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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome back, everybody.
This is the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.
As we get into it, I now see a whole host of hands, which is now routine for us [Technical difficulty—Editor]. How about I just say that I'll go over to the floor, and I see that Mr. Housefather has his hand up.
Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Having gone through the last couple of meetings in the hopes of trying to come to a consensus, I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to move:
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.
Mr. Chairman, I have sent a bilingual version of the motion to the clerk to distribute to the committee. Then I'll speak to it, when you give me permission and presumably once the clerk has distributed the motion to the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
What I'm going to do right now folks, just to make sure we're all clear, is give people time to digest this for just a moment. I'm going to confer with the clerk right now to have a look at it and analyze it a bit in a chair's way. Then I'll come back and we'll pick it up from there.
I'm going to suspend for just a few minutes. Please just hang in there for now, for just a few minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Harder, is this a point of order? Next on the speaking list is Mr. Louis, I'm afraid.
Conservative
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
In the past when a motion has been presented, we've had it in writing. I'm just wondering whether that's possible here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, it will be. That's one of the things I want to check, Ms. Harder. I want to see whether we can distribute it in writing. I think it's only fair, given the amount of material involved.
All right, folks, I'll just be a few minutes. We'll suspend. Then, next on the list I have Mr. Louis.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to explain to the committee why I'm putting forward this motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes. Mr. Housefather, I'm about to say something I say quite often: The problem is not you; it's me.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, colleagues. I don't plan to speak very long.
What I wanted to say is this. We are a committee that has generally gotten along very well. We're a committee that has normally tried to find practicable, pragmatic solutions to see whether we can satisfy everyone's desires. There's been a clear desire to have a charter statement. I think we're all agreed that we want an updated charter statement.
There's a clear desire that we want the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee. That again is something I've incorporated into this motion.
We believe—at least I think the majority of the members believe—that there is no reason we shouldn't continue clause-by-clause study, provided that we do not dispose of the bill. That means that until the second and third items in my motion have both happened—namely, that we receive the charter statement and that the Minister of Justice and Minister of Canadian Heritage appear before the committee—we do not take the final votes on the bill. We will stop.
It's possible that we'll do amendments today, and maybe by next week the ministers can appear before the committee and we'll have a charter statement. That may be in the middle of amendments. It may be at the end of amendments. There's no reason that we should completely halt the work of the committee, however, if we all agree on the majority of things: that we need to finish the bill, we need to make sure we have the charter statement and we need to make sure the ministers appear.
I believe that rather than having hours and hours of debate and filibustering and never proceeding anywhere, this motion gets us to where we want to go. I would hope to have the support of my colleagues.
I took into consideration all of my colleagues' requests. I think this is an honest effort to find a balance. It will help this committee continue to operate properly, and it has actually always operated well. At the same time, we will be reassured by the fact that the Minister of Justice will provide a new charter statement. In addition, we will hear from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage before the committee votes on the bill. This way, if they note something in the new charter statement or when the ministers appear, the committee members will have an opportunity to propose other amendments.
At the end of the day, this will help the committee move forward. That is the goal.
We have all worked really well together. I strongly believe that this motion will allow the committee to continue to move forward and work together to fulfill the needs that committee members have expressed and that Canadians have expressed.
Personally, I do not believe that everybody opposed to the bill is an extremist. I do not believe that all people from one party have the same views. Not all Liberals are the same. Not all Conservatives are the same. Not all New Democrats are the same. Not all Bloc members are the same. Everyone has a right to their own views. I think it's important that we look at that, as opposed to judging everybody as part of the team they're on and judging people as either enemies or friends. We're all legislators trying to work together to achieve a common purpose.
To draw back to what Mr. Aitchison and I have said many times, we can disagree without being disagreeable. I found that yesterday was sometimes quite disagreeable. I'm hoping that today, regardless of our differences and views, we will all be agreeable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Chairman, I have point of order.
When we are in committee in person, we often ask for a few minutes' break when something has been dropped on the table. I ask that you give us 10 or 15 minutes, because we need to have time to look at this [Technical difficulty—Editor] when we're in person. Can we have that opportunity at this point?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You're absolutely right, Mr. Shields, that we do that on occasion. We do it quite often. I'm going to grant you that. It may not be a point of order, but it's a point worth mentioning, if that's a thing.
I'm looking around. Is everybody okay with this? Okay. How about we come up with a time of about five to 10 minutes? When you're ready to come back, please put yourself back online and I'll judge accordingly. How about we do it that way?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome back, everybody, after our little break. It's good to see you again.
When we departed, Mr. Shields had requested and we granted the break.
Mr. Louis now has the floor.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you.
I appreciate the time, but in the interest of moving things forward, I believe my colleague has said everything I would have said anyway, so I would cede the floor.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
I understand the intent of this motion, which would be to proceed to looking at the clauses within the bill as they stand now. The member is suggesting that we would then go back at the end and we would seek a charter statement at that point in time. He's committing that, if there are any changes that would be needed, they could be done at that time.
I just think it's worth noting, however, that in order to go back and visit those clauses that have been carried, they can only be revisited with unanimous consent. If we get to that point where we've gone through this bill from start to finish and then we get a charter statement that tells us it's not compliant, the only way we can make changes is if we have unanimous consent. That then allows certain individuals or parties to hold this bill hostage and to have veto power to determine that actually, no, they're not going to let us go back and make changes.
That seems a little scary to me. I don't know that I trust the intent of the Liberal Party with this bill, with all due respect, Chair. I haven't seen evidence that would suggest that I should be able to trust their intentions. For days on end, Minister Guilbeault, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary insisted that this bill was crystal clear in terms of its protection of individuals' content posted online. After several days of insisting on that, it was then stated that amendments would be brought forward in order to make it “crystal clear”.
That is a little wishy-washy. Having done that, it makes me question, first off, the intentions of the party that put forward this bill—the governing party. It also makes me question their commitment to following through on their word because they've told Canadians they're committed to protecting their content, yet this bill doesn't do that.
Further to that, when I read the amendments that were suggested yesterday that would make it “crystal clear”, there are legal experts who are coming out, including two former CRTC commissioners, who are saying that, no, the amendments that are suggested by Ms. Dabrusin actually don't clarify this piece of legislation. They don't bring greater clarity. They actually muddy the waters further. They don't provide the protection that Canadians are seeking.
That's a problem because then it begins to feel like the Liberal members are trying to mislead the members of this committee and mislead the Canadian public. Again, that's a problem.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I believe those comments were unparliamentary. That was an accusation of misleading the Canadian public.