Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 79 of 79
Mustafa Farooq
View Mustafa Farooq Profile
Mustafa Farooq
2021-06-16 16:26
Thirdly, I think we need to see robust online hate regulation that is balanced and that ensures the protection of civil liberties through consultation with the best experts in Canada and internationally.
Lastly, we'd like to see a review on how national security agencies have been dealing with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.
I also note that we will be providing a brief and follow-up to expand further on the recommendations.
Thank you.
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 16:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair, along with the members of the committee, for inviting our participation in this important discussion. My name is Shimon Fogel. I'm the president and CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish federations across Canada. We're a national non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians affiliated through Jewish federations from coast to coast. Our mission is to preserve and protect the quality of Jewish life in Canada through advocacy.
For Canada's Jewish community, the conversation about ideologically motivated violent extremism is inextricably linked with anti-Semitism. As I speak, Jewish Canadians are facing a dangerous rise in anti-Semitism across the country, and indeed, around the world. The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, an organization that closely monitors the security situation of the Jewish community in the GTA, reported a fivefold spike in anti-Semitic incidents last month compared to previous months this year. In May, individuals who attended a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Montreal were pelted with rocks. Police seized weapons and made 15 arrests, including for armed assault. In April in Victoria, the words “Kill the Jews” and “Gas the Jews” were spray painted on a Jewish community institution. We too observed swastikas and Nazi symbols on banners at anti-Israel rallies in multiple cities. Jewish businesses were targeted across Canada, either by vandals or for boycotts.
In Canada, no one should ever feel that they're at risk in their own neighbourhood. No one should feel the need to hide their identity. No Canadian should be made to feel they do not belong, yet we have community members who are thinking twice before wearing a kippah or a Star of David necklace in public. This isn't the Canada we know or want.
In 2019, the most recent year for which Statistics Canada data are available, Jews were the most targeted religious group for police-reported hate crimes, and targets of the second-most-police-reported hate crime overall. On average, an anti-Semitic incident happens pretty much every day of the week, 365 days of the year. Comprising only less than 1% of the Canadian population, Jewish Canadians accounted for 16% of all victims of hate crimes in 2019, a trend repeated year after year. This should be of grave concern to all Canadians.
Anti-Semitic incidents are also occurring online, in troubling numbers, where anti-Semitism and ideological extremism percolate and pose a threat to the well-being of all Canadians. As social media has become central to our daily lives, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-authoritarian and other hate-filled groups are exploiting platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and Instagram to spread their toxic ideals, often targeting our children and young adults. These vile groups are also active on Parler, 8chan and in other dark corners of the Internet, where they promote their hatred, radicalize and recruit Canadian youth.
We know from experience that this toxicity spread online can and too often does have real-world consequences. Online activities spurred murders of Jews in Pittsburgh and Muslims in Christchurch. The Pittsburgh shooter reportedly posted more than 700 anti-Semitic messages in hate-filled online communities over nine months prior to the attack. The Christchurch shooter's livestreaming of the killings was a means of promoting and inciting more such heinous acts.
While we welcome the addition of the Proud Boys to the list of terrorist entities, we believe more needs to be done. For some time, we have strongly encouraged the Government of Canada to list both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in its entirety, and Samidoun, a PFLP-affiliated organization that operates right here in Canada.
However, we must disabuse ourselves of the idea that radicalization happens only with the support of an organized group. The proliferation of online content has empowered the so-called lone wolf. Radicalization can manifest remotely, circulating in chats and forums without the direct support or coordination of an organized group. This new threat also makes it even more difficult for police and security services to track suspicious activity. From what we understand of the horrific tragedy in London, the murderer acted independently and may have been radicalized as a lone wolf. The same is true of the 2018 Toronto van attack.
Anti-Semitism is not associated solely with ideologically motivated violent extremists. While Jew hatred is central to many xenophobic belief systems such as neo-Nazism and white supremacy, anti-Semitism is also a key component in both religiously motivated violent extremism and in politically motivated violent extremism. Anti-Semitism is a hatred that does not live in a single category. It finds purchase in all three.
What most people may not appreciate is that anti-Semitism is a threat not only to Jews, but also to all Canadians and to our way of life. Combatting anti-Semitism benefits all of us, and we need to call it out whenever and wherever we see it, because what starts with Jews never ends with Jews.
Jewish Canadians value our just, liberal democratic society. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of law enforcement. From our perspective, we believe a well-educated and a well-resourced police force is an essential component in flighting hate crime.
Let me conclude, therefore, by providing five recommendations for the committee's consideration.
First, we recommend that law enforcement be given the tools they need to combat hate and radicalization, including bolstering existing police hate crime and community liaison units, and providing funding to establish new units where they do not yet exist. This includes increasing resources for security services to monitor, track and protect Canadians from online radicalization.
Second, we recommend increasing resources for law enforcement, Crown attorneys, judges and others to ensure they receive sufficient training on the importance of combatting online hate.
Third, we also recommend strengthening legislation to combat online hate, including developing a multipronged approach to raise awareness of online hate, adopting civil remedies to combat online hate, and establishing requirements for online platforms and Internet service providers for monitoring and addressing online hate on their own platform.
Fourth, we believe that funding for the security infrastructure program, SIP, should be increased. This program allows at-risk private not-for-profit organizations, such as places of worship and educational institutions, to enhance their security. To quickly illustrate the value of the program, a security guard at Congregation Shaar Hashomayim in Montreal was able to thwart an arson attack on the synagogue because of the surveillance cameras funded in part by the program.
Finally, we recommend Canada establish a community institution security rebate. As one of the groups most targeted by hate-motivated crime, Jewish institutions spend millions of dollars every year on security personnel. We recommend that the federal government implement a security rebate for at-risk places of worship, schools and community centres.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair and committee members, even though the Jewish community is resilient, we too feel vulnerable at the moment and we are respectfully asking you to take action. What we have proposed will not only serve the Jewish community, but it will benefit all Canadians. History has taught us repeatedly that if left unchecked, the toxin of anti-Semitism can poison all of us.
Thanks for inviting me here today.
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 17:03
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll quickly begin and make the following observation.
I think the pace of change in the landscape or backdrop with which we're looking at these issues is breathtaking. The idea that it behooves us to review those instruments, policies, regulations and legislation that are currently in place on a regular basis is one that I think is self-evident.
We never would of thought, even two years.... I mean, smart phones only came into existence at the end of 2012. It's really only now that we're beginning to appreciate the power of social media as a vehicle either for good or, in this context, something very, very not good. So I think that it does behoove us to look at old legislation, old regulations and old approaches, and test them against the reality of today.
I'll also point out that, for example, in a concrete way, we're always trying to balance—and I know your committee is struggling with balancing—the issue of free speech with freedom from threat. Some of you will recall that there was a contentious debate about section 13. It was ultimately eliminated by the government of the day, because it is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it enshrines the notion we all believe in, which is freedom of expression. On the other hand, it's also been used as a way to insulate groups that are trying to foment hate with protection from the very thing we're trying to prevent.
It's adding work to your plate, but I think it behooves you to routinely build into legislation and recommendations a need for periodic review that would test the reality against what you are trying to achieve.
Mustafa Farooq
View Mustafa Farooq Profile
Mustafa Farooq
2021-06-16 17:06
I'll say briefly that I think Shimon is right, as I think he often is, on the critical tension here between a desire to protect folks versus those critical constitutional values that we uphold and know that we need to be upheld.
I think those are exactly the kinds of reasons that we had concerns around overly broad language vis-à-vis terrorist propaganda. We were pleased to see that the most recent iteration of legislation narrowed it down to a more focused “counselling” offence. We thought that was important.
From our perspective, we want to see the legislation applied equally, but that's not the same as seeing.... As in the sense that white supremacist terrorist group should be dealt with appropriately through the listing provisions that are there, we have to careful about overexpanding our Criminal Code, especially around terrorism sections. I think there are existing tools that need to be utilized, and if there are other ways of approaching white supremacist groups, such as the creation of a new listing procedures, I think that could be done outside of the precise mechanics of terrorism legislation, which, of course, has with it a whole regulatory and legislative set of considerations to deal with.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I would first like to acknowledge that I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. With me, as you said, are Joëlle Montminy, senior assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs, and Pierre-Marc Perreault, acting director, digital citizen initiative.
