Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 185
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:17
I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we think of social media platforms and the ability of these large tech platforms to intervene in content. If there is content that they consider illegal, they do today monitor content. I think it's a bit of a fiction to suggest that there is no regulation of content online. These undertakings self-regulate, because there are no rules of the game. They are thus quite vigilant—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I wasn't arguing that; I was actually arguing the contrary. I was saying that beyond illegal content, social media providers will frequently say that certain things cannot be posted that are racist but that are not illegal and not hate speech. Their actual rules go beyond just legality. Isn't that correct?
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:18
Absolutely. It's really a subject for another day as to whether they self-regulate what I call the lawful but awful content today. Each platform has its own rules and regulations. Some take it down for different reasons and don't make it available. That is going on already, for sure.
That was one of the reasons that I made the point that the notion that these algorithms are innocuous is not true. Each platform has its own rules and its own accountability as to what it monitors, what it takes down, what it promotes and what it pushes out at you. I don't buy the argument that somehow freedom of choice on the part of consumers reigns. It's the platforms' commercial interest that dictates to a large extent what you get to see, so I totally agree with you. I think it's better that we make sure some of those choices are Canadian ones.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:22
Sure, I can say a couple of things.
First off, when it comes to some.... We need to distinguish between the streaming services, again, and user-generated content.
When we're talking about user-generated content, I think the answer, quite frankly, is no. I don't think that we should be requiring, in a user-generated-content world, the CRTC to get involved in making some of those choices through discoverability. In a bit of a response to Mr. Housefather's comments, if you are prioritizing some speech, you are deprioritizing other speech. There was a reason, in his Facebook example, that other content wouldn't be seen. That would be true as well with the CRTC choices for content that is, again, deprioritized.
On other kinds of services, on the streaming services, it's a different argument. That's not really what we're talking about here. I do think that there is some of that content available. Netflix, for example, has the film Jusqu'au déclin, which it funded, and it doesn't even count as Canadian content. That's part of the problem with the system itself.
I think there are things that can be done, but when we are focused—as we have been—on issues like net neutrality and freedom of expression, what happens is that this bill has slid away from the goals that you've just articulated into, now, the regulation of individual speech. You can say that it's being done through a platform and you can say that it's indirect, but it ultimately is the case.
To be clear, from the start of the premise of your question, I repeat I am not against regulating the tech platforms. The issues, especially in the discussions we've been having around algorithms, point to the need for greater transparency so that we know how these choices are made specifically around regulating these platforms. We need better protections around the data they collect. That too is regulating the platforms. We need the Competition Bureau to be more effective in terms of anti-competitive effects. That too is regulation.
It is a myth to suggest that this is about whether or not we regulate the tech platforms. This bill, at the end of the day, with these changes, is about whether or not we regulate individuals' speech.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Trudel, I would like to ask you the same question.
With clause 2.1 and with my amendment G-11.1, do you think that we should continue studying the bill?
Pierre Trudel
View Pierre Trudel Profile
Pierre Trudel
2021-05-17 16:35
Yes.
In my opinion, the bill as amended provides additional guarantees and shuts the doors very well. In other words, it reduces to zero the probability that, at any given time, the CRTC will be making decisions or could, in any way at all, affect the freedom of Internet users.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, members of the committee.
I’m joining you from Montréal, on the traditional lands of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
I am pleased to appear before you to discuss Bill C-10, the explanatory document the Department of Justice drafted in response to your request, and the impact of your committee’s amendments to Bill C-10.
I have with me officials from my department, as you said, Mr. Chair, as well as senior officials from the Department of Justice. I am delighted to contribute to your review of the bill.
I would like to begin by thanking this committee for its important work to date.
Since Bill C-10 was introduced, the cultural sector, broadcasters and experts have given us—and you too, I’m sure—much food for thought. They have provided input and support on updating the Broadcasting Act across the country.
Our broadcasters, our production sector and the cultural sector as a whole are counting on this new legislative tool to continue to flourish on digital platforms.
They are counting on this tool to level the playing field between conventional broadcasters and digital platforms. In other words, the bill is about restoring a balance that the arrival of the Web giants has skewed very seriously in their own favour at the expense of local people and businesses.
