on international matters.
So I would like people to stop saying that we are opposed to culture because that's not true. Here is what I have to say to the committee members and to people listening to us. The government has been in power for six years. It prorogued Parliament for reasons I don't want to get into, as I will be told that I am getting off topic, but there have been scandals related to the WE Charity, which the government wanted to bury by trying to halt the project.
By the way, some are blaming us by saying that we are now filibustering. However, if we look at the list of committees, we see that a number of them currently have their work completely blocked because the government wants to avoid discussions on Liberal scandals, such as the allegations against Mr. Vance, the WE Charity, and so on.
We are speaking out to defend freedom of expression. I don't feel that I am filibustering, but rather fighting for Canadians who feel that Bill C-10 attacks their freedom of expression.
What I am getting at is that the Liberals have been in power for six years, and that is how long it took them to introduce this bill.
We have been debating in committee without issues since the beginning. I challenge anyone to find a single moment, before the proposed clause 4.1 was deleted, when the consideration of the bill was delayed. Despite what the minister and his parliamentary secretary said in the media and on social networks, can a single moment be found when the legislative process, which is managed by the government leader and his team, was delayed?
We agreed to conduct a preliminary study of the bill, so that the committee would start hearing from witnesses at the same time as members were using their legitimate right to express themselves on the bill in the House of Commons. Some felt that the bill was incomplete, or that it was a bad bill, while others thought the bill was basically good, but they wanted to improve it through amendments. Everything was going well, even in committee. Liberals were supporting Conservative amendments, the NDP was supporting the Bloc Québécois amendments, and vice versa.
Mr. Chair, I am hearing the interpretation in English.
It's okay, I think the problem has been resolved.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I was saying we have been waiting six years for the Liberal government to bring forward this legislation.
Everything was going smoothly. The minister was the one who gave the instruction to remove an element from the bill. In a major interview, he couldn't even explain why the section had been included in the first place or why he had asked for it to be removed. Then, he assured us that everyone would be protected. Two or three days ago, the minister announced in a tweet that further amendments would be brought forward to clear everything up. Then, we—not the minister—are accused of lying and misleading Canadians when we say that the bill does not protect users. The Liberals, however, are the ones bringing forward further amendments in an effort to remedy the problem they, themselves, created by removing the section. That means they put forward bad amendments, on top of it all. I find that worrisome.
To be frank, as I said at last night's meeting—which was added—I have lost confidence in the minister. As happens in regular life, we sometimes lose faith in friends and loved ones, so that confidence has to be rebuilt. People often say it takes years to build a friendship but only an instant to destroy it. It is incumbent upon the minister to regain that confidence. It is up to him to show us that he is being sincere, and the best way to do that is to not stand in the way of the committee hitting the pause button for a few days.
I would say that, since we started talking about this, the Minister of Justice has begun preparing a written opinion. He has to consider everything that is going on to prepare that opinion. Like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, he must have a multitude of public servants and political advisers watching each of our meetings to know what's being said. Regardless, in his motion, Mr. Housefather is ultimately calling on the minister to issue a new opinion.
If the bill is as clear as the government says, why not take a short pause, so we can get everything cleared up and go back to making good progress like before?
Some are even saying we should go back to the drawing board. That says a lot. The loss of confidence is so great that some experts on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression are starting to point to a serious problem. Are we being hoodwinked? It feels that way. That confidence goes to the heart of this very work, as we try to get answers to all of our questions.
Mr. Housefather's motion suggests a genuine desire to find a compromise, but a compromise in response to what? We already had a compromise, and everything was going fine.
The government caused all of this by deciding to remove proposed section 4.1. Had the government not done what it did, we might have been finished our study of Bill C-10 by now. Nevertheless, the mistake was made, and it has to be fixed. We need a new opinion from the minister before we can go any further. What's a few days after a six-year wait?
Enough with the accusations that we are pushing culture to the side and that we don't want to help those in the sector. We even submitted a unanimous report regarding our study on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors so the government could make good budget decisions.
