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 1164
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
The goal of my remarks, Madam Chair, is similar to the purpose of Mr. Duvall's remarks. Out of respect for workers and retirees, and perhaps even for the tens of thousands of people who have sent emails that you received, as I did, in support of this project, we must complete our process. To that end, today's meeting is essential.
I would sincerely urge the witness, whose objectivity was called into question by Ms. Jaczek's preamble, to give shorter answers so that we can get to the end of the agenda.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Sukh Dhaliwal Profile
Lib. (BC)
The annual immigration levels are determined by the federal government in consultation with the provinces and territories. In your view, have local municipalities been involved in these discussions in your area? What type of input is especially important for municipalities to contribute to the federal government when we set up those levels?
Paul McLauchlin
View Paul McLauchlin Profile
Paul McLauchlin
2021-06-07 16:10
We are starting to have that conversation at the provincial level, and this would be the first contact we've had at a federal level. Definitely it's looking at this conversation and the fact that we, again, are 18% of the population. In order for us to be successful, we need to grow and look for opportunities.
Where we start looking at immigration and the repopulation, or bringing the opportunities in, I think, is an important conversation for us to be part of. We've just started the conversations at the provincial level. The immigration strategy has not been released. It is coming this summer, but we have been identified as a key stakeholder working with the Alberta provincial government and Minister Copping.
View Maninder Sidhu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today.
My first question is for Madame Lalande.
Ms. Lalande, to come up with the current immigration levels plan, IRCC engaged with and sought perspectives from provinces, territories and other government departments, municipalities, francophone and official language minority communities, immigrant organizations and not-for-profit organizations, as well as academia, employers and industry and sector councils.
From this large list, are there any other sectors that you believe should be consulted going forward?
Lisa Lalande
View Lisa Lalande Profile
Lisa Lalande
2021-06-07 17:21
That's a great question.
What we've been advocating for at Century is a shift away from a focus just on the targets and more on how we actually grow the population in a smart, sustainable way in looking at issues of affordable housing, city development and placement outside of city centres for encouraging newcomers to other communities. Doing so requires planning for the long term and investing in our education system, urban development infrastructure investment and skills development and training.
In our view, as we're thinking about this, one thing I always want to start out with when I'm talking about it is that immigration is not an either-or. Sometimes when we talk about issues related to housing or GDP per capita, they're often used as an argument against immigration. Our demographic challenges right now make this a must-have. It's simple math. We must proceed with immigration. The question is not how much: It's how do we do it, and how do we do it well.
Along those lines, I think there's an opportunity to have a different type of consultation: to link population growth with urban infrastructure and investment discussions, for one example, and addressing labour market needs. I think that would be really valuable.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I would first like to acknowledge that I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. With me, as you said, are Joëlle Montminy, senior assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs, and Pierre-Marc Perreault, acting director, digital citizen initiative.
Like you and many other Canadians, I am concerned by the disturbing rise and spread of hateful, violent and exploitive content online and on social media.
As a legislator and father of four children, I find some of the content of these platforms to be profoundly inhuman.
I am also deeply troubled by the consequences and the echoes of that content in the real world.
The overall benefits of the digital economy and social media are without question. In fact, I published a book, shortly before I took up politics, wherein I talked about the benefits of the digital economy, of artificial intelligence in particular, but also about some unintended negative consequences.
In Canada, more than 9 out of 10 adults use at least one online platform, and since the beginning of the pandemic, online platforms have played an even more important role in our lives.
We use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to stay connected to our families, friends and colleagues. We use them to work, to conduct business, to reach new markets and audiences, to make our voices and opinions heard, and to engage in necessary and vital democratic debate. However, we have also seen how social media can have negative and very harmful impacts.
On a daily basis, there are Internet users who share damaging content, either to spread hate speech, the sexual exploitation of children, terrorist propaganda, or words meant to incite violence.
This content has led and contributed to violent outbursts such as the attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017, and similar attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
Canadians and people all over the world have watched these events and others unfold on the news with shock and fear. We all understand the connections between these events and hateful, harmful online discourse. We worry about our own safety and security online. We worry about what our children and our loved ones will be exposed to.
