Canadian Heritage Committee on May 10th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome back, everybody.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as we take a look at, are concerned with and are enveloped in Bill C-10 and clause-by-clause consideration.

Before I give the floor to Ms. Dabrusin, I want to say that we likely will be interrupted towards the end of the meeting.

Now, I'm going to use Eastern Time, of course. We are anticipating that the bells will ring at 12:30 Eastern Time for a vote. The way this normally works is that if we want to extend the meeting into bells for a period of time that is okay with us, we have to ask for consent to do that. Otherwise, I just adjourn the meeting right there and then so that we can go and vote. I'm not asking you about this right now, obviously. We'll figure that out when we get there, as we are masters of our domain.

Let's go back to the topic at hand. We are considering Bill C-10 in clause-by-clause consideration.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.

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

I believe that Mr. Housefather is right after me, and I'd like to cede the floor to him, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Very well. Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence. I'd like to propose a motion. I listened very carefully to what happened last Friday and I'm hopeful that this motion will end the impasse that we have had.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose the following motion:

That the Committee:

1) 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.

2) 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.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that limiting the motion to those two points that I've heard every member of the committee support should yield a motion that we can all adopt.

The clerk has a copy of the motion, Mr. Chairman, in both official languages, and I will wait to speak until everybody receives it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, indeed. Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I'm just looking around the virtual room to see if everyone has received a copy of what he is talking about. I see a lot of thumbs, but if someone does not have it, can you get my attention, please?

Okay. It appears everybody has it.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor for your motion.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have all realized that, in the last three meetings, we have accomplished almost nothing. We kept talking and talking, and then talking louder, but we even had no success in passing proposals on which there seemed to be consensus. In fact, we had clear consensus on two items.

First, we want the Minister of Justice to give us a revised charter statement as quickly as possible. That will help us to address the comments we have seen in the media and heard from some members of the committee.

Second, after we have received that statement, we want the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to testify before our committee as soon as possible.

Opinion is divided on what we should do from now until those two conditions are met.

If we could at least adopt this proposal, we could move forward by asking the legal people to give us a new charter statement and by choosing a date for the Ministers to appear.

I do this, colleagues, in the hope that this is something we can all support. There is no reason to filibuster a motion like this, because this motion is exactly what everyone is saying they want, and it doesn't presuppose what the committee will or will not do with respect to clause-by-clause study on the bill—which is where we've had our differences—before the time we receive the charter statement.

I'm hopeful, Mr. Chair, that this will receive the unanimous support of the members of the committee. It's yet another effort. I think we can all work together. We have worked together well in the past. I'm trying my best and I think all of us are trying our best to find that solution. I hope this is the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I'll remind everybody—and I'm not saying this was done by you, sir—that when you're switching from one language to the other, please take a pause before you do that, because sometimes the first part of your sentence gets lost during that switch. You've actually been pretty good about that, Mr. Housefather, but it just occurred to me that when you switch from one language to the other, it would help us greatly if you could pause before you proceed.

Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Fantastic.

I just wanted to echo Mr. Housefather's opinion. We have all been working well together, and I think that the motion that he's put forward has really blended together everything we've talked about. We've heard from our arts organizations looking for support. We all support free speech. I think that this motion strikes the balance and lets us keep working together in a way that we know we can.

I just wanted to add my support to this motion from Mr. Housefather. I think we can continue working forward together and get this done as soon as possible for the right reasons.

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Ien is next.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, good morning.

In fact, this is a team sport. It is about working together. We have done so extremely well until this point. I look forward to working with my fellow colleagues to continue doing just that. I'm in full support of what Mr. Housefather has put forward here and hope that this really means we can move forward and do what needs to be done.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Ien.

Mr. Rayes, the floor is yours.

I'm sorry; could those who have already spoken lower their hands, please? Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Housefather for his efforts. As always, he is trying to find a compromise that is acceptable to us all. We also intended to propose an amendment to try and find common ground.