Like you and many other Canadians, I am concerned by the disturbing rise and spread of hateful, violent and exploitive content online and on social media.
As a legislator and father of four children, I find some of the content of these platforms to be profoundly inhuman.
I am also deeply troubled by the consequences and the echoes of that content in the real world.
The overall benefits of the digital economy and social media are without question. In fact, I published a book, shortly before I took up politics, wherein I talked about the benefits of the digital economy, of artificial intelligence in particular, but also about some unintended negative consequences.
In Canada, more than 9 out of 10 adults use at least one online platform, and since the beginning of the pandemic, online platforms have played an even more important role in our lives.
We use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to stay connected to our families, friends and colleagues. We use them to work, to conduct business, to reach new markets and audiences, to make our voices and opinions heard, and to engage in necessary and vital democratic debate. However, we have also seen how social media can have negative and very harmful impacts.
On a daily basis, there are Internet users who share damaging content, either to spread hate speech, the sexual exploitation of children, terrorist propaganda, or words meant to incite violence.
This content has led and contributed to violent outbursts such as the attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017, and similar attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
Canadians and people all over the world have watched these events and others unfold on the news with shock and fear. We all understand the connections between these events and hateful, harmful online discourse. We worry about our own safety and security online. We worry about what our children and our loved ones will be exposed to.
According to a recent poll by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, an overwhelming 93% of Canadians believe that online hate and racism are a problem, and at least 60% believe that the government has an obligation to prevent the spread of hateful and racist content online.
In addition, the poll revealed that racialized groups in Canada are more than three times more likely to experience racism online than non-racialized Canadians.
Since the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, we have seen a rise in anti-Asian hate speech on the Internet and a steady increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric, further fuelled by recent events.
A June 2020 study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that Canadians use more than 6,600 online services, pages and accounts hosted on various social media platforms to convey ideologies tinged with white supremacism, misogyny or extremism. This type of content wreaks havoc and destroys lives. It is intimidating and undermines constructive exchange. In doing so, it prevents us from having a true democratic debate and undermines free speech.
The facts speak for themselves. We must act, and we must act now. We believe that every person has the right to express themselves and participate in Internet exchanges to the fullest extent possible, without fear and without intimidation or concern for their safety. We believe that the Internet should be an inclusive place where we can safely express ourselves.
Our government is therefore committed to taking concrete steps to address harmful content online, particularly if the content advocates child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence, hate speech, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
In fact, this is one of the priorities outlined in the mandate letter given to me by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. So we have begun the process to develop legislation that will address the concerns of Canadians.
Over the past few months my office and I have engaged with over 140 stakeholders from both civil society organizations and the digital technology sector regarding this issue. This has included seven round-table discussions. We also spoke with indigenous groups, racialized Canadians, elected provincial officials, municipal officials and our international partners to assess our options and begin to develop a proposed approach.
In addition, given the global nature of the problem, I have hosted a virtual meeting with my counterparts from Australia, Finland, France and Germany—who were part of the multi-stakeholder working group on diversity of content online—to discuss the importance of a healthy digital ecosystem and how to work collectively.
I am also working closely with my colleagues the ministers of Justice, Public Safety, Women and Gender Equality,Diversity and Inclusion and Youthas well asInnovation, Science and Industry to find the best possible solution.
Our collaborative work aims to ensure that Canada's approach is focused on protecting Canadians and continued respect for their rights, including freedom of opinion and expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The goal is to develop a proposal that establishes an appropriate balance between protecting speech and preventing harm.
Let me be clear. Our objective is not to reduce freedom of expression but to increase it for all users, and to ensure that no voices are being suppressed because of harmful content.
We want to build a society where radicalization, hatred, and violence have no place, where everyone is free to express themselves, where exchanges are not divisive, but an opportunity to connect, understand, and help each other. We are continuing our work and hope to act as quickly and effectively as possible. I sincerely hope that I can count on the committee's support and move forward to build a more transparent, accountable and equitable digital world.
I thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Minister.
I have a follow-up question on what we are seeing in terms of some content that is being posted online and its negative impact on various communities.
With that, communities across Canada are extremely worried about the rise of Islamophobia, hate speech online, as you just mentioned, towards our indigenous communities, and other forms of prejudice that have only intensified during this pandemic. We've all seen that words can lead to violence.
As parliamentarians, we recognize that we all have a duty to lead by example; that is to say, to engage in respectful dialogues, to be open to debates of ideas and to hear the positions of Canadians in order to work for a society where everyone is free to flourish with dignity.
Minister, can you tell us more about what our government is doing to fight the promotion of hatred and violence online?
Thank you.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is really an important point. There are some people out there—a minority, clearly—who would advocate that we shouldn't intervene and that there should be no laws whatsoever regarding the Internet in any way. What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet. Well, it's clearly not the case.
In June 2020, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue published a report on right-wing extremism in Canada, as I said earlier, identifying more than 6,000 right-wing extremist channels, pages, groups and accounts. Since 2014, Canadians—inspired in whole or in part by extreme views they've gathered online—have killed 21 people in this country and wounded 41. This idea that this stays on the Internet is simply false.
Notwithstanding that, we haven't waited until the introduction of this legislation. For two years now, we have been funding an initiative called the digital citizenship initiative, whereby we're working with victims groups and with academics around the country to increase the level of online literacy for Canadians, to help them detect false news and to help them recognize hate speech and extremist groups online.
View Kamal Khera Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here, but more importantly, for all the work you do.
Dr. Perry, I want to start off with you, and I want to talk about online hate.
I know you've teamed up with Facebook Canada to address instances of online hate. It is a topic that we've certainly discussed in committee. You have declared that online platforms have been a gift to alt-right groups known for spreading conspiracy theories via video clips.
Could you maybe expand a little bit on your findings and efforts in this area? How do we address promoting hatred on mainstream channels, as well as on underground networks, such as Parler and Gab?
Barbara Perry
View Barbara Perry Profile
Barbara Perry
2021-05-31 15:57
These are all very good questions. They're not easy questions by any stretch.
One of the most disturbing things we found in this round of work—the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is doing much of our online analysis—is that in two successive years, Canadian posters were among the most active within the far-right ecosystem, if you will.
Just quantitatively, that's problematic. We tend to think we are immune to those kinds of narratives, but there you are. In particular in the first round—that would have been the 2019 report that we did with ISD—we actually found that they were, in fact, second and third in two of the most extreme platforms, Fascist Forge and Iron March. These are the ones that are most likely to promote violence, and mass violence in particular.
Again, quantitatively, that is the problem, but it's also a problem qualitatively, given the breadth of the speech, the viciousness of the speech as it's directed towards particular individuals or particular communities, whether it's emails or posts directed towards an individual or it's those who vilify particular groups. It's rampant online, obviously.
I think we have to consider the impacts of this on a sense of community, a sense of belonging and a sense of security, as well. It is something that absolutely silences communities. It makes them less willing to engage online, which has become the way we communicate—especially now, with COVID.
How do we confront it and how do we regulate it? It's such a challenge. We've been exploring it globally over the last five or six years. We've been trying to constrain the most heinous sorts of speeches.
When I'm talking about hate speech here, I'm talking about dangerous speech, speech that promotes violence, that explicitly promotes vilification and that directs hatred towards particular groups. Warman v. Kouba identified these sorts of elements of speech as the hallmarks of hate.
I think we need to put much more pressure on social media giants to enforce their community standards. Most of them are at least as strong as our own federal definitions. We need to encourage the actual use of those. I hear so many...from the research but also from the people I work with. They are identifying speech that seems to cross those boundaries, which.... There's no response to the complaints, so I think we need to hold their feet to the fire.
In terms of the alternative platforms, that's where the real challenge lies because access to the darkest spaces is more difficult for researchers, for police, for journalists and for anyone who wants to know what's happening there. There are challenges there because they're specifically set up to avoid any sort of community standards. Most of us are at a loss as to how to respond to those. Again, perhaps we put pressure on the domains to not host them, as happened with Parler. I think it was after the January 6 events.