If we do not modernize the act, within a few years, our creators, artists and musicians risk losing up to a billion dollars annually.
However, if we move forward with Bill C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage predicts that by 2023, online broadcasters could be contributing up to $830 million per year to Canadian content and creators.
Let's remember that the audiovisual and interactive media industry employs nearly 160,000 Canadians every year. According to the 2016 census, the median annual income for core artist groups, such as musicians, singers, authors, writers, producers and directors, was only $24,300, which is well below the $43,500 median for all workers.
To make matters worse, this industry is still suffering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the years to come, the positive impacts of Bill C-10 will stimulate industry growth and increase the visibility of our stories and our artists.
Canadians also support this initiative. More than seven out of ten Canadians feel that more needs to be done to promote Canadian and Quebec audiovisual content in the country, and almost half say that this content is not easy to find.
Although some have the view that any type of regulation for web giants is too much, most Canadians believe that we must act: 78% of Canadians agree that streamers need the same rules as those of Canadian broadcasters; 81% support the principle that Facebook and Google should pay more for news; and 83% support some form of accountability for these companies for the content shared on their platforms.
The first objective of the bill is to ensure equity between conventional and digital broadcasters and to ensure that social media platforms that act as broadcasters are also contributing to our cultural industry.
Another objective is to promote Canadian cultural expression in all its diversity, including that of indigenous and racialized communities.
The goal is not to regulate content generated by users, such as videos of our children, friends and colleagues. It never was. And it never will be.
However, one thing is clear: more and more Canadians are listening to their favourite music and artists on social media. Right now, YouTube is the most popular online music listening service in the country.
Witnesses who appeared before this committee showed that section 4.1, as drafted in the original version of Bill C-10, could allow social media platforms to get away with just about anything. They also demonstrated that section 4.1 did not take into account how these types of services are used to deliver professional content, such as content put online by record companies.
While other online businesses would be required to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, social media platforms would not. How could we justify imposing obligations on Spotify, Apple Music or QUB Musique, but not on YouTube, a Google subsidiary?
Following the constructive debate at second reading of the bill, all opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, deplored the fact that social networks were not covered by the bill.
Let me give you a few examples.
On November 19, the Conservative MP from Saskatoon—Grasswood, Mr. Waugh, told the House of Commons the following:
It is deeply disappointing that the government's proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share.
On March 26, he also added—again, this is the beginning of the quote:
To the Professional Music Publishers' Association, you're right on about YouTube. It is not regulated in Bill C-10, and everybody is using YouTube. We are going to have an issue. As you pointed out, correctly, this should be regulated and it's not.
That’s why it was not surprising that on April 23, a majority of the members of this committee, including those of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, agreed that first, section 4.1 should be withdrawn, and that the CRTC’s powers should subsequently be restricted with respect to social media platforms.
We know that these platforms are very different from conventional broadcasters. The amendments proposed by my parliamentary secretary last week limit the CRTC's power to three main requirements: Number one, platforms must provide information about their revenues; number two, they must contribute financially to the Canadian cultural ecosystem and, finally, they must increase the visibility of Canadian creators.
All of this would be done without ever preventing anyone from putting their own content online and sharing it, or forcing anyone to watch anything against their will. In other words, you and I, like all Canadians, would continue to enjoy the same freedom online that we enjoy now.
I've said it before and I will say it again: We're not targeting individuals; we are targeting the web giants, which are almost all American companies. Our goal is simple, to get these multi-billion dollar companies that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada every year to do their part to make sure our creators and artists are better paid and more visible online.
We must remember that Canadian radio, television and cable companies have been subject to similar obligations for more than 50 years. In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.
In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.
Bill C-10 recognizes that there is a large diversity of digital business models. It provides ample flexibility to craft common sense rules that will evolve over time as technology changes and Canadians’ habits for accessing culture change.
Once again, let me be very clear: there is no question of censoring what individuals post on social media.
I would also like to point out that the Department of Justice, in its updated analysis of the bill as amended by the committee, confirms that the bill is still consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Internet is dominated by a few massive American companies whose algorithms dictate what we see, what we hear and what we consume. We are inundated with their information. Many of our artists and creators, especially francophones, indigenous and racialized people, have a hard time being heard.
