Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 920
Ian Thomson
View Ian Thomson Profile
Ian Thomson
2021-06-21 11:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Ian Thomson, and I am the president of Advanced Biofuels Canada. I'm joined here by my colleague Fred Ghatala, the director of carbon and sustainability for our organization.
I wish to convey this morning two core ideas relative to the committee's study.
The first is that the advanced biofuels and renewable synthetic fuels made by our members have improved dramatically on all fronts in the past decade and are being deployed at commercial scale here and around the world, yet the revolutionary nature of these innovations is not widely known and old perceptions prevail.
My second message is that the clean fuel regulation, or CFR, currently under final review has immense potential, but needs several straightforward amendments to deliver on its promise.
Renewable fuel regulations of a decade ago had only a handful of solutions, but these regulations worked as intended. They kick-started widespread efforts to deploy a new generation of low-carbon, energy-dense fuels.
Today these fuels can be 100% substitutes for, or blended with, fossil fuels, fully functional in existing engines and infrastructures, and some are indeed produced at existing petroleum refineries. Clean fuel feedstocks have expanded beyond sustainable crops to include household and industrial wastes and residues, and even CO2 captured from air or from industrial flue stacks. Clean liquid fuels complement an array of other low-carbon transportation energies now also being scaled up.
The results of these innovations are that advanced biofuels made today in Canada can be carbon competitive to, for instance, electric vehicles on a full life-cycle basis. A vehicle running on these fuels can be a zero-emission vehicle, reducing greenhouse gases from 80% to 120% below those of fossil.
We know that electricity and other low-carbon energies will have a rapidly growing role in transportation. The IEA's sobering report of last month starkly noted that, even under fully executed, ambitious, global net-zero pledges, by 2050 more than 80% of final energy demand in transportation can rely on the internal combustion engine. Marine, rail and aviation sectors may be reliant on those fuels even longer. In short, we can't wait until 2030 or 2050 without the rapid scale-up of these liquid fuels.
The new clean fuel regulations can play a key role in Canada's net-zero future, and we have two recommendations relative to its design.
Our first addresses an inescapable fact that 75% of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions is from crude oil in fuel combustion and the other 25% is from the energy that goes into extracting and refining fuels. In plain terms, the CFR will fail to get Canada on the path to net zero unless it addresses, proportionately, these combustion emissions. The only solutions capable of delivering zero combustion emissions are advanced biofuels, renewable electricity, low-carbon hydrogen, renewable natural gas, and bio-crude for refineries. Put another way, you can't capture and store a car's tailpipe exhaust.
Unfortunately, the CFR draft design offers many incentives for fuel suppliers to focus their actions on reducing upstream emissions that will never be able to take us more than 25% of the way to net zero. In addition, other provisions will award credits for activities that have nothing to do with liquid fuels or transportation. I would be happy to describe the straightforward solution to this misalignment, but it roughly follows the precedents set by other global clean fuel regulations.
Our second recommendation relates to CFR feedstock criteria and the new greenhouse gas measurement tool. Canada's providers of sustainable crops, agricultural and forestry residues and waste resources are concerned about market access requirements and seek clarity on carbon intensity scoring under the new LCA tool.
The practical solution is to align the life-cycle assessment model and feedstock criteria with established industry standards in the North American fuel trade and to adopt it with an orderly transition.
Clarity on how Canada's farmers, foresters and clean fuel producers can participate will support new investments. Our recent analysis indicates that a well-designed CFR can create over 20,000 new jobs and add $10 billion in new economic output.
Last, I'd like to add that several of the clean energy tax measures and funding programs in the strengthened climate plan in budget 2021 need refinement to create competitive conditions for private sector investments.
In closing, let me reflect again that Canada's advanced biofuels sector is helping drive Canada's economic recovery and underpin climate plans. Our task is clear: to decarbonize the internal combustion engine.
We appreciate your work on low-carbon fuels and the invitation to meet today. My colleague and I look forward to your questions.
My thanks to the members of the committee.
Scott Lewis
View Scott Lewis Profile
Scott Lewis
2021-06-21 11:28
Excuse me if I read Malcolm's presentation on his behalf just to get it going.
On behalf of Renewable Industries Canada, Malcolm West wishes to thank the chair and distinguished committee members for the invitation to present as part of your study on renewable fuels. In addition to Malcolm's role at RICanada, he is the executive vice-president and CFO of Greenfield Global, Canada's largest ethanol producer.
RICanada members produce more litres of renewable fuel right here in Canada than any other organization. As Canada moves towards implementing its own net zero by 2050 objectives, one sector is often top of mind. The transportation industry is too massive to slow down, but too impactful on the environment to ignore.
Members of Renewable Industries Canada, such as Greenfield Global, have found a way to thread the needle through innovative, modern biofuels. We continue to develop increasingly efficient biofuels that meet or exceed net-zero emissions on a life-cycle basis. Over the past 35 years, our technology has substantially reduced transportation's carbon footprint.
A key focus of this committee's study should be the need to implement affordable, market-ready technologies to achieve climate objectives. The value proposition offered by biofuels is incontrovertible. Ethanol is typically cheaper than gasoline, acts as an octane enhancer promoting vehicle performance, burns more efficiently and can be used with existing infrastructure. Existing technologies, including the use of biogas to replace natural gas in ethanol production, carbon capture and sequestration, and enhanced farming practices can make ethanol a net-zero fuel or even net beneficial for the environment.
All cars on the road as of 2001 can use ethanol blends of at least 15%, with others comparable with levels in the 25% to 85% range. These flex-fuel vehicles cost roughly the same as regular fossil fuel-burning cars and represent the most affordable way for consumers to reduce emissions from their commute.
Policy that favours modern biofuels also stimulates new R and D. For example, Greenfield Global has recently invested in a joint venture that uses anaerobic digestion of solid municipal waste to create biogas for its ethanol plant in Varennes, Quebec. Next steps include producing green hydrogen to meet increased renewable fuel demand.
So far I've spoken to you, on Malcolm's behalf, mostly about light-duty transportation and renewable gaseous fuels. I will now continue with my part of the presentation, about the heavy-duty and aviation sectors.
I echo Malcolm's words of appreciation for this important opportunity to discuss renewable fuels together. I am the EVP of commercial operations and strategy at World Energy, a global leader in the production of biomass-based diesel and sustainable aviation fuels.
Some might worry that Canada's climate goals are too ambitious, while others might want the government to move faster. I'm here to tell you that net zero is real and possible. Today, right here in Ontario, my company produces a biodiesel that exceeds net-zero standards as measured by the Government of Canada's life-cycle analysis model. We're able to do this by taking waste, such as used cooking oils from restaurants and animal fats from rendering plants, and transforming them into biomass-based diesel. We also have the technology right now to make renewable diesel using other ingredients that would meet net-zero requirements.
You don't need to turn over the existing fleets of heavy-duty diesel trucks, buses and trains. The renewable diesel that RICanada members make is already 100% compatible. The same goes for diesel generators in northern and remote communities. They can all produce low-carbon power tomorrow, simply by putting in the right fuel.
Advanced biofuels are a here-and-now solution to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Sustainable aviation fuel is another example of instant decarbonization. Right now, global demand for sustainable aviation fuel is off the charts, but supply is low because we do not have the right policies in place. Our renewable fuels are proven to be compatible with existing air fleets and are currently being used by many airlines, including United, KLM and Alaska, to name just a few.
As we aim to build back better coming out of the pandemic, Canada needs to ensure that sustainable aviation fuel is leveraged to attain important GHG reductions. Ultimately, this kind of policy will stimulate investment and grow the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. It will be a pleasure for Malcolm and me to answer any questions.
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2021-06-21 11:47
Okay.
So eight billion euros invested around the world to produce and transport hydrogen, with all that implies in the value chain.
I am wondering about regulation. Perhaps you could tell us about the regulations in Europe. Let's start with the famous hydrogen colour scheme: blue, grey and green. Do the projects you are investing in make that distinction between the different types of hydrogen?
Bertrand Masselot
View Bertrand Masselot Profile
Bertrand Masselot
2021-06-21 11:47
Yes. We can certainly talk about the various colours of hydrogen. I would rather describe hydrogen in terms of its lack of carbon. Green hydrogen will always keep a portion of a carbon molecule, whereas other types of hydrogen will have more carbon.
Today, if we consider the projects among which we are positioning ourselves, we see projects based on electrolysis first and foremost. That does not make green, or low-carbon hydrogen by itself. It first needs the electricity in order to do so, including intermittent and other kinds of power.
We are also positioned for carbon capture, using more classic hydrogen-producing units. We have already conducted projects of that kind. An example is with natural gas steam reforming units. Since 2018, we have been recovering carbon dioxide from a natural gas steam reformer.
Most of our investments are being made in the hydrogen with very low carbon emissions. As I have told you, we are looking at investments in the order of three gigawatts of electrolysis, compared to the 20 megawatts we have just invested in Bécancour.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Right.
I'll just get in one more question for you, Dr. McKitrick.
Six to one doesn't seem very effective to me at this point. Like you said, maybe in the future it will be.
Being an economist, how do you make it effective? What needs to be done to make it effective, where we actually are seeing a dollar-for-dollar efficiency?
It's interesting on this side to hear all the complaints. I hear other members of the committee talk about incentivizing or subsidizing this when they decry subsidizing oil and gas. I would agree with them. I don't think we should be subsidizing oil and gas, but then, in some respects, we have to expect it on the other side of the coin.
Can you explain what can be done to make this an effective policy?
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2021-06-21 12:23
—but I think we can definitely have that conversation off-line.
If I could get back to my questions, that would be great.
My question is for Mr. McKitrick.
You talked a little bit about the idea of carbon leakage in one of your answers. I'm wondering, sir, if you could talk about that a little bit more. I'm concerned about the idea that we should be waiting to see what countries like China or the United States do before we set environmental policy. I'm wondering if that's what you're suggesting.
Ross R. McKitrick
View Ross R. McKitrick Profile
Ross R. McKitrick
2021-06-21 12:24
We don't have to wait and see what China or India or even the United States are doing. We can see not only is China building its coal-fired plant capacity, they have enough planned and on the books to exceed the current coal-fired power plant capacity in the United States just with the additional increment. They are also investing—
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2021-06-21 12:25
Sir, you also bring up the idea of regulations not contributing to advancements. I was a little bit surprised by that, given, frankly, what we've seen over the last five years, especially in industries like the auto industry where we've seen the complete transition in the auto industry moving toward electrification.
