Canadian Heritage Committee on May 10th, 2021

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

On a point of order, Mr. Shields, go ahead.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

For clarification, when the clerk referred to returning to debating the motion, which motion is it, our subamendment or Mr. Housefather's motion? What would we be returning to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We would return to the subamendment as proposed.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That is Mr. Waugh's.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, the second point I wanted to bring up to you was that you had a specific question to Mr. Waugh. Would you like to ask it very quickly? In saying that, I have Mr. Aitchison next in the speaking order.

Mr. Aitchison, do I have your tacit approval to go to Mr. Waugh with a question?

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

You have my wholehearted approval, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Excellent. With that enthusiasm, what choice do I have?

Ms. McPherson, do you want to quickly pose your question?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Waugh, I just wanted some clarity on why “separately” is in your motion. I'm wondering whether or not it would be possible for us to ask questions of your guests or the witnesses you've suggested within one meeting. I don't understand why all three of them have to be separate.

Thanks. It's not that hard a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Waugh, very quickly, please, go ahead.

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

Yes, let's remove the word “separately” in the second motion here that I have. I agree.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that maybe the NDP and the Bloc want to bring one too. We have proposed Dr. Michael Geist as our witness; maybe they want one, and I see no reason why they couldn't do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I have to put each and every individual horse in front of a cart here, sir. I have to go along in order. I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm to get this done.

Mr. Aitchison, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be clear, we're now discussing Mr. Waugh's amendment as amended with a different clause 3. Is that what we're talking about now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. The first one was inadmissible. The second one, which you have now, that is the one we are currently debating. What was just talked about was the situation whereby you could try to go to unanimous consent. That was asked by Ms. McPherson, but we are currently on Mr. Waugh's amendment.

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

Okay, then I'll be as quick as I can be.

What I like about this is I'm hearing a lot of agreeing and I'm hearing a lot of people coming up with solutions, and that's great. It's a demonstration of us all trying to move forward here.

I think it is important to have Dr. Geist. He's the research chair on Internet and e-commerce. He's an expert. I think we all agree that this is important for the cultural sectors in our country. We absolutely all agree there, but I think we would also all agree that we don't want to do anything that might have the potential or the opportunity to infringe upon freedom of expression, and that's why we need to take this pause. It's to make sure our charter statement is correct and to hear from a non-partisan expert who seems to have distaste for Conservatives as much as anything else, so that's probably positive for everybody at the committee. I think that pausing our clause-by-clause consideration puts the fire to the feet of the ministers. It's important for them as well, so they'll get here as quickly as possible and we can keep moving.

I think this is a reasonable compromise that demonstrates that we're happy to keep moving as well, but we want to hear from the ministers and we want to hear from Dr. Geist, and until we do, we won't continue, because we want to make sure that we're not infringing in any way whatsoever on Canadians' freedom of expression.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back over what has been suggested. I too will try to be brief.

As a consequence of the motion that Mr. Housefather introduced this morning, I feel that all parties have a real willingness to find an acceptable compromise.

First, as you can see, we have been assured that point 3 is in order.

Second, Ms. McPherson pointed out that separate meetings could give the impression that we want to delay the process. That is not the case. Given the importance of this issue, the goal is actually to give everyone the time to ask questions without feeling pressured. However, if that is your feeling, taking out the word “separately” would not be a problem in any way. Mr. Waugh has already confirmed that. I feel that one meeting, perhaps two at the most, would be enough to hear the three witnesses.

Now, with all due respect to Mr. Champoux, I would like to pick up on his comment about Michael Geist. We are at this point today because the bill took a different turn following the removal of the original section 4.1. I do not want to go back over the long arguments I made during the three most recent meetings, but, at the start, the proposal in the bill was to add that section to the Broadcasting Act. Then it was eliminated. I could go back on the attack, and so on, but let's just say that, after we have been told that the fears we had were not warranted, the government finally submitted new amendments to correct the situation.

Why do we want to invite Michael Geist? As Mr. Champoux correctly explained, it is because he is an expert in this area, an extremely critical one. We are well aware on our side that he was just as critical of the former government. So for us, it is not a partisan issue. He is not Conservative in any way and he has not been appointed by Conservatives. Actually, he is an emeritus professor in this area of law. He receives financial support from the government for his research chair and his work on this issue.

To add to Mr. Champoux' comments, I must say that we all agree that we have to help our cultural milieu. All parties agree on that. Some try to accuse us of being anti-culture, but I don't want to get into partisan games. That is not the issue; the issue is freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's why we would like to have some explanations and a counterbalancing view. All members could ask questions. When we started, the witnesses we heard from came to discuss the bill, but that changed as we went along. That's why we would like to invite a witness of that calibre who could tell us about the other side of the coin. We would then be free to continue our work together.

As I said I wanted to be brief, I will bring my comments to a conclusion. We would have no objection if the other parties wanted to propose a witness of their choice to come to talk to us about the issues of freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am certain that Mr. Waugh could change his amendment, if needed. If we were to add a session and, above all, if we were to take out the word “separately”, as Ms. McPherson has asked, we could very well hear from the Ministers at one meeting and two or three witnesses at another meeting. In that way, we could hear from witnesses who would provide explanations consistent with the perspective of the other opposition parties. That might even apply to the Liberal government. In the case of the Liberals, however, as two of their Ministers would be appearing before us and would be accompanied by their senior officials, I don't see how it would be possible for them to find witnesses with greater expertise. However, I feel that it would be legitimate for the Bloc Québécois and the NDP also to propose an expert of their choice to come and testify.

Let me repeat that we are making this request strictly because the bill has evolved since we started and has taken a different turn after section 4.1, as initially proposed, was removed. If that key item, which affects users of social media, had not been removed, we would not be here today.

I will conclude my remarks here because I certainly don't want them to be considered as obstruction. I would just like to tell the other opposition parties that we are ready to make this very acceptable compromise that will get us out of the impasse we have been in for almost two weeks. If they had agreed to hear from the Ministers when it was first requested, we wouldn't be here, of course, but I don't want to go back over that. We are reaching out to the other parties so that, together, we can come to an acceptable compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Ms. Harder, I'm starting to read the room a little better now in terms of what you just mentioned.

Mr. Rayes, were you suggesting to subamend Mr. Waugh's amendment to take out the word “separately”?

I'm seeing a lot of nods, because if a committee so desires, we can dispense with that right away.

Do I see any objection with subamending that right away?

There are no objections.

(Subamendment agreed to)

We're taking the word “separately” out of his amendment.

For those who have just joined us, such as Ms. Harder, Mr. Waugh is proposing to do the following with Mr. Housefather's motion: In point 1, he takes out the word “programs” and replaces it with the word “content”, and in point 2, he would invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Dr. Michael Geist to appear before the committee, and not separately.

In point 3, he would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

Ms. Harder, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, could I clarify something I said? I will do so quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes, and then Ms. Harder is after you.

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

I just emphasized that, if the other parties want to hear from other witnesses, we could make a change to our amendment, if that is where the problem lies, so that it is possible for each party to hear from someone of their choice.

So I just wanted to emphasize that. I am not proposing anything along those lines right away. After the discussion, if it can remove an obstacle, we would be open to that proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Ms. Harder, please go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if Mr. Shields had his hand up before me.