According to a recent poll by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, an overwhelming 93% of Canadians believe that online hate and racism are a problem, and at least 60% believe that the government has an obligation to prevent the spread of hateful and racist content online.
In addition, the poll revealed that racialized groups in Canada are more than three times more likely to experience racism online than non-racialized Canadians.
Since the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, we have seen a rise in anti-Asian hate speech on the Internet and a steady increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric, further fuelled by recent events.
A June 2020 study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that Canadians use more than 6,600 online services, pages and accounts hosted on various social media platforms to convey ideologies tinged with white supremacism, misogyny or extremism. This type of content wreaks havoc and destroys lives. It is intimidating and undermines constructive exchange. In doing so, it prevents us from having a true democratic debate and undermines free speech.
The facts speak for themselves. We must act, and we must act now. We believe that every person has the right to express themselves and participate in Internet exchanges to the fullest extent possible, without fear and without intimidation or concern for their safety. We believe that the Internet should be an inclusive place where we can safely express ourselves.
Our government is therefore committed to taking concrete steps to address harmful content online, particularly if the content advocates child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence, hate speech, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
In fact, this is one of the priorities outlined in the mandate letter given to me by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. So we have begun the process to develop legislation that will address the concerns of Canadians.
Over the past few months my office and I have engaged with over 140 stakeholders from both civil society organizations and the digital technology sector regarding this issue. This has included seven round-table discussions. We also spoke with indigenous groups, racialized Canadians, elected provincial officials, municipal officials and our international partners to assess our options and begin to develop a proposed approach.
In addition, given the global nature of the problem, I have hosted a virtual meeting with my counterparts from Australia, Finland, France and Germany—who were part of the multi-stakeholder working group on diversity of content online—to discuss the importance of a healthy digital ecosystem and how to work collectively.
I am also working closely with my colleagues the ministers of Justice, Public Safety, Women and Gender Equality,Diversity and Inclusion and Youthas well asInnovation, Science and Industry to find the best possible solution.
Our collaborative work aims to ensure that Canada's approach is focused on protecting Canadians and continued respect for their rights, including freedom of opinion and expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The goal is to develop a proposal that establishes an appropriate balance between protecting speech and preventing harm.
Let me be clear. Our objective is not to reduce freedom of expression but to increase it for all users, and to ensure that no voices are being suppressed because of harmful content.
We want to build a society where radicalization, hatred, and violence have no place, where everyone is free to express themselves, where exchanges are not divisive, but an opportunity to connect, understand, and help each other. We are continuing our work and hope to act as quickly and effectively as possible. I sincerely hope that I can count on the committee's support and move forward to build a more transparent, accountable and equitable digital world.
I thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I am thankful that Ms. Lukings agreed to appear in front of us again today. It's very refreshing to hear you, and you will be a professor one day. Of that I have no doubt.
Ms. Lukings, your work is so important to help us have a better understanding—and your comments certainly attest to that—of all the issues that are arising from what was a very disturbing, and I think you and other witnesses said this, unfortunately very sensationalist article, which brought concern to people because, of course, no one wants to see child sexual abuse material on the web or non-consensual intimate images on the web.
However, there are perhaps unintended harmful consequences that can arise, particularly to adult professional sex workers, if we're not thoughtful about how we legislate in this area.
I believe I still have about five minutes remaining. Please use my remaining time to share those concerns with us, and if you want to bring in Professor Lashkari.... By the way, congratulations on the great series of articles the two of you are working on. They're very interesting.
Please, go ahead.
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:39
To have meaningful consultations with people is really important. I would encourage the committee to review the submissions made by the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. They have done a lot of research in the area, and I'm really supportive of their efforts right now to challenge federally the criminal offences related to sex work, third parties and clients, material benefiting, advertising and all of these things.
