Canadian Heritage Committee on May 8th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

For many of you who have been here before, you know that in the hybrid format, if you look at the bottom of your screen you will see a globe. If you press the globe, it will give you choices for the language you can conduct your meeting in. That's one thing.

Then, public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy have removed the mandate for wearing masks indoors. We still hear from the World Health Organization that masks are excellent tools for preventing the spread of COVID.

I want to take this opportunity to remind all participants that you are not allowed to take pictures of the screen. You're not allowed to take pictures of what is going on here. You can get this on the House of Commons website.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, March 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue its study on tech giants' current and ongoing use of intimidation and subversion tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world.

We have two witnesses here.

I also want to remind you not to speak unless the chair recognizes you. Please speak through the chair whenever you're speaking.

Before I go into this, we have two witnesses here from Meta Platforms. They are Kevin Chan, global policy director, and Rachel Curran, head of public policy in Canada.

Both of you have a total of 10 minutes. You can choose how to use that 10 minutes yourselves. I'll give you a 30-second shout-out.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

The witness who is not appearing today, Madam Chair, is Nicholas Clegg. He was invited and has not appeared.

Hopefully we can move quickly on this point. I wanted to move that in relation to the committee's study on Google, Facebook and Bill C-18, Nicholas Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta be—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I just need a clarification. Are we entering into committee business? That's normally when motions are moved.

Is this a point of order? Motions are not allowed to be moved on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't think he made a point of order to move a motion. He informed us all beforehand that he was going to move this motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

It's my understanding that we've now entered into committee business, then, for him to be able to move this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

What he is moving is directly related to the meeting we're doing right now. He can do that at any time. It's directly related, in fact, to this particular meeting.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

All right. I'll allow him to continue, then. Thank you for the clarification, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Peter, you may continue, and then I have a question I need to ask the clerk with regard to your motion.

Go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll state it again.

I move that in relation to the committee's study on Google, Facebook and Bill C-18, Nicholas Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta be summoned to appear before the committee for two hours on May 15, 2023.

I move the motion. Hopefully this won't engender a lot of discussion.

He was invited. He is not appearing. This would be a summons, so he would have an obligation to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Peter.

I just wanted to suggest that there was a summons sent on Friday—two weeks ago—for Nicholas Clegg to appear. It was already made by this committee and it passed unanimously.

We had originally, in our very first motion, asked for specific people to come.

I wanted to ask the clerk this: What happened when we invited those specific people from Meta to come?

Then we sent a summons. The clerk shared with me that Meta decided that they would love to co-operate with the committee and they would come, despite the summons, if we sent them an invitation. We also sent an invitation following the summons. Why is it that of the people who I was told were going to appear, one suddenly decided not to come on Friday? Can you tell us the reasons you were given, Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

That would be a more appropriate question for the witnesses than for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, but you were informed. You were told, as the clerk, that Mr. Clegg was not coming. What was the reason given to you when he called on Friday or when they decided on Friday to renege on that agreement to come?

[The Clerk]

Again, I would suggest, since the witnesses are here in the room, that it would be a more appropriate question for the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Then you were not given any reason. You were just told that they weren't coming. Is that it?

I'm just trying to clarify for the sake of the committee.

[The Clerk]

I would suggest that the witnesses are sitting right here and can clarify. You can get the news right from the witnesses themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We also have a motion on the floor from Peter.

Martin, are you speaking to the motion?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes indeed.

Madam Chair, I too have some questions about clarifying the sequence of events.

We did in fact send a summons to appear to some Meta representatives, and afterwards, through the clerk, Meta sent a request. We agreed to send them an invitation afterwards, but the summons to appear had already been sent to Meta. Out of courtesy, and at their request, if I recall correctly, we added a letter of invitation to the summons. The clerk can correct me if necessary. Meta had agreed that the people we had invited would appear. It had been confirmed that Mr. Clegg would be among those who would attend, and we believed in Meta's good faith and assumed that Mr. Clegg was bound, not only by his agreement to appear further to the invitation, but also indirectly as a result of the summons we had sent a few days earlier.

So, what reasons were given? Could they just be toying with us? I'd also like to know whether the clerk has further details about why they said they were cancelling Mr. Clegg's appearance before the committee. All we've seen is an amendment to the meeting notice for today, which simply leaves out Mr. Clegg's name with no further information.

Were there any explanations, yes or no? I don't think it's up to the witnesses to tell us why, given that there was probably a conversation held between the committee and Meta.

Can the clerk provide us with further details?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. Your synopsis of events is accurate.

I have Marilyn waiting and I have Peter waiting, but I think you are asking the clerk a specific question. Is that right?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, I'd like some clarification. I want to understand what purpose was served by the summons to appear that we sent. Did it become void because we agreed to send an invitation? After all, a summons stands for something. So I want to know what reasons were given. Are there valid reasons that would justify Mr. Clegg's absence, when we willingly agreed to send an invitation rather than a summons to the people at Meta, which had made a commitment to appear before the committee? We didn't receive any notification to that effect.

These are important questions, and I'd like answers.

I would add, Mr. Clerk, that these answers might well affect our decision with respect to Mr. Julian's motion this morning.

[The Clerk]

Well, to begin with, a summons for a sovereign citizen of another country has no effect from this committee, so there is that. It was relayed back to me from Meta that there wasn't a need to abide by the conditions of a summons, because it had no effect.

They extended an offer to have Mr. Clegg appear voluntarily if the framing of the meeting was such that it was an invitation and a collaboration and an effort to work collaboratively with the committee. That was all set up.

Then, as the events unfolded, I was instructed to alter the title of the committee's study from a generic description to the exact language of the motion, which presented a different framing for the meeting, which was perhaps unpalatable to Sir Nick Clegg.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Am I to understand that he was asking us to change the title of our invitation?

[The Clerk]

The invitation was sent under a certain title. Subsequent to the invitation being accepted, Sir Nick Clegg was scheduled to appear.

When the notice of meeting went out, it had a different title that framed, I believe.... Once again, I cannot speak on behalf of Meta, but I believe, based on our exchanges, that the framing of this particular meeting with the particular study title was not acceptable to Sir Nick Clegg.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You weren't told specifically why Mr. Clegg refused to appear. You were not told clearly that this was why he was not coming. That's what I wanted to know.