I think that is a new challenge presenting itself.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, especially on such short notice. Your testimony is very valuable to us.
My first question is for CSIS.
You mentioned online hatred and the prevalence of “echo chambers of hate”, whereby mobilization to violence can occur quite rapidly. The National Firearms Association is a group that shares offensive images online and has shared tweets that have been sympathetic to groups alleged to have IMVE affiliation. In one of them, the tweet said, “If the police will not protect you during a violent riot, you will have to protect yourself and others”.
I have personally been the subject of their comments. Recently, this committee voted to condemn remarks made by the group that discussed guillotining parliamentarians who support gun control, describing what is happening in Canada as “tyranny”.
My question for you is straightforward. We've seen far too many examples where language is later masked as jokes and then turned into real-world violence, either by those making the remarks or those following. I'm just wondering; what impact do these kinds of comments have on individuals who may be radicalized by them and should we be calling it out for what it is?
Timothy Hahlweg
View Timothy Hahlweg Profile
Timothy Hahlweg
2021-05-12 17:11
That's an excellent question, and I think it would be useful at this time to give a snapshot of how we investigate in this space, from a CSIS perspective. I think it will help articulate the space we hold vis-à-vis other people in this landscape.
The way that we look at it organizationally is really in three tiers.
We have the first tier, which is passive engagement. There are a lot of books out there, and there are videos and chat rooms. A lot of people are listening to some of this violent, abhorrent content, but these people are passive. They're not moving to violence at this stage.
When those individuals move to our second tier of threat actions, it is a more active engagement. This is where we're seeing people not just listening but putting some propaganda out there. They're adding content, communicating and letting their voices be known. A lot of this still falls in with freedom of speech, but some of it starts to bleed into what is the third tier. That's where the service gets involved.
The third tier sees these people mobilizing to violence or potentially mobilizing to violence. In the third tier, we're seeing a lot of increased operational security by these individuals. They're not staying in the open. They're going into more private chat rooms and more encrypted forums. We're seeing them go to a lot of alternative platforms. When we look at this third tier, from a service perspective it's really important that we look at what triggers the CSIS mandate. We have done a lot of work in this space over the last couple of years with our partners in the S and I community.
What do we require to actually investigate these threats? We need a willingness to kill or inspire others to kill; a threat of serious violence; an attempt to effect societal change, so not just a personal narrative but something bigger; and an ideological influence. Once we have those triggers, we're able to investigate these threats. We deconflict on a regular basis with our police colleagues, especially the RCMP, and then we decide who's best positioned to deal with them.
I hope that answers your question.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
It does, sort of.
I'm going to turn to the RCMP, in a similar vein. There has been rampant growth of this type of content online, and you remarked that you were gravely concerned with extremist views that are first fostered online and can lead to and have led to actual physical violence. Our colleague at CSIS listed a number of cases that did result in injury and death.
Who is being targeted? Do you see this being race- and gender-based hatred? Are you seeing it tied to these anti-mask rallies, where we're seeing neo-Nazi flags being flown?
Michael Duheme
View Michael Duheme Profile
Michael Duheme
2021-05-12 17:15
What we're seeing is that vulnerable groups, as I'll call them, are more targeted than the general population. It's important to note that we make a distinction between IMVE and hate-motivated crime. We're dealing with a lot of hate-motivated crime and with comments that are covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. There is a difference there. There are specific sections in the code to deal with hate-motivated crime. On the other side, as Tim mentioned earlier, with the IMVE, there's a deep-rooted ideology that's more complex than just hatred to things.
I don't have any information to say there are links with the different flags being shown at protests. We take every complaint seriously and investigate every complaint that is reported to us.
Mark, I'm not quite sure if there is anything you wish to add.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much.
We know that extremist groups rely heavily on social networks and platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and other platforms that have even been banned, to recruit people and to misinform and radicalize them. Some people believe that shutting down certain platforms would not be beneficial because it would send people to private networks on the Internet.
Even if it's not on these private networks and it's on the platforms that we know and access every day, how can the government and the RCMP intervene to detect this kind of violent extremism, whether it's violent speech or video sharing?
Should there be collaboration with the private companies that own these platforms, or could the government and RCMP intervene directly?
Michael Duheme
View Michael Duheme Profile
Michael Duheme
2021-05-12 17:20
I'll talk about what the RCMP can do with respect to websites.
The majority of the investigations we conduct into hateful comments spread on social networks are triggered when we receive reports from people who have observed this on a site and report it to us. In most cases, we trigger an investigation.
Of course, if the social networks remove the information without notifying us, we don't have access to that information. It's no different than when someone calls the police to make a report and the police initiate an investigation, except that it happens on social networks.
If the platforms remove this information without notifying us, we can no longer take informed action on the complaint.
Members of Parliament often receive derogatory or hateful messages on social media. In these cases as well, the RCMP initiates an investigation and we follow through. Sometimes that's a challenge because people can use all sorts of mechanisms on social media to avoid being found.
I won't hide from you that this is one of our concerns, and it's not just about social networks. When you implement a new law or a new process, people always find ways around that through other mechanisms.
You've all heard of the dark Web. There are probably already many IMVE groups on the dark Web.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
I appreciate that. It deals with such interconnected and complex issues.
I've noted that it's common to make mention of far-right groups rather than calling them what they are: hate groups. Certainly as I've watched Conservative and Liberal and other political parties' blogs and whatnot, you see the comments. There's hate coming from all sides, and it is absolutely tragic.
Is there any distinction, from your experience, between hate groups and the groups the report calls “ideologically motivated violent extremists”? Is there a differentiation?
View David McGuinty Profile
Lib. (ON)
I know that there's a debate around the nomenclature and the choice of words to describe these. I really would like to ask my colleague Mr. Jorgensen to jump in here for a second. I know he is tracking that for the committee.
View David McGuinty Profile
Lib. (ON)
Sure.
I was saying to Mr. Kurek that there is an important debate, I understand, around the nomenclature and the language that is appropriate. I think Mr. Jorgensen would be best placed to give us an idea of where that now lies and whether it is something that has reached the committee for deliberation. I do not recall, Mr. Chair.
Sean Jorgensen
View Sean Jorgensen Profile
Sean Jorgensen
2021-05-05 16:31
Thank you.
Very quickly, Mr. Kurek, I think there's a very clear distinction between extremists and.... Over time, extremists have been identified as doing everything from promoting women's rights to urging equality for Black people in the United States, for example. There is a very clear distinction between those people and people who take any type of extremist position into a violent realm.
This is where I think that CSIS has worked very hard with its international allies and partners to essentially focus on the behaviour and not necessarily the motivation. We know that it's ideological. That's what makes it, for example, terrorism.
However, I see your point. It's not right wing; it's not left wing. It is “what's the violent basis for that behaviour?“
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
How about online hate legislation like we see in Australia? Do you see the benefit of taking action against this type of online violence before it has real world implications?
View David McGuinty Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's not something the committee has examined. It might very well be. It would be a very important issue for the public safety committee to examine, for example, whether that would that be a contributing factor to help....
I want to repeat the message: This isn't going away. It's expanding in reach, size, scope and seriousness. I think we're going to have to deal with this now collectively.
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. McGuinty and team, for being here with us today to answer our questions, and thanks for the work that you do on this committee to protect Canadians.
My question is about the spike in online hate and online hate groups. I can't help but notice the concern that people have with Bill C-10 and people's belief that it would infringe on their basic rights to express themselves and freedom of expression, which obviously our government has said it wouldn't do. Because this is the current fear, I'm wondering how our government could go forward. What would you recommend or what ways that could you see our government going forward with legislation to stop people who organize hatred online and push that kind of an agenda on social media and online?
In what ways can we limit the ability of these groups to have a negative influence on Canadians?
View David McGuinty Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ms. Lambropoulos, I think you're raising the $64,000 question: What is the appropriate balance between free speech and when that free speech crosses a line and becomes something else? It's not something the committee examined in terms of what's the remedy or what's the recommendation. In fact, this report was agnostic this year on recommendations. It wanted to present the magnitude of the risks, but we really hope that a committee like public safety, for example, might apply its collective mind to figure out what the best way forward is.
