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 546
Bridget Perrier
View Bridget Perrier Profile
Bridget Perrier
2021-06-22 11:43
Aaniin.
First I'd like to acknowledge that I am standing here on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, who fall under the Two Row Wampum Treaty.
I represent Sextrade101 and the many Anishinabe women and girls who are enslaved in prostitution and/or trafficked.
My name is Wasayakwe. My English name is Bridget Perrier. I was born in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and put up for adoption. I was adopted by a good family who tried to raise me the best way possible, but as I got older the effects of colonialism, intergenerational trauma and child sexual abuse made me a perfect candidate for prostitution.
I was lured and debased into prostitution at the age of 12 from a child welfare-run group home. I remained enslaved for 10 years in prostitution. I was sold to men who felt privileged to steal my innocence and invade my body. I was paraded like cattle in front of men who were able to purchase me, and the acts that I did were something no little girl should ever have to endure here in Canada, the land of the free.
Because of the men, I cannot have a child normally, because of trauma to my cervix. Still to this day I have nightmares, and sometimes I sleep with the lights on. My trauma is deep, and sometimes I feel as though I'm frozen—or even worse, I feel damaged and not worthy.
I was traded in legal establishments, street corners and strip clubs. I even had a few trips across the Great Lakes servicing ship men at the age of 13. The scariest thing that happened to me was, at 14 years of age, being held captive for a period of 43 hours and raped and tortured repeatedly by a sexual predator who preyed on exploited girls.
My exploiters made a lot of money and tried to break me, but I fought for my life. My first pimp was a woman who owned a legal brothel, where I was groomed to say that I was her niece or her daughter's friend, if the police ever asked. My second pimp was introduced to me when I was in Toronto. I was a prostitute for money. He was supposed to be a bodyguard, but that turned out to be one big lie. Both are out there still, doing the same thing to more little girls somewhere here in Canada.
After many years, I was able to exit prostitution and rebuild my life, and with that, my education became a tool. I was recognized for my tenacity and my strength, and I am now able to be an asset to my community and my people. I am a mother, grandmother, activist and warrior woman. Now my experiences may be sacrificial at times, but I am doing them for Canada's Anishinabe women and girls who are being bought and sold, who have disappeared or been murdered.
We must look at who is doing this. It is the men.
I have a letter. The birth mom of my oldest daughter was murdered by Robert Pickton, and my daughter asked me to read this to you.
Dear Senate,
My name is Angel Wolfe. My birth mom's name is Brenda Wolfe. My mom was murdered by Robert Pickton.
Her murder was one of the first six that he was charged with. I was six years old when she was murdered and nine years old when her jaw bone was found in a pig trough. I am one of the 98 orphans who were left behind because of that monster.
I do blame the Vancouver Police Department and the RCMP. I believe that Bills such as [PCEPA] will save vulnerable women like my mom. I'm sickened that my mom's death has been used to legitimize such indignity and sadness.
I'm also sickened by the term “the Pickton bill”. It's insulting and a slap in the face to the 98 orphans, and the organizations and the prosex work lobby movement should be really ashamed for speaking on behalf of the families who lost their loved ones.
I blame prostitution, addiction & mental Illness for my mother's death, and on behalf of the 98 orphans, we do not want our mothers' deaths to be the reason prostitution is legitimized.
I will make it my mission in life to carry her story and educate people about addictions, prostitution and the murdered and the missing.
Sincerely, Angel Wolfe
PCEPA will protect my daughters and granddaughters and other young native girls from predator sex buyers who have the nerve to solicit in public. Just last week, I was in Thunder Bay where buying vulnerable women is not on the agenda of their police department or MAG or any other organization.
If prostitution were such a healthy path, then why are the sex buyers not telling their wives, girlfriends and families that they use or have used sexual services from prostitutes?
Sextrade101 believes that prostitution is not a choice, but it's lack of choice that keeps women and girls enslaved. We believe that everybody should be shown a viable way out of the sex trade and not be encouraged to stay in it. We believe in helping people understand the full price of life in prostitution before they become involved and in helping women get out alive with their minds, bodies, and spirits intact. We have all been collectively afraid, raped, beaten, sold, disregarded. Most of us were also children who were forgotten, neglected, abused, used, led astray, abandoned and not protected.
Sextrade101 members and advocates are current and former prostituted women. We have a huge concern with the criminalization of prostituted women and girls. We have seen that diversion programs for prostituted women and girls are not the only the solution for everyone. We also have seen that a lot of money has gone out for support services, but we're still in this kind of silo.
Some 85% of Sextrade101 advocates and members have experienced pimp violence. This is pretty far from the picture painted by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is that pimps are nice guys. These pimps and sex buyers are the problem. They're the ones who abuse and in some cases kill.
I supported my daughter throughout the missing women inquiry, and the outcome was this: Our mothers, sisters, and daughters are not born to be used and sold for men's sexual needs. We are not commodities.
Also, we want to talk about linguistics. There's nothing in the native language, in indigenous languages, that describes selling sex, so if it's not in our language, it's not for our women.
I applaud former minister MacKay for the creation of Bill C‑36, because he recognized the inherent dangers and abuses for those who are prostituted. That bill was a victory for survivors and those who are stuck in a vicious cycle of indignity and pain.
We need to look at the numbers, which show that 52% of human trafficking victims are native and that the average age of exploitation for a native girl is 12 years of age. Ninety-eight per cent of the women that Sextrade101 has worked with have said that they have wanted out at some point.
As a sex trade survivor, I thank you so much for giving me the honour of speaking on behalf of the survivors in Sextrade101 and all the Anishinabe survivors across Canada, whether they are still in or have exited.
What we're seeing now is the increase of girls using social media as a tool for their exploitation, only as sugar babies, as Trisha pointed out, there is now a niche for native girls. When I was in the game, we never said we were native, because we knew if we said we were native, we would be in trouble. We would be in trouble by being assaulted or whatever, so we hid our identities.
Just last week I had a young woman from northern Ontario sleeping on my couch because the treatment centre that we paid $20,000 for to get private drug and alcohol treatment took one look at her and said she wasn't fit for their program. We had nowhere to send her, and at that moment, after 15 years of injecting drugs, she just wanted.... She was done. We had to think outside the box and figure out something radically fast.
I've seen a lot of money going into this, and not a lot of action. We don't have a safe house for indigenous women here in Ontario. We have a lot of religious-run safe houses, and I'm sorry, it's not a fit for my girls, my indigenous girls. I always get emails. Every week I get this “Hi, Bridget, we feel that this survivor fits your criteria.” Why? It's because she's indigenous and she's opened her mouth and said what she feels is best for her.