Could you maybe cite some research you were talking about that connects those two things and shows that regulations don't in fact contribute to the advancement of technology?
Ross R. McKitrick
View Ross R. McKitrick Profile
Ross R. McKitrick
2021-06-21 12:25
What I said was that if you're going to use carbon pricing, you should let the pricing mechanism do the work of picking the most cost-effective strategy. If you put a carbon price in place and then you also add in a lot of regulations where you then try to direct industry over and above the carbon price, you're undermining the economics of the carbon pricing system.
Bora Plumptre
View Bora Plumptre Profile
Bora Plumptre
2021-06-18 13:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak today.
My name is Bora Plumptre. I'm a senior analyst at The Pembina Institute in the federal policy program, and I'm really excited to take this opportunity to speak about the need and the opportunity to facilitate greater supplies and consumption of low-carbon and renewable fuels in Canada.
I'd also like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation, whose presence here in what is also known as Ottawa reaches far back in time.
I will focus my comments on two areas: first on the urgent necessity of accelerating a shift toward low-carbon and renewable fuels, particularly for transportation; and second on the regulatory powers of the federal government and the contribution that the judicious exercise of those powers could make toward the objective that, I would submit, unites the whole committee in conducting the present study, which is to say a vision of a net-zero society in which affordable clean fuels proliferate throughout our country's energy systems and beyond to our partners in international trade.
To me, this is a praiseworthy vision that would see us shift our energy economy into areas where investors are already going, positioning us to compete in the rapidly growing global market for clean energy and enabling us to finally meet our responsibility to eventually eliminate our ongoing contribution to the worsening effects of climate change.
Canada can and must do much more to decarbonize its transportation sector, which remains heavily reliant on petroleum-based fuels. Our emissions of greenhouse gases from mobile combustion sources remain stubbornly high, having grown 54% since 1990 and 16% since 2005, which is our base year for climate target setting.
Today, transportation is our second-highest-emitting economic sector, responsible for one quarter of our national GHG emissions. In most provinces and in all territories, it is the highest emitting sector. These figures are drawn from the federal Department of the Environment, and what they tell us is that right now, despite recent policy innovations, on a biophysical level, we're not headed in the right direction.
Whether in pursuit of our nearer-term emissions reduction target for 2030 or in pursuit of our longer-term aspiration to build a net-zero society, the decarbonization of fuels must be a key element of our strategy for transportation. Vehicle-focused policies are necessary too, but they are not sufficient to decarbonize the whole system. Government must pay attention to the core energetic component of mobility, namely fuels.
How do we do this? Electrification appears increasingly likely to solve the problem of emissions from passenger road transport, but given the deep uncertainty about which fuelling solutions will propel medium and heavy duty freight vehicles in the long term, we still need to approach this challenge in a way that provides a clear investment signal while remaining technology neutral.
Thankfully, we have a policy coming into place in the form of the clean fuel regulations, sometimes still called the “clean fuel standard”, which will fundamentally reorient the regulatory paradigm for the fuel market across Canada around the criterion of life-cycle carbon intensity. This reorientation is long overdue, and I was really pleased to see this type of policy approach, a low-carbon fuel standard, also recently endorsed by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
This is an important contribution because it helps provide certainty about the path forward for both the obligated and voluntary participants in the market this policy will create. Certainty and risk minimization for investors are essential to making progress on both technology and deployment, and the best way to minimize risk is by means of a regulatory program such as the clean fuel regulations, which act effectively as a non-subsidy transfer from high-carbon to low-carbon fuel producers. In other words, without resorting to public spending, the policy will shift capital flows on an ongoing basis to companies that can accelerate our transition to net zero. Subsidies, by contrast, of course have a habit of going away.
Another essential virtue of the clean fuel regulations is that they enable a portfolio-based approach to decarbonizing the national fuel supply. Many models have attempted to project what the energy system might look like by mid-century, and many scenarios of our energy future remain possible, but where the models converge is on the basic finding that we will need a portfolio of cleaner fuel options in order to achieve our climate goals. Increasingly stringent clean fuel regulations will enable the cost effective build out of this diverse portfolio without government having to pick winners.
Whether your interests—or, perhaps more properly, those of your constituents—are to promote one type of low-carbon fuel or another, the most important aspect from both a business and a climate perspective is to ensure a stable investment environment for projects to get done. There is a virtuous circle to enable between financial dependability and emissions reductions. A properly administered clean fuel regulation will provide the financial architecture for accelerating direct investments in the market-ready solutions and promote innovation in the more expensive, earlier-stage technologies that need to be scaled up.
Thank you. I'll stop there, and I look forward to your questions.
View Patrick Weiler Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to pick up on a point that my colleague was just mentioning. You mentioned earlier in your opening, Mr. Wolinetz, the potential for substantial abatement if we're using more grassy or woody products.
I think the previous member mentioned a key point in terms of what type of support or regulation it is going to take to incentivize or move us more in the direction of using those products that are now going to waste or otherwise.
Michael Wolinetz
View Michael Wolinetz Profile
Michael Wolinetz
2021-06-18 14:22
I think policies like the clean fuel regulation are very helpful. That said, the clean fuel regulation, to get to a point where we're using those wastes, would need to be stronger. We need to be thinking about where it's going after 2030.
Something more in line with where California and B.C. expect to be with their similar policies by 2030 should do it. B.C., for example, has already provided enough of a transitional signal for the refinery in the greater Vancouver area to start doing co-processing. They're looking at how to actually use these materials and process them at the same time as our fossil crude in order to make a blended renewable fossil product in such a way that we could eventually transition over to a fully renewable product.
I think we're on the right track with the clean fuel regulation, but we need to expect that it will need to get stronger.
View Patrick Weiler Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thanks for that.
My next question is for Mr. Plumptre.
You mentioned in your opening the importance of things like the clean fuel standard and other policies to ensure that we're not picking winners and that we're going to have a portfolio-based approach and have the certainty for investment going forward in some of these lower-carbon products in the future.
My question to you is this: What risk do you see to investment today in the technologies that we're going to need for this type of a low-carbon future when you see other parties perhaps putting out policies or suggesting policies that would be less ambitious or that would eliminate some of these different mechanisms that are proposed?
Bora Plumptre
View Bora Plumptre Profile
Bora Plumptre
2021-06-18 14:24
It's a great question. Thank you.
To take the example of the federal low-carbon fuel standard or clean fuel regulation, actually we have a proposal from the leader of the opposition that would see the stringency of the signal of that policy actually go beyond what is currently proposed in terms of the average life-cycle carbon intensity of fuels by 2030. The CFR right now, as proposed, is aiming for about 13% by 2030. In B.C., provincially, it's already at 20% and it's similar in California. They're already into the second phase of their program.
I would say that it's understandable that Canada is just starting to get going, but other jurisdictions are already moving ahead, and the potential risk lies in some of these fuels that do present an opportunity to make a near-term contribution to our emissions reductions, as Mr. O'Connor was emphasizing in his remarks. Some of these fuels, such as renewable diesel, are promising and could play a large role in mitigating those residual emissions that still occur in the transportation sector and passenger transport as they are increasingly electrified, but we're still going to be dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels in both the light- and heavy-duty sectors for a long time to come. Those residual emissions could be substantially reduced if we increased our shares of things like biodiesel and renewable diesel.
The risk right now is that other jurisdictions are moving ahead. In just the past year, I think, U.S. petroleum refiners—and there have been several including Marathon, Phillips 66, Chevron, Renewable Energy Group and HollyFrontier Corporation—have been making multi-billion dollar investments in upgrading their refining operations, and we're, so far, not seeing too much of that type of activity here in Canada, although it does seem to be the case that some investments are starting to be announced now that we're getting to the point of actually implementing the regulation, so I'm encouraged by that.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much for that.
Turning to Mr. Plumptre, you mentioned that these clean fuel standards were more stringent in some places and that we needed regulations that were increasingly stringent. I'm wondering whether you could elaborate on where Canada needs to go with our clean fuel standards to achieve the best results.
Bora Plumptre
View Bora Plumptre Profile
Bora Plumptre
2021-06-18 14:31
Thank you, Mr. Cannings.
I believe that the clean fuel regulation is fundamentally on the right track, but I think that we've ended up in a situation, just given the length of time it's taken to develop this admittedly fairly complex policy, in a place where the regulation is perhaps a bit unbalanced relative to what was originally envisioned.
When the government announced the clean fuel standard, as it was then called, back in 2016, they were targeting 30 megatonnes of emissions reductions by 2030. That scope of ambition and the scope of the coverage of the policy was reduced by about a third in favour of carbon pricing last winter, under the healthy economy, healthy environment plan, along with the commitment to quite drastically increase the rate of growth in the carbon price. That was a reasonable policy decision to make. However, as a result, I think the design of the clean fuel regulation has ended up in a place where there were all kinds of flexibilities introduced into the regulation to account for the fact that it was originally intended to cover liquid, gaseous and solid fuels, and now it's only focused on liquids.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
The efficiency side of things is definitely good and benefits everybody, but on the government regulations, it states right in them that the avenues they are pursuing are going to disproportionally impact these people. To say that they're mutually exclusive is not necessarily the case. We know that GHG reduction is the point of a clean fuel standard and the point of the carbon tax, and it states clearly, right in it, that those people are going to be disproportionally impacted.
Michael Wolinetz
View Michael Wolinetz Profile
Michael Wolinetz
2021-06-18 14:36
Sure. What I mean is that the goals of those policies are not mutually exclusive. You can use revenue recycling in any number of ways to try to mitigate the economic impact on certain segments of the population. You can use changes to your tax policy to do the same. You can use other sorts of policies to mitigate that.
I think that you—and everyone—are always concerned for lower-income segments of our society. In implementing greenhouse gas policy, we should always be mindful of how it impacts them and should consider adjustments to the policy or, in fact, other policies outright, in order to make sure they're not unduly affected.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-18 14:42
To continue in that argument, if we look at Japan going to zero-emission vehicles, the study we looked at in the environment committee as well, Europe going to zero-emission vehicles, we may be buying vehicles that are zero emission and the market might be ahead of us in terms of us delivering policy and programs.
