Canadian Heritage Committee on May 18th, 2021

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It would very rarely, if ever, contain one. I certainly can't recall ever having seen one with a section 1 analysis.

The reason is that, when you get into a section 1 analysis, you're balancing the actual provisions in an act with a section of the charter, and you're asking whether it's potentially justified as a limit that is reasonably and demonstratively justified in a free and democratic society.

That's something that puts you in the realm of doing a political analysis or giving an actual legal opinion, which, for either case, would not be something that would be in the neutral framework of a charter statement.

I personally think I would never see one, as I can't recall ever having seen one. Section 1 implications do not have their place in the charter statement, the goal of which, as I've already set out, is to articulate the articles under the charter that might be impugned by a potential piece of legislation and the considerations that are there that explain the law.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, you have about 30 seconds.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Minister, would you agree that the charter statement carefully considers that the CRTC, in making any regulations on the discoverability issue, including with respect to algorithms, would have to respect the charter, including section 2(b), as opposed to the social media companies themselves, which do not have to respect the charter in their use of algorithms?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Both the charter statement and the explanatory document took into account all of the various changes that went into the act, and we have concluded that there wasn't a change to the original conclusion of the charter statement.

If you would like a more precise answer on the content of the actual act, I will turn the floor over to Minister Guilbeault, who is responsible for explaining and defending the bill.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think I'm out of time, so I'm not sure if that will be the case, but thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry Mr. Guilbeault, we'll have to get you to work that answer in at some point during the deliberation.

Mr. Champoux, you may go ahead. You have six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both ministers for being here today.

Mr. Lametti, you said in your opening statement that the principle of freedom of expression was not absolute. Like it or not, it has its limits.

Can you give us examples of situations in which limiting freedom of expression would be justified?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question.

Although it's an important question, I must say that I am here to explain the purpose of charter statements and to discuss the explanatory document we provided.

I am not here to give lessons on the charter and certainly not legal opinions. Answering a hypothetical question could lead me into very dangerous territory, as justice minister.

If you have any questions about Bill C-10, I will defer to my colleague Mr. Guilbeault.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No, Minister. My question was about something you said in your opening statement. I was simply asking for specific examples of what you, yourself, said about freedom of expression not being absolute. Obviously, there are cases where freedom of expression has to be limited to a certain extent. I was simply asking you to clarify what you said. I wasn't asking you for a legal opinion or anything of that nature.

Can you give me some examples?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I am not going to give any examples, but as I said, rights and freedoms are clearly not absolute. In many areas of law, you can find numerous situations in which rights set out in a charter, be it a Canadian or Quebec charter, are limited by other acts or regulations.

What the charter statement does is examine the consistency of the bill with the charter, overall.

As per the statement and the explanatory document, we concluded that the issues…. The fact of the matter is that I can't provide you with a specific answer since the statement can't be specific.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

It's more or less the principle that a person's rights and freedoms stop where another's start.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

In some respects, yes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a question for you. I'm not necessarily looking for a legal opinion, but I would like to draw on your expertise as a lawmaker.

Once Parliament passes a bill, as may soon be the case with Bill C-10, and once that bill comes into force, can people or groups of people turn to the Federal Court or another court to challenge specific sections of the legislation they find worrisome or unconstitutional? I'm thinking of provisions they feel jeopardize their freedom of expression.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That is always the case. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I don't give legal opinions publicly, either before committees or in the House.

As I have repeatedly said, if you have specific questions about the scope of Bill C-10, I will defer to my colleague Mr. Guilbeault.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No, the question was not directly related to Bill C-10, Mr. Minister. It could have been about any bill.

However, this is a good example. The bill before us is more complex than just the matter of freedom of expression. I am wondering whether, after the bill is passed, people will still have an opportunity to challenge parts of it if they want to, if they are concerned or uncomfortable.

This is simply a question about procedures and how the justice system works.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That's the case with any legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay, thank you.

Perhaps this is a question I could ask your colleague Minister Guilbeault, who is also here today, but do you feel that we could add the wording to this bill right now that would reassure people who think that freedom of expression is currently being infringed upon? Do you have any idea what we could put in the bill to deal with this issue once and for all?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The question is more for Mr. Guilbeault, yes. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for his question.

Clearly, the committee is sovereign and has the power to propose amendments that it believes will improve the bill. I was the first to admit from the beginning that any bill could be improved.

As you know, we are a minority government. In that context, we have already worked extensively with the opposition parties on a number of amendments. We remain open to working with them throughout the committee's work, of course.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

We will come back to that, because I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We will go to Ms. McPherson for six minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to take a moment to thank Minister Guilbeault, Minister Lametti and the department representatives from Heritage and Justice for joining us today in this important meeting.

Mr. Lametti, I'm very glad you're here. I have to say that I was worried when you initially chose not to testify at this committee. I was, of course, deeply concerned that your absence would cause continued delay and would continue to impede our work on creating good broadcasting legislation, so thank you for taking the time to be with us here today.

Mr. Lametti, some experts have stated that your latest update on the charter statement is very fragile, as it is more a political document to protect the mistakes of your government than a legal analysis, so, of course, by your declining the initial invitation, we felt that you were reinforcing this concern and the fears about threats to the freedom of expression. Again, thank you for making the time to be here with us today.

I have a series of questions for you, if you don't mind. First of all, I'd like to know if you can identify the sections of the bill that are intended to protect the charter principles. Could you identify clearly those provisions that are intended to protect the charter principles?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

My absence was based in part on a principle that ministers defend their own bills in front of committee—