Consequently, much as my colleague Mr. Shields did at the last meeting, I would like to ask whether it is possible to take five or 10 minutes for my party colleagues and myself to discuss Mr. Housefather's proposal. We could then compare it to the one we wanted to introduce ourselves and see whether any small amendments to it are appropriate.

I am not confirming anything right away, but I sincerely believe that we could find some common ground. I would like the members of our party to have some time to consult together before expressing an opinion on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

Looking around the room, I don't think I see an exception to his request. We will take, I'm going to say, up to 10 minutes. As we normally do things, once you've decided to come back on to the meeting, can you please just turn off your video to start and then turn on your video again when you're ready to come back? That way I can gauge when we're ready to reconvene.

Let's suspend for up to 10 minutes. Thank you, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting back to order.

Monsieur Rayes, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had my hand up just now to ask for a moment to react to Mr. Housefather's proposal. With your permission, I would like to hand the floor to Mr. Waugh, so that he can propose an amendment.

However, I would not like to get in the way of my colleagues Mr. Champoux and Ms. McPherson and their right to speak, if they also have something to say. I know that the end of Friday's meeting perhaps caused some frustrations. Everyone was tired. I didn't want to offend Mr. Champoux by not letting him speak. I feel that I misunderstood the instructions at that time.

I don't know the established order of speakers, but, at the appropriate time, I would like to let Mr. Waugh introduce an amendment to Mr. Housefather's motion as a compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

As you know, I am loath to break the speaking order. It's pretty sacrosanct here, as you know, and in a virtual world it is even more so. I will do as you wish, however.

I am seeking the permission of two speakers ahead of Mr. Waugh. Monsieur Champoux is the first one and Ms. McPherson is the second. I'm just looking to both of them to see if I can get a thumbs-up from them, or to Mr. Waugh to propose something. If they would like to speak, right now Mr. Champoux is next in line.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would prefer to wait to hear what Mr. Waugh and his team have to propose in connection with the motion that Mr. Housefather introduced.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That now brings us to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to hear from Mr. Waugh. I just want to ensure that this is not going to be another filibustering situation in which we don't actually get the floor back until two hours have passed. If we can confirm that, then that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm not sure how Mr. Waugh wants to deal with that. I'll go to Mr. Waugh right now.

You can respond to that if you want to, sir, but I still have Ms. McPherson and Mr. Champoux.

I'll tell you what I'm doing. Sometimes I allow people to intervene if they've been asked a direct question. This has been more like a direct request. If it's all the same to you, Mr. Waugh, if you plan on speaking at great length, which I'm sure you're capable of doing, we'll say that I'm going to have to cut you off, because I'd like to stick to the original list, but we have a request to go to you over the other two speakers.

Mr. Waugh, I'm going to give you the floor.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our colleagues, Mr. Champoux and Ms. McPherson.

First off this morning, I want to thank Mr. Housefather for bringing another motion forward. That's good.

I think the clerk has what we have drawn out by now—at least, I hope the clerk has it. If so, Mr. Chair, I'd like to read it into the record. Is that okay?

Good. Everything is there. Hopefully, the members of the committee, all 11 of us, have what I'm going to propose here as a subamendment, both in English and in French. I move the following:

That the motion be amended by replacing the word “programs” with the word “content”; by replacing the words “Justice and the Minister” with “Justice, the Minister”; by adding the words “, and Dr. Michael Geist” after the words “relevant department officials”; by adding the word “separately” after the words “to appear”; and by adding the following:

3) Will consider, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, additional amendments to the bill, including to clauses previously disposed of, arising from the evidence received through points 1 and 2 above, provided that the amendments are submitted no later than 7 days following the completion of both points 1 and 2.

I know that on the government side they're going to reach out to the justice minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I would like just to say that I hope that this happens as soon as possible. If we have three proposed meetings for next week, which is a constituency week, hopefully we could fit all three into Monday, Wednesday or Friday.