Mark Zacharias
View Mark Zacharias Profile
Mark Zacharias
2021-06-18 14:42
Yes, maybe.
I would look at Canada, particularly in the battery medium, heavy-duty vehicle space. We're doing quite well.
Lion Electric has an order for 2,400 trucks from Amazon. GM is going to be building vans at its plant in Ontario. We have the metals and minerals to supply battery manufacturing, and a lot of work going on in that space. It's happening through government right now.
Again, it's not hydrogen related and it's not low-carbon fuels related, but it generally has the same objective at the end of the day, which is decarbonization of transportation.
View Tako Van Popta Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
Two minutes is too short for this, but thank you to all three witnesses. Mr. Fogel from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and Mr. Farooq and Ms. Omer from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, thanks for being with us and helping us through this very difficult conversation.
I'm going to ask a question that a couple of people attempted to ask and ran out of time, which is about balancing civil liberties and keeping Canadians safe, particularly when it comes to the Internet.
Mr. Fogel, I think it was you who said that we need new tools when it comes to regulating the Internet. I don't know if you were talking about criminal laws or civil remedies. Perhaps you could expand on that. What would civil remedies look like as far as that goes?
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 17:38
Thank you for the question.
I'll try to be really brief over here. It's a challenge for me.
I think one of the takeaways of this whole discussion is that to really address this effectively you need a whole-of-government approach. You have sister committees in Parliament that are looking at some of these questions. Online hate is something that the anti-racism secretariat has been focusing on a lot and providing some resources for stakeholders, such as the NCCM and us, to be able to explore remedies. Social media platforms have been brought in and not quite coerced, but encouraged, to take some ownership and to provide some of the solutions.
I don't know what all of the instruments will be. I know that for them to be effective it requires the buy-in from all of the stakeholders. That means government, communities and social service providers.
We have to distinguish between two groups. There are the vast bulk of Canadians who may be ignorant and insensitive to the impact of social media posts. They need to be educated. Then there are the marginal ones who have to be chased into the corner or prosecuted or somehow defanged, so that they don't constitute an ongoing threat.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask about something we were told at the last meeting. Despite what we're hearing now, witnesses were telling us about difficulties in applying policies and regulations because of the lack of resources. They were saying that it makes the work of the department difficult. These were people in the business.
Do you think that that is the case?
Just now, we were told two things at the same time. First, we were told that is not possible to get around the regulations and, second, we were told that people are concerned that some do succeed in getting around them. Then again, we are told that everything is overseen and everything is going well, while, at the last meeting, we were told there are a lot of difficulties with oversight and that resources are inadequate. In a word, a lot of things have gone by the board. For 40 years, blind eyes have been turned to things that are actually happening.
What is your opinion, Mr. Burns, Ms. McCready or Mr. Whorley?
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:04
Thanks for the question.
Prior to the coming into force of the inshore regulations, we were working with a policy, which is a different beast to implement. We now have the inshore regulations, which are, I think, what folks were referring to when they were referencing resources. The difference we now have—and this isn't related to the offshore—is that those inshore regulations prescribe licence eligibility related to being an independent inshore harvester and maintaining the rights and privileges of that licence themselves. There's an eligibility requirement in order to have a licence issued to you. If you are not compliant with the eligibility requirements, a licence cannot be issued to you.
In the prior circumstance, with PIIFCAF, that wasn't the case. It wasn't a regulatory eligibility requirement but rather a policy, and so the timelines were much more protracted. It is true that some harvesters would be under review, which is what it was called under PIIFCAF, for an extended period of time.
Under the inshore regulations, if there is a question around eligibility and around the separation of those rights and privileges from the licence-holder, then that licence-holder would need to demonstrate their compliance with the regulations before a licence could be reissued to them. The moment their licence expired, their ability to fish would cease until they rectified that and a new licence was issued.
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Burns, I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to companies like Royal Greenland, again, backed by the Danish government, are you aware of these companies that are coming to Canada and trying to have control over our fisheries? You stated earlier that it's important to have the licences stay in our communities. Yes, the licence is one thing, but if the resource goes everywhere but in our communities, and the prices go so low as compared with now, what will we do 10 years from now?
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:19
Inshore regulations would prohibit inshore licence-holders from passing any of the rights and privileges related to their licence to any processing company, including one that may be owned by Royal Greenland. That requirement of maintaining the rights and privileges with the licence-holder would prevent that licence from entering into control by a processing company. In fact, the licence-holder's eligibility would end should that occur.
View Fayçal El-Khoury Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank our guests for joining us today and welcome them.
My first questions are for Mr. McCrorie.
How many times has the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered railway companies to make changes to their operations?
Why is the mediation process still [Technical difficulty—Editor]?
Finally, how much time is generally needed to find a solution?
Tom Oommen
View Tom Oommen Profile
Tom Oommen
2021-06-15 19:40
Thank you, Chair.
Yes I will mention that processes of either mediation or arbitration are confidential. On our website we have time frames, once a complete application is received, as to how long our processes take. For that we list, for example in the case of facilitation, that it's 20 business days for rail disputes, 20 business days for the resolution of a mediation process, and 30 to 65 days, depending on the type of arbitration.... Those are listed on our website.
Joel Lexchin
View Joel Lexchin Profile
Joel Lexchin
2021-06-11 14:07
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.
I work as an emergency physician in downtown Toronto. Between 2001 and 2016, I taught health policy at York University. Over the past 40 years, I've been involved in researching and writing about pharmaceutical policy issues.
I want to address the question about proposed reforms to the Canadian regulatory system, although I will also touch on some points that Mr. Labrie made.
When the pandemic started, Health Canada brought in an interim order to allow for a more rapid introduction of products to treat and prevent COVID-19. More recently, it's produced a discussion document about what it terms “agile regulations”, which are supposed to decrease regulatory burden and get new drugs onto the market in Canada faster.
The first point to make is contrary to Mr. Labrie's. Independent research has shown that only about 10% of new drugs that are introduced into Canada—or, in fact, in other markets—offer any substantial therapeutic gain over what already exists. This applies to drugs that are approved in general. It applies to drugs that are approved through Health Canada's priority review process. It applies to drugs that are approved with limited data through the notice of compliance with conditions process.
Even if you look at what are called first-in-class drugs—drugs that are unlike anything else on the market—the proportion of those that are innovative is only about one in six. When you look at drugs for orphan diseases, about one in five of these are substantial therapeutic improvements. This is not based on my assessment. This is based on independent assessments by organizations that have nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry.
When we think about changing the regulatory system, we also need to think about the safety of drugs that are on the market. The push for agile regulation makes mention of safety, but it seems to put safety second to reducing regulatory burden, which is a mistake. It ignores what we know about the safety of drugs that come on the market based on how long they are reviewed by organizations like Health Canada.
If a drug goes through a standard review process, eventually about one in five of those drugs will acquire a serious safety warning. If it goes through a priority review process, which is shorter—instead of the standard 300 days, it's 180 days—one-third of those drugs will acquire a serious safety warning, up from one in five. If you look at drugs that go through a notice of compliance with conditions process, about one in four of those drugs will acquire a serious safety warning.
There are consequences to changing the regulatory system in terms of safety. Currently, in any five-year period, if you look at the drugs that are withdrawn from the Canadian market, about one out of every 20 will eventually be pulled from the market for safety reasons. If we go ahead with changes in the regulatory system, that percentage may increase.
In conclusion, it's reasonable to change how we get drugs on the market in response to a pandemic. As a doctor in the emergency department, I recognize that. If you're talking about making long-term permanent changes, then you have to look at whether that results in better, more effective drugs reaching the market and in the increased or decreased safety of the products that come onto the market.
Until Health Canada can come up with good data to show that we'll get more therapeutically efficient drugs and more safety, we should not be going ahead.
Thank you.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
I'd like to get one more question in if I can to Mr. Gilvesy. What would be ALUS's position on cross-compliance between BRM programming and environmental initiatives?
Bryan Gilvesy
View Bryan Gilvesy Profile
Bryan Gilvesy
2021-06-08 15:58
One of the things that farmers have told us in the design of our program is that we need to be voluntary. That means that we operate in a space that is neither a regulatory one nor a legal one. Our farmers' actions are operating in an additional nature. In other words, they're providing environmental services over and above what any regulation or compliance might require.
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2021-06-08 16:00
Okay.
I want to get into verification. When I have conversations with stakeholders across the country, that becomes a big piece. Obviously, your company is in that space. I presume there are others who might also be in that realm in the private sector.
Do you see it as government's role to play a helping hand with farmers, or is this something that the private sector can take a leading role in, in terms of the verification of farmers' meeting some of these protocols, to take advantage of these opportunities?
Wade Barnes
View Wade Barnes Profile
Wade Barnes
2021-06-08 16:00
We've had experience in both the regulatory market in Alberta and now the voluntary market. In both cases, you need an independent verifier in order to ensure that these credits are credible.
Government can play a role to ensure that a third party is verifying it. That would be helpful when it comes to even corporate clients buying those offsets and having some governance around that.
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2021-06-08 16:01
Mr. Barnes, beyond the regulatory approach of actually auditing the pieces, it's the tools, on farm, for farmers to be able to illustrate some of this work that you're talking about.
I hear you on the regulatory piece, but in terms of the actual tools on farm, is that best delivered by private companies like yours that can help digitize some of this, or does government have a role in incentivizing that behaviour?
Wade Barnes
View Wade Barnes Profile
Wade Barnes
2021-06-08 16:01
It depends on how you look at it. One, the investment on the farm, to be able to digitalize that, to get that data so that data is verifiable, is critical and Canada can play a huge role in that.
The question is that our friends south of the border are essentially using crop insurance as a way to incentivize farmers to implement those practices.
Does government have a role to play? Possibly. If you want to speed up the digitalization at the farm level, it could. The other side of it is to not get in the road of a transaction between a farmer and a corporate client to create value, because they'll make those investments on their own.
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
2021-06-07 11:36
Very quickly on the policy in Scandinavia, are there any lessons to be learned of how they got to 20%?
Mark Jaccard
View Mark Jaccard Profile
Mark Jaccard
2021-06-07 11:36
Oh, yes. They have a very large carbon tax, but they have also picked certain sectors as well. Government has said, with intercity busing, that they're going to help make sure that they have E85 produced for those buses, and those are the ones they're going to pick as their fleet.