We haven't examined Bill C-10. It's being debated. We haven't applied it to this particular set of challenges, but we may have more to say about this when we release our report on cyber-activities, which we hope will be by the summer. We may also have more to say about this when we are finished the review of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's federal policing mandate, given their role as the national organization with the primary responsibility for national security investigations and organized crime, for example.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-03-29 11:28
I will interpret that response as a no. So I have to conclude that you don't have any francophone moderators in Quebec. It was a simple question that you could have answered with yes or no, but you are telling me that you do not want to disclose this information. That's all right.
Mr. Chan, you remember the sad events in Christchurch. I was asking you if you control the content that goes out on your platform, because we're discussing what information Facebook allows, and you have some control over what is broadcast on your platform. For 17 minutes, the Christchurch killer broadcast his actions live on the Facebook platform.
Do you think you could have stopped that broadcast at that time?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:29
We were able to detect it and remove it, ultimately, as you point out. Of course we regret the tragedy and we regret that we were not even faster. We have obviously learned a lot from that terrible incident, not just at Facebook. To be fair, we've worked across the sector to build systems and protocols—with governments as well—to ensure that the entire system actually works, not just on Facebook, but across companies, across platforms and with governments. We've built these protocols to move much faster should the regrettable and unfortunate thing happen again.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have some quick questions for the witnesses on some of the online hate regulations.
Mr. Chan, in your last appearance before the committee, you stated that Facebook supports legislation that sets standards to prohibit hateful content online and that the current self-regulation of platforms is not sustainable.
Do you agree that the government's delay in introducing legislation is exacerbating the spread of hateful content online?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:53
I really don't know, ma'am.
First of all, we haven't seen a proposal, so I don't want to speculate on what it may or may not include. I can tell you that at Facebook, we have rules in our community standards about harmful content. We are working hard every day to enforce our community standards.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Do you think the government should provide for sufficiently strong monetary and criminal penalties to encourage platforms to act quickly to remove hateful content?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:54
Ma'am, again, I haven't seen any specific proposals. As I've said elsewhere, it is probably unwise to comment on something that hasn't been presented to anybody.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Maybe just from your own perspective, even though you have [Technical difficulty—Editor] make sense for there to be strong monetary and criminal penalties, if social media platforms don't take off hateful comment in a timely manner?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:54
As you may know, there are already criminal provisions under the law in Canada. Obviously, the platform and Facebook and other Internet companies live with that framework.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I'm assuming that's a yes, and that you also agree that there would be a reason for us to be able to use judicial and financial penalties to hold Facebook to account if it were not taking down hateful content in a timely manner.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:55
We've indicated that yes, if we aren't seen to be in good faith building the right systems to enforce against our standards, then absolutely we should be subject to some kind of penalty and held to account.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand and appreciate that, Mr. Chan, but your CEO, before Congress, committed not to establishing Spanish-speaking moderators but increasing the number of Spanish-speaking moderators in the United States, so he disclosed that there were Spanish-speaking moderators in the United States.
I don't understand how we cannot know if there are French-speaking moderators in Canada. We're not asking who they are or where they are. I would request that you get back to the committee in writing if you are able to disclose whether there are or are not French-speaking moderators in Canada.
Let me move to another question.
You said that all Facebook policies are published, and I appreciate that. However, you have guidelines that you give to the content moderators that are not published. The Guardian, on March 23, [Technical difficulty—Editor] moderators, and noted that it spelled out differentiations between protections for private and public individuals.
In Quebec, several mayors have said they will not run in the next election because they have received threats on social media.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] that, given that people in Quebec now are not running for re-election because of social media, I'm a bit concerned that the guidelines seem to specify that private individuals cannot be targeted with calls for death on Facebook, but public figures simply cannot be purposely exposed to such calls.
Therefore, it would be interpreted that it is legitimate under Facebook's harassment policies to call for the death of a public figure as long as the user does not tag them in the post. Are these reports about these policies accurate in terms of the guidelines being given to moderators?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 12:04
I don't know about those specific guidelines because, again, you'll appreciate, sir, that I haven't seen those specific guidelines.
I can tell you, though, that our posture with respect to public figures and private citizens is consistent with the way the law has evolved in terms of the different thresholds that would pertain to a private citizen versus a public figure. That's just the reality of how the law has evolved and how the courts have interpreted these thresholds for a public figure versus a private citizen.
I would definitely say that in all cases where there is a credible threat to an individual, whether public or private, we obviously work with law enforcement to make sure we get to the bottom of it, and we take it very seriously.
View Marci Ien Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marci Ien Profile
2021-03-29 12:11
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. You're doing an excellent job today.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
Mr. Chan, I want to start with you and focus on hate speech, if I might, for a bit. We have seen what has happened with anti-Asian hate. A lot of it was born on social media and ramped up because of that. It has been reported that per capita there is more anti-Asian hate and there are more incidents thereof in Canada, in fact, than in the United States.
I'm just wondering, with regard to Facebook and how you run things, whether anything has changed. Have you ramped up efforts to curb that kind of hate?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 12:12
Our approach is uniform across the system, which is that derogatory language or discriminatory language targeted at specific groups, whether they be Asian or otherwise, is a violation of our community standards. We would enforce the same way across the system.
From my own personal experience working at Facebook, I can't say we have seen an uptick on enforcement. Certainly nothing has been escalated to my desk or to my screen, but I obviously read with concern the same things you're reading in the news about the challenge that Asian-Canadians are facing.
View Marci Ien Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marci Ien Profile
2021-03-29 12:13
For example, if something were to be found, Mr. Chan, a post on Facebook that contained hate, what happens? Can you walk us through that?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 12:13
There are two ways of enforcing our systems, to be honest. One is the automated system, as I think one of your colleagues mentioned, which uses artificial intelligence. Some of the technology was developed in Canada: machine learning to go and find all these things.
In fact, I have some statistics here. In terms of hate speech, in the last quarter of 2020, our automated systems found over 97% of hate speech directed at groups automatically, before any human had seen them or reported them. That's where we are. Now, 97% is not 100%, so we still have a ways to go, but we're getting better every day. That's our posture. That's the way we do it right now.
The other piece, though, is that because speech is important from a contextual standpoint, we have to be careful on some of the grey zones for speech that, in fact, it is an attack on the community and not something else, for example, spreading awareness about Asian racism. We need humans as well, so part of that 35,000-person team that I referred to consists of people who are going to be looking at the context and saying that this image was shared, this video was shared, or this text was shared, but is the context of this to attack Asians, or is this to raise awareness about discrimination and racism? That context matters in terms of whether or not we would enforce and take it down.
It is really a parallel process that meets when we need to get more context. We have automated systems that go and find things automatically. We're constantly improving, but we're at about 97% of proactive identification and we need humans to verify some of the more challenging ones, where the speech is grey and we have to be sure of the context. Then, in the most complicated cases, they get escalated to people like me and Rachel, where we will look at specific pieces of content emanating from Canada, consult with experts and think through whether or not we're going to be drawing the line in the right place.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-03-29 12:45
Thank you, I find this a very interesting set of questions from my colleague Mr. Housefather.
In fact, it is very interesting to hear you, Mr. Chan, explain how Canadian public finances should be managed with respect to multinationals, which generate billions of dollars on Canadian soil and are headquartered abroad. We will get there, Mr. Chan. We will find a way to make companies like Facebook contribute fairly to the system from which they still benefit quite a bit.
As you know, we are in the process of finalizing the study of Bill C-10. Many of the recommendations aim to bring social media under the regulation of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which is not currently the case. Obviously, I expect there will be opposition from social media.
If that were to be the case and if social media like Facebook were to become subject to regulation under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, how would you adjust your responses to situations like the one regarding events in Christchurch, which we were talking about at the beginning of the meeting? Would you adjust your responses so that the 17 minutes of horror that was witnessed was no longer accessible?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 12:46
Sir, if I understand the question correctly, [Technical difficulty—Editor] talking about, to be honest, which is that we're talking about user-generated content. The frameworks will be different. A framework about what people can and cannot say is different from the framework that I believe is currently before the committee.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-03-29 12:47
Unfortunately, I only have two minutes and 30 seconds in this round of questions.
