You can when I'm ready.
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.
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.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just one moment, please.
I want to make sure that everybody understands the rules about directing questions, before we get into something else. I've stated them now.
Ms. Harder wanted to make a point.
Do I proceed with your questioning, Ms. Harder?
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I wish to clarify one more thing about the direction you're giving us right now, Chair.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Your ruling is different than what it has been in the past, and I'm not sure if that's because we have two ministers in front of us. In the past, you've given us the latitude to determine the witness to whom we are directing our question.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That is correct, but if you direct it to a particular person, they can refer to someone else. You can talk to whomever you wish, but the person receiving the question can refer to someone else if they so desire. I can't compel them to answer, even if I wanted to.
I'm sorry for your frustrations, but I'm trying to make my way through this, and I'm hoping that nobody talks over anyone else.
Minister Lametti, you had something you wished to clarify as well.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
It's a long-standing practice of the House of Commons and committees, Mr. Chair, that ministers speak to their own bills.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I am here for that specific reason—to speak to the charter statement—and that's what I will do.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You mentioned that in your opening statement, but now I have to proceed.
Ms. Harder, you still have the floor. Go ahead.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Minister Lametti, I think as I've already expressed.... I know you to be very capable and very competent. I know you to be a strong defender of free expression online. You've certainly written to that effect and made statements to that effect, so I am very glad that you are here today.
I do have a question with regard to discoverability and its requirements within this bill. Again, Dr. Geist said that, in his view, the prioritization or deprioritization of speech by the government through the CRTC necessarily implicates freedom of expression. Based on the charter statement that you produced, would you agree with that?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
As I have stated, the conclusion in both the charter statement and the explanatory document is that the bill is consistent with the charter. If you have a question about the applicability or a particular point of interpretation in the proposed bill, I will turn over the floor to Minister Guilbeault.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I have a question with regard to the charter—as to whether or not section 2(b) of the charter is actually held up by this bill—so let me explain further.
If I go to an art exhibition owned by a private individual, I expect to walk in and the art to be curated for me. Some artists are going to be given the front room; other artists are going to be given a back room. The curators are going to choose which paintings come first and which are toward, maybe, the end of the exhibition. That curation is expected because I'm going into a private gallery, and they've offered to do that for me. At the same time, however, if the government was to come in and dictate to that gallery how the art should be hung, where it should be hung or which artist should be promoted, that is censorship in its finest. The same thing is happening on our social media platforms with Bill C-10.
How does that fit within section 2(b) of the charter: to have what we post online carefully curated and censored by a government arm, the CRTC?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
As I mentioned in my opening statement, both the charter statement and the explanatory document looked at the various provisions of Bill C-10 and found that section 2(b) might be engaged, but there were various reasons given—which I outlined in my opening—to conclude that this was in conformity with section 2(b) of the charter.
Again, if there's a substantive application question, I will turn it over to Minister Guilbeault.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Minister Guilbeault, it's great to see you here again. Thank you.
Also, thank you to Mr. Ripley and the officials from Canadian Heritage.
I want to particularly thank Minister Lametti and express my personal appreciation to him, to Nathalie Drouin and to the team from the Department of Justice for being here today, which is outside the normal course.
Minister Lametti, this committee asked you to provide a document “focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill...have impacted the initial Charter statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Somebody was trying to use a technical term in terms of what we're calling the document to tell us whether or not you have delivered. Do you believe the document you provided delivers exactly what the committee requested?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Yes, I do. It answers the question that was posed by the committee, which was whether the analysis contained in the original charter statement changed with the amendments. After the analysis, the explanatory document says that, no, that is not the case.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you.
At our meeting last Friday, a number of questions were raised about why the explanatory document was not on the Department of Justice website and why the initial charter statement had not been amended on the Department of Justice website. Can you explain to us why that's the case?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
The legal obligation with respect to charter statements, according to section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, is that they be tabled around the time that the bill is tabled in the House of Commons. At that point, we put it up on the website. As the committee requested a separate assessment, we produced an explanatory document based on the amendments to C-10, and we gave it to the committee because it was the committee that requested it.
It's not the charter statement that was originally tabled, so there was no need to list it on the Department of Justice website.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you.
Some have claimed that the charter statement is a political document because it's been signed off by you, and you happen to be a Liberal minister.
Would the charter statement not be more accurately described as a non-political document prepared by non-partisan department officials at Justice Canada to provide Canadians and parliamentarians with a better understanding of how the bill may impact charter rights?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
That is very true. Your second characterization is absolutely the case, and the first characterization of it as a political document is absolutely not the case.
It's an important responsibility, as I outlined in my opening remarks, for me to oversee the preparation of charter statements. These are done by non-partisan department lawyers who are tasked with preparing charter statements and doing the analysis. The charter statement has a specific role, as I outlined in my opening remarks. While it is a document that is finally reviewed by me, I do that in my role as Minister of Justice, and I do that very seriously in an non-partisan way.
The document itself was drafted in a wholly non-partisan way, so no, it's not a political document. It's meant to be a legal framework document, if you will. That's the best way I can describe it.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I know that you've said this already, but I just want to make sure we're all clear on this. In reference to the explanatory document, is it accurate to say that you have determined that the bill, as amended and as proposed to be amended, does not change the relevant considerations in the original charter statement?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
That's precisely the conclusion of the explanatory document. The relevant considerations set out in the charter statement remain valid, and these considerations are not impacted by the proposed amendments.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Some have criticized the explanatory document for not stating whether the potential discoverability requirements would breach section 2(b) and require a section 1 analysis.
Mr. Minister, would a charter statement ever contain section analysis?