It's a combination, as I say, of government being directive, even in its investments and choices, and they have regulations as well, so regulations and pricing. It's the basic formula that we know. At least in Canada federally and in British Columbia, where I'm from, and in Quebec, we're doing those kinds of things.
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2021-06-07 12:16
Thank you. I don't have much time. I apologize.
You mentioned increasing carbon pricing. Mr. Jaccard talked a bit about that.
Mr. Jaccard, I probably have about a minute or so left. When you talk about regulation, pricing, policies and moving forward. what would be your recommendations to this committee and to the federal government? Let's say you're the minister of finance and you're preparing the budget for 2022. What would be your recommendations to this committee on how to meet our targets?
Mark Jaccard
View Mark Jaccard Profile
Mark Jaccard
2021-06-07 12:17
I would offer to the government the suggestion of a rising carbon price or regulations of the kind, if you look through my testimony, that I've been talking about. They dominate in California. Eighty-five per cent of their policies involve the kind of regulations I was talking about.
I'm indifferent. You can do regulations that are about as efficient as carbon pricing. It's fine to be indifferent to that, but you do need to regulate or have a rising price. Otherwise, fossil fuels are wonderful. They'll destroy the planet but they provide fairly high-quality energy. Also, their price is going to fall as we switch away from them. They're going to get even cheaper, so you have to have the regulations in pricing.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 11:11
Wow, what a ridiculous and partisan evasion on your part. What I would suggest is that if you hadn't spent months and months figuring out how to regulate Canadians' freedom of expression in their Facebook, Twitter and social media posts, maybe you would have had time to do a little work on this crucial issue.
The facts you read out are correct, of course, and deeply disturbing. Let me see if you have any answers at all on the legislation that you say is necessary for regulating online harm.
In terms of this regulator, what rules is it actually going to enforce, will it be the CRTC and what enforcement mechanisms will be in place?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Obviously, I'm here to talk about the objective of the legislation. Since it hasn't been tabled, I can't go into detail about it. However, once the legislation has been tabled, I would be happy to come before this committee again and testify as to the details and mechanics of said legislation.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 11:12
I think you have spoken about the concept of having a 24-hour takedown rule, so that once it has been notified that material is there, there would be a provision for that. I think that's a good idea. Of course, the trouble is that when child sexual abuse material or non-consensual images have been up for even 24 hours, they can have hundreds or thousands of viewers—millions in the case of Pornhub and MindGeek. We've heard from victims that explicit images of them were online for three years before they found out. In the case of Serena Fleites, hers was shared and downloaded all over her school before she knew. Then she got into a never-ending back and forth to try to get the platforms to be accountable and to take down the materials.
Can you explain or enlighten us about what prevention mechanisms might actually be in place?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is a very good question. My office and my department have spoken as well with victims and victims' organizations. What we want to do with this legislation is to really shift the challenge for victims of having to try to get these images taken down—if we're referring to images that we would find on Pornhub, for example. We're trying to shift the burden of doing this from the individual to the state. It would be up to the Government of Canada, through a regulator, to do that, as it is in other countries, such as Australia, with their e-safety commissioner.
That's the goal we're pursuing with the tabling of this legislation. You are correct; we are also working to ensure that not only are the images taken down but they are removed from websites or associate websites to prevent, for example, the download of such images. They're not going to be downloaded and uploaded and downloaded and uploaded, as we've seen in many cases.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair, and good morning to everybody. It's nice to be here this Monday morning, and again, welcome, Minister. It's great to see you here today. Thank you for all the hard work that you and your team are undertaking for all Canadians.
Minister, the first thing I would like to inquire about is the following. In mid-January, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation conducted a survey on Canadians' perceptions and recommendations on the spread of hate speech and racism on social media platforms. The survey shows that racialized groups are three times more likely to be exposed to or targeted by violence on social media. The proliferation of such content can result in hate crimes, which have gone up seven per cent this year across the country. These numbers have resonated painfully with our own recent history. Just four years ago, six people were murdered as they gathered for the evening prayer at the Grand Mosque in Quebec City. Islamophobia and xenophobia motivated this act. We learned shortly after that the perpetrator was radicalized through social media.
People here in Canada are harmed and victimized by hateful, violent, extremist, terrorist and radicalizing content. The online environment amplifies and spreads hateful messages against minority communities and the disenfranchised in ways we have never seen before. It's actually quite terrifying, to be honest.
Given that creating new regulations for social media platforms is in your mandate letter, and you mentioned you would bring legislation forward soon, could you provide us with an update on the essential work you are doing to protect Canadians online?
Thank you, Minister.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As I said, we have been hard at work for more than a year to prepare this legislation. We've held consultations with, as I said, in my case, more than 140 organizations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice also held some consultations on some of the more legal aspects of the legislation and issues pertaining to the Criminal Code.
It is a complex issue. There are only a handful of countries in the world that have introduced legislation to do that, namely France and Germany; I spoke earlier about Australia, and the United Kingdom tabled a white paper on this just this past December. I was on the phone recently with the heritage minister in the U.K. to discuss that.
It is a complex issue, but nonetheless an issue we want to tackle. You referred to the 24-hour takedown notion, which is, in fact, in the mandate letter the Prime Minister gave to me at the beginning of the mandate. It's a more novel element; very few countries are doing that. The Australians are just introducing this in their legislation. We want to ensure that we find this right balance, and that's what we're working towards. It is still my intention to introduce the legislation in the very near future, but let me give you, perhaps, one other example of how online hate affects Canadians, and more specifically, indigenous people in this country.
I want to give you two quick examples, if I may. In 2018, two women in Flin Flon, Manitoba were charged with uttering threats and inciting hatred after posting a photo of a vandalized car, saying that indigenous people would be killed and calling for a “shoot an Indian day”. In 2020, two known nationalist groups called the Proud Boys and the Sons of Odin used social media to threaten and attack members of the Wet'suwet'en community during the pipeline protest. In fact, data from Statistics Canada show that police-reported hate crimes against indigenous people are on the rise. Between 2016 and 2018, incidents targeting first nations, Métis and Inuit communities rose by 17% during those two years alone.
View Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Profile
BQ (QC)
It is reassuring to hear that. I hope that other countries will be on board, because this is a real problem. Every witness we've heard told us that. We are unable to legislate well with the tools we have, especially with regard to uploads and downloads.
There was another thing that really upset me. Witnesses told us that the more we legislate, the more there will be an increase in these misdeeds on the dark Web.
How are we going to do this? There are so many solutions, and I'm the first one to be overwhelmed by it all.
How will we get it right and sort things out to curtail these reprehensible activities insofar as possible and put an end to their proliferation on the dark web?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's an excellent question.
I would like to clarify something first. Regarding online cultural content issues, which are addressed in Bill C‑10, obviously some political parties have decided to join the big companies like Google and YouTube rather than support our artists. As for media compensation, Facebook reacted very strongly in Australia.
As for online harm and hate speech, several social media platforms have publicly called for government intervention, perhaps because they feel they are losing control of the situation. I'm not saying that they all have. I've personally met with most of these large platforms that have a presence in Canada. They obviously won't agree with everything that's going to be in the legislation—I've never seen a company agree with all of it. They do agree that more and more governments need to step in on this issue to help them.
Let me come back to the argument about the dark web. It's somewhat like saying that we should not put criminal sanctions in the laws, and eliminate them all instead, otherwise people will hide to commit their crimes. It may happen, but that's no reason to do nothing.
Honestly, the percentage of people who have the technical skills to access the dark web is very small. So we need to put the necessary laws in place. We won't solve everything, but with these laws we will solve a lot of the problem.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
Okay.
Minister Bill Blair told us the government was creating this new regulator. Is this new regulator going to be the CRTC?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, as I said to your colleague earlier, I am here to discuss the objectives of the legislation. In terms of the details of the legislation, that's not possible until the bill is tabled, but I would be happy to come back and testify at the committee.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
I get that. I guess my concern is that you haven't actually come up with legislation. You don't know when this regulator's going to appear, and the RCMP internal notes say your office is taking the lead.
We have survivors who suffered serious crimes and abuse. We have the Criminal Code. I'm wanting to know why your government is saying that it will be the regulator that handles that, as opposed to telling the RCMP and the justice minister to do their job.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think you're misunderstanding what we're trying to do.
There are many reasons we need to create a regulator. One—
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
I know, but we're not talking about buddy in his basement doing revenge porn on his girlfriend. We're talking about a well-known company that's established in Montreal and that the RCMP says is one of its voluntary partners. We're talking about a company that is established. We're not talking about idiots making online hate comments.
If we have a law in the land and your government is not willing to use it against a company that breaks that law, I don't see how we tell survivors, “Don't worry, a regulator is going to make those guys come to heel.” How do we tell them that, if the laws of the land aren't going to be applied?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think I understand your point, and I would like to respond that it's not just about the regulator. It's going to be about an entire new ecosystem to help us deal with these harms online in a way that we can't right now. The regulator is but one component of that. It's not the entirety of the system we want to propose.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
All right. What steps would be taken to ensure that a regulator would be able to access the folks most affected by this problem—teenage girls and young adult women—seeing as they're not likely to be able to navigate complex bureaucracy?
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
What enforcement mechanisms is this supposed regulator going to use?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, I'm happy to discuss the objectives of the legislation with you. I would be happy to come back to discuss the details of the legislation once it is tabled.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
What about cases in which the victim is Canadian but the site isn't necessarily Canadian?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm happy to repeat, but that's the answer I gave to your colleague, Madame Gaudreau.
The purpose of the legislation is that whether the company is Canadian, its servers are in Canada, its headquarters are in Canada or it's registered in Canada or elsewhere, if it's broadcasting images or videos in Canada, then the legislation will apply to that company.
Mr. Chair and Madam Clerk, I am being told that I must connect to the House of Commons debate five minutes before noon, which would have been a minute ago, I suppose. I'm in your hands, but I must get ready for another debate in the House of Commons.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
That's a very helpful perspective on this.
I'm running out of time.
Ms. Lukings, I was really struck by your referring to the Privacy Commissioner.
Our Privacy Commissioner put the run on Facebook. He chased Clearview.ai out. He is investigating Pornhub. We have a regulator that does this.