I don't know where to put them. I don't know where to put them, and I'm putting my children at risk by having them in my home, but I can't send them anywhere else, so we have this girl right now who has had 15 hard-core years on the street. She survived an attempted murder. I can tell her story and sit here and say, “Holy cow, she's doing good.” We have her in a bush camp and she's off drugs, and that's a big accomplishment. I told her that in 35 days your brain will retrain itself.
We're in crisis. I was in Thunder Bay, and they're buying women left, right and centre. The Thunder Bay police don't want to be burdened with the issue of exploitation, and they don't even want to admit that there's human trafficking going on. The pretty native girls are being farmed to southern Ontario and trafficked along the Golden Horseshoe.
What I'm seeing now, and Trisha is saying this, is that we're burying our daughters. I'm seeing girls that I was out there in the trenches with, and now it's daughters. It's intergenerational. If we don't help them figure out their potential, we're creating room for the new generation. It's happening. I'm now seeing grandma, mom and grandchild. Let's add fuel with a pandemic and now an opioid crisis, and we have the perfect brewing pot for exploitation.
When a prostituted indigenous woman is murdered, we see what happens. It's the Cindy Gladues and everything.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're in crisis here, and especially in northern Ontario. I'm only in northern Ontario for one week out of the month. I go to Thunder Bay. That's my job. Nobody knows where to go, and the people who are providing frontline help are putting themselves in harm's way to help women exit. If we just had a place to send them, like a one-stop shop, it would be so much easier.
What we're trying to do at Sextrade101 is mentor them. We don't have core funding like that. We have to get funding through another organization, but to this day, our recidivism rate back into prostitution is only at 4%. Obviously we're doing something right.
With that, I'll say meegwetch, and I'm up for questions.
Thank you.
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 17:03
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll quickly begin and make the following observation.
I think the pace of change in the landscape or backdrop with which we're looking at these issues is breathtaking. The idea that it behooves us to review those instruments, policies, regulations and legislation that are currently in place on a regular basis is one that I think is self-evident.
We never would of thought, even two years.... I mean, smart phones only came into existence at the end of 2012. It's really only now that we're beginning to appreciate the power of social media as a vehicle either for good or, in this context, something very, very not good. So I think that it does behoove us to look at old legislation, old regulations and old approaches, and test them against the reality of today.
I'll also point out that, for example, in a concrete way, we're always trying to balance—and I know your committee is struggling with balancing—the issue of free speech with freedom from threat. Some of you will recall that there was a contentious debate about section 13. It was ultimately eliminated by the government of the day, because it is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it enshrines the notion we all believe in, which is freedom of expression. On the other hand, it's also been used as a way to insulate groups that are trying to foment hate with protection from the very thing we're trying to prevent.
It's adding work to your plate, but I think it behooves you to routinely build into legislation and recommendations a need for periodic review that would test the reality against what you are trying to achieve.
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 17:17
John, you'd like to keep me on mute.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I know that's impossible, Shimon.
Mr. Shimon Koffler Fogel: Maybe Sameha has something else to offer.
I think there is no question that social media has changed everything. It has allowed for not just the flourishing but the explosion of hate that is insulated, protected, anonymous and enables people to act out their most vile thoughts. We have to come up with remedies that are calibrated to align with the potency that social media represents.
I don't think it's unique to Canada, but here's the thing: We have to be mindful. That's why I was so happy, Mr. Chair, that you were focusing more broadly and moving away from some terms, because what pose as specific threats to Jews may not pose the same threat to Muslims and may not pose the same threat to women or to indigenous people. We have to have instruments that are sufficiently malleable or flexible that they can address and include the whole range of threats that are out there and that are expressed on a common platform like social media.
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.
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 17:40
I'm not by any means an expert in this area, but I do know this: Social media companies have the most sophisticated algorithms that exist. They do have the capacity to track, to monitor, to isolate and to pull out words, phrases and context. It's scary how much they're able to do. If there's the will to do it, there's the technological capacity to do. It seems to me that the first order of business is to try and weed out all of those toxic sites, those conversations, those chat rooms and so forth, so that the individual has far-reduced options in terms of gravitating towards things that are toxic and hateful.
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 Chris Lewis Profile
CPC (ON)
View Chris Lewis Profile
2021-06-03 12:38
Thank you very much for that answer.
I believe there have been situations where offenders were able to access social media and use it to post pictures and comments about their victim or victims. Do you have any thoughts on how offenders use social media to continue to harass victims?
Heidi Illingworth
View Heidi Illingworth Profile
Heidi Illingworth
2021-06-03 12:38
Yes. I hear every day from frontline service providers who are concerned about technology abuse, especially in intimate partner scenarios. We hear a lot about this when it comes to young people and not having consent for sharing intimate images. This is an ongoing concern for sure, and a violation of people's rights. When they're being stalked and harassed through technology, they're very fearful, which causes immense fear as well.
We need to do more to recognize all the harms that can come from social media and that people access different forms of technology to commit further abuses against victims, particularly in the context of intimate relationships. Again, we need to ensure there is training on these issues so that the people responding understand how serious these are and that people who are going through this need support. It's a matter of safety, in many instances. We don't want things to escalate to the point of serious violence or someone being killed, which has happened in the past.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I have one last question. The last time you appeared before this committee, you said that people from China or Hong Kong were getting arrested for social media posts.
Do you have more to tell us about it? Do you have any more information about the kinds of arrests? We'd like that information to be in the report.
Chemi Lhamo
View Chemi Lhamo Profile
Chemi Lhamo
2021-05-31 19:15
I'm sure you'll get more information in the testimonials following this, by the Hong Kongers, because there have been a lot of arrests of Hong Kongers.
For Tibetans, Tashi Wangchuk is a case that a lot of people have known about. He is a language rights activist. He was actually just a shopkeeper in China, and he was imprisoned for five years simply because he wanted his niece and nephew to learn Tibetan at their school. As I said in my remarks at the beginning, it's all being erased from Tibetans.
Cherie Wong
View Cherie Wong Profile
Cherie Wong
2021-05-31 20:22
Social media has always been a tool of authoritarian regimes. They're able to use bots to create misinformation. This is where, as you said, we should be doing this kind of education because everyday Canadians are individuals who can choose between a slave-labour-made product and a non-slave-labour-made product. They are the people who are going to be investing in foreign actors, and they should know whether or not they're associated.
View Kamal Khera Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here, but more importantly, for all the work you do.
Dr. Perry, I want to start off with you, and I want to talk about online hate.