According to Professor Jean-Hugues Roy, whom you were talking about earlier yourself, Facebook's algorithm is quite reliable, and advanced enough that the broadcast could easily have been stopped in seconds.
This may be a bit of a stretch, but doesn't it become an editorial choice, on Facebook's part, to allow slightly offensive images to be broadcast in contexts where no regulations are in place?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 12:47
No, absolutely not.
Unfortunately, Professor Roy is once again misinformed; this is not the case.
View Kamal Khera Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here.
I echo what John said earlier. I feel like you're part of this committee because I see you here so often. It's good to see you. Thanks again for being here.
Minister, we know this pandemic has shone a light on the vulnerabilities that exist in our communities, especially visible minorities, whether they are Black Canadians, South Asian Canadians, Muslim Canadians or Asian Canadian populations. We know that since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-Asian racism has been on the rise and has only escalated, even though we know it existed before that. StatsCan reported last summer that visible minorities experienced an increase in harassment or attacks based on their race, ethnicity or skin colour, which had tripled compared with the rest of the population since the COVID-19 pandemic started, with the largest increase among Chinese and Korean Canadian populations.
All that, Minister, coupled with the recent events in the U.S., is very real and very concerning. Can you perhaps talk a bit about the work that you're undertaking to fight violence fuelled by hate, racism and discrimination in all its forms?
View Bill Blair Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Ms. Khera.
This is actually a very important question, not just for the public safety portfolio but for all Canadians. What we have seen is a very disturbing and concerning rise in racism, intolerance and hatred, not just in our society but right around the world.
Many of these issues have been aggravated by the pandemic but they don't begin there, so our response has to be very comprehensive. I can tell you that in response to the growing concern across Canada with the very significant and serious increase in incidents of hatred directed towards Asian Canadians—and by the way, I spoke to the chief of police in Vancouver in response to these events last week—I reached out to police leadership right across the country, in every part of the country. I engaged them in a conversation about our collective response to these acts of hatred. The chief in Vancouver tells me they've seen a 770% increase in hate crimes directed towards Asian Canadians. This is completely unacceptable.
I also reached out and spoke today to the executive of the CACP and raised the issue, once again, of our collective response. We spoke, for example, about the tools and resources they need to deal with online hate. I advised them that our government is working on bringing forward legislation for the removal of online harms, including online hate, for the preservation of that evidence and for ensuring that the police and law enforcement have access to the evidence and the tools they need to deal more effectively.
We talked about how certain other measures, including the red flag laws that are introduced in Bill C-21, can be used to deal more effectively with those who are online advocating violence against women and religious or ethnic minorities in this country. They should not have access to firearms. They represent an unacceptable risk. We talked about those tools as well.
I can tell you that, in all of my agencies, this is our most important discussion. We acknowledge that ideologically motivated violent extremism, which includes all of the hatred, biases and intolerances that concern all Canadians—or should concern all Canadians—is at the forefront of this because it represents the greatest threat to the domestic security of all Canadians.
Ms. Khera, there is no place for racism or intolerance anywhere in our society. Certainly, I want to assure you that all of our agencies and departments understand that they have a responsibility to take action. We're looking at all the tools and resources they need to ensure we are able to do that.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and the other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure for me to appear before you today regarding the study of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
I would also like to acknowledge that today is International Women's Day.
I’d like to thank the members of the committee for the preliminary work you have been doing for some time now.
I’m delighted that this bill has finally passed second reading in the House of Commons. The delays that some Conservative members have caused were a concern for me, but we got there, and we can continue to move forward. Let us please remember that this is not a partisan bill. It is a bill that focuses on culture; it is a bill for Canadians, and it deserves to move forward.
I hope that all the members here and their caucuses recognize the urgency of modernizing the Broadcasting Act so that it can better serve the interests of Canadians in the digital world.
Today it's impossible to overlook the legislative imbalance that favours digital platforms to the detriment of Canadian broadcasters and creative industries. This reform responds to a pressing need. It is crucial to ensuring the vitality of Canadian businesses now and for decades to come. This is why our government will continue to work constructively and collaboratively so that Canadians can benefit from the most effective legislative tool possible, as soon as possible.
From the outset, the cultural and creative sectors have provided input into the modernization of the current legislation. They've expressed their support for this reform and this favourable movement is trending across the country, particularly in Quebec.
Moreover, since the tabling of the bill, this important discussion has continued in the public space and before your committee. It has given rise to several proposed amendments that we will examine with all the attention they deserve. We are, of course, open to improvements that would maximize the benefits of the amended Act for Canadians.
I know that you have received substantial input from several key contributors, and I look forward to seeing the results of the committee’s work in this regard.
I am well aware that the study of the bill must be carried out with care, for two reasons. First of all, because it introduces methods that are completely new in Canada for implementing a regulatory framework adapted to our current reality. Second, because this is an important issue. Many players in the creative and cultural industries are calling for this update to the Broadcasting Act and are counting on this new tool to continue to develop their work on digital platforms.
Let us remember that the current broadcasting system has served Canadians well for decades. It has fostered the emergence of strong national creative and cultural industries. It has supported the delivery of original content that reflects our identity and our values. Bill C-10 aims to preserve that legacy. However, it also aims to include many new players and new activities. It must therefore take an approach designed to include online broadcasters and ensure their equitable contribution.
With this bill, we want to make the diversity of Canadian voices resonate more clearly: francophone and anglophone voices, the voices of minority communities, Indigenous voices; and the voices of all communities across the country, including ethnocultural communities, racialized communities, and others that are too often underrepresented on the screen and elsewhere.
I want to make it clear that this bill is not intended to change the regulatory structure in broadcasting. Rather, it is intended to update the objectives of the legislation and the tools of the CRTC. It therefore preserves the autonomy conferred on the CRTC to implement the appropriate regulations and achieve the objectives of the Act. This autonomy is all the more important as the broadcasting system begins to incorporate new players with different business models, and as the system continues to evolve.
This bill does not address the regulation of online hate nor the equitable compensation of journalists by the web giants, as these are not strictly broadcasting issues; however, I intend to introduce two more bills on these issues in the near future. In due course, I will be pleased to appear before your committee regarding these other bills, always in the spirit of constructive co-operation.
I will be pleased to provide you with the Order in Council that we intend to issue following the passage of the bill. Please note, however, that this Order in Council was drafted prior to the introduction of the bill. It may therefore be redrafted as a result of amendments to Bill C-10 between now and Royal Assent.
As well, in the interest of transparency and as required by law, the Order will undergo a period of public consultation to invite feedback from Canadians.
I invite you to use the Order in Council as background material for your study, but to focus your efforts on the bill itself. Because that is the legislation that will be with us for several decades and will ensure the sustainability of the broadcasting sector. Over the years, governments will come and go, and will issue various Orders in Council to the CRTC as they respond to changing circumstances.
Finally, I would like to clarify the following situation. When I appeared on November 5, 2020, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska asked me what calculations the department had used to determine that the additional investments in Canadian content through digital television broadcasts would amount to $830 million. On December 11, 2020, the department provided the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the answers to the questions asked at the meetings of October 30 and November 5, 2020, including the one dealing with the calculation of the $830 million. At my last appearance before the committee—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
It does for the material that I speak about. It does for some of these things that they can be.... We don't have legislation coming forward where you're going to hold Facebook and YouTube to account for the online hate that they share.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Efi Tembon
View Efi Tembon Profile
Efi Tembon
2021-02-16 19:19
In the beginning, it wasn't easy. You have the media, the Southern Cameroons journalists, who want to report what's going on and they are silenced. However, you have the public media that is being used to stir up problems, a lot of hate speech even through the media, not just on social media but also the media. We've gathered a lot of that information that's being used by the government media or media houses that support the government against what's going on.
View Lyne Bessette Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you for being here today. As you said in your opening statement, six worshippers who gathered for evening prayers at the Quebec City mosque lost their lives four years ago today. I want to offer my sincerest condolences to the families of the victims.
The heinous crime was motivated by Islamophobia and xenophobia. Soon after we learned that the perpetrator had been radicalized on social media. As we all know, Canadians using digital platforms are often exposed to content that promotes hate, violence, extremism and even radicalization.
