Canadian Heritage Committee on May 7th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm getting straight to my point.

I want to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I would like to think that, when he called for the removal of proposed section 4.1, which forms the basis of Mr. Housefather's motion, he did not, in good conscience, want to attack freedom of expression. I really want to believe that. Yet, if he were sincere, why would he refuse to allow the Minister of Justice to provide a new legal opinion?

That was my point. Maybe he wasn't acting in bad faith. Perhaps he made a mistake during his interview or he didn't take the time to read his notes in order to explain why section 4.1 was originally proposed and then removed. He didn't want to admit his mistake. However, as the saying goes, a fault confessed is half redressed. We could have—

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes.

Ms. Dabrusin, do you have a point of order?

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

It goes to the same point.

We have allowed Mr. Rayes to go on for quite some time, but at this point he is nowhere close to the motion we are talking about. I would say he's not even past the guardrails; he's perhaps in another province.

If we could bring him back, that might be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to tell my colleague that I have not changed provinces. This is a virtual meeting, so we are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. That's the magic of the virtual world we are in right now, unfortunately. We will meet again in person one day.

Mr. Chair, I'm not getting off track at all, despite what my colleague thinks. I am pleased that you are allowing me to continue. The very basis of Mr. Housefather's motion is that the proposed section 4.1 be removed. So there is a direct link, otherwise we would not be having this discussion right now.

Perhaps the minister made a mistake when he asked that the proposed section 4.1 be removed. If that is the case, and if he is acting in good faith, let him admit his mistake. Let's stop the demagoguery of pitting culture against freedom of expression and attacking the Conservatives. Let's go back to the idea of taking a break for a few days. Now it is almost the weekend. We could come back to it next week. Afterwards, we will have a constituency week. As soon as possible, before the summer, let's give the Minister of Justice a chance to respond. Then we can continue.

Unfortunately, right now, I sense that the Liberals do not want us to take this break. This makes me think that they know that the Minister of Justice will not provide them with a favourable opinion, but will instead say, as we believe, that removing the proposed section 4.1 is an attack on users. At the very least, this suggests to me their true intention as to the unanimous consent that will be required to make any subsequent amendments that are necessary. That is what the motion states: we will continue to move forward amendment by amendment and we will see in the end. We all know full well how this works. We will need unanimous consent to fix it, which we will not get when the time comes, because the Liberals will be able to block the process. That's what they have been doing for the last two weeks. They are trying to make us the bad guys on this, but it is not working. The responses and letters from the members of the public show that. I have never seen such a response from the public to my office in my life. This issue does not seem to be percolating in the media in Quebec, but it is making Canadians react on the ground.

We know that the small players are fighting against the big players. The challenge is that people are on social media. Whether we like social media or not, as politicians and public figures, we have no choice but to use them. We have to find a certain balance. We can't deny that they exist. We have to find a fair and equitable way to legislate the area without attacking the users.

This brings me back to my colleague Mr. Housefather's motion, and I will conclude on that. I hope he won't be offended. I took the trouble at the outset to say it and I sincerely believe that his objective was a noble one. At all the meetings of the committee, he has always looked for compromise. I would even say that he almost went against the will of the government at times. Here is the motion:

That the Committee: 1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.

2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee’s changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill, once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.

I apologize to the interpreters if I read the motion quickly, but I see that time is running out. In any case, I would like to believe that they have the English version in front of them.

Point 4 of the motion is where the problem lies, Mr. Chair. The problem is that it's going to take unanimous consent to make amendments, which we will not receive.

I say, I repeat and I am sure: we would be making a serious mistake if we left the door open for the Liberals to allow the committee to go ahead without any guarantee that we could ultimately make amendments if the advice of the Minister of Justice confirms that there is an attack on freedom of expression or on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know what sorts of comments the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have already made in the media about people's use of the Internet. The discourse is self-righteous. We have also seen it in the little attack on my colleague Ms. Harder, in the House of Commons, when the minister attacked her personal convictions. If you don't think like the Liberals, your way is not the right way. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that, and I will continue to stand up for freedom of expression.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion introduced by Mr. Housefather today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Folks, we have reached the two-hour mark. I think you know what that means. Under implied consent, we normally end at the two-hour mark.

I'm seeing a multitude of hands electronically. Everyone wants in on this.

As you know, I'm at the will of the committee as to whether you want to continue or not. Of course, it requires pretty much a critical mass of you to say that we are done—or not. Are we going to conclude this meeting right now?

Madam Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I would rather not. I would like to have an opportunity to hear from Mr. Champoux, as he has had his hand up and has been waiting for quite a while to speak.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

On a point of order, I'll hear Mr. Rayes.

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

I ask that the meeting be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right. You all know by now what that means. There is a motion to adjourn the meeting.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the motion can't be moved on a point of order. Mr. Rayes was on a point of order, so he can't move adjournment. Mr. Champoux should have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. That is correct.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I move a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, please. We have to go to Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must admit that I find it a little hurtful to see that some people are asking for the meeting to be adjourned when we have talked so long about freedom of expression and the importance of being able to speak. To me, that also includes an obligation, if only out of respect, to let others speak, which I am happy to do at this time. I'll still try to keep it short.