I know you've teamed up with Facebook Canada to address instances of online hate. It is a topic that we've certainly discussed in committee. You have declared that online platforms have been a gift to alt-right groups known for spreading conspiracy theories via video clips.
Could you maybe expand a little bit on your findings and efforts in this area? How do we address promoting hatred on mainstream channels, as well as on underground networks, such as Parler and Gab?
Barbara Perry
View Barbara Perry Profile
Barbara Perry
2021-05-31 15:57
These are all very good questions. They're not easy questions by any stretch.
One of the most disturbing things we found in this round of work—the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is doing much of our online analysis—is that in two successive years, Canadian posters were among the most active within the far-right ecosystem, if you will.
Just quantitatively, that's problematic. We tend to think we are immune to those kinds of narratives, but there you are. In particular in the first round—that would have been the 2019 report that we did with ISD—we actually found that they were, in fact, second and third in two of the most extreme platforms, Fascist Forge and Iron March. These are the ones that are most likely to promote violence, and mass violence in particular.
Again, quantitatively, that is the problem, but it's also a problem qualitatively, given the breadth of the speech, the viciousness of the speech as it's directed towards particular individuals or particular communities, whether it's emails or posts directed towards an individual or it's those who vilify particular groups. It's rampant online, obviously.
I think we have to consider the impacts of this on a sense of community, a sense of belonging and a sense of security, as well. It is something that absolutely silences communities. It makes them less willing to engage online, which has become the way we communicate—especially now, with COVID.
How do we confront it and how do we regulate it? It's such a challenge. We've been exploring it globally over the last five or six years. We've been trying to constrain the most heinous sorts of speeches.
When I'm talking about hate speech here, I'm talking about dangerous speech, speech that promotes violence, that explicitly promotes vilification and that directs hatred towards particular groups. Warman v. Kouba identified these sorts of elements of speech as the hallmarks of hate.
I think we need to put much more pressure on social media giants to enforce their community standards. Most of them are at least as strong as our own federal definitions. We need to encourage the actual use of those. I hear so many...from the research but also from the people I work with. They are identifying speech that seems to cross those boundaries, which.... There's no response to the complaints, so I think we need to hold their feet to the fire.
In terms of the alternative platforms, that's where the real challenge lies because access to the darkest spaces is more difficult for researchers, for police, for journalists and for anyone who wants to know what's happening there. There are challenges there because they're specifically set up to avoid any sort of community standards. Most of us are at a loss as to how to respond to those. Again, perhaps we put pressure on the domains to not host them, as happened with Parler. I think it was after the January 6 events.
I think that is a new challenge presenting itself.
Mario Dion
View Mario Dion Profile
Mario Dion
2021-05-28 13:02
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to appear as you consider the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's submission for the 2021-2022 main estimates.
As many of you were not involved in the committee until last year, I will quickly describe the goals of my office since its creation 14 years ago.
Our primary goal is to help regulatees, that is, public office holders and members of the House of Commons, know and follow the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
In order to help the individuals subject to the rules, we continually improve how we communicate and engage with regulatees. This not only supports our primary goal, but also helps build trust in the office. It is important for us to work together with regulatees to help them comply with the Act and the Code as much as possible.
It is important that a continuous dialogue take place to avoid breaches. There must be trust between elected and appointed officials and their advisors in the office based on mutual respect and professionalism.
Over the years, a solid information management system has been created as it is key to providing the informed advice we try to give to regulatees. It also improves our efficiency because we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time advice is sought. It also ensures that we provide consistent advice from one individual to the next.
Our already established movement towards a digital office helped us tremendously when we moved to a virtual office in spring 2020 due to the pandemic. The process was nearly seamless for us.
The office operates with a total of 51 indeterminate positions. Most of the office's resources are dedicated to our primary goal, helping regulatees meet their obligations under the act and code. These resources are not just in our advisory and compliance division, although this is where almost one-third of our employees work, including your advisers, but it's also located within the communications group that provides educational documents and develops presentations for regulatees.
We also have a legal services and investigations division, which offers the legal opinions we rely on and, of course, conducts investigations. Finally, our corporate management division handles blind trusts, in addition, of course, to providing us with all the HR, information technology and financial support that we need.
In the past two years—and I use two years because I haven't been before this committee since May 2019—the number of reporting public office holders has increased by 7%. The office helps them, as well as the MPs, as well as the other public office holders. We have a total group of about 3,200 people we serve. In the vast majority of situations, we help them through email and telephone. This was the case already before the pandemic, so that's why it was relatively easy for us to switch to that mode when the pandemic hit.
Requests for presentations have dropped obviously because, of course, the pandemic has caused people to focus on their real delivery priorities, so we've had fewer presentations given in the last fiscal year. However, requests for advice were up through the pandemic, particularly in the last two quarters. We have already revised the presentations and have placed the focus recently on very specific, high-interest subject matters, such as recusals, outside activities and post-employment, that appear to reflect the most concerns for regulatees.
I had a session on recusals a few months ago, which was very well attended by over 300 [Technical difficulty—Editor]. On June 8 and June 16, I have already invited all the reporting [Technical difficulty—Editor] holders to a session on offers of outside employment and post-employment obligations.
Requests from the public for information have also increased 27% over the last fiscal year. There has been a steady interest from the media in the work of our office. Given the restrictions placed upon me by the act, we've worked hard to ensure that we are as open and transparent as possible with both the public and the media. Our approach has included more active use of Twitter to share information and updates. We have over 3,000 Twitter followers at this point in time. Last year we increased by 52% the number of tweets that we sent out in order to be of interest to our followers.
Since I was last before you, I have issued nine investigation reports under the act, and four under the code. We've always been able to complete our analyses and conclusions in less than one year, which was one of my initial goals when I was appointed back in early 2018. I set out this goal to complete—unless it was exceptionally complex or unless there were exceptional circumstances—any study, any review and examination that we do under the code or the act within one year. We've managed to do that in the 13 reports issued in the last two years, and 18 since I've been in my position in January 2018.
I hope you will share my view that we have produced quality work each time.
I'm here today, and I'm pleased to let you know that we currently have no investigations ongoing under the act—no backlog. Therefore, we're ready to accept the next complaint or the next situation where I have reasonable grounds to start an investigation. We have a couple still ongoing under the code. In fact, I'll be tabling a report before the House rises as a result of an investigation under the code.
We receive a fair volume of complaints and information, if you wish, from the public, from the media, so we've reviewed over 100 files, 100 situations, where my staff reviewed incoming information to determine whether we should investigate. There is a good flow of information that comes in all the time.
