Evidence of meeting #27 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-11.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me. I'm sorry. I think we're all trying to be very reasonable and we're all trying to be very courteous and polite to each other. I don't know how you decide what I mean when I speak. I am trying to be very careful about following procedure. I really do not like that sort of innuendo, Ms. Thomas. It goes on too much in this committee.
Thank you.
I'm awaiting your answer.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry, Chair. I heard a question from Mr. Julian, but it is my understanding that he does not have the ability to ask me a question. You, as Chair, have responsibility to oversee this meeting.
Liberal
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
You are asking me if I am willing to table this motion for another time?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm not asking you that.
I'm asking you whether we should proceed to listening to the CRTC, who are due to start this meeting with us. It's now past the time for them to meeting with us. I am just asking you if you're prepared to listen to the CRTC.
If you are not, then I guess we will have to dismiss the CRTC and continue with your motion.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, I have every intent of speaking to the motion that I have moved.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes? I don't know who's raising the point of order.
Please identify yourself.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It's Mr. Julian, Madam Chair.
We have witnesses here who need to be answering questions, and it is strange beyond belief that the Conservatives, Ms. Thomas, would actually stop them from testifying. We have questions. I think they're valid questions that Ms. Thomas has raised. We have the transcripts from the last meeting.
Why would we stop them from actually testifying and clarifying the remarks of the chair of the CRTC? I ask, through you, Madam Chair, again that Ms. Thomas do the parliamentary thing, which is actually to allow the CRTC to testify.
She can table her motion, not until a later date, but until right after their testimony. I am certainly prepared to have that discussion. What I find unbelievable is that we would stop the CRTC from testifying so we can ask them those questions that Ms. Thomas has quite rightfully raised. Her motion stops them from testifying and clarifying their remarks.
I would ask again, through you, Madam Chair, that Ms. Thomas simply table until after the CRTC presentation, and I'm quite prepared to come back to consideration of her motion. But I believe—and I think other members feel the same way—that we need to hear from the CRTC.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Chair, I'm sorry; it is inappropriate for questions to be asked directly to me, so I'm assuming you're asking this question.
Conservative
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
My colleagues now have in front of them the wording of that motion. It states:
Given that the Chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, testified at this committee on May 24, 2022 that Bill C-11 as currently drafted allows for the regulation of user content; and given that the Bill C-11 Charter Statement tabled in the House of Commons on April 1, 2022 states online user content would not be subject to broadcasting regulation under Bill C-11 as currently drafted;
The Committee:
1) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-11 as soon as possible.
2) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant departmental officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter Statement.
The reason for moving this motion, of course, is explained within the motion itself, which is that we have a charter statement in front of us that seems to be contradicted by the words of the CRTC commissioner himself. That is very concerning to me as a member of Parliament and a member of this committee and someone who is accountable to Canadians in how legislation like this is debated and—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It's Peter Julian.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Thomas is making comments about the statements made by the CRTC while the CRTC is sitting outside this conference room.
I would implore you, Madame Chair, through you to Ms. Thomas, to allow the CRTC to come in so that they can answer the questions, rather than have her making statements about statements they may have made without their being able to clarify them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Julian, I am ruling that yours is not a point of order and in fact is debate. If you wish to raise your hand after Ms. Thomas has finished, you may begin to debate her motion.
Ms. Thomas, continue.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I was saying, I've moved this motion asking for a new charter statement. You will see that it's a really reasonable motion. I'm saying that this be done as soon as possible. I'm saying that we're going ask the justice minister to do that, and that we invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, accompanied by relevant departmental officials. We're going to have them appear before this committee, again, as soon as possible, in order to discuss that revised charter statement. All of those things seem appropriate and in order.
What I was saying before Mr. Julian interrupted me was that the point of this motion is that we have a charter statement in front of us that says that user-generated content is not captured by Bill C-11, but we have the chair of the CRTC, who, on May 18, 2022, said that it is captured by this piece of legislation, so the two are not congruent. In order to clarify that in a legal framework, we do require a new charter statement.
The committee will recall that we came to a similar predicament with Bill C-10. We were debating that piece of legislation in the spring of 2021. This is, of course, the former Bill C-11, the predecessor to the current bills. We were debating that piece of legislation in the spring of 2021. What happened was that the members of the Liberal Party who were on this committee at the time made amendments to that bill, and they took out a section that protected individuals who use online platforms to post their content. Having taken out that clause, it significantly changed the piece of legislation, and because it significantly changed the piece of legislation, a new charter statement was then required.
There was a motion moved at that time that is very similar to the motion I've presented today. The committee members at that time were very reasonable and agreed to it, so a new charter statement was, in fact, drafted and considered by the committee.
Similarly, we find ourselves in a situation where information is not fully aligning, so we need clarification. Now I—
Liberal