Canadian Heritage Committee on May 14th, 2021

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

Proposed subsection 2(2.1) of the bill states that I, as a user of social media who posts and uploads on social media and am unaffiliated with Facebook or YouTube or any of the platforms I may post on, am not subject to CRTC regulation myself. Is that correct?

[Nathalie Drouin]

This is a correct question and response, if I may say. Section 2 of the bill has not been affected, so users who are not affiliated to broadcasters and broadcasting service providers are not subject to the Broadcasting Act.

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

Perfect.

Now I'm going to get to more detailed questions that I think would address concerns that a lot of attorneys may have in reading the charter statement.

We all understand that with Ms. Dabrusin's amendment, there would be very limited CRTC regulation permitted. There would only be a couple of things that the CRTC could do: to look at Canadian revenue, to address the question of making them pay for Canadian culture and contribute to Canadian funds, and to look at discoverability.

One question I have is the charter statement doesn't specifically address whether section 2(b) of the charter is violated, and whether we need to rely on section 1, the Oakes test, “reasonable limits”, to save the bill.

Could you advise me? Does the way the charter statement is drafted mean that the department has determined that there's very little risk that section 2(b) itself is violated, and that we would not need to rely on section 1?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The new proposed amendment, as you pointed out, really limits the regulatory power that the CRTC may have to a very small group and for specific authorities. What is important to say, when you look at those four heads of authorities for the CRTC, is that to adopt future regulation, they are not there for the CRTC to ask the user to change their [Technical difficulty—Editor. I think this is also a very important element. As I said, the purpose of the bill is mainly to promote culture in Canada and to protect our policy with respect to culture, whether it is in two languages or the indigenous culture. This objective remains. This is why we can conclude that the guarantee under the charter respecting freedom of expression is not limited.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Drouin, if you could once again answer the question, making clear you're not relying on section 1 of the charter to save anything because section 2(b) in itself is not violated, I would appreciate it.

My other question relates to discoverability. For discoverability, for social media companies to determine prioritization, arguments may be made that you're now allowing private social media companies that are not regulated by the charter to determine priorities for Canadian content. Does that create any concern?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable member.

One thing I will say is that freedom of expression is a very large concept. This is why, when we talk about the guarantee under the charter respecting freedom of expression, we really have to look at the broader context. In Canada, it's not an absolute right when it comes to freedom of expression. You need to look at the broader context. You need to look at the proportionality of the regulation you are putting in place to regulate an industry. This is the exact analysis we have undertaken here to conclude that the guarantee under the Charter of Rights is not affected. That's an important thing.

Regarding your question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you. I'm sorry, Ms. Drouin, We are really running short on time. We were well over when the question was asked. You may want to work that answer in later on, in your deliberations. In the meantime, I really have to go to Mr. Champoux.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses who are with us today.

If I may, Minister, I would like to start by setting the record straight a little bit. For some time now, you seem to have had a narrative that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP were in full agreement to delete proposed section 4.1 in Bill C-10. I would just like to put this in context and explain the process by which discussions take place between the parties in an effort to save time and make our committee work as efficiently as possible.

We had amendments to suggest for proposed section 4.1. The Bloc Québécois initially advocated amending proposed section 4.1. We wanted to keep it, but remove the exclusion given to social media, while preserving the exclusion given to social media users.

However, in our discussions, people in your party, Minister, suggested instead that we delete proposed section 4.1 and introduce new amendments to add other provisions in this regard, which we agreed with, I admit. However, it should not be said that this was a collaborative proposal and that we were happy with it right off the bat. We would have preferred to amend proposed section 4.1; that was our original proposal.

So, there is an important nuance here, and I wanted to make that clear.

That being said, we're also hearing a lot lately that the opposition parties as a whole are blocking the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10.

Now, Minister, I would like to ask you a question, in all candour.

At the very beginning of the impasse that we are in right now, after the first meeting that we had where the Conservative Party members raised the issue of deleting proposed section 4.1, we talked to each other. I told you that a solution that would work for everyone would be to reopen the debate on section 3 of Bill C-10, which proposes the new section 4.1 for the act, that we amend that section, and proceed. I have proposed that.

Do you think that would have been a good idea, Minister?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.

Over the past few weeks, I've given several interviews about Bill C-10, and you'll probably have noticed that I've never mentioned the filibuster that your party is doing. Perhaps...

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In the House, you answered a question I had asked about this, Minister, but let's not go back to that.

Let's get on with it and try to speed things up.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As you know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not sit on the committee. Since the committee is sovereign, it can propose amendments to the bill. In fact, I have invited it to do so on several occasions.

We have had discussions, you and I, and you have had discussions with other members of the committee as well. You ask me if we could go back. First of all, to do what you were originally proposing would have required, as I understand it, unanimous agreement of the committee members. Some felt that would have been a very slim possibility.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Minister, we have very little time, so I want to get more specific answers than that.

I have told you that I am confident that all parties would give their consent to reopening the debate on section 3 of the bill to amend proposed section 4.1 and continue the work afterwards. Everyone would be satisfied.

You know we sometimes have discussions behind the scenes and then it is possible to propose something in committee, knowing that we will have the assent of just about everybody. Yet, this was not even raised or considered.