The Liberals want to put in another regulator, not the regulator they're going to have to have for Pornhub, but the regulator who is going to oversee the Privacy Commissioner's work—who actually does excellent work.
I just want to get your perspective on this. If we have the Privacy Commissioner, who's not afraid to take on the giants, dealing with this as an issue of corporate liability, and if we already have laws, do you think we need to have this other set of regulations and regulators to do the job that right now we believe the Privacy Commissioner is probably doing quite well?
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:56
We don't need more regulations of surface web content. We don't. We just need to use the laws we have. We have a Privacy Commissioner, so let's have that person do their privacy commissioning and apply the laws we have. I don't think we need to add anything, and I absolutely do believe that adding in new regulations will put people at risk of exploitation and other types of harm and will push traffic onto anonymized networks.
We don't need more regulation. That's the opposite of what we need.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Amendment BQ-4 is lost.
On clause 158 as it is currently written, Mr. Clerk, could you do a recorded vote on that?
(Clause 158 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
(On clause 159)
The Chair: We are turning now to division 6, “Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law)”.
Who's on that? Is it you again, Ms. O'Brien? It's clause 159.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
It's been interesting hearing your explanations or reinterpretation on the tubbing regulation today, but no one from DFO, including the minister, provided all of these explanations earlier in the year when the fiasco came to light. Is there a reason that the explanations you brought today were not offered to Canadians in March?
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 16:30
I can't answer specifically to that, other than to say that we did have conversations with the industry representatives. We have a regular advisory process. Those meetings took place, and it was through them that we worked on a solution.
In my view, we did have those conversations and we did attempt to clarify our needs in terms of the regulatory compliance and to understand the interest of the industry in ensuring that their markets were protected.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My concern is that I still haven't heard a good reason why you reinterpreted the regulations. I just want a quick answer, yes or no, that you're doing this because of the size. You're worried that you can't access the tubbing because you can't thaw it out and look at it, and you're worried about size. Is that what you're measuring?
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 16:45
I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree with the characterization of reinterpreting the rules. The rules have been in place, and we haven't changed them at all.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Acting Chair, in your new role.
I want to thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for doing something that not even the COVID-19 pandemic could do, which is to bring the four political parties together in unanimous agreement about something that appears to be an egregious overstep on behalf of the government. I've never seen, in the 15 years I've been an MP, an instance when absolutely nobody among the elected officials sitting around the table is in agreement with what the government has done. I have heard no justification that would change anybody's mind at this point.
Here is my first question. Is there any indication that prawn populations are in decline because of tubbing?
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 16:52
First of all, to the committee, we are doing our best to respond to your questions. I am sensing a lot of frustration and concern.
The issue around tubbing is about products being readily available. That regulation is across the board, so it's not just related to prawns. It applies in this case, and it was raised as part of a separate conversation because tubbing is becoming more common. It was raised as an issue in connection with our need to make sure we can inspect the product and how best to do that. That led to the conversation about whether or not inspection is possible with tubs and ultimately to the development of the interim protocol.
From my perspective, the issue was raised; it was discussed appropriately with the association, and a solution, which we agreed to, was found. We need to continue to work together.
This is a very typical process when working with industry reps. Issues are raised, we work on them, and we do our best to resolve them.
View Ken Hardie Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Reid, we heard that prior to the pandemic and the world market slowing down, tubbing accounted for about 10% of the catch. During the pandemic, you've noticed it has gone up to 20%, but it would seem reasonable to suspect that it's going to go back down again, because those international markets are much more lucrative than the domestic market.
Why do we need to do this when the number of infractions is low? We don't expect tubbing to increase in frequency once things get back to normal. Is it not possible for you to simply say, “You know what? Nice try. Not working. Let's just do an Etch A Sketch on this thing and go back.”
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 17:22
We actually have found a reasonable solution that addresses the concerns, and for me, being able to implement the regulation is an appropriate measure for us to take.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses today.
This has been great testimony. It's nice to hear that you feel you're being heard.
I'm still really taken aback by how you feel from the repercussions of what you're doing in standing up for yourselves. I can't get over that, and in Canada, of all places.
Do you believe that DFO and the minister should completely reverse this regulatory reinterpretation and return to the interpretation that was used for the past 50 years? That question is for every one of you.
Sonia Strobel
View Sonia Strobel Profile
Sonia Strobel
2021-05-26 18:16
Yes, absolutely. That seems to be the most logical solution.
Louise Aerts
View Louise Aerts Profile
Louise Aerts
2021-05-25 12:07
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Louise Aerts and I am the board chair of the Canadian Midwifery Regulators Council.
I am speaking to you today from the unceded Coast Salish territory, represented by the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee regarding your study on midwifery services in Canada.
The Canadian Midwifery Regulators Council is a network of provincial and territorial midwifery regulatory authorities. Collectively, we regulate the profession of midwifery in Canada. As is the case with many other health professionals, each jurisdiction has its own midwifery regulatory authority or college, which works to ensure public safety by setting registration requirements, setting and enforcing standards for safe and ethical care, and responding to complaints from the public about midwifery services. Midwives must register with the college in their province or territory in order to practise.
Midwifery is currently regulated in all jurisdictions in Canada except Prince Edward Island. Ontario was the first jurisdiction to regulate in 1993, followed by B.C. in 1998. Yukon is our newest jurisdiction to be regulated. This took effect in April of this year. The CMRC is now supporting P.E.I. as it works to regulate midwifery.
There are fewer than 1,700 practising midwives in Canada. Ontario has the most, with around 800 practising midwives. The next-largest jurisdiction is B.C., with 325. At the other end of the spectrum, there are 10 midwives in the Northwest Territories, six in New Brunswick and six in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'd like to speak about indigenous midwifery from a regulatory point of view.
Indigenous students may take any of the recognized midwifery education programs in Canada and are eligible for registration in their jurisdiction through the regular channels. Further, Ontario and Quebec have laws that provide exemptions from registration for indigenous midwives working in their communities. In Ontario, the exemption clause has been enacted, but it has not yet been enacted in Quebec.
In B.C., the Midwives Regulation includes the ability to regulate a class of indigenous midwife. This also has not been enacted.
The CMRC's mission is to encourage excellence among Canadian midwifery regulatory authorities through collaboration, harmonization and best practice. Some of these recent efforts have included revised entry-to-practice midwifery competencies, common registration requirements, and a shared letter of standing and professional conduct. We are also working to harmonize self-assessment by midwives, indigenous midwife self-identification, labour mobility and emergency skills training certification.
The CMRC owns and administers the Canadian midwifery registration exam, the CMRE. All midwifery regulatory authorities except Quebec require applicants to successfully complete this exam prior to registration. Each year, 110 to 150 midwifery candidates write the CMRE. These individuals are from our Canadian baccalaureate midwifery education programs or bridging programs for internationally educated midwives.
As evidenced by these numbers, midwifery is a small professional group and is limited in terms of growth by the numbers of graduates entering the profession each year—i.e., under 150 across the country.
The CMRC was disappointed to learn of the closing of Laurentian University's midwifery program. This leaves only six baccalaureate midwifery education programs in the country, and only in the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The CMRC hopes that the Laurentian University midwifery program will be relocated to a new university that, like Laurentian, can provide instruction in English and French and serve the needs of indigenous students and communities.
Midwifery regulators in Canada are ready to assist in the creation of indigenous-led pathways for regulation or exemption. We ask that the committee consider ways to expand investment in indigenous midwifery, which includes creating diverse pathways to education.
Midwives play a vital role in the provision of equitable, accessible, culturally safe and high-quality health care. In some jurisdictions, temporary emergency registration has allowed eligible midwives to register quickly, on a short-term basis, to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic efforts. Further, some jurisdictions have issued public health orders that have expanded midwives' scope of practice to fill needs brought about by the pandemic.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope these remarks have helped you to understand the regulation of midwifery in Canada. I am happy to take any questions you may have.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
I wish to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from Ottawa on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the charter statement that was tabled for Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document requested for the proposed amendments now before the committee.
As you can see, I'm appearing alongside Minister Guilbeault, who is the minister responsible for Bill C-10. I am accompanied by officials from my department.
I want to begin by discussing the duty I have under the law, as Minister of Justice, to prepare statements regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for government bills introduced in the House of Commons.
I will discuss the purpose of charter statements and provide the context, including their history. I will explain what charter statements are meant to do and not do.
I will also gladly speak to the charter statement tabled in relation to Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document provided to the committee concerning the potential effects of the proposed amendments on freedom of expression.
I should note at the outset that it is not my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give legal advice to parliamentary committees. You have access to your own legal counsel and independent witnesses.
As you are aware, however, I do have obligations under the Department of Justice Act in terms of reviewing proposed government bills for inconsistency with the charter and preparing charter statements for government bills. This obligation was created by our government to be open and transparent with Canadians about the charter considerations of our legislation.
These two sets of obligations—examining bills and preparing charter statements—are both focused on the bill as tabled.
Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in the House of Commons for every government bill. That obligation came into force in December 2019.
Examining bills for potential inconsistency with the charter, as set out in section 4.1, is one of my most important responsibilities. Rest assured that I also take very seriously the obligation to ensure charter statements are tabled in the House, as set out in section 4.2.
Now I will turn to the purpose of charter statements.
Charter statements are intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a government bill. They foster transparency regarding the effects of a government bill on the fundamental values protected by the charter. They provide parliamentarians with additional information to further inform the important legislative debates they have on behalf of Canadians. Charter statements also provide Canadians with additional information to help them participate in these debates through their elected representatives.
The obligation to table charter statements is a testament to our government's commitment to respect and uphold the charter, as an integral part of the country's good governance.
We can never abdicate our responsibility as a government to ensure that our decisions—including those reflected in the reform of an act—respect our fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act strengthens the obligation this government and future governments have to respect this most basic of requirements.
I would like to take a few moments to explain the content of charter statements. In keeping with their purpose, charter statements are drafted at a high level. They set out in an accessible way the potential effects a bill may have on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Charter statements also explain considerations that support the constitutionality of a bill.
In our discussion of the charter, it is also important to stress that, when Parliament legislates, it may have an effect on charter rights and freedoms. This may include limiting people's enjoyment or exercise when it is in the broader public interest to do so. This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute, but rather subject to reasonable limits, as long as those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This means that, when identifying the potential effect of a bill that could limit a right or a freedom, it may also be necessary to consider whether the limit is reasonable and justified. A charter statement may therefore outline considerations relevant to the potential justifiability of a bill.
