“I don’t have an obligation to give legal advice,” Lametti tells Heritage Committee

The Conservative Party accused the Justice Minister Tuesday of skirting questions on whether or not the inclusion of social media platforms in the government's update to the Broadcasting Act infringes on freedom of speech, while the Bloc Quebecois and NDP are ready to get back to clause-by-clause amendments of Bill C-10. “I'm not going to give legal advice, that is not part of my role as Minister of Justice I don't give legal advice to committees,” Justice Minister David Lametti told MPs on the House of Commons’ heritage committee, when questioned by Conservative MP Rachael Harder on whether the removal of Section 4.1 of the bill takes away the safeguards meant to protect user generated content. Lametti attended the committee meeting after initially declining an invitation to appear. Last Monday, the committee moved to suspend its review on the bill while it got clarity on the freedom of speech implications of including social media in the update to the Broadcasting Act. The motion states that work will resume once an updated charter statement is provided and it hears from Lametti, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, as well as an expert panel. “My absence was based in part on principle that ministers defend their own bills in front of committee,” Lametti told committee after NDP Heather McPherson told the minister that his refusal to attend Friday’s meeting felt like he was “reinforcing fears” about the threats to the freedom of expression. “It would be a terrible precedent if a Minister of Justice were called to defend charter statements, in part because they are apolitically drafted, in part because... they aren't meant to be a legal opinion and so there are going to be different legal opinions out there,” he added. Lametti also told to the committee in his opening remarks that charter statements are not meant to provide a complete analysis of the constitutionality of a bill, and are instead crafted to “help inform public and parliamentary debate... and promote transparency around the effects of a government bill on fundamental values that are protected by the charter.” He told Harder that the “bill remains consistent and the original charter statement has not changed.” Harder took issue with last week’s updated charter analysis, and said the statement “refused to address the fact that 4.1 has been removed” and that Lametti could not give the committee a statement as to whether or not its removal is still charter compliant. “You're skirting the issue,” she told Lametti. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois seemed satisfied with the analysis and testimonies provided during the past few days. On Monday, its leader Yves-François Blanchet , issued a press release stating he was in favour of passing Bill C-10 by June, before the end of session, and to subject web giants to CRTC regulations in order to help the cultural sector. He further said in the French release that the Conservatives were stalling work “under false pretenses, claiming that the bill undermines freedom of expression, despite a legal analysis contradicting that,” according to a translation. At Monday's meeting, Bloc MP Martin Champoux asked Lametti if Canadians who feel that their freedom of expression is threatened by the bill can go before the courts to oppose it. Lametti noted that it is “always a possibility” and added that “freedom of expression is not absolute. There are numerous examples in many areas of law where the rights set out in the charters are limited by other laws and other regulations.” McPherson, who previously told the Wire Report that she was waiting to hear from the ministers before making a final decision on supporting the bill, wrote in a follow-up email on Tuesday that the NDP “will be taking a close look at all of the amendments to this bill before making a final decision on whether or not to support it. We have tabled amendments that have not yet been considered.” Lametti also acknowledged that last week’s charter analysis provided by his department was an explanatory note rather than a revised charter statement -- as the law only allows for a charter statement to be tabled in the House of Commons when a bill is first introduced -- previously a point of contention for the Conservatives. Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will resume now that the stipulations from last week’s motion have been fulfilled. The committee left off May 7 debating a government amendment, tabled by Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin, to limit the CRTC orders for social media platforms to discoverability and financial contribution requirements. -- Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

“I don’t have an obligation to give legal advice,” Lametti tells Heritage Committee

News | May 18, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

“I don’t have an obligation to give legal advice,” Lametti tells Heritage Committee

News | May 18, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta considers blocking Facebook news in Australia

CMPA accuses Corus of non-compliance, seeks appeal of regulatory relief

Streamers ‘disappointed’ in five per cent base contribution requirement

CRTC grants Corus, TVA CanCon relief; other BDUs must wait

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us