I will now talk about the budget, since that is what brings us here today.
This year, we are operating with a budget of $7.67 million. That represents an increase of about 2% over last year. That is what I requested. Last year, we also secured funding for three additional communications advisor positions and to keep our information technology system up to date. Since the office was created 14 years ago, the budget has grown by about $1.6 million over the original budget.
Let's talk a little about the pandemic. Obviously, that is what's on everyone's mind; as we heard earlier before the meeting started, the patios are opening tonight.
The pandemic hit us suddenly, as it did everyone else. Personally, I had a medical condition two or three years ago that made me more vulnerable. So I remember very well leaving the office not knowing, like all of you, when I was going to come back and how. We all thought it would be a few weeks. However, we had to take steps gradually.
We were lucky, because our employees already had tablets and could work from home. In addition to our policy to provide equipment in a controlled manner to facilitate telework while ensuring ergonomics, we took steps with each employee regarding Wi-Fi availability. For 51 employees, supplies cost $28,000, from equipment to paper, pencils, and so on. Those costs were offset by decreases in other costs, such as printing. We have saved a lot of paper and a lot of trees. We also achieved significant savings on mail-outs.
In general, employees really like being able to telework. So we have a positive workplace. We use technology, as Parliament has, to keep channels open and have a constant dialogue with employees.
All this work, of course, has been accomplished because of the 50 people who work with me, who have been very good throughout the pandemic.
We did not actually measure productivity, because we have no backlog, in any respect, anywhere in the organization. We've been able to cope with the volume of work in spite of the pandemic, while trying to minimize problems and help employees as much as possible vis-à-vis the maintenance of a good balance and a good mental health situation.
That's what I have this afternoon. I would be pleased, of course, to answer any questions that members might 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.
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.
View Marci Ien Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marci Ien Profile
2021-05-17 15:42
Thank you, Ms. Yale.
I have another question for you. Dr. Geist has said that with the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now threatens user-generated content and freedom of speech. In your expert opinion, what would you say to those Canadian citizens who are concerned about that?
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 15:42
First I would say that there is nothing in the bill as amended, with the exclusion of proposed section 4.1, that threatens free speech.
I've tried to make it clear in my comments thus far in this meeting that users put content on, say, a social media platform. For sure that content may be under the legal definition of a “program”, but as I've said before, programs aren't regulated, so if you are a blogger or someone who makes podcasts, that's content for sure, but how is it distributed? It's distributed because you do an arrangement with Spotify or you do an arrangement with YouTube, and it's carried on those platforms.
The platforms are the online undertakings that would be regulated, not the creators of the content, whether they're users or whether they're amateurs or professionals. You are free to put up anything you want, whether you monetize it or not, whether you get advertising or subscription revenues or not. It's not covered by Bill C-10. It's the online undertakings that are, and users are not operating online undertakings. They're not regulated.
In my view, there is no threat to freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the ability to put out anything you want on any platform you like without fear that your content could be moderated or regulated in any way.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
I appreciate your saying that. I appreciate your bringing up playlists, because, as an artist, I understand how Canadian artists face challenges in competing with American conglomerates and resources. The Broadcasting Act has always ensured that Canadian artists have the resources to grow to become visible locally, nationally and internationally. I feel that when Canadians go online—for example, on YouTube or someplace that has a playlist—they have a hard time discovering any Canadian artists on these platforms. That's a concern for me. I know it's a concern for our Canadian artists and the whole culture sector. Our artists are the voices of Canadians. I don't think that those online should be solely exposed to American culture.
You have written, “As originally drafted, the Bill left open the possibility that some platforms, such as YouTube, might be able to avoid its obligations to make appropriate contributions. That oversight has now been remedied and we welcome that correction.”
Could you explain your comments in more detail? It's around proposed section 4.1, that balance between supporting our artists and protecting our own free speech.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-05-17 16:10
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'm going to Mr. Geist. You just heard that Ms. Yale backs all 97 of the recommendations, including one that I find to be divisive: that members of the CRTC would be recommended to live in the national capital region, which I find problematic.
Going beyond that, The Social Dilemma is a documentary out there that many have seen, including my granddaughter. She's very sharp—of course, all our grandkids are smart—and we discussed this particular bill. She is very savvy in technology. She understands how algorithms work and how they direct her from her past listening and what she does. What she objects to is the government's involvement in doing this; she very much does. This is a very sharp young person who objects to the government playing this role. She understands the private sector and their algorithms and how it affects her.
Mr. Geist, you talked about the dollars. We've had members saying that this is an emergency. You've described how we can get dollars, too. I think that's the house-burning idea. How do we get dollars out?
With regard to the dollar item and what other people have said about the Australian model, would you like to respond to that? How do we get there? How is Australia doing it?
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:11
Certainly I highlight some of that on the newspaper issues that Australia has moved forward on, but to focus specifically on the issue you raised about the algorithms, which I think is important, I will say that there's no question that there are concerns. Anyone who's seen some of the movies around social media comes away, I think, rightly concerned about some of these algorithms.
However, this bill is not a bill that addresses that issue. In fact, it substitutes, in some ways, the government's choices for the companies' choices. What we need instead is more algorithmic transparency on that issue.
This notion that somehow one of the problems we have to solve is discoverability.... You know, we've heard it several times. I must say two things.
First, Ms. Yale talked, as we heard, cross-country with a lot of people. They weren't able to come up with any evidence—zero—that there is a discoverability issue with user-generated content. There were no studies that cited that this is a problem. I'm sometimes left in this discussion wondering if people actually use these services. If you want to find Canadian content on Netflix, type in “Canada” or “Canadian”. If you don't think that there are Canadian playlists on Spotify, then perhaps you haven't used Spotify, with all due respect. There are numerous choices for precisely this kind of content.
That's not to suggest that we can't do better. However, to somehow think that what we need to do is take all the user-generated content, find some mechanism to categorize it as Canadian, and then have the government make choices about what gets prioritized or not is foolhardy. That's precisely the reason there is no one else on the planet who does it.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-05-17 16:13
You say “no one else on the planet”, and you've repeated that a number of times, and we've heard it before. Do you hear anybody else even talking about or reacting to the idea of what Canada is attempting to do?
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:13
I think there are significant risks with what we're proceeding towards. What this bill will do, when you get foreign services looking at Canada.... Obviously some of the big players already here aren't going to go anywhere, but some of the other services that are outside of the jurisdiction may look at some of these regulations and at the costs and say that we are going to block Canadian users from the marketplace.
