Evidence of meeting #79 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 meta.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Clerk
You're asking me to provide precisions from Meta, and I'm trying to say that the people who I was basically discussing the matter with are sitting in the room. Perhaps it would be better to ask Meta.
The Clerk
The email that I received from them was that the framing of the meeting was no longer acceptable to Sir Nicholas Clegg.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Before I go to Marilyn, I want to say that the framing of the title of this meeting came directly from the motion that was passed unanimously by this committee, so there was nothing strange or new, and it was a public hearing when that motion was passed.
Now, to Marilyn—
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
On a point of order, just to correct the record, it was not passed unanimously. There were individuals who abstained.
Thank you.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
That's true.
Clerk, I would just say that certainly we want to hear from Nicholas—I think that was the intent—but previously, when we had Google here, the title of the meeting was “Activities of Google in reaction to Bill C-18”. I would move to amend the motion that Mr. Julian has made to say that the meeting be called “Activities of Meta in reaction to Bill C-18” to provide a more accurate topic and in a more collaborative way.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
Does anyone want to speak to the amendment to Peter's motion?
Go ahead, Peter.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
If the committee is in agreement, I would accept that as a very friendly and amicable amendment to my motion.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am absolutely in agreement with the motion, although I do note, as you have said, Madam Chair, that we've already summoned Mr. Clegg and we had summoned Mr. Zuckerberg, and neither of them is here. We've summoned another Canadian employee of Meta, who is not here either. There are two people here who were not invited by the committee or summoned by the committee. I find that extraordinary.
While I would be prepared at this point to refer this to the House, as opposed to summoning Mr. Clegg again, I certainly will support summoning Mr. Clegg again. I do find it strange, given, as you said, Madam Chair, that this is all based on a motion that was adopted weeks ago. Nothing changed within the scope of the motion that invited or summoned Meta here.
I don't understand how somebody who agrees to come in a Tuesday letter to the committee pulls out on the Friday before the meeting. If the issue is indeed that Meta doesn't like the way the committee has framed the wording of the meeting, that is extraordinary too. Meta wants to dictate to us what legislation we should pass, and they also want to dictate to this committee what we call our meetings. I'm aghast.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
For clarification, I would like to read the motion that Mr. Housefather proposed and that was passed by this committee. Whether it was unanimous or not, it was passed by the committee.
The motion reads:
That, given the dominant market position of Meta and Google and each company’s recent actions in Canada which appear to be attempts to intimidate Parliament and which follow a pattern of repeated subversive tactics used by tech giants across the world to prevent accountability, the committee undertake a study on tech giants’ current and ongoing use of intimidation and subversion tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world, and that as such, the committee hold a minimum of 5 meetings; and that, as part of this study;
(I) The committee summon Meta—
It has the names of everyone. There's Mark Zuckerberg, Nick Clegg and Chris Saniga.
The motion then reads that Meta Platforms would provide us with documents, which we have not received, as you well know. This committee knows we were sent generic documents that can be found in the public domain. We actually subpoenaed those documents, and they have not arrived yet.
Let's be very clear on what we're talking about. The committee was asked to study “tech giants’ current and ongoing use of intimidation and subversion tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world”. That is the exact wording of the motion. That is the exact wording for this meeting today. In fact, this was done in a public hearing, so that Meta was fully and well aware—and so was Google and everyone else—of what that motion said. This is not some sort of sleight of hand at all. I want to be very clear about that.
I have Marilyn and then Peter.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Absolutely. We were also advised that people who are in the United States are not necessarily legally subject to the subpoenas we send. In the spirit of wanting to hear and work collaboratively, Mr. Julian is okay with the amendment to name the meeting as we said, and so I'd like to have that vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I will call the vote if there is no one willing to speak to the amendment, Marilyn. I will reserve the right to do that.
Peter wants to speak.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't take a lot of time.
Mr. Clegg is a very experienced parliamentarian. I believe he understood the ramifications of proposing that an invitation be issued, knowing that in parliamentary terms, what that does is have an impact on the summons. That is why I'm proposing a clear summons today that goes forward such that if he chooses not to come on Monday, as he has chosen not to come today, he will be in non-compliance, and there is a process we have as parliamentarians. I'm sure Mr. Clegg would understand that there are consequences for his refusal to respect our democracy in Canada and our Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Peter.
Is there any further discussion on Ms. Gladu's amendment?
No.
I will call the question on the amendment.
All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed?
Mr. Housefather, are you voting?
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I abstain.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
As we clarify this situation, I think Martin Champoux made a very important point.
We sent a summons, as the committee asked us to. As a result of that summons, we heard from Meta Platforms that they were a little concerned about our summoning them and that they would like to come and work collaboratively with the committee. If we think about it, we are simply repeating—even though the motion has passed—exactly what they promised to do, and then they withdrew on Friday.
Those are some of the things that I gather everyone is concerned about.
Chris, did you wish to speak?
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I have a point of order before we move to the witnesses. I would like to see them sworn in, please, Madam Chair.
