:
Welcome back, everybody. Once again, just 22 hours later, here we sit once more with Bill .
Today, we're doing witness testimony. With us today we have both ministers and officials. I'm just going to briefly introduce them for you.
We have the Hon. Steven Guilbeault, who is the Minister of Canadian Heritage and who has been here before.
We also have the Hon. David Lametti, the Minister of Justice.
From the Department of Justice, we have Nathalie Drouin, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Sarah Geh, director general, human rights law section; and Michael Himsl, legal counsel.
Once again, and no strangers to us now by any means, from the Department of Canadian Heritage we have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, and Drew Olsen, senior director.
We have an hour and perhaps a bit. I know we have an hour with the minister, but, Minister, bear with us. Sometimes we tend to go five minutes over. I say that with trepidation, but you can try to hold us to it.
That being said, we usually do four questions in the opening round and four questions in the second round. I'm hoping to accomplish that. If we have time left, we can do more. That would give an extra one spot for the Conservatives and then the Liberals. In the meantime, I'm going to try to hold to these eight speaking spots.
Mr. Guilbeault, you're not doing an opening statement, but we understand Mr. Lametti is.
Minister Lametti, welcome to the committee. You have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours, sir.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
I wish to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from Ottawa on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the charter statement that was tabled for Bill , as well as the explanatory document requested for the proposed amendments now before the committee.
As you can see, I'm appearing alongside Minister Guilbeault, who is the minister responsible for Bill . I am accompanied by officials from my department.
[Translation]
I want to begin by discussing the duty I have under the law, as Minister of Justice, to prepare statements regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for government bills introduced in the House of Commons.
I will discuss the purpose of charter statements and provide the context, including their history. I will explain what charter statements are meant to do and not do.
I will also gladly speak to the charter statement tabled in relation to Bill , as well as the explanatory document provided to the committee concerning the potential effects of the proposed amendments on freedom of expression.
[English]
I should note at the outset that it is not my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give legal advice to parliamentary committees. You have access to your own legal counsel and independent witnesses.
As you are aware, however, I do have obligations under the Department of Justice Act in terms of reviewing proposed government bills for inconsistency with the charter and preparing charter statements for government bills. This obligation was created by our government to be open and transparent with Canadians about the charter considerations of our legislation.
These two sets of obligations—examining bills and preparing charter statements—are both focused on the bill as tabled.
[Translation]
Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in the House of Commons for every government bill. That obligation came into force in December 2019.
Examining bills for potential inconsistency with the charter, as set out in section 4.1, is one of my most important responsibilities. Rest assured that I also take very seriously the obligation to ensure charter statements are tabled in the House, as set out in section 4.2.
Now I will turn to the purpose of charter statements.
Charter statements are intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a government bill. They foster transparency regarding the effects of a government bill on the fundamental values protected by the charter. They provide parliamentarians with additional information to further inform the important legislative debates they have on behalf of Canadians. Charter statements also provide Canadians with additional information to help them participate in these debates through their elected representatives.
The obligation to table charter statements is a testament to our government's commitment to respect and uphold the charter, as an integral part of the country's good governance.
We can never abdicate our responsibility as a government to ensure that our decisions—including those reflected in the reform of an act—respect our fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act strengthens the obligation this government and future governments have to respect this most basic of requirements.
[English]
I would like to take a few moments to explain the content of charter statements. In keeping with their purpose, charter statements are drafted at a high level. They set out in an accessible way the potential effects a bill may have on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Charter statements also explain considerations that support the constitutionality of a bill.
In our discussion of the charter, it is also important to stress that, when Parliament legislates, it may have an effect on charter rights and freedoms. This may include limiting people's enjoyment or exercise when it is in the broader public interest to do so. This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute, but rather subject to reasonable limits, as long as those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This means that, when identifying the potential effect of a bill that could limit a right or a freedom, it may also be necessary to consider whether the limit is reasonable and justified. A charter statement may therefore outline considerations relevant to the potential justifiability of a bill.
The fact that charter rights and freedoms can be limited, however, is not a licence to violate them. Rather, it is a reminder that any legislative limits to rights and freedoms must be carefully considered in the context of the shared values of Canada's unique, free and democratic society.