Think of a service such as Molotov, a French-language service that is serving a whole series of French-language African countries. It's not available in Canada right now. Are they going to come into Canada if they face these kinds of regulations? There are India-based services that are the same, Korea-based services that are the same. This is going to hit our multicultural communities particularly hard, as services that might otherwise make themselves available within Canada will look at the costs, look at what we've already heard are clear obligations that they will face under these rules, and say that they're simply not going to operate in the Canadian market.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a pleasure to listen to the witnesses today and to the vibrant debate.
I also want to say that some people have been heralded as champions of freedom of expression. I believe each and every one of the witnesses is a champion of freedom of expression, as are Canadian artists and as are all of the members of the committee. We are all devoted to and care about freedom of expression.
I would point out that at the meeting we had with Department of Justice officials and Minister Guilbeault last week, I was the only member who asked about whether or not there was interplay with section 1 and section 2(b) of the charter when it came to discoverability, which is one of the issues that was raised today by Dr. Geist.
I want to walk through with Maître Yale—as I'm going to call her because I'm from Quebec—a couple of the issues that I have, as questions.
We're going to start from the premise that I think we all agree that users are not governed by proposed new section 2.1. The users themselves are not governed. If a user's content is governed, it's solely governed through the online undertaking, which would be governed to a lesser extent in very specific ways, provided that Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted by the committee.
Those specific ways would be, number one, that they would have to disclose their revenues in Canada. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. Number two, they would be required to contribute to Canadian culture. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. The only freedom of expression issue, in my view, could lie with a third factor, which is discoverability, which is the only other thing that could be regulated if Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted.
Maître Yale, would it be true, in your perspective right now, that online undertakings such as social media platforms—and I will use Facebook as an example—can actually censor the content of user posts based on their own documented rules and regulations?
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.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand. Just to go beyond, I agree with you, but getting to the algorithms, we have platforms that are publicly stating that their algorithms will serve their own private interests. They will push people towards different types of content. People will not go only to content that is their preference. In fact, Facebook itself has heralded the fact that if you are searching for Holocaust denial, Facebook will use its algorithms now to redirect you to the Yad Vashem website. It's making the decision that you should now see the truth about the Holocaust, as opposed to the types of lies that you may be stumbling onto on their platform.
Their algorithms are not subject to the charter, because they're not a government. Is that correct, Ms. Yale? Can their algorithms be whatever the heck they want them to be?
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 Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you.
By deleting the section in question, you have at the same time removed protection for users who upload content to various social networking platforms.
Can you name just one other democratic country that regulates user content on social networks through a broadcasting act?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think there is a mistake in the premise of your question. Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. It is about giving us the tools to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share in cultural matters...
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much.
We know that extremist groups rely heavily on social networks and platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and other platforms that have even been banned, to recruit people and to misinform and radicalize them. Some people believe that shutting down certain platforms would not be beneficial because it would send people to private networks on the Internet.
Even if it's not on these private networks and it's on the platforms that we know and access every day, how can the government and the RCMP intervene to detect this kind of violent extremism, whether it's violent speech or video sharing?
Should there be collaboration with the private companies that own these platforms, or could the government and RCMP intervene directly?
Michael Duheme
View Michael Duheme Profile
Michael Duheme
2021-05-12 17:20
I'll talk about what the RCMP can do with respect to websites.
The majority of the investigations we conduct into hateful comments spread on social networks are triggered when we receive reports from people who have observed this on a site and report it to us. In most cases, we trigger an investigation.
Of course, if the social networks remove the information without notifying us, we don't have access to that information. It's no different than when someone calls the police to make a report and the police initiate an investigation, except that it happens on social networks.
If the platforms remove this information without notifying us, we can no longer take informed action on the complaint.
Members of Parliament often receive derogatory or hateful messages on social media. In these cases as well, the RCMP initiates an investigation and we follow through. Sometimes that's a challenge because people can use all sorts of mechanisms on social media to avoid being found.
I won't hide from you that this is one of our concerns, and it's not just about social networks. When you implement a new law or a new process, people always find ways around that through other mechanisms.
You've all heard of the dark Web. There are probably already many IMVE groups on the dark Web.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you very much for that.
Someone claimed in testimony that two neo-Nazi groups no longer have an online presence. Mr. Harris touched on this as well.
Maybe you could reinforce whether there is a concern that these organizations could morph into something else or go deeper underground, because they don't give up on this level of hate that they have within themselves.
Dominic Rochon
View Dominic Rochon Profile
Dominic Rochon
2021-05-12 17:37
I'll take a stab at answering that.
I think my colleague from CSIS, Mr. Hahlweg, certainly did a good job of describing the dangers that of course will continue to happen once you start listing these entities. By default, listing them does enable social media platforms to remove these entities. What I mean by this is that they might have a social media presence in order to try to raise funds for their cause, for example. With their being listed, it allows social media platforms to say, “No, we're not going to be selling T-shirts to promote your particular ideology.” As such, they start removing that particular presence.
It doesn't mean that you're eradicating their presence in terms of their ability to propagate. I think it was my colleague from the RCMP, Monsieur Duheme, who mentioned that inevitably what they will do is revert to going to the dark web, or they will revert to going to encrypted channels or hidden channels to be able to continue to spread their rhetoric, but with that tool of a Criminal Code listing, at least they're not going to be able to do it as overtly.
As I said, though, Criminal Code listing is but one tool. It does help with certain aspects, but it does then push us further downstream to have to try to cope with some of the challenges of the spreading of their rhetoric in other avenues.
Jean-Guy Soulière
View Jean-Guy Soulière Profile
Jean-Guy Soulière
2021-05-05 16:53
It depends on who you want to reach.
I haven't heard of social media being used to educate the youth. That is critical. If we could use social media to educate, that would be a start. For other generations, there are other methods.
We've found that we are reaching our membership through social media more and more, and we're talking about the older population. The younger population can't live without it, so maybe that's the way to start.
Rick Christopher
View Rick Christopher Profile
Rick Christopher
2021-05-03 15:55
Mr. Chair, there are a number of things. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's been a shift to the point where 94% of the veterans we serve are considered to be modern veterans. I don't like the name, but it's the one we're using right now. Post Korea would be another way to describe it. The places where these veterans have served are across the world, as I mentioned. They're not one single conflict, so there are a number of groups, associations and veterans organizations that would like to commemorate those missions. That's one consideration.
The other is really that the technology has changed. We're moving from a situation where the emphasis was on in-person events; any of the social media applications that we would do would be an add-on or a bit of an afterthought. Now, really, it's hand and glove with both of these: in-person events where possible during these times, but also heavy on the social media.