The fact that charter rights and freedoms can be limited, however, is not a licence to violate them. Rather, it is a reminder that any legislative limits to rights and freedoms must be carefully considered in the context of the shared values of Canada's unique, free and democratic society.
As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to discuss and debate potential effects on charter guarantees. We exercise our judgment on behalf of Canadians as to whether proposed legislation strikes the right balance between rights and freedoms and the broader public interest. Charter statements are one more source of information to add to our deliberations.
I would also like to take a moment to explain what a charter statement is not.
A charter statement is not a legal opinion. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the constitutionality of a bill.
As I mentioned, a charter statement provides Parliament and the public with legal information relating to the possible effects of a bill on the rights guaranteed by the charter and to the considerations that support the consistency of the bill with the charter.
As we all know, bills often change when they are being considered by Parliament. A charter statement reflects the bill at the time it was introduced by the government in the House of Commons. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act does not require that charter statements be updated as a bill progresses through Parliament.
Keeping that in mind, I will now turn to the proposed amendments to Bill C-10 in relation to social media, which are before the committee.
My fellow minister Mr. Guilbeault talked about the scope of the proposed amendments. He highlighted the key objectives underlying the amendments and discussed their intended effects on social media services and users.
In short, the proposed amendments are intended to empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to regulate a social media service in respect of programs uploaded by its unaffiliated users, strictly in relation to the following: payment of regulatory charges, such as to support the creation of Canadian programming; discoverability of Canadian creators; registration of the service; provision of information; and auditing of records.
In keeping with my obligations under the Department of Justice Act, I tabled a charter statement for Bill C-10 in the House of Commons on November 18, 2020. The charter statement for Bill C-10 identifies the rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by the bill, and relevant considerations that support the bill's consistency with the charter.
In considering the committee's recent discussions focusing on the impacts of the proposed amendments on social media, I understand there has been extensive debate on freedom of expression.
We have prepared and shared with you an explanatory document that examines the amendments, and discusses their potential effect on the right to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. I'm confident that these considerations support the charter consistency of the bill, and that they remain as outlined in the charter statement. It is our position that the bill, as tabled, and these proposed amendments are consistent with the charter.
As the charter statement indicates, the bill's regulatory requirements have the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. The following considerations support the continued consistency of the proposed regulatory requirements of section 2(b).
By virtue of clause 1, which would remain in the bill, unaffiliated users of social media services would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in respect of the programs they post. What remains is an updating of the CRTC's regulatory powers, and providing it with new powers applicable to online service. The bill maintains the CRTC's role and flexibility at determining what, if any, regulatory requirements to impose on broadcasting undertakings.
Regarding the proposal to give the CRTC new limited powers to regulate an online undertaking that provides the social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, the relevant charter considerations include the CRTC's discretionary role and flexibility.
The proposed narrowing of the CRTC's discretionary powers to regulate its social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, to only discrete members that I have mentioned, is an additional consideration. The CRTC is subject to the charter, and must exercise any discretionary powers it has in a manner that is consistent with the charter.
The act states that it must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with freedom of expression. The CRTC's decisions on matters of law or jurisdiction are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
In my view, the relevant considerations that are set out in the charter statement remain valid. These considerations are not impacted by the proposed amendments.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.
I am at your disposal to answer questions.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Minister, would you agree that the charter statement carefully considers that the CRTC, in making any regulations on the discoverability issue, including with respect to algorithms, would have to respect the charter, including section 2(b), as opposed to the social media companies themselves, which do not have to respect the charter in their use of algorithms?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Both the charter statement and the explanatory document took into account all of the various changes that went into the act, and we have concluded that there wasn't a change to the original conclusion of the charter statement.
If you would like a more precise answer on the content of the actual act, I will turn the floor over to Minister Guilbeault, who is responsible for explaining and defending the bill.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 14:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for the invitation to be here today. My panel colleague Pierre Trudel and I are very pleased to provide our perspective on Bill C-10.
We endorse the federal government's efforts to update the legislative framework governing the broadcasting system to include both media streaming services and sharing platforms. This approach is consistent with our report, which recognized the realities of a borderless online world in which Canadians will seek to access media content based on personal interest, irrespective of platform or technology.
Bill C-10 would ensure that these new online streaming services, including Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, as well as sharing platforms like YouTube, are required to make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural content. These online services derive significant revenues from Canadian audiences from both advertising and subscription revenues, yet face no obligation to contribute. To imagine that in 2021 we would permit these platforms to make money from Canadian audiences, Canadian consumers and Canadian creativity without any corresponding contribution defies logic, particularly when our system imposes obligations on traditional broadcasters that are now much smaller, less powerful and less prosperous.
In our report, we recommended, as a matter of competitive fairness, that online undertakings be included in updated broadcasting legislation. Our report also made it clear that these regulatory obligations should be restricted to the platforms—that is, if we use the language of the law, to undertakings. Individual creators should remain untouched by regulation, and that is exactly what Bill C-10 proposes.
Let me say it again: Bill C-10 imposes regulatory burdens and the obligation to contribute to Canada's creators only on the undertakings such as the big streaming and sharing platforms, not on individual creators.
I will put it another way. Programs consist of audio and audiovisual content. TV shows, songs, podcasts, postings and that programming—all those programs—exist beyond regulation and will remain beyond regulation. Individuals who create content, whether amateur or professional, and audiences large and small are not affected by Bill C-10 when they upload their programming, share it or even sell it to a streaming service. No one is going to police that content, tell them what they can say or compel them to pay dues.
What Bill C-10 does require—and, from my perspective, thank goodness we are finally taking this step—is that the undertakings—the YouTubes, Disney-pluses and Netflixes of the world that share that content and make money from distributing content—must operate by a set of rules and contribute some amount of the revenues they are harvesting from Canadians to the production of Canadian content.
Finally, to those who argue that Bill C-10 fails to protect user-generated content, we say that is just wrong. Proposed section 2.1 specifically provides that exemption already. New amendments that have been tabled make this exclusion even clearer. Therefore, to persist in creating this illusory scare against freedom of expression is either to misunderstand the legislation, in my view, or to intentionally seek to mislead people for some other purpose.
I will finish by saying this: Legislation, of course, is complex, and broadcasting policy and its regulation can be very technical. Devils do lurk in details, and that is why the scrutiny of this committee is so important. However, what's at stake here isn't hard to understand: We need to make provision for the reality of these immense and hugely powerful online platforms. We need to ensure that they give to, not just take from, Canadian creators and Canadian audiences. We need to update a broadcasting framework that was last amended before the world was even online. We need what is set out in Bill C-10, with all its provisions and all its protections. We urge the government to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 14:39
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As you know, my name is Michael Geist. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views. I always start with that statement, but it feels particularly necessary in this instance, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories that some have floated and that Minister Guilbeault has disappointingly retweeted.
As I am sure you are aware, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10. I would like to reiterate that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture or of regulation of technology companies. I think public support for culture is needed, and I think there are ways to ensure money for creator programs this year and not in five years, as in this bill.
Further, I am puzzled and discouraged by the lack of interest in Bill C-11, which would move toward modernizing Canada’s privacy rules to help address concerns about how these companies collect and use our data. The bill would also mandate algorithmic transparency, which is much needed and far different from government-mandated algorithmic outcomes.
I’ll confine my opening remarks to the charter-related questions and widespread concerns about the regulation of user-generated content, but would welcome questions on any aspect of the bill.
There is simply no debating that following the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now applies to user-generated content, since all audiovisual content is treated as a program under the act. You have heard experts say that and department officials say that. The attempts to deflect from that simple reality by pointing to proposed section 2.1 to argue that users are not regulated is deceptive and does not speak to the issue of regulating the content of users.
I will speak to the freedom of expression implications in a moment, but I want to pause to note that no one, literally no other country, uses broadcast regulation to regulate user-generated content in this way. There are good reasons that all other countries reject this approach. It is not that they don’t love their creators and want to avoid regulating Internet companies; it is that regulating user-generated content in this manner is entirely unworkable, a risk to net neutrality and a threat to freedom of expression. For example, the European Union, which is not shy about regulation, distinguishes between streaming services such as Netflix and video-sharing services such as TikTok or YouTube, with no equivalent regulations such as those found in Bill C-10 for user-generated content.
From a charter perspective, the statement issued by the Department of Justice last week simply does not contain analysis or discussion about how the regulation of user-generated content as a program intersects with the charter. There is similarly no discussion about whether this might constitute a violation that could be justified, no discussion on the implications of deprioritizing speech, no discussion on the use of terms such as “social media service” that are not even defined in the bill, and no discussion of the implementation issues that could require Canadians to disclose personal location-based information in order to comply with the new, ill-defined requirements.
In my view, the prioritization or deprioritization of speech by the government through the CRTC necessarily implicates freedom of expression. The charter statement should have acknowledged this reality and grappled with the question of whether it is saved by section 1. I do not believe it is.
First, the bill as drafted, with section 4.1 in it, was the attempt to minimally impair those speech rights. With it removed, the bill no longer does so.
Second, the discoverability policy objective is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights. There is no evidence that there is a discoverability problem with user-generated content.
Ms. Yale’s panel, which notably appears to have lost its unanimity, recommended discoverability but cited no relevant evidence to support claims that there is an issue with user-generated content.
Third, the objective of making YouTube pay some additional amount to support music creation is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights either. This isn’t about compensation, because the works are already licensed. This is about paying some additional fees, given concerns that section 4.1 would have broadly exempted YouTube. I am not convinced that was the case, as services such as YouTube Music Premium might well have been captured. I am not alone on that. Canadian Heritage officials thought so too in a memo they wrote to the minister. In fact, it was such a non-issue that Mr. Cash’s organization did not even specifically cite the provision or raise the issue in the brief that it submitted to this committee.
I find it remarkable that the minister and the charter statement effectively tell Canadians that they should trust the CRTC to appropriately address free speech rights but are unwilling to do the same with respect to how section 4.1 would be interpreted.
Let me conclude by noting that if a choice must be made between some additional payments by a streaming service and regulating the free speech rights of Canadians, I would have thought that standing behind freedom of expression would be an easy choice to make, and I have been genuinely shaken to find that my government thinks otherwise.
I look forward to your questions.