How did we get here? It's quite worrisome.

First, we agree that the Liberals fell short by removing the proposed section 4.1 without immediately taking precautions to reassure users of their freedom to share their content. Various anti-Internet-regulation advocates jumped on the bandwagon and pointed to this loophole as a potential threat to freedom of expression.

The cultural industry is caught between the Liberals' negligence and the Conservatives' reaction. I have heard my colleagues Mr. Rayes and Mr. Shields testify and profess their love for culture, and I don't doubt it for a second. I don't think anyone can sit on this committee without a deep affection for culture. Having said that, culture is currently paying the price for this struggle we are having a hard time resolving.

We often quote Mr. Geist, whose expertise I recognize, but other experts have said other things as well. Let's talk about Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who published a letter in Le Devoir. Pierre Trudel is not just anyone. You know the content of the letter, and I am sure that everyone is aware of their opinion: “Bill C-10 creates no risk that the CRTC will one day start regulating videos produced by individuals...” That's it; you can read the letter. I don't want to take up too much of your time doing so.

Pierre Trudel is also a law professor, at the Université de Montréal. He has written books on the right of access to information and media law. He works extensively on the subject of Internet regulation. He and Ms. Simard were part of the federal expert panel on the review of the legislative and regulatory framework for broadcasting. So I think they have some credibility too.

I agree that we must rely on experts. However, when you want to listen to the views of experts in a field in which you don't have expertise yourself, you have to listen to those who advocate a point of view that is not necessarily the one you spontaneously adopt. You have to be open. Wanting to better understand the issue also means wanting to understand the point of view of all parties.

Right now, the cultural industry is wondering why we are wasting so much time talking when there is an urgent need to act. Ms. Yale mentioned this urgency last year in her report, which was co-signed by Ms. Simard. We all agreed on that. At this point, I think we must not speak for the Liberal Party, the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, but we must speak for those who will be most affected by this bill: the people in the cultural and media industries.

The Internet giants are doing a lot of damage to our industry and to our Canadian broadcasting system, and that is why we are here. Yes, concerns need to be addressed. We need to reassure those who fear for their freedom of expression, I agree with that 100%. That's why, up until now, I've been keen to have that point clarified. I think Mr. Housefather's proposal today is a compromise that deserves to be considered by all parties.

I want to pick up on the point that Ms. Harder and Mr. Rayes made earlier. It would be impossible not to go backwards if the Minister of Justice did not provide us with a new opinion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that supported Bill C-10. It would be impossible not to go backwards, because refusing unanimous consent to change sections would be tantamount to killing the bill. No one who wants to see this bill succeed would refuse to come back and change sections of the bill if it did not have the full support of the Minister of Justice through his new statement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is room for good will and good faith. We will get the new statement on the charter, we will have a visit from the two ministers, we will have the answers to our questions and we will not have to put this bill to a vote until we have those guarantees. The Bloc Québécois would never support any bill if we had the slightest suspicion that it posed a real risk to freedom of expression.

In the meantime, we can work on other clauses to move this bill forward for the benefit of the cultural industry, which is crying out for us to do so. I know that the Canadian and Quebec cultural industry is important to you. I also know that, regardless of the party affiliation, you all want to make progress. So I invite you to be open.

We will ensure that freedom of expression is protected by all means necessary and by all means that satisfy us. In the meantime, I believe we have a duty to continue to work to improve this bill, which we all agree needed a lot of love to become acceptable to everyone. We also have a duty to respect the democratic process, my friends. In this regard, if we respect the democratic process, we must accept that the members of the committee can all vote together on a motion that seems acceptable to me.

In any event, even if we wanted to go back to Ms. Harder's motion, as the Conservatives seem to be asking, we would first have to deal with the motion before us now. So I think we should vote on that motion and give the committee a chance to continue the democratic process. I think that's reasonable and makes good common sense. We owe it to our creators in Quebec and Canada. We owe it to the media and cultural industry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's time to move on, with this good compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

That puts us back into the same situation, folks. We have now gone over two hours. I am looking at everyone to see who wants to say goodbye. I see a lot of hands waving in this direction, so I'm assuming that you want to call it a week and get ready for your weekend.

I will put something on your radar, though, if that's okay. It won't take very long.

As you know, we passed a motion on March 26. It says, “That the committee extend the hours of its meetings during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10”. That's on the extension of hours. The second thing it calls for is that we “hold any additional meetings required to make the necessary changes to the outdated Broadcasting Act and move the bill to third reading”. That was adopted by the committee, and that's why we had the meeting last night. It tells me that I should endeavour to find meetings during the break week if we are still on Bill C-10 and considering clause-by-clause.

I'm saying this because it is the will of the committee, and I just want to give you a heads-up a week and a bit before the break week, so that you can plan accordingly when we get close to that date.

Thank you, everyone. It was a great debate. It's good to see you all.

Have a good weekend.