The organization Friends of Canadian Broadcasting had even raised a red flag over proposed section 4.1, pointing out that it also applied to users, so they needed to be protected. The organization did not recommend removing the proposed section altogether. Worst case, it could have been amended, if necessary.
The minister was aware of those positions and explanations. He consulted the same groups we, the opposition parties, consulted before we got to this point.
I am very concerned about where the committee goes from here. It's clear where things are headed. Some would have us keep going, amendment by amendment, but freedom of expression is too important of an issue to sidestep.
I repeat: this is not about pitting culture and freedom of expression against one another. We must stand up for both. The Minister of Justice issued a charter statement relating to freedom of expression on November 18 or 20 of last year. I don't recall the exact date, but it's available on the federal government's website. The people following our proceedings right now may not know this, but every single government bill has to undergo a review by the Minister of justice for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The minister issued his recommendation taking into account proposed section 4.1, which the bill would have added to the Broadcasting Act. Now that the proposed section has been deleted, the opinion has no leg to stand on. It's like pulling the foundation out from under house. It reminds me of that game where you construct a tower with a bunch of wooden blocks. Those who have played before know how it works: players pull out blocks one at a time, but as soon as someone pulls out a block from the bottom, the tower comes crashing down. Allowing this to go forward would be akin to cheating, holding up the tower with our hands to keep it from crumbling.
We are asking for a pause. We want the Minister of Justice to quickly issue a new opinion so we have the clarity we need to move forward. It would show a modicum of good faith to put Mr. Housefather's motion aside and move forward accordingly.
Why do I say that?
I brought up Peter Menzies earlier. After our meeting yesterday, comments were posted on Twitter. I'm sure all the committee members read what he posted, given his eminent expertise in the field. I will try to recap what he said.
Mr. Menzies wondered how Mr. Guilbeault's amendment to Bill C-10 clarified the CRTC's regulation of user-generated content. He stated that, for the past week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Guilbeault, promised to address widespread concerns over Bill C-10, the bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. After the issue became the subject of growing debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Guilbeault indicated that the Liberals, too, wanted to make sure content uploaded by users to social media would not be deemed programming under the act and thus not be regulated by the CRTC. He added that that was why the Liberals would be bringing forward another amendment to ensure that this was absolutely clear.
The Prime Minister reiterated the message on Wednesday in the House of Commons, saying and I quote:
We have been clear that this is not about individual users or about what individual Canadians post online. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, we will be bringing forward an amendment to ensure that this is absolutely clear.
He had just contradicted his own minister, who actually contradicted himself by denying that users were impacted by the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.
I want to cite Mr. Geist, because the sequence of events is crucial to understand why we cannot keep dealing with the bill one amendment at a time and hoping for unanimous consent in the end to revisit certain amendments. It would be more reassuring if the Liberals were to agree in writing, in the presence of counsel, to give us the ongoing ability to revisit amendments at the end of the process, should we wish to propose others. I doubt they would, however.
Last night, at a somewhat strange Canadian heritage committee meeting, Liberal member Ms. Dabrusin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, brought forward the promised amendment. Instead of confirming that the content Canadians upload to social media would not be deemed programming under the Broadcasting Act, the amendment does precisely the opposite.
First, the amendment does not reinstate the exception that was set out in proposed section 4.1, which was touted as a safeguard against the regulation of user-generated content. Second, not only does user-generated content continue to be subject to regulation, but the amendment also confirms the CRTC's regulatory authority, including a new power specifically designed for social media. In other words, instead of backing down in the face of public criticism, the government doubled down on its plan to regulate the Internet. It's madness.
I am trying to untangle it all. The minister and his officials initially proposed adding section 4.1 to the act to protect users, but then took it away on the pretext that users were protected regardless. At the end of the day, that is not true, and the government is putting forward a new amendment. According to the experts, the government is actually making things worse with its new amendment, G -11.1
We agreed to set amendment G-11.1 aside in order to consider Mr. Housefather's motion.