Paul, do you want to talk about Canada and the world, and what we're doing in terms of having particular years where we would be doing a particular area in the world?
Steven Clark
View Steven Clark Profile
Steven Clark
2021-05-03 16:43
I think it's important that we maintain both. As I said, for over 100 years, people have gathered at cenotaphs, and the reason they do that is that it's very much a sense of community and a sense of unity, and once the pandemic restrictions ease, people will come back to those memorials, because they want to stand shoulder to shoulder with others in the community to show that they remember.
However, we also have to recognize that there are those who are just unable to go to a local ceremony or memorial, or perhaps there isn't one in their location. Because of that, we have to continue to provide an option. It can't be one way or the other; we have to do both, and that's what I see going forward. For example, the national Remembrance Day ceremony is broadcast, yes, and 4.2 million people see it on an annual basis, but we also, through the Legion, show it on our Facebook site so any of our followers will be able to see it. You have to continue to provide these opportunities.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
My first question will be for Mr. Forgues, and I'll address the other witnesses after that.
We haven't yet spoken about the role of the CBC with respect to minority language francophone groups. Is this neglect deliberate? Should this role be less important than it was before, now that the media environment for news and culture has changed so much because of new technologies?
Should we continue to rely heavily on regional news in French to hear what francophone communities outside Quebec have to say?
What, according to you, Mr. Forgues, is the role of this public broadcaster?
I'd also like to hear what Mr. Landry has to say about this.
Éric Forgues
View Éric Forgues Profile
Éric Forgues
2021-04-22 17:17
I'm not a media expert, but the CBC certainly has an important role to play. However, the media environment is being utterly transformed because of a shift towards digital. It's also important to understand just how this shift will play out, and the role of the francophonie in this new ecosystem, particularly in social media, where a major transformation is underway.
I believe that we have a lot of catching up to do in terms of developing ideas. This too is something that is discussed in the white paper. It's being talked about, and people are aware of it. Minister Joly has been holding discussions about the digital transformation. It's important for francophones to be properly positioned for their own digital governance.
Mr. Sylvain St-Onge, a student of Mr.  Rodrigue Landry, has just written a thesis on the issue of social media among young people. Young people spend an enormous amount of time on social networks. It's a place for socialization that is very important to them. It's important to assess the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the language in which people are browsing and communicating on social networks.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Do Facebook and other social media platforms alert CSE at the same time as the public, then?
Shelly Bruce
View Shelly Bruce Profile
Shelly Bruce
2021-04-12 20:23
It takes a very broad group of different players in the private sector and in government to monitor all of this space and to work together. Facebook plays a very specific role, and when it takes down these kinds of campaigns, we learn about it usually at the same time as everybody else.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Shelly Bruce
View Shelly Bruce Profile
Shelly Bruce
2021-04-12 20:24
CSE is not a regulator. We do not comment, endorse or ban specific technologies or specific companies, but we publish advice that helps Canadians to choose wisely and to understand how an app works, where their data resides, how to turn on the security features, how to update those apps when prompted and how to delete them when they're no longer used.
We do not comment specifically on apps, but we encourage very safe and responsible use and the best cyber-hygiene.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
I call this meeting to order.
Good morning.
Welcome to meeting number 22 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to the order of reference made on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, and the motion adopted on Monday, November 16, 2020, and Friday, February 26, 2021, the committee is meeting on its study on the relations between Facebook and the federal government.
To ensure the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to remind you of a few rules.
You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available to all. At the bottom of the screen, you can select floor sound, without interpretation, or English or French.
When you wish to speak, please click on the microphone icon to activate it. When you are finished, please mute your microphone to minimize interference.
I remind you that all comments should be directed to the chair. If a member wishes to speak without my having previously given the floor, he or she should activate his or her microphone and indicate that he or she wishes to make a point of order.
If a member wishes to speak to a point of order raised by another member, he or she should use the “raise your hand” icon at the bottom of the screen to let me know. If you see that I have not seen you, please let me know on the screen. My assistant is here to help me give speakers the floor properly.
Pictures or screen shots may not be taken and distributed.
In case of technical difficulties, please notify me immediately. Please note that the meeting may need to be suspended for a period of time, to ensure that all members can fully participate in the proceedings.
Today we have representatives from Facebook Canada. They are Mr. Kevin Chan, global director and head of public policy; Mr. Marc Dinsdale, head of media partnerships; and Ms. Rachel Curran, policy manager.
You will have 10 minutes to make your opening remarks, which will be followed by a question and answer period.
Mr. Chan, you have the floor.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:04
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting us to your meeting. We understand that the committee wishes to learn more about our decision to restrict access to news content in Australia last month. I'm happy to address this to the best of my ability. As you may know, news has since been restored on Facebook following key amendments in the Australian news bargaining code legislation.
The decision to restrict access to news was made with a heavy heart and came after years of working to find a solution in Australia that recognizes the realities of how our services work. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation did not acknowledge basic facts about the Internet, did not recognize the value that platforms provide to news publishers, stood to benefit only large media conglomerates and not independent media outlets, and sought to penalize Facebook for content it didn’t take or ask for.
We are pleased that we have now reached an agreement in Australia that recognizes the value that Facebook brings to publishers. The agreement provides the flexibility for us to support small and local publishers whose work is critical to public interest journalism. The agreement also allows Facebook to retain the ability to decide if news appears on our platform, so that we won’t automatically be subject to a forced negotiation.
Since we entered into this agreement, we have signed agreements with four publishers in Australia. As is the case elsewhere in the world, we will continue to invest more in the long-term sustainability of journalism, not because it is good for our business, but because it is good for democracy and society.
It is important to make clear that we recognize that these difficult times are having a very negative impact on the Canadian media industry. The last two decades, as consumers have shifted from print to the Internet, have been very tough on the media. My colleagues and I are working hard every day to do our part to help publishers adapt.
We work directly with Canadian news publishers, large and small, to help them maximize the value that free Facebook tools provide for their businesses. This includes free distribution of the news links they share on Facebook, which send people directly to their websites, a value we estimate to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year for the Canadian news industry alone.
Jeff Elgie, the CEO of Village Media, based in Sault Ste. Marie, estimates that in the month of January 2021 alone, Facebook and Google generated 24 million page views for Village Media for free, which he calculates was worth about $480,000 to his news business that month.
Over the past four years, we have gone further by directly investing over $10 million in partnerships and programs to encourage and support the development of sustainable business models for news organizations here in Canada. Just last week, we announced our plans to continue this work with an additional $8 million in news programs over the next three years.
