Thank you. This is more than semantics, as Mr. Housefather would describe it. This is asking for specific information. It's the content of the statement that was created.
I think the Conservative Party members at the table could get over the so-called semantics, but what was requested—and I'll just read it back to the committee—was that we would:
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.
In other words, it's the acknowledgement that those amendments have potentially had an impact on the content. The motion is very specific. It says the impact on the content that users post on their social media platforms.
That being the case, the statement provided by the minister does not actually address that. I would liken what we have in front of us to an individual going to the doctor, getting a clean bill of health, going out, smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day for the next 10 years, but still claiming that he has a clean bill of health, pointing back to what the doctor gave to him.
There are some very significant factors that have been changed since that original charter statement was granted. We can get over the wording, whether you want to call it a charter statement or an explanatory statement, whatever, but the content of that document needs to address the motion that we as a committee put forward. What we want to know is whether censoring the posts put on social media by an individual is charter compliant. The explanatory statement does not address that.