Canadian Heritage Committee on May 14th, 2021

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

Please.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, sir.

As adopted Monday, May 10, 2021:

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 content 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, the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant departmental officials, and an expert panel consisting of one witness from each recognized party 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.

(3) Suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I have appreciated what we're talking about here, but let's keep in mind that the further we go, when we get to the hearings we're losing a big part of the second round.

Nevertheless, Mr. Rayes, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one last comment. I'm not trying to prolong the meeting. I know the honourable members may have questions for the witnesses, but I need you or the clerk to clarify something for me, please.

On Monday, just before the vote, I asked a question. I checked the transcript to make sure I was remembering correctly, and here's what I said.

I want to make sure that we are all agreeing on the same thing: we are going to hear from the experts after we have heard from the two Ministers. That order is important, because the experts will be reacting to the Ministers' comments. I see nodding. I just want to make sure that, if, for any particular reason, the Liberals are not able to convince the Ministers to be here on Friday, they will come on Monday and the meeting with the experts will simply be put back.

After that, I said thank you, because I could see members nodding.

Then, Mr. Chair, you said this:

“I don't need to repeat that, correct? I see enough nodding heads around the room. It's a critical mass of nods, if I could use the term, to proceed in that way.”

I just want to make sure that I am clear on what all the members of the committee agreed on.

Once we get the information from you, Mr. Chair, and once all those who wish to comment have, we can proceed and hear from the witnesses who are here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Here's what I have: I have direction from the committee and what we have done in the past.

If you recall the last witness meeting we had, instead of doing the two separate hours, we did one two-hour block with the ministers—if they were there—and accompanying officials. I'm more or less following what you're saying, but I'm also following what we have done in the past regarding Bill C-10 witnesses. However, I'm open to suggestion as to whether you would like to change that or not.

If I misinterpreted what you said at the end, Mr. Rayes, I sincerely apologize. I thought the direction of the committee was that we would have two ministers accompanied by officials appear before the committee, as well as four experts and the revised charter statement that was asked for. That's from the amended motion.

Let me now go to Mr. Waugh.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. I'd rather get to someone else, but if you have a quick point on what I just said, please go ahead.

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

I completely agree with everything you just said, Mr. Chair. I just want to point out, however, that, before we voted, I went to the trouble of making sure that everyone agreed the two ministers would appear before the experts.

I am just looking for some clarification. I'm not necessarily asking that we follow what was said to the letter.

We heard from one minister today, not two. On Monday of next week, according to the information provided by the clerk, the committee will be hearing from the four witnesses. Nevertheless, before we voted, I had asked for confirmation that the two ministers would be appearing before the four witnesses. Now, from what I can tell, that isn't going to happen.

Could you please clarify or explain why this is the case, so we can all be on the same page?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The only explanation I can give you at this point, sir, before I go to Mr. Waugh—because I'd rather hear from the others and come back to it—is that the committee was advised that Minister Lametti respectfully declines the invitation. That's what I have to go on right now.

Mr. Waugh, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's, as this committee, agree unanimously to get both ministers here. I think the Minister of Justice is showing a lack of consideration for the charter, to be honest with you.

Issuing a charter statement may be fine, but come and explain yourself to the committee of heritage as we study Bill C-10, amending the Broadcasting Act.

I've just talked about this. All committee members unanimously last Monday agreed to bring both ministers to committee. There is a lack of consideration by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Chair, I'll bring up another issue. When Mark Zuckerberg decided not to show up at committee, the biggest uproar in the committee was from Liberal MPs sitting around the table.

I think that, for consideration, we need to hear from the Minister of Justice on this. Doing a press release and sending out an update charter statement is fine, but come. We've asked him to come, it was agreed to last Monday, and that's the least the minister can do.

Ms. Drouin, thank you for filling in, but we want to see the minister. We got that co-operation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but we did not get it from the Minister of Justice. Out of consideration, faced with this important bill that has been discussed for months I think he owes it to the committee to come, as we have asked him to come.

We have next week open before we can get to the panel. We need to hear from the justice minister first and then go to the panel. As you said, we have three meetings scheduled next week. We can delay until the minister decides whether he wants to come Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and then we can move ahead with the panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to agree. I'm deeply disappointed that the minister isn't here to join us. The reason for that disappointment is that his not being here does not comply with the motion. This motion was brought forward at the beginning of this week. It was important for us to stop the filibustering and the logjam that had happened within this committee; it was a way we had all worked together to try to move forward on this legislation.

Without the minister's coming, the potential for us to fall back into that logjam, to fall back into a position in which none of the work that needs to happen gets done at this committee, is enormous.

I think it's vitally important that he come. I strongly support making sure that the minister comes and shares his perspective with us and lets us ask him questions, so that as parliamentarians we can do the work that our constituents and Canadians have tasked us with.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you.

I would just like to point out to everyone that we actually have the Justice officials here and that Madame Drouin is available. We have another half hour in this meeting.

My question to the other members would be: what are the questions you want to ask, and why not ask them of the officials who are here?

It's also my understanding from a review of the blues—and I would like to clarify this—that there was not unanimous agreement of the parties that we must hear from the ministers first, before the panel. I don't really see there being a reason to delay the panel's being heard on Monday.