Pierre Trudel
View Pierre Trudel Profile
Pierre Trudel
2021-05-17 14:44
Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, good afternoon.
I'm a law professor, and I've been teaching the Broadcasting Act since 1979. I was the research director of the Caplan-Sauvageau committee, which produced the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As my colleague Janet Yale pointed out, I was involved in the work of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.
As noted in the notice from the Department of Justice, which was tabled a few days ago, Bill C-10, amends the Broadcasting Act, which does not authorize measures to be taken against individuals with respect to the content they create and decide to put online. Above all, the act already clearly provides that all measures put in place to regulate broadcasting activities must respect freedom of expression.
Moreover, the Broadcasting Act has never authorized the CRTC to censor specific content. The CRTC's entire practice over the past 50 years is a testament to that. Furthermore, the Broadcasting Act requires that the CRTC refrain from regulating broadcasting in a manner that violates freedom of expression. It's hard to imagine a broader exclusion than that. It is an exclusion that requires a prohibition on interpreting the act in a way that empowers the CRTC to take action and create regulations or orders that violate freedom of expression.
In addition, as you know, the act provides that the CRTC shall refrain from regulating any activity that does not have a demonstrable impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. In fact, the Broadcasting Act is enabling legislation. There are no specifics in the act. It is enabling legislation that empowers the CRTC to put in place rules adapted to the circumstances of each company so that they organize their activities in a way that contributes to the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives, as set out in section 3 of the act.
Therefore, Bill C-10 does not need to expand exclusions for any type of content. Rather, it is a recognition that Bill C-10 already excludes measures that could be suspected of infringing on freedom of expression and ensures that the Broadcasting Act applies to all companies that transmit programming, including on the Internet, which is the primary purpose of Bill C-10.
With regard to these online companies that determine content and that, it's important to remember, already regulate content that is offered to individuals through processes based on algorithms or artificial intelligence technologies, Bill C-10 strengthens the guarantees of fundamental rights for all Canadians. It empowers the CRTC to compel companies to provide information on the logic behind these algorithmic devices, which does not currently exist. It enables the CRTC to put measures in place to ensure that Canadians are offered programming that reflects the principles, values and objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.
Nothing in the Broadcasting Act as it is proposed to be amended would allow the CRTC to impose on anyone programs that they do not want to hear or see, let alone allow the CRTC to censor content on platforms.
Rather, the act provides individuals with a real opportunity for choice. There is currently no guarantee that online companies are offering Canadians a real and meaningful choice that reflects Canadian values as codified in the Broadcasting Act.
There has been a constant since the early years of radio, and that is a tension between those who believe that broadcasting undertakings should be left to market forces alone and those who—rightly, in my view—believe that intervention is required to ensure the effective availability of programming that is the product of Canadians' creative activity.
Bill C-10 is part of this continuum, which has allowed Canadians to have media that offers the best the world has to offer, while also giving prominence to the works of Canadian creators, including creators from minority and indigenous or first nations communities.
Thank you.
Andrew Cash
View Andrew Cash Profile
Andrew Cash
2021-05-17 14:51
Let's start by getting one thing off the table. Digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are incredible. They represent phenomenal opportunities for Canadian arts and culture creators.
It's been said that being in the music business is a great way to get rich and a lousy way to make a living. The pandemic has put this maxim in stark focus. Many artists and musicians lived below the poverty line before the pandemic, but the pandemic has made things much, much worse. Travel and gathering restrictions have meant no touring, no live shows and no income at all.
The pandemic has also underlined the systemic inequities in the market that have led to diminished compensation for creators. This imbalance has put the promise of a stable middle-class sector of artists and arts and culture workers further and further out of reach for this country. The sector is in crisis.
CIMA commissioned Nordicity to do a report on the impact of COVID. It found that the independent music sector saw a drop in revenue of $233 million, live music saw a drop in income of 79%, independent sound recording and publishing companies saw a 41% decline in revenue, and thousands of jobs were lost. That was just in the first nine months of the pandemic.
We don't expect to return to pre-COVID levels of revenue until 2023 or 2024 at best, but as we move towards recovery, we must address the elephant in the room: Digital giants doing business in Canada make lots of money off Canadians but pay fractions of a cent to content creators, and they operate here without any accountability or regulatory obligations, including to fairly contribute to the arts and culture ecosystem.
Really? Are we okay with this?
Given the numbers that I've laid out before you today, if there ever were a time when we needed you to stand up for the little guy, it's right now. Do you really want to go back to your ridings and say to your constituents, “Yes, I voted to protect big tech. I voted to allow them to continue raking in the profits, taking profits out of the country and not contributing a dime in return.”? Unless things have dramatically changed since I was an elected politician, I don't think you want to be doing that. In fact, many of you, from all parties, have pointed out that this inequitable playing field is wrong and that we have to do something about it.
CanCon regulations were created 50 years ago and helped establish a domestic industry within a domestic market. We wanted to protect and nurture French-language creators who were surrounded on all sides by English-language cultural content and English-language creators who were competing on all sides with the massive giant next door. Well, today our arts and culture marketplace is no longer a domestic one. Digital platforms have transformed the way content is consumed. Today the marketplace is global. Today we need a modernized system to grow our domestic industry into one that will thrive in the global market.
This bill, flawed though it is, could point us towards new modes of discoverability, towards new investments in our artists and our arts and culture entrepreneurs, and towards information transparency and accountability from big tech companies that simply doesn't exist right now.
CIMA believes that the bill as amended did not infringe on individuals' rights and freedoms. That belief was affirmed by last week's charter statement and further proposed amendments. However, let's be clear: We would oppose any measure that puts those rights at risk. Artists have long been at the forefront of fighting for civil liberties and freedom of expression against monolithic power structures. Our work quite literally depends on civil liberty and the protection of freedom of expression.
Bill C-10 couldn't [Technical difficulty—Editor] bad videos. What it could do, though, is begin to make a real difference in the lives of musicians, content creators, entrepreneurs and [Technical difficulty—Editor] across the country. It has the potential to move the creative sector from precarity towards middle-class stability, unlocking innovation and creating a global presence for the sector.
That's why I implore you today to continue your work in amending Bill C-10 as expediently as possible in order to pass it through Parliament before the end of the spring session.
Thank you.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you.
I'm going to continue with Dr. Geist.
I was at the original news conference on the Yale report. The chair had talked about levelling the playing field. We've often heard for the last several months about levelling the playing field. You say that's not the case.
Maybe you could just talk about that. “Level the playing field” is an expression that this government has used since it introduced this bill in November.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 15:00
It does. Ms. Yale often talks about like for like, as if we need to treat all of these players in the same fashion.
What we ought to recognize is that the existing broadcast sector enjoys a whole series of regulatory advantages, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that are not available to streaming services. It's things like simultaneous substitution, whereby they substitute out commercials worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's the must-carry rule so that you have to carry certain channels, which are otherwise unavailable. It's foreign investment and ownership restrictions. There are a whole series of measures that actually don't make this like for like.
Now listen: That's not to suggest that there ought not to be a regulatory environment for online undertakings. What I would say, though, is that trying to treat them in the same fashion as this bill does has rendered it fundamentally flawed, and this committee ought to know it better than anyone. It has had witness after witness say they're concerned about things like changing Canadian ownership requirements, changing the prioritization of performers, changing Canadian intellectual property, and all of that is a function of trying to treat online in precisely the same fashion as conventional broadcasters.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
You have been pretty vocal on Twitter and other social media about this. You've said to scrap this bill and start over. Others on this committee want this bill to proceed.
It's been 30-plus years now since we've updated the Broadcasting Act. We all realize that this act has to be modified at some point. Could you talk about scrapping it and what you would put in there instead of what we have in front of us today?
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 15:02
Sure.
I would start by noting that I think we've seen the flaws. Even Mr. Cash acknowledged that it's a flawed piece of legislation, and we now have the government contradicting its own departmental officials again and again on things that were directly included in government memos from the heritage department to the minister with advice on some of these issues.
It's a flawed piece of legislation. The concerns are real and legitimate, raised by an incredible number of people, including people who have been some of the biggest critics of tech companies in the country.
I would suggest that we need to get this right, because we don't change our legislation that frequently. Clearly, it runs sometimes for decades. At the same time, we need to ensure that there is money for creators for precisely the kinds of reasons Mr. Cash identified.
What I would say is that the starting point is tax dollars. The government has already announced it wants to increase the taxes on tech companies. It should take some of that tax money and allocate it directly to the various creator programs. In doing so, there could be money this year, at a time when there really is that need for money, as opposed to the way it will play out with this bill. It is undoubtedly going to take years before the CRTC finishes with the litigation that is inevitable to ensue. Nobody is going to see a dime coming out of this legislation for years. There's a mechanism both to get the legislation right and to ensure that creators get money and get it quickly.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact, I noticed that Janet Yale had her hand up and seemed to want to respond to some of the aspects that were touched upon by Dr. Geist on discoverability and the like.
Perhaps we could start there, with your ability to respond.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 15:06
Thank you very much. I want to make just two or three quick points.
The first is that programs aren't regulated; undertakings are. When Dr. Geist says that if it's a program, it's regulated, it's not a program unless it's offered by an undertaking. Online undertakings are the only ones that are subject to regulation. It's not people who make programs. It's really that clear. Point number one is that a program isn't regulated; only an undertaking is regulated, whether it's a streaming platform or a social media platform.
Secondly, on discoverability, the way Dr. Geist described it would have you think that the algorithms that are operated by the likes of Amazon and Netflix are just mathematically pure, uncontaminated by commercial considerations, and that everything you see is driven completely in an agnostic way by consumer preferences. Well, I can tell you personally that when I've bought things on Amazon or I've chosen a show on Netflix, before I know it, I have pushed to me all kinds of things that have nothing to do with my preferences or taste but everything to do with the things that the provider in question is trying to push.
Once we acknowledge that algorithms are not agnostic, then it's really a question of whether cultural policy has a role to play in a world of so many choices and unlimited amounts of content in ensuring that we know what Canadian choices might be available. That's just the simple principle of discoverability, and it's not about interfering with freedom of choice. It's about promotion of Canadian choices. Nobody has to watch it if they don't want to watch it. There are actually no restrictions on freedom of choice whatsoever.
Those would be my thoughts, but I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.