Marc Dinsdale, our head of news partnerships in Canada, will provide you with some highlights from these investments.
Marc Dinsdale
View Marc Dinsdale Profile
Marc Dinsdale
2021-03-29 11:07
Thanks, Kevin.
One of our signature investments is the Facebook-Canadian Press news fellowship, which began in 2020 as a program of $1 million to create eight new local journalism positions across Canada. CP publishes the fellows' stories to its wire service, making the work available for distribution to more than 1,000 Canadian news outlets in the CP network, in both official languages.
In January 2021, based on the early success of this program, we expanded it to include two new positions for emerging indigenous reporters, bringing the total net new journalism positions we've created to 10. Last week, we announced a three-year renewal of the Facebook-Canadian Press news fellowship.
For COVID, we announced in April 2020 a total of $1 million in grants to support Canadian and U.S. local news organizations covering the coronavirus. Eighty-one Canadian publishers each received a $5,000 U.S. grant to cover unexpected costs associated with reporting on the crisis in their communities. They included The Coast, Halifax's weekly; The Temiskaming Speaker from New Liskeard, Ontario; Peterborough Currents; La Gazette de la Mauricie, from Trois-Rivières; Autour de l'île, from Sainte-Pierre-de-l'Île d'Orléans; Clark's Crossing Gazette, in Warman, Saskatchewan; Le Franco, from Edmonton; and Medicine Hat News.
Facebook's accelerator program helps news publishers navigate the digital transition to build sustainable businesses. Since May 2019, 15 Canadian publishers have participated in the accelerator program, including Postmedia, The Globe and Mail, La Presse, The Brunswick News, the Winnipeg Free Press, Le Soleil, Glacier Media, The Discourse, the Daily Hive, Northern News Services, The Tyee, The Narwhal, The Sprawl and Village Media.
Paul Samyn, editor-in-chief of the Winnipeg Free Press, has stated, “The key impact to date” of working with the accelerator program “is that we've been able to share a new vision for a profitable future based on online audience growth at both the executive level of the company, as well as with our board of directors and ownership group.”
I'll now turn it over to Kevin for some closing remarks.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:09
Thank you, Marc.
As you can see, Facebook is deeply committed to supporting news in Canada, and we have been doing so for years. As noted earlier, we intend to do even more. Over the next three years, we will be making an additional investment of $8 million into the Canadian news ecosystem to increase a three-year renewal of the Facebook-Canadian Press news fellowship and provide new funding to increase the capacity of under-represented voices in journalism. This brings our total investment to date in the Canadian news ecosystem to $18 million over a period of six years.
We also announced that we hope to partner with Canadian publishers on commercial deals that allow us to experiment with ways to connect people to more news on Facebook. It is important for me to be clear on what this type of paid partnership could be and what it is not.
Currently, when Facebook users see news content in their feeds, they typically see a short preview text generated by the publishers themselves and then a link to take the user from Facebook to the publisher’s own website. We do not pay publishers for sharing this kind of content on Facebook. They choose to do so because it drives value to them. As noted earlier, Village Media assesses the value of traffic from Facebook and Google to be close to half a million dollars in one month alone. Another example is The Globe and Mail, which achieved record digital subscription growth in 2020, in part by combining its AI platform and publishing strategies with Facebook’s tools. The committee has a package that's been translated and that you will receive tomorrow, from what I understand from the committee clerk. It includes this case study with The Globe and Mail.
In some cases, we may see additional value in partnering with publishers to provide links to more stories on our platform for user experiences beyond what is already being shared by publishers themselves. If we are actively seeking to provide a certain kind of user experience that requires more from publishers, then we would proceed by striking a commercial agreement with the publisher in order to use the additional article links for that purpose. We hope to partner with Canadian publishers on commercial deals that allow us to experiment with ways to bring more value to them.
In conclusion, finding a sustainable and equitable way to foster a robust media ecosystem in Canada requires goodwill and co-operation from publishers of all sizes, digital platforms, government, and people who value news and are willing to pay for it. Facebook can play a role in this, but it cannot do it alone.
To date, discussions between the parties have been too infrequent, and it's time to come together to ensure that journalism is set on a long-term sustainable path.
With that, Mr. Chair, we would be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you to our new chair. It's a pleasure to see you in that chair this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chan and Mr. Dinsdale.
You know, I'm a little cynical about the $8 million you announced on Thursday or Friday. You knew you were coming to this committee on Monday, and then all of a sudden you bring out another $8 million to support your news fellowship. Maybe you could just talk about that.
Marc, I guess this question would be for you. Why the timing on Friday with the announcement of an additional $8 million from Facebook?
Marc Dinsdale
View Marc Dinsdale Profile
Marc Dinsdale
2021-03-29 11:14
Mr. Waugh, the way we look at these investments is that they are a continuation of what we've been doing for several years. We can go back to 2017, at the beginning of these commitments, with the digital news innovation challenge that helps publishers like The Sprawl grow their presence and build a more sustainable future. We have been doing these types of engagements since then, through the accelerator programs, through COVID grants, etc. These programs and these commitments we're making—in the future as well—have been planned for a long time and have been under negotiations and discussions with partners for a long time.
The purpose of our commitment is to make sure we're able to help publishers build toward a sustainable future.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
I just thought the timing was a little ironic. You know, you're coming to committee and.... I realize you committed $10 million before the additional $8 million, but that's fine.
Mr. Chan, Rupert Murdoch played a big part in Australia in getting news platforms to get paid by Facebook. I know you talked here on January 29 and you talked here this morning about how Facebook in your opinion generates hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of flowthrough traffic to Canadian journalism organizations. You mentioned Village Media here today.
What evidence can you share that supports this statement, which you made again here this morning? Facebook is not going to pay for news links, as you mentioned, or content the publishers voluntarily put on Facebook, so I would like to hear the numbers that Facebook is.... I mean, give me some financial numbers that news publishers are getting.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:16
The best answer, and probably the one that's going to be most solid, will be answers that come from the publishers themselves, so today we are sharing with the committee the impact, if you will, from two publishers, one big and one small. I hope Jeff will forgive me if I say that he's small. I'm sure he is doing well in Sault Ste. Marie and in the markets he's operating in, but obviously it's not a national outlet.
If we look at Jeff Elgie and Village Media, which is involved in various local news markets in northern Ontario, they themselves.... I think that's the best way to get the numbers. Don't take it from Facebook. You should take it from the publishers themselves. He is saying that in January 2021, free distribution from two platforms alone, Google and Facebook, accounted for 24 million page views back to his site. More concretely, as a business, if you were to ask him the value of those 24 million page views, his estimate is close to half a million dollars in January 2021. That's the Village Media case.