Again, as I pointed out, we have people here who are ready, willing and able to answer those questions. Why don't we put those questions to them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm at a loss. I have to be honest with you. I don't know what's happening. I'm not sure where the dithering is coming from, but apparently someone, somewhere, doesn't really want the study of the bill to continue.

The motion the committee adopted on May 10 is clear. I have been going over it for a while now. It called on the committee to “invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials”. It doesn't get any clearer than that, Mr. Chair.

The committee has been at an impasse for weeks. We have lost precious time. No one doubts the good faith of the Liberal members on this committee. I know they are all committed to moving this bill forward. I know Mr. Guilbeault is also committed to moving it forward. He cares about the cultural sector. I don't doubt it for a second.

Nevertheless, someone, somewhere, does not appreciate how urgently action is needed or understand what we are asking. We asked for the Minister of Justice to appear. Why isn't he here? The request didn't come out of the blue. We have been talking about this for weeks. Surely, he would have been prepared. He must have anticipated that he would have to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as part of this study.

I really don't know what the roadblock is. Frankly, the situation is ludicrous.

The Minister of Justice was supposed to be here today. I have the utmost respect for Ms. Drouin and her team, and I have no doubts as to their knowledge or ability to answer all of our questions. The fact remains that we asked the minister to appear. That was the condition we had agreed on in order to break the impasse at which we found ourselves.

I don't know what the roadblock is, but there just might be someone, somewhere, who needs to get things straight and realize how urgently we need to deal with this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Aitchison.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate. To Ms. Dabrusin's point, she is absolutely correct that we have departmental officials here, and I have no doubt that Ms. Drouin is a very capable lawyer and very learned, but we did ask for the minister.

The minister himself is an impressive individual. He is a very impressive lawyer. He is a legal scholar. He taught law at McGill, and he has written many articles on property law and intellectual property. I think he could, in many ways, really be seen as an expert in this field. We asked for him specifically. I think everyone agrees that he was supposed to be here.

I think he has made some really interesting points in the House of Commons over the years about things like the importance of net neutrality. I think he is quite knowledgeable, and it's one of the reasons we wanted him here. If the committee has a role in this Parliament, and we get to ask ministers to come to us, that's great, but the Minister of Heritage has fumbled an awful lot of the answers to these things and created more confusion, as Ms. McPherson quite justifiably pointed out. I think Mr. Lametti would be able to help clear an awful lot of this stuff up.

The fact that we have a Liberal, Ms. Dabrusin, suggesting that we should just move on and talk to the officials makes me wonder if maybe Mr. Lametti can't defend what's going on, and he just chooses not to be here.

If we've asked for the Minister of Justice to be here, he should be here. I think it shows contempt for this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Mr. Waugh, I just want everyone to be cognizant of the time. We have approximately 27 minutes left.

Go ahead, Mr. Waugh.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think as a committee we should revisit asking the Minister of Justice. We should suspend this committee until the Minister of Justice appears, whenever that may be.

I think you've heard from all parties here. The motion on May 10 was for both ministers and their officials.

Thanks to the Heritage minister and his officials. They did show up today.

Thank you, officials from Justice, although the minister himself did not show up.

I believe we should suspend until the minister comes to committee, whenever that may be. We do no other business until the Minister of Justice comes to address the charter. We asked for it last Monday, and that's not too much for the committee to ask. I think we should suspend until the Minister of Justice attends for one full hour next week, if he can, or until he can come to committee as soon as possible, so we can do our due diligence on this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, when Mr. Zuckerberg refused to appear before a committee, he was sent a summons to appear. Should we not do the same when dealing with our own Minister of Justice? I'll put that out there for the committee to discuss, without moving it formally. If we want to move things along quickly and avoid losing the little time we have left, perhaps we should put a bit of pressure on the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Ms. Harder—I am loathe to do this—I want to weigh in on a couple of notes.

On Monday we do have scheduled witnesses who were asked for by the motion. These are the four expert panel members you asked. Those are in line with the motion, and those, I'm assuming, will go ahead. At least as committee chair, I've scheduled that.

As a final note, on page 92 of the Standing Orders, it states that “a standing committee cannot order a Member of the House of Commons or a Senator to appear.” I'm only asking you to bear that in mind as we try to come to a conclusion and an agreement on this. But I am still your servant on this matter.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting that you read that, because that means this committee's work could, effectively, be stalled out indefinitely. According to the motion that was passed by this committee, as amended, the justice minister does need to come and appear before this committee before we can proceed to clause-by-clause. And I believe clause-by-clause is necessary in order for Bill C-10 to make it into law.

I would put forward the same request that my other colleagues and the members from the NDP and the Bloc have put forward, and it is that the justice minister, according to the motion that was passed at this committee, does need to appear.

I recognize that there are expressions made when using verbal communication, and then there are expressions made in other ways. In committee, it's common to often pass things or agree upon things based on a head nod or a hand put up, especially in our virtual world. And it was agreed upon at this committee that the Minister of Justice would come before we hear from the other expert witnesses.

Again, I would plead with you, Mr. Chair, that this should take place first.