Evidence of meeting #67 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 google.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I have no issues with accepting that as a friendly amendment.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Although there is no such thing as a friendly amendment, I think we're going to have to take that as an amendment and know that it's going to pass.
Before we get there, we have Martin.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To start, I want to say that I agree with Mr. Julian's proposed amendment, which we can't describe as a favourable amendment, because that doesn't exist.
I also agree with Ms. Thomas's proposal, meaning that under normal circumstances, we certainly would have started by inviting Google's representatives. However, in the current context, given the apparent manoeuvring Google engaged in recently, time is short and we want answers quickly. It's rather worrisome. There are some very significant questions to ask, in my opinion.
We are seeing Google use tactics that look like the strawman their representatives brandished during study of the bill. They claimed, for instance, that by passing Bill C‑18, the government would be supporting disinformation. They also argued that the government was giving itself the right to decide what Canadians could and could not see. That argument came up often during study of Bill C‑11.
What Google is currently doing, meaning limiting certain content, is very frightening to me. I find it extremely worrisome. I want to quickly know the real reasons for this operation. It looks more like bullying to me than a business strategy. I also want to know the criteria used to select content Google planned to block or authorize. I find those questions extremely worrisome.
It's not like Google to act this way. I remind you that, even though the company was opposed to implementing this kind of legislation, it always said it would comply with regulations in place, as it does in all the countries around the world where it does business. I find it very worrisome to see Google act this way.
I think we have to summon Google's representatives as quickly as possible, so that they can explain their actions. For me, there's no doubt about it.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I understand the argument around the table, so I won't push for a formal vote on that, but I would make another amendment or proposal, which is this—
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me. I'm sorry, Rachael.
We have Peter Julian's amendment for the addition of the head of Google, Sundar.... Would you like us to deal with that, and then we can deal with yours?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to add Sundar Pichai, Google's Chief Executive Officer, to the list.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right. Shall I call the vote on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
We now have the amended motion.
Rachael, you wanted to add something.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Yes. Thank you, Chair.
The proposal I would put forward is.... One of the things that came out in the initial article—that was put forward with regard to the decision made by Google—was that in its response, it pointed to various components in the legislation in order to justify the decision it made.
I wonder if there would be an appetite to bring officials to committee as well. Basically, what this would allow us to do is.... Yes, questions are mostly going to be directed at Google, but it would also allow us to then direct questions to the officials in order to verify: “Google is claiming this. Is it true?”
You are able to do both at once. You're able to get Google's insights, its opinions, its decision-making process and its reasons, but then you are also able to verify what the legislation really does and whether or not Google is acting within the framework that it's claiming to.
My proposal would be that officials from the heritage department, who would be able to speak to the legalities of this legislation, also be present for the duration of this committee.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you for the clear amendment.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Chris.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
This is about Google, what Google has done and the actions it has undertaken. It has to answer to legislators. It has to answer to Canadian democracy. Its attempts to avoid regulation, not only in Canada but around the world, are disappointing. I guess it's not surprising for a large company like this to seek to avoid regulation, but this isn't the time to muddy the water with officials. This is the time for Google to answer to members of Parliament as to what it did, what it's planning to do and the actions it's taking.
Thank you.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, too, think that what Mrs. Thomas is proposing in her amendment is premature. We really need to question Google executives about the company's irresponsible actions. No one in Canada is in favour of censorship. Google's actions appear to be irresponsible, especially considering that the same strategy failed in Australia. It shows a lack of respect for Canadians, who will now be deprived of information they really need.
The point of this motion and this emergency meeting is to convene a meeting so the committee can question the people at Google. If, down the road, we decide to extend our study and to invite department officials, I'm fine with that. For the time being, however, I will not support the amendment because the purpose of today's meeting is to convene a special meeting to examine the Google situation. In the course of our discussions, we may decide to hold additional meetings on the matter, and I reserve the right to change my mind at that time.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Again, I understand the arguments that have been put on the table. The intent is not to distract from Google and what's going on there. The intent is simply to supplement.
I wonder, then, if the committee would perhaps entertain that we bring Google for the full two hours, followed by an hour with officials. I see great value in being able to follow up on the statements Google is making with an authoritative body that is able to speak to the credibility of Google's claims and whether or not certain components are in the legislation.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there any further discussion on this?
If not, I will call the question on Ms. Thomas's amendment to add Heritage Canada officials to the meeting we'd be having with Google.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there anyone opposed to the motion that Mr. Bittle originally put forward, as amended?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I think we have another motion on the table.
It's Mr. Housefather next, I believe.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
That's fine.
I have a question. What happens if, for Google, because most of these people are coming from the United States, they don't show up?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
My understanding is that if we summon them and they don't show up, they're in contempt of Parliament.
Clerk, will you correct me?
February 28th, 2023 / 11:30 a.m.
The Clerk
If I could clarify, for any individuals not residing in Canada or who are not present in Canada, the summons would have no force. The committee's powers and privileges are limited to the physical borders of Canada. If anybody is elsewhere on the planet, our summons has little to no effect.
If they are in Canada and they receive the summons and do not appear, the committee can report that matter to the House. Then it would be up to the House to decide if that is contempt. If it is contempt, someone would move an appropriate remedy: maybe call the person to the House or have the Sergeant-at-Arms send a bailiff to get them. If a person ignores a summons, it's completely up to the House to deal with it. The committee would have to report it first, and then the House would deal with it.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Chair, with the Google representatives coming—and I believe they are all from the United States—I think it would be wise for us to include a Canadian who works for Google. That way, we would have assurances that somebody from Google would be attending the meeting on Monday.
I ask for your thoughts on that.