Since your mandate letter calls on you to create new regulations for social media platforms and since you said you would be introducing corresponding legislation in the House soon, I would appreciate a progress report on the very important work the government is doing to protect Canadians online.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your question.
This morning, I read an excellent piece on Radio-Canada's site about how the shooter had become radicalized on social media before doing what he did on January 29. A few months ago now, we undertook a joint initiative with several departments and ministers. The Department of Canadian Heritage is working with the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Innovation. We are preparing to bring forward a bill that will set out a regulatory framework to control hate speech, child pornography, incitement to violence, incitement to terrorism and the non-consensual disclosure of images.
Not many countries have tackled the problem, but a few have. Meetings and discussions have been held with representatives of those countries, at both the working level and the political level. The idea is to see how we could adapt existing models to Canada's reality and needs. Just last week, I was talking to Australia's eSafety Commissioner in an effort to really understand how the country went about implementing its system and what to watch out for.
Like anyone who endeavours to introduce these types of controls, we are concerned about protecting freedom of expression. In the real world, however, we established rules over the years to control freedom of expression, through both laws and court rulings. We are working to determine how we can replicate the framework that already exists in the real world and apply it to the virtual world.
View Lyne Bessette Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Minister, for all the work you are doing each and every day to better protect Canadians on digital platforms.
While we recognize that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, rules are in place to limit speech when it becomes hateful, offensive or racist. Social media have played a major role in amplifying hateful messages aimed at the most marginalized communities, violating their rights without being held responsible.
Could you please tell us how you plan to hold social media platforms accountable and make them answerable for the publication and distribution of unacceptable content?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The purpose of the bill is to establish a new regulatory framework in Canada, one social media platforms will have to abide by.
A regulator will be created to enforce the new regulations and monitor the efforts made by platforms to combat hate speech in relation to the five categories I mentioned earlier. The broadcasting legislation, Bill C-10, will provide more clarity, including the various tools at the regulator's disposal to impose fines for non-compliance.
You're right. It is an issue of concern to a growing number of Canadians. As you probably know, the results of an Abacus-led survey commissioned by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation came out earlier this week. The findings show that the vast majority of Canadians have witnessed or directly experienced violence on social media. Women and racialized groups are much more likely to be targeted than other segments of the population. A very large percentage of Canadians want the government to do something.
There is no doubt. We are going to do something. We are introducing a bill soon, and we would be pleased to return to discuss the legislation in support of the committee's work.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-01-29 13:34
I heard you talking about the situation regarding the email exchange between an official from the Department of Canadian Heritage and Mr. Chan from Facebook. You didn't seem to think it was a big deal. Don't you find this situation worrisome?
In a CBC article this morning, journalist Elizabeth Thompson talks about Facebook, which is calling on the government to regulate hate content on the networks. I view this with a bit of doubt and cynicism.
What is your impression of this and how do you think it's perceived?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Earlier, I told your colleague that I made a quick inquiry with the deputy minister to find out whether this action violated a code of conduct or a code of ethics and whether it had ever happened before. This was not the case for either the first or the second question.
Are we losing employees from the Department of Canadian Heritage who were recruited by these platforms? This isn't the case either. Perhaps Ms. Laurendeau can tell you more about this.
Facebook is calling on governments to regulate the issue of online hate. If this is the case for all platforms, between you and me, not to mention everyone listening to us, it's perhaps to share a little bit of the pressure that these companies are under because of everything that's going on. The more governments intervene, the more this pressure will be shared between them and us.
This appeal to the government to intervene is not completely disinterested.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you.
The other issue that I take a bit of offence to as well is that when my colleague from the Conservatives asked about your relationship with Facebook—or the department's relationship with Facebook—and the consultation being done with Facebook, you compared the consultation with Facebook to meeting with the NCCM. I find that very problematic.
When we see the vast amount of hatred towards the Muslim community on Facebook, to compare those two is massively problematic, I think. One of my questions is about, for example, the Proud Boys, which was recently labelled by this Parliament as a terrorist entity. We know that Facebook has allowed the Proud Boys to organize and share their content on its platform, as well as to promote their posts to their users.
Knowing this, why do you think that it is acceptable for you or your officials to have meetings with Facebook about legislation such as Bill C-10 and presumably the legislation that will be seen on hate speech?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm not sure I understand the question.
If we're doing legislation, we should gather as wide an array of opinions and points of view as possible to ensure that we have all the information we need as legislators when we do move ahead with legislation.
As an environmentalist I would talk to people in the oil and gas sector all the time to understand what they were thinking. Should we only be talking with these people—that would be hugely problematic. That's not at all what we're doing. We've consulted about 50 to 60 organizations—and we'd be happy to share the list with you—specifically on the issue of online hate. That's not broadcasting or what we're doing on media, but specifically on online hate.
Yes, we spoke to Google and Facebook, but we spoke to a bunch of other organizations as well.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you.
I just finished The Tangled Garden. That was an interesting book. You've had some input on that, along with Richard Stursberg.
I noticed yesterday that the independent Oversight Board overturned four of five of Facebook's decisions to remove posts with controversial content, including two cases of hate speech.
Can you comment on that? The minister before you started talking about hate speech and what's coming forward. Yesterday was the first time, I recall, that the independent board overturned four of the five cases they had in front of them.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-01-29 13:52
You are absolutely right. This was the first time the Oversight Board has issued decisions. It is still a very new board. It is a supranational governance structure that oversees and is the final board of appeal on all content decisions Facebook makes.
You are correct that yesterday, of the five decisions the Oversight Board issued decisions on, it overturned four of our decisions. As per the arrangement that we are bound to with this independent Oversight Board, we will honour and implement the decisions the Oversight Board made. We will take their policy recommendations and advice as advisory to our own content policies going forward.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand that. However, if for example I choose to search for “white supremacy” or for “swastikas”, Facebook is going to have an algorithm—or whatever you use, but I would think it's an algorithm—to determine that this is my area of interest. Would that not mean that Facebook would—on some occasions, and inadvertently, of course—be proactively amplifying hate speech or incitement to violence?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-01-29 13:59
I don't think so, but let me turn to Rachel, because she's been working very closely with CIJA and other organizations on this matter, concerning searching for these kinds of terms on Facebook.
Rachel, would you care to answer?
Rachel Curran
View Rachel Curran Profile
Rachel Curran
2021-01-29 14:00
That's a great question, MP Housefather.
What we have done, and we announced this on Holocaust Remembrance Day this week, is this. If you search for those kinds of terms, terms related to the Holocaust—“swastika”, “white supremacy”—you are going to get a notification that directs you to an off-site website developed with the World Jewish Congress, that gives you credible information on the Holocaust.
Users will, then, get a notification on Facebook that says to go to this site, and they will get good and accurate information on the Holocaust that explains what actually happened and the horrific events around the Holocaust. They will immediately have access to that information when they search for those kinds of terms.
View Marci Ien Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marci Ien Profile
2021-01-29 14:21
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chan, Mr. Dinsdale and Ms. Curran, thank you so much for joining us.
I want to delve a little further into something that my colleagues have addressed today. On a day where we commemorate six lives lost in a Quebec City mosque, in a week where through International Holocaust Remembrance Day we observe the lives lost, and a year where we have seen anti-Black racism at the fore, I want to ask a bit more about hate speech and understand how Facebook delineates between hate speech and freedom of speech.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-01-29 14:22
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is perhaps the hardest one for us. That is because speech is nuanced, so we do want to make sure we take a nuanced approach, that we don't overcensor people. Obviously the way we look at it is if there is speech that is directed at a particular group, that is an attack on a particular group, whether by race or by sexual orientation, for example, then those things would be prohibited by our community standards.
I would also say, though, what we've discovered as we work through these issues is that in fact, depending which community you're talking about and what the local contexts are, sometimes people might actually use code words, or even emoticons, to represent something. It would be a slur if we knew it were a slur, but it actually is known in the local community, not more broadly to the public. That's the real challenge. The work we're undertaking now is to work with local partners to better understand what are the kinds of specific words in specific communities that are equally damaging, hurtful and hateful and try to remove those.