Pierre Trudel
View Pierre Trudel Profile
Pierre Trudel
2021-05-17 15:08
It is essential to understand that the algorithms used to direct the flow of content on the Internet are not neutral. These are default regulations, default rules. At the moment, there is absolutely no guarantee that these default regulations, which are based solely on the commercial choices of commercial enterprises, do not involve biases or possible violations of fundamental rights. If we want to get into the area of conjecture, we must also take that into account.
At present, Canadians have no guarantee that their choices are not being directed in the same undemocratic way that they could possibly be if the multiple scenarios that have been discussed were to become reality. If the CRTC ever decides to violate the Broadcasting Act by imposing regulations that contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our freedoms would be at risk. This is a very distant possibility.
Right now, there are some very real contingencies. The practices of the companies that dominate the online platforms in a monopolistic way can, with impunity, without anyone looking at them, infringe on our fundamental rights. That is the real issue with respect to fundamental rights. It is in this sense that Bill C-10 would strengthen the protection of our fundamental rights.
Unfortunately, there is no protection on the Internet at the moment. Our rights aren't protected. Our rights to access content relevant to us and our rights not to be spied on when we make choices aren't guaranteed. Government regulations can guarantee them.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-05-17 15:12
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Their visit was highly anticipated. I'm grateful to them, and I thank them for their availability.
I'll start with Mr. Trudel.
Mr. Trudel, a few moments ago, you talked about the fact that, as things stand, we are still much less protected. Privacy, freedom of expression and, at the very least, freedom of choice of content are less protected. Bill C-10 has no intention of infringing on this.
Do you think the bill will improve things or will the status quo be maintained?
Pierre Trudel
View Pierre Trudel Profile
Pierre Trudel
2021-05-17 15:13
I believe that Bill C-10, which seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act, will ensure that the resulting legislation will better protect the rights of Canadian citizens and consumers. As for the possibility of allowing the CRTC to take a look at algorithmic processes, it's always important to remember that it's not a body that censors content behind closed doors. It's a body that regulates certain activities through a public process to which everyone is invited.
During these processes, the CRTC could invite the major platforms to explain how the algorithms and other processes they use to administer the flow of various content work. It could ask them to explain how these are compatible with Canadian values and how they are not likely to be subservient to undeclared commercial interests. It could also ask them to explain how consistent they are with Canadian values, which are different from American values. I"m thinking of equality and diversity, among other things. Most importantly, it could ask them to explain to what extent algorithms provide real proposals to Canadians and how they can be organized in such a way that they reflect the values found in the Broadcasting Act.
For example, they could give visibility to cultural productions from minority groups, as well as the rich production of Canada's indigenous peoples or racialized people. In short, with an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, such as the one proposed here, the act would promote freedom of expression rather than censorship. In a sense, it would encourage companies to promote Canadian creativity, while leaving consumers free to consume what they want.
Online, no one thinks for a second that you can force someone to watch what they don't want to watch. This issue has long been settled. However, what is often hard to find on platforms is cultural products that reflect Canadian creativity or the productions of creators from Canada's linguistic or cultural minorities. That is what is currently missing on the platforms. That's why Canada has managed to set up an audiovisual or media system that is very open to the world and that has never practised censorship, as some seem to claim.
On the contrary, not only do we have access to everything in the world, but we also have access to the productions of our creators. That's the difference. That's why I think it's an act that increases our fundamental rights—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you. That's wonderful.
One concern that's come up as we talk about Bill C-10, of course, is the need for freedom of expression to be protected. Of course, this is something for which, as you will know, the NDP has pushed for a very long time. I think artists probably more than any other group of people would defend freedom of expression. It's at the heart of their reason for being.
Could you tell us more about the economic reality for artists in your industry and why they want web giants to pay their fair share while fully, of course, respecting the freedom of expression and the ability of people to publish content of their choice on the Internet?
Andrew Cash
View Andrew Cash Profile
Andrew Cash
2021-05-17 15:25
Right now, the way the Internet sector is working for music is that few companies, few artists, have any leverage in negotiating with YouTube. The music's generally up already. The choice is between licensing and getting a lousy return on that licensing or getting no money at all. That is really a stark choice for entrepreneurs, absolutely, but for the artists themselves, it presents a huge problem.
I'm not going to say that it's all terrible news for artists. As I said right off the top, these platforms represent enormous opportunity, but we have to get it right. Part of getting it right is bringing these massive companies, the biggest companies in the history of time, under some kind of regulatory system whereby they can be accountable to the people of Canada.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. This is a very interesting debate on a very important bill. I've worked in the broadcasting industry in multiple different ways. I was a professional musician as well, so this is very near and dear to me.
To start, I want to ask Mr. Trudel if he approved of the removal of proposed section 4.1.
Then I would like to ask you, Mr. Trudel, about net neutrality and how the algorithms affect the concept of net neutrality in terms of the Canadian law on net neutrality. I understand the concepts of throttling, but how do the algorithms affect the law on net neutrality?
Pierre Trudel
View Pierre Trudel Profile
Pierre Trudel
2021-05-17 15:28
I am among those who believe that section 4.1 was unnecessary. It was confusing because the act already provides all the necessary safeguards to ensure that the regulation of the broadcasting system in Canada is done in full respect of freedom of expression. In addition, the CRTC is obliged to limit its action to those undertakings whose activities and actions have a discernible impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. Therefore, section 4.1 was rightly removed as unnecessary, in my view. In fact, I wrote about it in an article in Le Devoir.
The algorithm is interesting. Algorithms, currently, regardless of how they work, determine which types of content will be more visible than others.
Whether it's traditional broadcasting or online broadcasting, a fundamental feature of broadcast media regulation in all countries is that there are laws that necessarily balance the commercial interests of companies with other interests that must be accommodated. In traditional broadcasting, this has taken the form of rules limiting the commercial activity of radio or television stations, limiting advertising time, for example. In the case of online broadcasting networks or undertakings, it is foreseeable that the CRTC will develop new ways of ensuring that balance between commercial imperatives and other objectives that broadcasting legislation has always sought to uphold throughout Canadian broadcasting history.
What sets Canada apart from many other countries in the world is that we have a radio and communications system that is more than just a conduit for the delivery of material based on strictly commercial or business logic. So it's this type of—
View Scott Aitchison Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much. That is what I intend to do.
I want to focus very specifically on comments that you made, Ms. Yale and Dr. Geist. What I'm struggling with understanding is how, if you regulate the online platforms—the media and the forums by which individual Canadians create content and share them with the world—you are not indirectly regulating the content creators themselves. You made the point that you're regulating the platforms and not the content creators, but you are indirectly regulating the content creators, are you not?
I'd like Dr. Geist and Ms. Yale to speak to that, please.
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 15:59
All right.
What I've tried to do is draw that distinction. Maybe I haven't done it clearly. The later amendments make it clear that the only thing that will be regulated with respect to platforms.... Let's keep the streaming services aside, because I think the controversy now seems to be more about the social media platforms than the streaming services.
Streaming services, as curators, purchase and create the content that they then package and make available to you. If a producer creates a show that is then offered on Netflix, it's generated by a creator, but I don't think we're talking about that in the same way as what we think of on YouTube as user-generated content where people make things—podcasts, songs, dances, whatever—and then post them to a platform. They're user-generated. They're not contracted directly by a streaming service. The platforms are available to people to put things on at their discretion.
That discretion doesn't change. People can post whatever they want on social media platforms. There's no regulation. The more recent amendments that Minister Guilbeault spoke to said that there would only be three things that could be done vis-à-vis those platforms—only three. There's been a real contraction of the regulation-making power of the CRTC vis-à-vis those platforms.
The three things are that, first, they have to provide information about their revenues, whether advertising or subscriptions. Two, those revenues are used to calculate what their levy will be, or their spending requirement, as the case may be. It's just how much you are making in Canada and what the appropriate amount is to make as a contribution. The third piece is what we've been calling discoverability, which is how to make the Canadian creative content visible.
That's it. I have a hard time seeing how that's regulation of the content. It just isn't.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:01
Thanks for that.
It absolutely is, and I think you get it exactly right. What we effectively have is now an outsourcing of that regulation to the tech platforms, which actually provides Canadians with even less protection. It's government doing indirectly what it would think would be difficult to do directly, which is regulate the discoverability of that content.
Let's even leave aside the notion of how we would even figure that out. If I do a video with my siblings who live in the United States and in other countries, is that Canadian content? Is that not Canadian content? We have a hard time figuring out what constitutes Canadian content for certified productions. Suddenly now we're going to ask the CRTC to decide which cat video constitutes Canadian content and which one doesn't. When you ask the government to decide what gets prioritized and what does not, that is absolutely regulation. Deputizing tech platforms to enforce those government edicts in many respects is even worse, because they aren't subject to some of the same kinds of restrictions.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate you all being here for this wonderful discussion.
I will start with Ms. Yale, because I believe there was a bit of confusion.
We talked about concerns for freedom of speech. You mentioned previously that there's nothing in this bill that threatens freedom of speech. You talk about users putting content online. Even if they are podcasts, they're still called programs. That's fine, but they're still carried on those platforms, and the platforms are the online undertakings that will be regulated. I believe there's a bit of confusion between Canadian artists and Canadian content regarding discoverability.
Can you expand on that and maybe clear this up, being the expert that you are?
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:04
I think you've really well characterized the distinction I've been drawing between programs and undertakings. I think the issue of discoverability is not a new one; it's just that the context of being online and the context of being on social media platforms is a new one in the sense of what it means to promote and create visibility for Canadian content on these platforms.
The way in which we've done it in traditional media is different than the way we're going to do it, I would posit, in the context of social media. It may be as simple as making sure that among.... If you think of Spotify, there could be Canadian playlists. When it comes to social media platforms, how we ensure that there are Canadian choices among the vast array of choices that you have in front of you is, I think, the appropriate one for a regulator to make over time.
You can't crystalize those sorts of things in legislation, because we couldn't have contemplated the Internet when the Broadcasting Act was put in place, and we couldn't imagine the evolution of the business models for streaming services and social media platforms either. It is the very job of the regulator to figure out what is appropriate at a particular point in time, because as circumstances and business models change, so too would the need for regulatory adaptation. I think flexibility is key in such a rapidly changing environment.
Results: 1 - 100 of 920 | Page: 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data