As Mr. Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and subject matter expert, goes on to explain, amendment G-11.1 adds to the list of conditions the CRTC can impose on online undertakings. As amended, the provision would read as follows:
9.1(1) The Commission [the CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting … (i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs …
According to Mr. Geist, the proposed amendments establish some regulatory limits that restrict what the CRTC can do in relation to user-generated content, but the overall approach is indeed supposedly crystal clear. User-generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10, and as a result, the content of millions of Canadians' feeds on social media will be subject to regulation.
What I just told you is madness. When an articulate and eminent expert in the field makes a comment like that, I understandably have concerns about the honourable member Mr. Housefather's motion.
Mr. Geist points out that content on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube will now be approved by the CRTC, because it sets the conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content. By regulating user-generated content in this way, Canada will be an outlier with respect to Internet regulation. In a previous post, Mr. Geist stated that even the European Union, with its extensive regulations, ensured that video sharing platforms were not subject to regulatory requirements to prioritize some user-generated content over other content.
Mr. Geist goes on to say that there is good reason to not regulate user-generated content in this manner, since it has implications for freedom of expression and raises a host of questions. I want to stress how important those questions are, questions we have every right to ask. For example, how will companies determine what constitutes Canadian content? Will Canadians be required to surrender more personal information to big tech companies as part of the new rules? What requirements will be established for individual feeds?
Now we are getting into people's personal information—information the tech giants could force users to provide. That is to say nothing of the algorithms these companies use, which raise a whole slew of other questions. We don't have the necessary expertise at this time to arrive at an informed opinion.
As someone who used to represent educators, I cannot overstate how much it bothers me to make a decision that is uninformed.
That brings to mind an important rule of project management. It has four parts. First, know the project. Second, understand the project. Third, support the project. It will then be possible to, fourth and finally, implement the project. Since I'm having trouble knowing and understanding just what the government is proposing, I can't go on to support or implement it. It's basic decision-making.
I'm conflicted right now. Given what the experts are telling me, I am not in a position to make an informed decision on Mr. Housefather's motion.
Mr. Geist's analysis of amendment G-11.1 doesn't stop there.
I might add that amendment G-11.1 is the next amendment we are supposed to examine, despite the fact that we don't know where the Minister of Justice stands. If we adopt Mr. Housefather's motion, we will be going ahead without the benefit of the minister's expertise or the answers to our questions. Later on, if we feel the need to backtrack, it won't be possible to do so without unanimous consent.
Given the attacks of Mr. Guilbeault and his parliamentary secretary over the past two weeks, I don't feel confident that I would get the unanimous consent needed to propose amendments, if the Minister of Justice came to the conclusion that any part of the work we were doing here was not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I say that, I have trouble believing that anyone would be against charter compliance.
Back to Mr. Geist's post. He states that Canadian Heritage officials removed any doubt about the implications of the amendment. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to repeat this next part, given the critical tone, but these are the professor's comments. Regardless, criticism is a necessary part of the process to move forward and make things better. I'm sure departmental officials have already seen what he had to say. I don't mean to suggest that there was any bad faith on their part. I am simply saying that people's thinking is informed by their own understanding and by the people who influence them.
According to Mr. Geist, department officials told members of Parliament that the amendment to proposed section 9.1 of the bill would give the CRTC an additional power, the power to make orders with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service. That order-making power would apply only to a social media service. It would give the CRTC the ability to make orders with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators' programs.
Mr. Geist points out that, in response to another member's question—it might actually be a question I asked, I'm not sure—officials reiterated that proposed section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming that was uploaded on social media by someone who was not affiliated to that social media. The motion put forward by Ms. Dabrusin, amendment G-11.1, defines what regulatory tools under proposed section 9.1 can be used vis-à-vis social media.
I'm nearing the end of Mr. Geist's analysis. I'll wrap up by telling you where I stand on the motion.
Minister Guilbeault and the government promised to remove the parts that give the CRTC the power to regulate user-generated content. Instead, yesterday, they effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place.