In essence, Mr. Chair and members of the Canadian heritage committee, we too would like to move on. We've seen in the last two weeks a lot of talk and not a lot of action.

By the same token, Mr. Chair, the three people we would like to hear from are very important: theMinister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and, as we also would like to get the other side, Dr. Michael Geist. Many of us here have followed him on social media in the past. I can tell you that when the Conservatives were in government, he was a thorn in their side, and likewise now with the Liberals. This is not partisan. This is just a person who we think has been pretty balanced on this issue, and I would think that all committee members who have followed him would think so.

When you're in government, you don't agree, but when you're in opposition, you kind of do. I can say from the Harper years that Dr. Geist was pretty hard on the Conservatives too, but he also has a very good view that I think we've seen on social media in the last several weeks, a view that is gaining a lot of traction. He has knowledge. I think that if we could get the justice minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Dr. Geist for next week, that would be great.

There you go, Mr. Chair. I was fairly short on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, and I'm fairly short as well.

Nevertheless, just to summarize what has been proposed in a subamendment, I'm going to allow this conversation to unfold right now. I may at some point over the next little while refer to the clerks and suspend for just a short period of time, only for clarification. Right now, I think I'm pretty sure that I know what the intention here is. If I could, I'll just quickly summarize.

You're subamending Mr. Housefather's motion, Mr. Waugh, to take out the word “programs” in the second sentence and to include the word “content”. Also, in addition to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice, you want to invite Dr. Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa.

Also, if I get this right—and I'll just summarize and not go into detail—point number 3 is about “additional amendments” needed and going through the motions of bringing to the floor additional amendments that may be needed because of the first two points.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Well said, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you. That's a shocker.

Nevertheless, now I'm going to return to the original speaking order. On my screen I have it inverted, but, Ms. McPherson, if it's okay, I'm going to go to Mr. Champoux, because that was the original order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to my Conservative colleagues. I acknowledge that there has been some openness on their part, which is something I have not seen for a few meetings. That is refreshing.

The first part of the amendment proposed to Mr. Housefather's motion, which is intended to replace “programs” with “content”, is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. However, I have serious reservations on the issue of inviting witnesses.

If we invite Mr. Geist, I feel that we will also have to agree to invite other witnesses.

Mr. Geist is certainly a credible witness. Our Conservative colleagues have quoted him a lot in recent weeks. In a real sense, he has somewhat joined the debate. He has expressed his opinion a lot on social media. So we are very familiar with his position and we have a good idea of what he would tell the committee.

However, I feel that Mr. Geist is not necessarily the supreme authority or the supreme arbiter for the committee's work. As I understand it, he would be invited more or less to counterbalance the testimony of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. He would provide the opposing view to any proposals made in the charter statement or in answering any questions that the members of the committee might have.

Whatever the case, I feel that the natural counterbalance to the testimony of Ministers is not testimony from outside experts but from members of the opposition parties. In our teams, we have people who are also experts on these matters. If we are not experts ourselves, we have references at hand who are familiar with our activities.

While I am grateful to my colleagues for the openness they have shown this morning to move our work forward, I do not feel that it is a good idea to open the door and invite other witnesses. I know various people in arts and entertainment, for example, who were invited to testify before the committee and who have been contacting us a lot for several weeks. They are concerned by the way the committee's work is going and by the obstacles we are currently experiencing. They would also like to be heard just as much as Mr. Geist, and rightly so.

So I am uncomfortable with that part of the proposed amendment. I do not feel that it is a good idea to open the door and invite witnesses again on this issue. I feel that we have the resources we need in our teams to get a proper handle on the issue and express a very clear opinion about it. Hearing from the Ministers, as has been requested from the outset, would accommodate the initial request of our Conservative friends and we would also have the assurances we require. I feel that we could move this important bill forward in that way.

That's my opinion. Of course, we are only just starting to discuss it, so I will stay tuned.