Evidence of meeting #35 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 justice.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Pursuant to the different roles within this government.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Yes, but it would be a terrible precedent if a Minister of Justice were called to defend charter statements, in part because they are apolitically drafted, and in part because, as you have identified in your question, they aren't meant to be a legal opinion. There are going to be different legal opinions out there, and you, as a committee, you, as individuals, parties and other people for or against the proposed legislation can get access to legal opinions and go precisely into detail.
The charter statement isn't meant to do that; the charter statement is a framework document that is meant to show that the government is attuned to the fact that there is a charter and that proposed legislation needs to conform to that charter. Therefore, it forces the minister in charge of the bill, we, as the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice to take all of that into account.
If you wish to go through a more specific analysis of the various articles of the bill that are in question, I would turn the question over to my officials. I did identify the changes that were brought about that were considered in the explanatory document subsequently, and, again, the conclusion is that they fall within the original framework of the analysis that was done on the charter statement.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
I don't think I'll go into more depth at the moment.
One of the concerns I have with this legislation, and I've articulated this many times at this committee, is that, if this initial bill is.... We know it wasn't crafted particularly well, and we have had 120 amendments come forward. If we don't fix this legislation, if we don't make sure this legislation, which we know is decades overdue, is done properly, it will be challenged in court. You just alluded to that potential in your last answer. If that happens, the implementation of this bill will be delayed again and again, and, of course, the impact is going to be felt by the Canadian cultural sector. Those who this bill was meant to help will be hurt the most.
As you know, several experts have said that your department's analysis does not provide a clear answer regarding the bill and its compliance with the charter principles. If the protections are not clear, what would happen if the bill is challenged in court? Further, do you think that, without clear protections for the charter principles, there is a high risk that a legal dispute will undermine efforts to protect our cultural sector?
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I support the bill. I'm a member of this government and cabinet, and I support the bill, so let's make that clear from the outset.
The charter statement is meant to help frame debate. It's meant to help identify articles in the charter that might be engaged by a piece of potential legislation and to identify the considerations that might be looked at as an explanation of the bill. It is not meant to be a legal opinion, so you're absolutely correct in your question to note that there are going to be legal experts who say there isn't enough in the charter statement to say that the bill is completely in conformity with the charter, and that's never the case with any charter statement. There will be different legal opinions, depending on the weight any particular legal scholar, commentator or lawyer puts on any particular factor. I leave it to the lawyers, legal scholars and other experts to do that weighing in the public sphere.
The court system is part of this process, but obviously, I certainly would like, as a legislator, this committee to help improve the bill and my colleague to put forth a bill that is a great bill.
As I said, I support this bill, and I want to make that clear.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No, I have one quick question and I know I'm running out of time.
As a legal expert, with your own legal opinion, Minister, are you confident that the provisions of the bill are strong enough to ensure victory for the government in the courts?
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
What is your opinion? I realize there are different opinions, but I mean your opinion.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I thank you for the question, and I appreciate that it's posed as a compliment. I simply don't give legal advice in public, particularly not after having been made Minister of Justice. I appreciate the question, but I won't give an opinion.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I appreciate the free flow of conversation, but unfortunately we have to be more rigid than that.
We're now going to a second round, and I'm going to be a little more strict because we're running out of time.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor for five minutes.
May 18th, 2021 / 3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, thank you for finally agreeing to come and meet with us. I'm very pleased.
Let me first ask you a very simple question. Does section 2(b) of the charter protect users' freedom of expression and the content they put online, yes or no?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.
As I said at the outset, I am not here to give legal opinions or advice. That is not my role today. I never do that in public. It's true that, generally speaking, section 2(b) protects freedom of expression, but I'm not going to go into the details hypothetically. That is not my role today.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Lametti, with all due respect, you are the Minister of Justice. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a public document. My question is simple: I would like to know whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects only individuals or whether it also protects the content they post online.
In your opening remarks, you said that there may be some limits to rights and freedoms, but you didn't want to elaborate on that, and you're perfectly entitled to refuse to do so.
I'm not asking you to give us a legal opinion or to prove any of this. I just want to know whether or not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects both individuals and the content they put online.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I can answer many legal questions, but as Minister of Justice, I cannot do so publicly.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
That's not my role today. I'm here to explain the charter statement, the role—
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
—of the minister in this regard and on the explanatory document.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Lametti.
The chair has made it very clear that you are under no obligation to answer our questions if you do not wish to do so.
My understanding is that you don't want to tell us whether section 2(b) of the Charter protects both individuals and the content they post online. I don't know whether that is true or not, but that is my understanding.
The statement that you submitted on November 18 explicitly included in its analysis the proposed section 4.1 of the Broadcasting Act. That section was removed on a Friday afternoon about three weeks ago. That is at the root of the conflict we find ourselves in. However, you, as Minister of Justice, do not want to give us a legal opinion or at least tell us, based on your expertise, what you think.
You said earlier that lawyers or experts could be consulted once the bill is passed. Experts have already come to speak with us. Yesterday, Le Devoir published an open letter supported by five experts, including several former senior CRTC officials. I am sure you have read it. If not, your advisors or political staff must have read it. Those senior executives explicitly said that this would be challenged. We already know that. We have heard concerns from university professors, experts and policy analysts. I think it is legitimate for members of Parliament, who have to make recommendations, to consider those concerns.
Originally, the bill proposed to add section 4.1 to the act to protect the content that users post online. Now that this section has been removed, how can we be sure that users' content will be protected?
As a member of the House of Commons, how can I make a decision on this issue if you, as Minister of Justice, cannot help me?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Thank you for the question.
I can tell you that, when the bill was introduced, the original charter statement concluded that the bill was consistent with the charter, subject to the considerations that I explained to you in my comments and my answers to questions. As a result of the amendments made to the bill, we have provided an explanatory document in which, after analysis, we reach the same conclusions.
If you have specific questions, you can ask Minister Guilbeault. It is his bill and he is the one responsible for answering such questions. If you wish, I can give him the floor.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
