Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess what I'm struggling with here, in all of this, is that there's been so much discussion about what we started with and what we've heard. We've talked about reports from staff. We've talked about experts on different sides of this issue. What I'm finding frustrating about this right now is the argument I'm hearing against the concept of putting proposed section 4.1 back in, or a slight variation of it that we think might capture some of the concerns of the governing party. I'm hearing that it's unnecessary from a number of colleagues, not just the Liberal MPs.
I'm struggling with that. We've now heard from a number of experts and a number of people who say it is absolutely necessary. I'm hearing MPs say that it is unnecessary, because people's protections are already guaranteed in other sections of the bill. What I haven't heard is a legitimate argument to say that somehow, putting proposed section 4.1 back in, or a variation of it like we've proposed today, is somehow damaging to the bill. If it's just simply unnecessary, if you see it as duplication, what's so wrong about a little duplication when it comes to protecting freedom of expression online? Is it really just unnecessary, or is it in some way going to hurt something somewhere else?
You're hearing a pretty clear message, I think, from the Conservative members of this committee that if we do this, we can move on. If it's simply unnecessary—I'm seeing Ms. Dabrusin kind of roll her eyes and giggle, and that's great—then why can't we just agree and move on? If it's somehow going to damage the bill, then tell us what that is, because I see enough credible evidence, from the staff to the minister, from the debate we had with the experts....
This is what representatives of the public do. They listen to the public and they change if they need to make changes. That's what I've heard. It seems as though some of the comments I've heard, particularly from Ms. Dabrusin, about how we've done this and we have to move on....
Maybe that's the advantage I have of growing up in small town politics, where you listen to people. If you make a mistake, you change course. There's plenty on the public record of me making mistakes and having to change course because of something. I can give you all kinds of examples. You change course.
This is, to me, a legitimate question. I'm not used to this partisan game that goes on around here. This is ridiculous. All we're asking for is something that we've heard regularly now from experts and individual creators who use online forums who are concerned about this. If it's just duplication to you, why do you care? We've given you an option here to move forward and help these creators who need this support.
Mr. Chair, I throw the question out there. I apologize that I don't have a particular individual to share it with. I'm just at a loss here, trying to understand if this is just a game or if they're truly concerned that it somehow damages the bill in some other way. I'm kind of lost. I'm hopeful that maybe somebody, if they don't answer that question, could at least give it some thought and wonder what on earth we're arguing about anymore.