As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to discuss and debate potential effects on charter guarantees. We exercise our judgment on behalf of Canadians as to whether proposed legislation strikes the right balance between rights and freedoms and the broader public interest. Charter statements are one more source of information to add to our deliberations.
[Translation]
I would also like to take a moment to explain what a charter statement is not.
A charter statement is not a legal opinion. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the constitutionality of a bill.
As I mentioned, a charter statement provides Parliament and the public with legal information relating to the possible effects of a bill on the rights guaranteed by the charter and to the considerations that support the consistency of the bill with the charter.
As we all know, bills often change when they are being considered by Parliament. A charter statement reflects the bill at the time it was introduced by the government in the House of Commons. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act does not require that charter statements be updated as a bill progresses through Parliament.
Keeping that in mind, I will now turn to the proposed amendments to Bill in relation to social media, which are before the committee.
My fellow minister Mr. Guilbeault talked about the scope of the proposed amendments. He highlighted the key objectives underlying the amendments and discussed their intended effects on social media services and users.
In short, the proposed amendments are intended to empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to regulate a social media service in respect of programs uploaded by its unaffiliated users, strictly in relation to the following: payment of regulatory charges, such as to support the creation of Canadian programming; discoverability of Canadian creators; registration of the service; provision of information; and auditing of records.
[English]
In keeping with my obligations under the Department of Justice Act, I tabled a charter statement for Bill in the House of Commons on November 18, 2020. The charter statement for Bill C-10 identifies the rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by the bill, and relevant considerations that support the bill's consistency with the charter.
In considering the committee's recent discussions focusing on the impacts of the proposed amendments on social media, I understand there has been extensive debate on freedom of expression.
We have prepared and shared with you an explanatory document that examines the amendments, and discusses their potential effect on the right to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. I'm confident that these considerations support the charter consistency of the bill, and that they remain as outlined in the charter statement. It is our position that the bill, as tabled, and these proposed amendments are consistent with the charter.
As the charter statement indicates, the bill's regulatory requirements have the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. The following considerations support the continued consistency of the proposed regulatory requirements of section 2(b).
By virtue of clause 1, which would remain in the bill, unaffiliated users of social media services would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in respect of the programs they post. What remains is an updating of the CRTC's regulatory powers, and providing it with new powers applicable to online service. The bill maintains the CRTC's role and flexibility at determining what, if any, regulatory requirements to impose on broadcasting undertakings.
Regarding the proposal to give the CRTC new limited powers to regulate an online undertaking that provides the social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, the relevant charter considerations include the CRTC's discretionary role and flexibility.
The proposed narrowing of the CRTC's discretionary powers to regulate its social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, to only discrete members that I have mentioned, is an additional consideration. The CRTC is subject to the charter, and must exercise any discretionary powers it has in a manner that is consistent with the charter.
The act states that it must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with freedom of expression. The CRTC's decisions on matters of law or jurisdiction are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
In my view, the relevant considerations that are set out in the charter statement remain valid. These considerations are not impacted by the proposed amendments.
[Translation]
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.
I am at your disposal to answer questions.
:
That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Lametti.
The chair has made it very clear that you are under no obligation to answer our questions if you do not wish to do so.
My understanding is that you don't want to tell us whether section 2(b) of the Charter protects both individuals and the content they post online. I don't know whether that is true or not, but that is my understanding.
The statement that you submitted on November 18 explicitly included in its analysis the proposed section 4.1 of the Broadcasting Act. That section was removed on a Friday afternoon about three weeks ago. That is at the root of the conflict we find ourselves in. However, you, as Minister of Justice, do not want to give us a legal opinion or at least tell us, based on your expertise, what you think.
You said earlier that lawyers or experts could be consulted once the bill is passed. Experts have already come to speak with us. Yesterday, Le Devoir published an open letter supported by five experts, including several former senior CRTC officials. I am sure you have read it. If not, your advisors or political staff must have read it. Those senior executives explicitly said that this would be challenged. We already know that. We have heard concerns from university professors, experts and policy analysts. I think it is legitimate for members of Parliament, who have to make recommendations, to consider those concerns.
Originally, the bill proposed to add section 4.1 to the act to protect the content that users post online. Now that this section has been removed, how can we be sure that users' content will be protected?
As a member of the House of Commons, how can I make a decision on this issue if you, as Minister of Justice, cannot help me?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.
Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill , which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all.
She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel.
I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.
[Translation]
The motion recognizes that Bill “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”
[English]
I think Bill actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.
:
Yes, it's me again, Mr. Chair.
I would like to remind you that I asked a few questions earlier about possible remedies after a bill has been passed. Minister Lametti said that, if there are still concerns about certain sections of the legislation after a bill is passed, Canadians, individuals or groups always have a process through which to challenge its validity or constitutionality.
In the last few days, the leader of the Conservative Party has been very clear that, if elected to power, he would repeal this piece of legislation. It is understandable then that our Conservative colleagues' support for Bill is non-existent.
However, since the beginning of the work, although they do not support the bill, the Conservatives have always been willing to not interrupt, block or slow down the work, and I am absolutely grateful to them for that. Moreover, despite their opposition to the bill, their input has often been very constructive.
We stopped our study for several meetings when it would have been very important for the cultural industry and the community to move forward. We have repeatedly expressed the urgency of this bill for the cultural industry. I sincerely believe that the questions have been well answered and I am quite convinced that we will never reach a consensus. We will not agree, but, as they say,
[English]
“let's agree to disagree”,
[Translation]
and move on with the job we have to do. There will always be remedies available afterwards, if you feel that any of the sections of this piece of legislation actually infringe on freedom of expression.
The most important thing we have to do right now is to do our best to improve this bill and send it back to the House of Commons. We need to do this for the cultural industry, which is watching us, listening to us and pleading with us to put an end to this stalemate and move forward with the work. I think it's crucial for that industry. We must get out of this impasse.
Thank you.
I want to see this bill get moving along, as well. I was surprised that when we hit clause 3, proposed section 4.1, there was a Conservative Party amendment to it, and after the amendment failed, there was a move to remove section 4.1. There was no debate. There was no call for a recorded vote. We didn't deal with that section at that time, and we're stuck in this ongoing filibuster.
The minister has given an explanation. We should get through the rest of these amendments. There is a stage at report stage where section 4.1 can be added back in. If enough parliamentarians think that it's an important thing to have added, then that's what we should do.
I believe in freedom of speech as much as the next person, but I find that the whole system of algorithms with these private platforms doesn't really lend to freedom of speech at all. I get countless emails from constituents who say that there is no freedom of speech on Google, YouTube or Facebook, and that their comments are being blocked or that things are being blocked, so that's another issue we need to deal with.
We're dealing with private platforms that are censoring people, and determining what gets bumped up and what gets bumped down. It's mostly for commercial interests and advertising, and to inflame people, to weaponize our anger at each other. I think we need to look at this.
We're coming up to Bill where we're going to be talking about these things, but we should get this Broadcasting Act done. If there's an amendment at report stage to fix and bring back section 4.1, that would be the time to do it. Let's get the rest of the amendments through.
Mr. Housefather, I saw you turning red; I wondered if you had eaten some lobster just before you spoke. By the way, I say that with a sense of humour; it's not an insult. I certainly don't want to upset you. I was just responding to the chair's question about what's next.
I asked the question to hear the opinion of the committee members, and I gave my own opinion. I feel that my opinion is as good as yours, members of the committee. I believe that the three points of the motion have not been fully met. You say otherwise, and that is your right. But for some of us to imply things, I think that's a little uncalled for. I understand that the debate is emotional and very frustrating. We are tired, we are at the end of the session. This is an important issue. Heaven knows the Conservatives are under attack from all sides. However, I want to remind everyone in this room that prior to the removal of the proposed section 4.1, everything was running smoothly at this committee.
Also, the motion that Mr. Housefather has put forward is virtually identical to the motion that the Conservatives put forward two and a half weeks ago. Everything we have done in the last three or four days could have been done two and a half weeks ago, and our work would not have been delayed. I wanted to put things back in perspective.
With that, Mr. Chair, I think you have the answer to your question. In any event, we will meet again tomorrow. On our side, we will talk to each other and make our own decision in our organization. You will make your own decisions in your organizations.
I would ask that the meeting be adjourned, if possible, if there are no further comments. I don't want to stop anyone from speaking, but once we have gone around, I think today's meeting has been long enough. In any case, we'll see each other again tomorrow with great pleasure.