One example, I can tell you, is the word spelled S-Q-U-A-W, which is a word that's used in a derogatory manner to attack indigenous women. That is one of the words that we have through our consultations picked up and used to refine our list of slurs so that we can more properly enforce our community standards in Canada.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's always a pleasure to see you, virtual or otherwise. Congratulations on your impending birthday.
I have two petitions to present.
The first one is from some concerned Somali Canadians who are concerned about the increasing violence in their homeland. They're asking that the House of Commons adopt a resolution condemning the encouragement of violence through incitement, hate, foreign payments, supporting hate and hostility by militias that may cause instability in a peaceful and stable Somaliland.
The second petition is from 41 signatories from the Canadian Federation of University Women in Scarborough. They're calling upon the government to introduce a bill that would require all judges to take training in sexual assault law, as it is a promise made by the Liberal Party in the last election.
View Marty Morantz Profile
CPC (MB)
I recognize that as well.
I would be remiss if I didn't ask you while you were here about anti-Semitism. I know it's not about the charitable sector directly, but the rise in anti-Semitism is a very serious problem. Recently Tel Aviv University released a report that I was alarmed to see that linked part of the spike in anti-Semitism to COVID, harbouring back to the old anti-Semitic tropes of blood libel and those types of things.
From that perspective, what would your organization recommend for dealing with things like online hate and offline violence?
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2020-05-05 18:04
I think some of the usual suspects have turned back to those historical tropes about Jews, but we should also note that Chinese people, and Asians generally, have been the target of similar attacks.
Your reference to online hate really represents a ripe opportunity for us to exponentially increase our action against it. Everybody has heard about Zoom bombing. That's just one manifestation of using technology to attack, disrupt, harass or otherwise undermine a sense of community and society. I know that increasingly, and largely as a result of the work you've done in the studies you undertook in the last Parliament about online hate and your determination to go forward with that, a lot of these social media companies—giants, really—in the sector have been stepping up to partner with community organizations to get a handle on it and develop strategies to combat it. We cannot relent on that.
There's a need for us to increase our vigilance and get measures with teeth so that there are disincentives for people to flirt with online hate. We have to have a level of vigilance that ensures it doesn't become the repository or the seedbed for new levels of—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Committee members and colleagues, I am very pleased to be here with you. I didn't have time to say hello to everyone around the table when I arrived. We are a little pressed for time.
With your agreement, Mr. Chair, and if the committee would like, I could stay longer than the scheduled 60 minutes, if necessary. It's up to you and the committee.
I had started distributing reusable mugs, in the colours of the different parties, as much as possible, but I ran out of time and ended with my colleagues in the Liberal Party. As you know, I'm from the environmental sector, and I think that governments have to make an effort, as do all of us.
We are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe. I'd like to take a moment to emphasize that this acknowledgement is not merely symbolic but demonstrates our government's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous people. It is in this spirit that we're working with our partners to address key priorities, which, in my mandate, include the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, and the establishment of a framework for repatriating indigenous cultural property and ancestral remains.
The Métis nation is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year, a milestone that coincides with Manitoba's entry into Confederation. Our government recognizes the role that the Métis people played in this important moment in our history.
I am accompanied today by the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau, and Jean-Stéphen Piché, the senior assistant deputy minister of Cultural Affairs.
I'd like to take a moment to congratulate Ms. Laurendeau and her entire team. We learned recently that the department's annual survey had a historically high response rate. 46% of employees completed the survey, and 93% of them stated that the Department of Canadian Heritage was an excellent workplace. Congratulations, Ms. Laurendeau, Mr. Piché and the entire team.
While I'm offering congratulations, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Simms, on being elected chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Greetings also to the new and returning members of the committee.
I'd like to acknowledge the valuable support I receive from my parliamentary secretaries. Julie Dabrusin, who is returning to this committee as a member, assists me with my Canadian Heritage files, and Adam van Koeverden, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, supports me in sport files with his lifetime of experience.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you for the first time.
In November, I had the honour of being entrusted with the responsibilities of Minister of Canadian Heritage. Those who know me know I'm an activist at heart.
I never commit halfway to the causes I believe in. Over the past few months, I have been able to draw many parallels between the field of environmentalism on the one hand and arts, culture and sport on the other. I've met passionate, dedicated people in organizations big and small, who often have to juggle all kinds of factors to successfully get their work done. It is, above all, a very close-knit community. I've already met representatives from more than 375 organizations in five provinces, from the Atlantic to the Prairies, and I'll have the privilege of meeting with other fascinating people in the coming weeks, in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Yukon.
I know this dynamic well, and I'm already working to support that community with all the energy I'm known for.
My responsibilities go far beyond promoting culture and sport. First, I'd like to touch on a number of topics in my speech, and then I'll be happy to answer your questions about the mandate the Prime Minister has given me.
As parliamentarians, we all have a mandate to fight climate change. That is clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne and in every minister's mandate letter, not to mention that, last summer, the House passed a motion on climate emergency.
From my first meetings with the culture and sport community, I've observed a real willingness to take positive action to make our cultural and sport organizations even greener. I personally want to help all Canadians who want to move forward in that direction. We have some inspiring examples.
One of the world's biggest sport events wants to be part of the solution: the Olympic and Paralympic Games have developed sustainable practices for the Tokyo games this summer.
The Canada Games Council has signed a framework agreement on sport for climate action, an initiative of the United Nations and the International Olympic Committee.
Closer to home, the Canadian Museum of Nature is already raising awareness about climate change by reminding us that nature is one of Canada's most precious resources. The Prime Minister has asked me to work with them and other national museums to raise even more public awareness of climate change.
My work with museums doesn't stop there. I'm also going to ensure that our museum policy is aligned with the 21st century. Because our museums are exceptional showcases of Canadian history and culture, their collections must be accessible to everyone.
One of my priority files, which you heard Ms. Yale and Ms. Simard speak about on Monday, is the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. Our government understands that a strong, equitable and flexible broadcasting system is crucial to meeting the expectations of Canadians and the challenges of the digital age. To that end, urgent action is needed.
We have reviewed the report of the Legislative Review Panel. And I am hopeful that we can present a broadcasting bill in the House in the next few months.
I can assure you that we will not be regulating the news media, and that we will preserve a strong and independent information sector, as well as a free and open Internet.
The Broadcasting Act has an impact on several organizations in my portfolio, as they include a large audiovisual component that feeds the digital environment: the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, CBC/Radio Canada. These are all independent organizations that keep us informed, provide us with high-quality content and contribute to our shared identity. We are proud to support them.
I'd like to emphasize that CBC/Radio Canada is an essential part of Canada's media ecosystem and a key contributor of Canadian content. As part of the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, we're looking at ways to strengthen the regional mandate of our national public broadcaster.
The news media environment is changing, and we are responding to the call of our newspapers with all the rigour necessary to ensure their independence. This is the very foundation of a healthy democracy. We have introduced tax measures, and we are injecting $10 million a year to increase news coverage in underserved communities.
We will also invest up to $172 million over five years to stabilize the Canada media fund and ensure the success of our creative industries in the digital age.
Finally, I am working closely with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry on a number of issues that are closely related to the information sector. This includes actions to ensure a safe and secure environment free of hate and bias on social networks—a subject you seem interested in exploring further.
We could also mention protecting Canadians' personal data, or updating the Copyright Act.
Having written three books, the last of which dealt with the positive and negative impacts of digital technologies, I'm quite interested in the issue of copyright. In this regard, I'd like to thank members of this committee from the 42nd Parliament for taking time to review the Copyright Act and the remuneration of artists and the creative industries. Your recommendations now allow us to consider how those who shape our culture can fully benefit from their work.
Before moving on to another topic, I'd like to touch on the work that has been done so far under the Creative Export Strategy. This is an important initiative that continues with Global Affairs, as well as with all our partners at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and in various past and future international missions.
Canadian cultural content is among the best in the world; we need to promote it internationally and allow our creators to profit from the international market.
Now let's venture into the world of sport. I really enjoy immersing myself in this world. I can count on a parliamentary secretary, Adam van Koeverden, who has a long track record in the world of sport. The member of Parliament for Brome—Missisquoi, who sits on this committee, can also testify to the benefits of sport, as she is an Olympic cyclist. It's kind of rare to have two Olympic athletes on one committee. I think we're very fortunate.