In the Globe and Mail case, as I said, the package is with the committee. It is translated into both official languages, but I was told the committee would not receive these until tomorrow. I regret that, but I understand there is no way around it even though we submitted it earlier last week. The Globe and Mail case study shows a publisher that is pursuing a different strategy—not just ads but also subscription, which is very important, if I understand correctly—by combining by their award-winning Sophi AI technology with free Facebook tools. In part due to these Facebook tools, they had a record subscription year in 2020.
We did a joint case study with them, so they obviously signed off on it. You can read up on the case study to understand how they feel they found success on Facebook. Of course, we hope these case studies.... We put them out there to the public and they're also available online so that other publishers, including publishers in Canada, can learn from the success of The Globe and Mail.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Who controls the data around the news that is used by your organization, Facebook? Who controls that data?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:18
Sir, I will answer your question, but perhaps I should just clarify that when a publisher shares news links onto Facebook, people may see these news links in their own feeds. They click, sir, and then they go back to the site, and then they can build that direct relationship with publishers. One of the key things we have heard from publishers, in fact, is that they want to be able to develop that direct relationship with their readers and their potential customers. By redirecting traffic back to them, we enable them to do that.
If I may say so, sir, it's also not that different, for example, from maybe—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses. For the record I want to say I hold all these witnesses in very high esteem and I appreciate your being here. I believe elected officials and social media providers need to work together on sound public policy.
That being said, my job is to get answers for Canadians. I have a lot of questions. Again, I would appreciate succinct responses.
Mr. Chan, unless otherwise mentioned, my questions are for you.
Mr. Chan, who is the CEO of Facebook?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:20
That is Mark Zuckerberg.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chan, Facebook is a closely held public company. That's because there is one individual who controls the majority of the voting shares.
Who is that person?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:20
The majority shareholder is Mark Zuckerberg.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
As a result of holding the majority of shares, Mr. Zuckerberg also controls who's on the Facebook board of directors. You currently have nine directors. Seven of them are independent directors and two of them are Facebook employees.
Who are the two Facebook employees who are directors?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:20
I haven't checked recently, but I believe it's Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
You are correct.
Mr. Zuckerberg is also the chairman of the board. Is that correct?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:21
I believe that to be true.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much.
Under the corporate governance guidelines published on Facebook's website, the board of directors acts as the management team's adviser.
Mr. Chan, did the board of directors advise Facebook's management team on Facebook's decision to block Australian users from sharing news articles on February 17, 2021?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:21
Sir, I'm not privy to that information.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
You're not privy to that because you're not on the board of directors and you don't attend the board meetings. Would that be correct?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:21
That is one reason, yes.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
You're not privy to the unredacted board minutes that would give you this information. Is that correct?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:21
I have not asked and I am not privy to them.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Zuckerberg, though, is on the board and he was privy both to what happened at board meetings and to the minutes of those board meetings. Is that correct?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chan, on January 30, 2021, Australia's treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, stated that Mr. Zuckerberg had called him and other Australian lawmakers to talk about the news media bargaining code.
Were you on those phone calls?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
You therefore couldn't tell us what representations Mr. Zuckerberg made to Australian lawmakers. Is that correct?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:22
I cannot tell you anything that was personally conveyed on either side.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand.
Mr. Frydenberg then stated, on February 18, that he had again been called by Mr. Zuckerberg on two consecutive days.
You weren't on those calls either, were you?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated, at the same time, that Facebook was making threats and that this was not a good way to deal with his government.
You would be unable to tell me if Mr. Zuckerberg made threats on phone calls with Mr. Frydenberg. Is that correct?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:22
I would never characterize Facebook as making threats to anyone, sir.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's a very good comment from any good Facebook employee, and I agree with you. I appreciate that. I won't characterize it that way either. I was just making the point that you weren't on the calls.
We've now established that many of the questions committee members have would be ones that Mr. Zuckerberg can answer but you cannot.
Mr. Chan, are you aware that this committee invited Mr. Zuckerberg to appear, and that when he declined our invitation, we adopted a motion to send him a summons?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:23
I am aware, based on media reports, that this was done, yes.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Are you aware that Facebook's Canadian counsel responded to our clerk by saying that he was not authorized to accept a summons for Mr. Zuckerberg?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:23
I was notified by counsel that this was the response.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chan, I'm sure you're aware that Mr. Zuckerberg testified last week before a congressional subcommittee.
Do you know how many times in the last six months Mr. Zuckerberg has testified before congressional committees?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's three, and he has testified before Congress seven times.
Mr. Chan, since Mr. Zuckerberg takes his responsibility to U.S. lawmakers so seriously, can you explain to us why he repeatedly refuses invitations, and indeed summonses, from Canadian parliamentary committees?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:24
Sure. As you point out, Mr. Housefather, Mark, as an American, was very much engaged with the U.S. congressional process last week. It so happens that your committee has requested an appearance today and, of course, it's Canadian representatives of the company who are here before you today.
Facebook, as you can appreciate, is a platform that is operating in many countries around the world. It is the case that when Parliament wishes to speak to representatives of the company, we will always be there, as we have been with the Canadian heritage committee, regardless of the topic. We are happy to engage, and the company has a similar posture around the world.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chan, as soon as Australia announced that it would propose legislation that Facebook did not like, Mr. Zuckerberg reportedly reached out to Australian lawmakers directly. It therefore seems to me, based on your testimony, that unless we're going to do something like Australia did, Mr. Zuckerberg doesn't plan to come to Canada.
How much is your ad revenue in Canada on an annual basis, Mr. Chan?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:25
I'm not aware of that number.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is Mr. Zuckerberg perhaps aware of that number?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is he aware that there are 25 million Facebook users in Canada?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:25
There are 24 million Canadian users.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
It sounds like a substantial number. This committee has now asked to hear from Mr. Zuckerberg on a couple of occasions. The ethics committee did as well. He has refused our invitations. It sounds like you are unable to answer the questions I wanted to ask, because they were individual issues that only Mr. Zuckerberg himself could have answered.
I would like to ask you, on behalf of this committee, to please convey to Mr. Zuckerberg that we would like to hear from him.
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2021-03-29 11:25
I will pass on the message when I get the chance.
Thank you very much.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-03-29 11:26
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I commend your thoroughness.
I welcome the representatives from Facebook today.
Mr. Chan, do you consider Facebook to have any responsibility for the content that is shared on your subscribers' news feeds?
Results: 1 - 100 of 546 | Page: 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data