As Navneet Alang states in the Toronto Star, in a column critical of Facebook, the right to speak on social media includes the right to be amplified and to be free to have an audience. That part is key. It means we should be requiring greater algorithmic transparency from Internet companies, not substituting their choices for those crafted through government regulation. That is the difference. That is the hook around which demagogues rally, making people believe—because the issue is so complex—that users, big tech, culture and freedom of expression are all at odds.
I have shown nothing but good faith since I have been on the committee. I was elected vice-chair and even had the privilege of standing in for you a few times, Mr. Chair. I can attest to what a feat it is to run a meeting like this, ensuring its orderly conduct in accordance with all the rules. Although we challenge your decisions at times, it does not mean that we question your ability or authority. I can certainly speak to that.
No matter how you slice it, despite Mr. Housefather's genuine desire not to delay the bill's passage, it is clear to me that this is a specious debate. All we are asking for is to hit the pause button for a few days. It would take just a few days to obtain the Minister of Justice's legal opinion.
Had there been support at the outset for what this motion seeks to do—obtain a new legal opinion—the matter would have been settled by now. Today, we would know whether the removal of proposed section 4.1 has any repercussions on freedom of expression. If the minister determined that there were none, we could have carried on with our study as per usual. If not, I think we would have had one heck of a problem. I think we have one heck of a problem right now, for that matter. That is why I am so adamant about finding some way to put the study on hold. We are not trying to delay helping the cultural sector. I repeat, all we need is a few days.
The expert panel that had previously endorsed Bill C-10 even had to write another letter of support because some of its members no longer wanted to support it. Right now, people across the country are opposed to the bill. I can tell you that I feel pressure, not from my party, but from Canadians and Quebeckers who feel attacked. I must respond to them.
It doesn't matter whether the minister likes this or not. He's trying to grandstand. By the way, it would be nice if a Liberal member could send him the message that his attacks slide off me like water off a duck's back. They really don't work. They won't change my commitment to freedom of expression at all costs.
As I said before—I can't remember whether it was in this committee or in an interview—my parents are Egyptian. You may say that my comments are off topic. However, my point is important because it explains why I'm so strongly opposed to this motion. My parents came to Canada from Egypt. When I had the opportunity to speak to my father about why he and my mother decided to move our entire family from their beloved home country to Canada, I remember his answer like it was yesterday. He often repeats it when we talk about major political and social debates. He and my mother came to Canada so that we could enjoy freedom of expression and religion; choose our own paths, whatever they may be; and access the Canadian justice system. Although this system isn't perfect, we should always strive to change it. This is in my DNA.
During the oral question period, the minister tried to attack one of the values that I hold so dear by suggesting that I was misleading the public. Goodness knows the Speaker of the House quickly called him to order. He then tried to sidestep the issue, but he subsequently respected decorum. I want to thank him for that.
I can't go on like this. I'll do everything in my power to defend freedom of expression. I invite the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats to do the right thing if they really want to make progress on our work for the sake of Canadian culture and creators, whether the creators are Quebeckers, francophones, anglophones, indigenous people or other people. The very basis of the Canadian, Quebec, francophone and Acadian identity in this country is freedom of expression. This freedom has been attacked.
I know Mr. Guilbeault a little bit. He isn't a bad person. He has an activist background. We all wondered why he joined the Liberals. We all thought that he would run for the Green Party—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. We are still discussing a motion. We are not going through the history of the member and his relationship with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I would ask that he go back to discussing points that are directed to the motion brought by Mr. Housefather.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes. I assume you must be sick of my analogies by now. Nevertheless, I don't mind you weaving around the road, but please do not go past the guardrails.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that everyone will understand why I'm zigzagging when talking about my relationship with Mr. Guilbeault. I used to be the mayor of Victoriaville, the cradle of sustainable development. Since he was pro-environment, I had dealings with him on several projects. I had the chance to talk with him. As I said, despite his activist background and his choice to join the Liberal Party, I would hope that—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before you do your point of order....
Mr. Rayes, I think you're back on the same subject. If you could cut to the chase and get back to the motion, that would be great.
Ms. Dabrusin, do you have a point of order?