For several years now, our government has been working harder to make sport safe, welcoming and accessible to everyone. A great deal of work has been done, and continues to be done, to raise awareness about concussions, harassment and discrimination. I'm delighted to pick up the torch. Sport is a great school of life. It teaches us team spirit, good citizenship and the joy of healthy competition. We also have extraordinary examples of determination and perseverance in top athletes like Bianca Andreescu and Laurent Duvernay-Tardif.
I will continue to help the Canadian sport community build a healthy society where all young people, especially indigenous youth, can see themselves reflected and feel that they're part of something. In this Olympic year, we can expect great moments that inspire pride. I know that in my house, my family will have their eyes glued to the screen. I'll even have the privilege of being present for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
We can all be proud of the incredible work of our athletes. They have been training for a long time to get to Tokyo and secure a place on the podium. We'll all be cheering them on this summer, united and proud to see the maple leaf so well represented.
Mr. Chair, esteemed colleagues, thank you for your attention. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, Ms. Laurendeau, Mr. Piché, it is a pleasure to welcome you to our committee.
In the last parliament, I had the pleasure of chairing the Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In that setting, we did a study on online hate. That study was requested by a number of groups, all over Canada, specifically in the Jewish, Muslim, and gay and lesbian communities. There were a number of groups in Quebec as well as in the other provinces. We considered the broad strokes of the problem.
When we were coming out with recommendations, we came out with recommendations on education, on defining hate online, and making sure that we applied definitions across the board so we could properly track online hate. We suggested certain civil remedies that might be restored to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
One of our recommendations has found its way into your mandate letter, Mr. Minister, which relates to regulating online platforms. Now because we were doing a large study, we did not come out with specific recommendations related to monitoring online platforms. We simply said that was one of the tools we needed to use to tackle online hate.
Of course, when I'm speaking of online hate, what I'm speaking of are all of the elements that are criminalized in Canada, whether it's hate speech, solicitation of children online, etc., to encourage providers, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., to take this down, take it offline.
Mr. Minister, I'm going to be proposing to the committee that we do a study on this issue. I am wondering, if this committee comes forward with serious recommendations, would you consider those recommendations when making the decision on how to proceed with the work that's given to you in your mandate letter? Maybe you could also share with us how you see this issue.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather.
The question interests me greatly. I was very pleased to see that it was one of the points in my mandate letter. I was saying earlier, in my speech, that my last book dealt with the impacts of digital, both positive and negative. I have studied this issue a lot, and what other governments around the world have done to regulate digital platforms.
Some have the idea that we are going to create a new area of law and apply it to digital, whereas what we are looking to do is use the law that we already have and find tools to apply it online.
There are things that we do not tolerate in real life, but that we tolerate on the Web. We do not yet have the means and the tools we need to respond on the Web as we would in real life.
I hope sincerely that the committee will accept your proposal. We look very favourably on being able to take sustenance from your thoughts on the matter. I do not see why we should permit digital platforms to continue keeping illegal content online, such as hate speech, radicalization, incitement to violence, child exploitation or the creation of terrorist propaganda. It is unacceptable and, in Canada, we must give ourselves the tools we need to solve those problems.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I completely agree with you because, in Canada, there are limits to freedom of expression, and the courts have already established that those provisions in the Criminal Code are justifiable in Canada. Those things may go beyond the freedom of expression according to the Charter and the reasonable limits mentioned in its section 1.
I am very happy with your openness, Mr. Minister. I would like to ask another question.
On a number of committees, we do studies. When we do them, we want them to be independent and we also want them to be considered by the minister responsible when we have measures to propose. Some ministers are very good and some ministers are not so good.
When the committee does studies on online hate and other matters, will you be reasonable and really read what they contain? Will you try to consider the points that the committee has raised?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Let me say two things.
First, it is important to recall what we are trying to do with digital platforms. You talked about the whole matter of freedom of expression. Our courts have very well defined the fact that freedom of expression has reasonable limits in certain cases. What is true for freedom of expression here is just as true on digital platforms. Canada is not going to take over the controls of the Web, not at all, but the reasonable limits that apply in life must also apply on digital platforms. We believe in freedom of expression just as much as we believe in net neutrality.
Second, I can tell you already that the report on the review of the Copyright Act, which the committee submitted in the last parliament, is providing my department and my team with much food for thought.
I solemnly commit before you to give the recommendations that you provide to me all the consideration they deserve, on the regulation of platforms, or on any other subject that may appear important to you.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Okay, perfect. Thank you.
I have one more thing on a different slant. The report makes some recommendations on the rights of Canadians and enhancing trust. Could you talk about where you see the rights of Canadians in terms of hate speech and how you would recommend we deal with that? As a politician in Canada, I can tell you that it's pretty rampant.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2020-02-24 16:12
We addressed it in a number of different ways. We certainly have to balance the rights of individuals to freedom of expression. We spent some time already talking about the importance of free speech.
There's freedom of expression on one side and illegal content on the other. What's the grey matter in between which is about misinformation, fake news, whether it's collectively targeted or targeted towards individuals?
It certainly wasn't explicit in our terms of reference to deal with that. Many of these issues transcend domestic boundaries because they're platform providers that operate globally. We really felt that it was important for the government, in effect, to undertake a separate initiative to look at what the right legislative and regulatory model is to address the social harm issues. These are the issues associated with misinformation, targeted bullying, sexist comments, all of that content that doesn't actually cross the line into illegal content where the Criminal Code applies, but is something that requires real effort to understand how that works. In a world of big data and artificial intelligence, in particular, what is the responsibility of those platform providers for the content that they allow to be shared or disseminated online?
That question of what's called “intermediary liability” is one that is evolving internationally and where we think the government needs to take direct actions through a separate process.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. I think everyone has a copy now.
I would like to talk about why I am making this motion.
In the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights published a report asking that “the Government of Canada establish requirements for online platforms and Internet service providers” to ensure that we have rules to combat hate and crime online. In the mandate letter issued to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, he is asked to create those rules. I believe that it is important for the committee to study the matter and make recommendations to the Minister on the best way to proceed.
If possible, Mr. Chair, I will read my motion and we can discuss it at the next meeting of the committee.
Whereas the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied the issue of online hate in the previous Parliament and in recommendation 8 recommended that the Government of Canada establish requirements for online platforms and Internet service providers with regard to how they monitor and address incidents of hate speech and the need to remove all posts that would constitute online hate in a timely manner; whereas the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been asked in his mandate letter to establish such requirements; whereas hate speech and other expression prohibited by Canada's Criminal Code, such as incitement of violence, incitement of genocide, creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda and exploitation of children, have been deemed by our courts to either not be expression protected under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or speech that can be validly restricted in Canada under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and whereas it would be advisable for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study how to best implement such new regulations, including a review of what foreign jurisdictions such as Germany have done in this regard, be it resolved that the Committee study the creation and implementation of new regulations for online media platforms and Internet service providers requiring them to monitor, address and remove content that constitutes hate speech and remove any other content which is illegal in Canada or prohibited by the Criminal Code, such as incitement of violence, incitement of genocide, creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda and exploitation of children, in a timely manner; that the committee hold at least no less than four meetings on this subject with relevant witnesses; and that the Committee report its findings to the House of Commons.
I would note that I addressed the concerns that I know many of my colleagues have about free speech in this area, and I've made it very clear that the issues we're dealing with are criminal in nature, are prohibited under the Criminal Code, and thus are not covered as freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights. Because the minister has this in his mandate letter, I think it would be appropriate for the committee to weigh in and hear from witnesses prior to such time as the minister comes out with his recommendations. If my colleagues have any questions over the course of the next few days before our next meeting on Monday, they should not hesitate to come and see me.
Feel free to come and see me. I will very gladly answer your questions.
Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Is there any other discussion or debate?
Seeing none, are we ready for the question?
(Motion agreed to)
Is there any further business?
Do we have agreement to adjourn the meeting?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, everybody, for your confidence.
Results: 1 - 79 of 79

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data