Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 546
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.
Results: 31 - 45 of 546 | Page: 3 of 37

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

For more data options, please see Open Data