Far from limiting anyone's freedom of expression, Bill C-10 wants to give more visibility to these artists and creators to ensure a greater diversity of voices and perspectives, to counter homogenization and to assert our cultural sovereignty over foreign companies that are only accountable to their shareholders.
I hope the committee will resume its work and quickly move Bill C-10 back to the House of Commons. As always, I would be delighted to support you in your work. I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses.
I was very pleased at the last meeting that I was able to bring forward this motion that was amended by Mr. Waugh, that was adopted by the committee, to have an amended charter statement to address the concerns that people had about section 2(b) of the charter and the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.
I'm going to tailor my questions to that issue. I'm also pleased, by the way, that our government has brought in this question of charter statements so that legal information is provided to parliamentarians and the public as we analyze the bill on the potential impact on their rights. I do want to say that that is from the Liberal government.
All my questions are going to be to Maître Drouin.
Maître Drouin, it's a great pleasure to see you here today.
First, I'm going to have some short questions and then some longer ones, so on the short ones perhaps you could stay short.
Maître Drouin, would it be true to say that charter statements are non-political documents drafted by career civil servants in the Department of Justice?
Nathalie Drouin
View Nathalie Drouin Profile
Nathalie Drouin
2021-05-14 13:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable member.
Yes, you're right. They are not political statements. They identify provisions of a bill that may potentially affect charter rights. They are drafted in plain language, and they speak to how you perform your work, but also to support public debate on proposed bills.
It is a minister's responsibility. I just want to say that the minister approved the charter statement.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Of course, but he doesn't draft it to begin with.
Let me then come back to the question of the charter statement that you provided, and the amended charter statement.
The amended charter statement says that there are no additional concerns or considerations that have been raised with respect to section 2(b) freedom of expression of the charter that have been brought about by changes or amendments to the bill.
Is that correct?
Nathalie Drouin
View Nathalie Drouin Profile
Nathalie Drouin
2021-05-14 13:25
Yes, that is correct. The supplementary explanatory document is in line with the same approach as the statements about the charter. Because the objectives of the bill, which Minister Guilbeault correctly outlined earlier, remain unchanged, it was concluded that the charter guarantees, in this case freedom of expression, were not infringed upon here.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Proposed subsection 2(2.1) of the bill states that I, as a user of social media who posts and uploads on social media and am unaffiliated with Facebook or YouTube or any of the platforms I may post on, am not subject to CRTC regulation myself. Is that correct?
Nathalie Drouin
View Nathalie Drouin Profile
Nathalie Drouin
2021-05-14 13:25
This is a correct question and response, if I may say. Section 2 of the bill has not been affected, so users who are not affiliated to broadcasters and broadcasting service providers are not subject to the Broadcasting Act.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Perfect.
Now I'm going to get to more detailed questions that I think would address concerns that a lot of attorneys may have in reading the charter statement.
We all understand that with Ms. Dabrusin's amendment, there would be very limited CRTC regulation permitted. There would only be a couple of things that the CRTC could do: to look at Canadian revenue, to address the question of making them pay for Canadian culture and contribute to Canadian funds, and to look at discoverability.
One question I have is the charter statement doesn't specifically address whether section 2(b) of the charter is violated, and whether we need to rely on section 1, the Oakes test, “reasonable limits”, to save the bill.
Could you advise me? Does the way the charter statement is drafted mean that the department has determined that there's very little risk that section 2(b) itself is violated, and that we would not need to rely on section 1?
Nathalie Drouin
View Nathalie Drouin Profile
Nathalie Drouin
2021-05-14 13:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The new proposed amendment, as you pointed out, really limits the regulatory power that the CRTC may have to a very small group and for specific authorities. What is important to say, when you look at those four heads of authorities for the CRTC, is that to adopt future regulation, they are not there for the CRTC to ask the user to change their [Technical difficulty—Editor. I think this is also a very important element. As I said, the purpose of the bill is mainly to promote culture in Canada and to protect our policy with respect to culture, whether it is in two languages or the indigenous culture. This objective remains. This is why we can conclude that the guarantee under the charter respecting freedom of expression is not limited.
Results: 76 - 90 of 185 | Page: 6 of 13

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data