After wasting four meetings dithering, we still find ourselves today in the situation where a certain portion of the requests that the committee had made, among others the invitation extended also to the Minister of Justice, have not been met.

If we had reopened debate on this section right after the first meeting where this issue was raised, perhaps we would be working through the sections of the bill today and perhaps we would have an opportunity to finish up the work and pass Bill C-10.

In hindsight, do you think this would have been a good solution?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

This is a question based on a series of assumptions, and any answer from me would be highly hypothetical.

As we have seen over the past few weeks, there are clearly Canadians who believe that the Internet should not be subject to any form of regulation, whether it be on the cultural issue, hate speech, or media compensation. Some of these critics began their action at the same time the Yale report came out. I recall that the former leader of the official opposition had said that he would not even read the Yale report and would throw it in the trash.

Honestly, beyond all the debate surrounding proposed section 4.1, I think there is one political party that has decided to highlight this issue as if the entire bill C-10 revolves around a single section, which it obviously does not...

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Minister, I'm going to interrupt you, because I only have 40 seconds left to ask a question, even though I know the answer to my question anyway.

That said, I'm going to ask you a pretty easy question.

Do you think it would be a good idea to include provisions in Canadian broadcasting policy that the Broadcasting Act and its regulations must contribute to the exercise of freedom of expression? Do you think that should be included in the act and regulations, in addition to the amendments we are proposing? Do you think that would be a good idea?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I think that element is in one of the sections of the bill that was passed by the committee. That discussion has already taken place and is over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Ms. McPherson, you have six minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank all our witnesses for being with us today. Thank you, Minister, for coming to answer our questions.

Minister, you started your intervention today by stating that the cultural sector is counting on us. I thank you for acknowledging that, though I have to express my disappointment in the way you've managed the creation and the communications around this legislation.

I, for one, am looking forward to continuing to work as hard as we can to get this legislation fixed and get it through this committee. I know that is not the case with all our committee members. We have seen filibustering and all kinds of things being done to delay and impede this committee's work. I think a lot of it, unfortunately, does have to fall to you, Minister. With all due respect, your mishandling of this bill has put all of us in this committee in a very difficult position.

Many Canadians are concerned about the government wanting to regulate the content that they upload on social media. Now, I think we're all clear that the bill would not give the power to the CRTC to regulate users on social media, but experts are saying that the content they upload could be. Even you have said so during some of your interventions with media.

The updated charter review received by the Department of Justice seems to say that the respect of the charter is in the hands of the CRTC, instead of making it clear in the legislation. If we don't get this right, the legislation will be challenged in court and it will not be applied for years, which will put all of our cultural sector at a real disadvantage.

Do you have a plan to address the concern of Canadians that their content will be subject to CRTC regulations?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I won't go through it, but you've probably heard that there is a long list of organizations in Quebec and in English Canada, a list many pages long, that have all come out in the last few weeks in support of Bill C-10, ranging from musicians to independent producers to writers and so on. I have spoken over the course of the last year to thousands of people in the culture sector, and they agree with what we're trying to do with Bill C-10.

Again, earlier in my speech I quoted polling results that were released recently showing that 78% of Canadians—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Your plan, then, is just to tell us that lots of people support it. That's your plan to reassure Canadians? It's: “Don't worry, I have a list of organizations that support it.” That's your plan?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

No, that's not my plan, but there were many elements in your question, and I am trying to adequately answer all of them. One element you spoke about in your question concerned the cultural sector, so I answered that.

On the second part of your question, there is no situation in which a user has to respect any type of CRTC regulation. There is no situation in which a user, even with millions in revenues and dues, has to deal in any shape or form with the CRTC.

Let me remind you that the sole regulation the CRTC can impose on a social media platform is the discoverability of Canadian creators. The Internet is infinite—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But it's the content piece that we're looking at—not the user, but the content piece.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. The CRTC, in its last 50 years of existence, has never done content moderation, and Bill C-10 doesn't give the CRTC the ability to do content moderation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Minister—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I think we have a charter statement that is pretty clear about Bill C-10's respecting section 2 of the charter. We've also heard from deputy minister Drouin, who has been very clear on that as well.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We've just heard you mention your list of organizations that support Bill C-10. Obviously, everyone on this committee has met with organizations that have expressed their concern about this legislation and their support for having good legislation. We all understand that this legislation is not as strong as it needs to be. This is why there are 120 amendments to the bill that the committee is trying to get through.

In your recent interviews on Bill C-10, Minister, you seem to want to go after experts who want to protect one of the most important rights in our democracy, and that is the freedom of expression. The experts who are working on this issue and have been working on it for a very long time have expressed concerns. They have expressed the view that there are problems within the legislation.

What is the goal of attacking them, when we should be working with them to find a solution? It feels to me very much as though we have you saying, “Don't worry, it's not a problem” and the Conservatives saying, “Let's not do anything at all; let's not provide legislation for our broadcasters.” Even the cultural sector doesn't obviously want to regulate user-generated content.

It feels very much as though you're trying to divide Canadians on this issue and not to work collectively to find a solution. I am wondering why that is.