Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 288
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Results: 1 - 15 of 288 | Page: 1 of 20

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

For more data options, please see Open Data