They are an amazing resource. What makes them unique is that they are an umbrella organization that connects...I think it's over 20 or 30 different sex worker-led organizations all across the country. Everything is done through voting and from hearings with actual people who have lived experience in that area, so when you get data from this organization, it's solid data. I would really recommend consulting them.
Other than that, I would love to pass over the torch to Professor Lashkari.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2021-06-04 15:25
You alluded in your presentation to an ineffective consultation process. You aren't the only one pointing that out. We've heard that grievance from a number of stakeholders. You said that the die had already been cast and that the reform had been determined in advance.
What makes you think that everything was predetermined?
I know there were two delays. I understood that you didn't want a third delay, roundtable or no roundtable, because a six-month delay would only draw out the uncertainty for six months. That would not help matters.
So what do you feel needs to be done with respect to the process?
Pamela Fralick
View Pamela Fralick Profile
Pamela Fralick
2021-06-04 15:26
I want to recall something that I heard from the Secretary of the Treasury Board, Peter Wallace, early in his tenure when he was appointed to address that question. He talked about how important it is for government not just to listen and walk through a consultation process, but also to hear. That is the piece that we all fear has been missing in this process. We cannot state that the number of steps haven't been taken—they have—but we have not been heard.
Early in the process, I did submit a letter, which I can make available to this committee. The letter outlined our numerous concerns with the process and why we felt we were not being heard. Perhaps the most compelling data point is that 80% of 112 submissions to PMPRB's most recent consultation are opposed to or have expressed concerns about the guidelines, yet minimal changes have been made over the course of the four-year process.
Thank you.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Minister. It's good to see you today.
My first question, Minister, is that no matter the issue, no matter what we study, what fisheries we look into and which coast the witnesses are coming from, we hear again and again that you and your department have completely neglected to consult with them properly before making industry-changing decisions. This creates tremendous instability at a time when we already have great uncertainty with COVID-19. This continued instability in their lives causes questions about their future livelihoods. It's hard to make future decisions about an area they are passionate about and have served and want to continue to make their living in.
Why do you and this department continue to insist on keeping those most affected by your decisions away from the decision-making table? We heard this whether from indigenous stakeholders or the commercial fishery stakeholders and whether it related to the prawn harvesters, east coast lobster fishers or fish farmers in B.C. There's been a tremendous echo from coast to coast regarding the lack of true consultation or being part of the process and the decision-making process and finding out only after the fact.
Minister, do you have any explanation for this?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to say that I would disagree with that assertion. We consult widely with a number of different stakeholders as we make decisions. We also make decisions based on science.
Over the past year I have met countless times with first nations communities, with the industry, with commercial harvesters, with stakeholder groups and with environmental organizations. Actually, probably one of the largest parts of my job is meeting with stakeholders and listening to their concerns and their comments. A lot of the policy we develop comes from those consultations.
I will also say that we do meet regularly with provincial and territorial partners with regard to fisheries management decisions. However, many of the decisions we have to make are based on the science regarding where the stocks are and what is happening within the sector.
For example, during COVID-19 we had some really tough decisions to make with regard to the opening of seasons—
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
—but we made sure we were able to do that, because we listened to the harvesters.
Thank you.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Minister.
We have a lot of questions we want to cover with you today.
For example, our prawn harvesters in B.C. have been quite negatively impacted by a recent interpretation of what was already an existing regulation. That change of interpretation meant unbelievable instability for those harvesters and a lot of questions. We heard overwhelming testimony related to that. They don't understand the basis for the decision or why it came about. We really couldn't find a whole lot of clarity regarding the rationale behind that decision.
One of the things that was always being said was that the interpretation meant that the product had to be readily available to be inspected. Well, if I were able to produce for you prawns so that you could check their size and number within two minutes or less, would you consider that “readily available”?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
I would say that we have actually engaged with industry, which is why we were able to come up with a solution for this season. That is why we are continuing to engage with them to make sure that we find the right way forward for the prawn tubbing issue. You know, this is something I am committed to making sure that we have solved, and we are actively engaged in making sure that we do that.
Results: 76 - 90 of 1164 | Page: 6 of 78

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

For more data options, please see Open Data