Evidence of meeting #54 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Madam Clerk. I am not on the floor. I cannot see whose hand is up on the floor. Thank you.
Mr. Shields, go ahead.
November 18th, 2022 / 2 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The clerk recognized me 15 minutes ago with my hand up. It's difficult when we're in a hybrid situation. I understand that. However, it's problematic for me when we're in a hybrid situation, and I hate this. When we're all in the same room, it works better.
Thank you to Mr. Julian, who's concerned about taxpayers' dollars. That's great.
Thank you to Mr. Champoux, who wants us to be more efficient.
However, when I hear words—and this is me, not Conservatives or Conservatives notes—about how we're moving into new territory constitutionally and we're expanding powers, in a sense, in what this document is doing, this is new and I get very concerned.
You may disagree with me, sitting around the table. I have my opinion, and it's my opinion to express. You have yours; you can express them. However, when you're saying that this is new and that this is new territory.... You've been talking about how this is new, how we're expanding into this, so I get very concerned when you say how we're moving into new powers and what they can be.
You say there are federal and provincial powers with this. Where are they? Where is the basis for them? I think this will be challenged in court because it is new, and it should be challenged in court.
When I look at social media as a regular person out there—and Twitter might disappear tomorrow, as half the employees have gone today—it'll be something new that's out there. When I look at Twitter and Facebook and at all these.... When people use the private messaging in it, people don't differentiate that from news. It's Facebook that they're using. They use the private part; they use the other parts. They're not distinguishing it like you are here and like you're attempting to do in this legislation. That's not how the public users see those formats that they use.
I know you're an expert. I've listened to you before, and I appreciate the expertise you bring to it. However, average consumers don't differentiate that usage. When they go on private messaging on Twitter, that's just part of Twitter. That's what they're using. They don't see the difference.
So, when you're saying this.... The power you want to use over social media really causes me concern. This is new. This is expanding it, to me. It's not in the Constitution; 1867 didn't think of this at that time. Now you're developing legislation to deal with a common practice that most people in this country use—or a lot of them use. So—
2 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a point of order.
I really apologize to my friend—
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me. When someone is speaking, can people please mute their mikes so that we can hear them?
Mr. Housefather.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I really apologize to my friend Mr. Shields, who has not been the one taking up most of the time at the meeting. However, Madam Chair, there is an amendment on the floor. It's CPC-01. Nothing that Mr. Shields has said relates to amendment CPC-01. The constitutionality of the bill or the bill as a whole does not relate to the change that is proposed in CPC-01.
From now on, I am going to be calling points of order every single time a speaker diverges from the amendment on the floor because this is clearly and simply a filibuster.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think Mr. Housefather's point is absolutely warranted. So much more.... We have the Alberta community newspapers and the Saskatchewan community newspapers all saying this bill needs to be adopted. It needs to be improved, and it surprises me that the Conservatives are utterly blocking any of the direction that we've received from community newspapers in their ridings.
If Conservatives aren't even willing to listen to their own constituents and are blocking the passage of this bill, who are they listening to?
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Julian. That was not a point of order, but there you go.
I note that Mrs. Thomas, who said she had finished her line of questioning, is now back up.
Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Chair, I didn't give up the floor. There were points of order.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
When I see in this particular piece “legislative authority of Parliament”, I am very concerned—
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a point of order.
Madam Chair, you didn't rule on my objection. I believe Mr. Shields—
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Mr. Housefather.
I will rule that you are correct. This has nothing to do with the amendment that we are discussing right now.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If Mr. Shields has something to say on the amendment, he may go right ahead, but he must be on topic.
Thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I was reading the amendment that he objected to. The bill says “that is subject to the legislative authority of Parliament”. The amendment we want to make is to take that out.
Mr. Housefather is objecting to me reading the amendment. I'm not sure why. That's exactly what this debate is about.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Shields, let us not debate this. You were not speaking to that issue earlier on, but you are speaking to it now, so you are in order.
Go ahead.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
To Mr. Ripley, in the sense of the history, do you believe this is new, a broadening of powers that is not in the Constitution, and that this legislation is breaking new ground?
2:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.
I believe when I used the term “new” earlier, it was in response to MP Thomas, who asked me whether the definition of “digital news intermediary” had been used elsewhere. I said no. That's a new concept that was developed for this legislation.
In terms of the constitutionality of it, as you know, the heads of power under the Constitution Act have evolved through case law and through interpretation so that they can continue to apply in the modern context. Our assessment, again, for this bill, is that it is an appropriate piece of legislation that falls under the federal government's jurisdiction in this space under the Constitution Act.
It is, indeed, a new piece of legislation. It's a new framework, but it is grounded in the Constitution Act and those powers that fall to the federal government and not other levels of government.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
That was my concern, in the sense that this is very important and it's important to debate those things that are new. This is new in the sense of what you said, but you believe the power existed previously. This hasn't been tested in the sense of whether it will withstand that in a judiciary...and it probably will be.
2:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question.
We conduct an assessment before we table a piece of legislation. We would not bring it forward if we did not believe that there was federal jurisdiction.
I won't speculate on whether folks will seek to challenge it in court or not.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative