Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 358
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The purpose of the bill is to establish a new regulatory framework in Canada, one social media platforms will have to abide by.
A regulator will be created to enforce the new regulations and monitor the efforts made by platforms to combat hate speech in relation to the five categories I mentioned earlier. The broadcasting legislation, Bill C-10, will provide more clarity, including the various tools at the regulator's disposal to impose fines for non-compliance.
You're right. It is an issue of concern to a growing number of Canadians. As you probably know, the results of an Abacus-led survey commissioned by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation came out earlier this week. The findings show that the vast majority of Canadians have witnessed or directly experienced violence on social media. Women and racialized groups are much more likely to be targeted than other segments of the population. A very large percentage of Canadians want the government to do something.
There is no doubt. We are going to do something. We are introducing a bill soon, and we would be pleased to return to discuss the legislation in support of the committee's work.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your question.
Our approach to the web giants consists of three pieces, if I can put it that way. We've already introduced the first piece, Bill C-10, which concerns the cultural component. Shortly, in the spring, we'll introduce a second bill, which will deal with online hate speech, and then a third bill, which will deal with the media issue.
You asked us what's holding us back. As you know, as legislators, we can't copy and paste a model that works in one country and import it to Canada. Every country has its own laws, regulations, institutions and practices, whether cultural or legal. Models really need to be adapted to reflect these differences. For example, we have a free-trade agreement with the United States, but not every country in the world does. It's important to realize that there are countries that, in the space of just one year, have decided to regulate the web giants with respect to culture, online hate and media. I know of only one that hasn't, and that's Canada.
Other countries are doing different things. For instance, just before the holidays, Britain passed its online hate speech law. Canada isn't the first, but it is certainly among the first in the world to address these issues, and to do so on these three fronts at the same time.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I don't agree with you, it isn't a void. We recognize that there's a problem, and have done so for a long time. That's why we've given hundreds of millions of dollars to the media. We started doing that before the pandemic, and we continue to do so. We've even increased that support to media in times of pandemic. It's true that for some media, it's difficult, but for others it's different. You may have seen, as I did, the results of La Presse published recently. For some, it's going pretty well, despite everything. This won't prevent us from acting as quickly as possible.
As you know, in a parliamentary system in a democratic society, you can't pass laws that have been drafted hastily. It takes a few months. A few months ago, I announced that we were working on this and that we'd be introducing a bill this spring. It's going to be done in virtually record time.
Is there one model that we like more than another? France and Australia have taken two very different approaches to tackling the same problem. France has focused instead on copyright by creating the notion of neighbouring rights. Australia, on the other hand, relied instead on market forces and recognized that there was an imbalance in the market. It created a forum for economic arbitration, so to speak.
These are two very different models. We are working with our colleagues at Canadian Heritage to determine which model would be the most relevant and would yield the best possible results, given our laws, regulations and institutions.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It should be this spring. We want to introduce this bill during the current parliamentary session.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As I said in my introductory remarks, I've been minister for a little over a year, but my experience with the Canadian civil service preceded my arrival in politics. As many of you know, I was an environmental lobbyist for many years.
We have one of the best civil services that this world has to offer. It's one of the most professional, talented and dedicated. I knew that before coming into politics. I didn't know the ministry of heritage so much. I knew others, but my previous experience and my actual experience just confirmed what I knew from the outside. That's the first thing I'd like to say.
In terms of a specific job offer that would have been sent to the ministry, I don't have that in front of me. Perhaps Hélène or Jean-Stéphen might be able to provide a bit more clarity on that.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I did ask the department to look into the matter. Obviously this is not political staff. Since it's someone from the ministry, I turn to the deputy minister for answers on that.
Hélène, you could provide the member with the response that you gave me on that.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
She just told you that it doesn't violate any code of ethics or best practices from the government, so I think that from that you can't say, well, it may not be advisable. Does that violate any code of ethics—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
—or code of conduct? The answer is no. How many times did it happen in the last year? Once, that particular instance.
I take issue with the fact that we would question the ethical value of our civil service in Canada based on something that's simply not there and that we would—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Of course, we in the department talk with Facebook on these issues, but we also speak with the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, la Fédération des femmes du Québec, the World Sikh Organization, the Chinese national council for social justice, Amnesty International and the Anti-Hate Network. When drawing up legislation, we try to gather as diverse as possible points of view and opinions on an issue so that we can better inform the legislation that we will do.
I am a strong believer in the benefits of technologies, but we also have to recognize that many technologies have a perverse impact. We've seen that throughout the years. I think our role as legislators is to maximize the benefits to society of these technologies while trying to minimize those perverse impacts. I am on record saying that when Facebook threatened Australia with cutting ties with the Australian public on Facebook because of what Australia was trying to do in terms of legislation, it was no less than bullying. In fact, we have an upcoming meeting with France, Australia and Germany to see how we can work together on issues relating to GAFA.
Yes, we meet with these companies, but we meet with a whole range of different intervenors on these issues. What we're working on with the department is what will be in the best interest of Canadians, regardless of what the social media platforms, Facebook or others, think about it.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I agree. I said it earlier: I think Canada has a world-renowned public service, and it's integral that we not attack them to try to score political points. We saw on January 6 where that can lead, just south of the border.
It's interesting that many of us would condemn the fact that social platforms were instrumental over the past few years in the escalation that led to what we saw on January 6. We would condemn those media platforms for sowing doubt in the population in regard to public institutions among our neighbours to the south.
I hope no one is under the false impression that we're somehow shielded from that result in Canada and that what we saw there couldn't happen here.
I think everybody in this country has a responsibility, a duty, and especially elected officials, to ensure that we protect our institutions. The last thing we should try to do is to somehow diminish them in the hope that we could score points. There are other ways we can score political points. Of course we're political adversaries—I understand that—but certainly not at the expense of our institutions.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Obviously we are as legislators, under the advice of our civil service.
Bill C-10 is a very good example. I will be the first to admit that the bill can be improved. The team and I are looking forward, to the proposed changes we will hear about starting next week on Bill C-10.
When I look, however, at the way the bill was received by the vast majority of people in the sector, I see that it was widely well received. Some talked about a historic day; others talked about a significant step forward. It was from coast to coast to coast, or as some of my indigenous friends say, from sea to sea to sea.
I would like to tell you that it was all due to the amazing work of my political team and me, but it wasn't. I would hope to think that we worked well at the political level, but we would not have been able to do any of this if not for the amazing work and input from our civil service.
You spoke earlier about the pandemic. I hope there's no illusion around this virtual meeting that we could have done CERB, helping more than nine million people, without the help of our civil servants in Canada.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's an excellent question. In fact, most of us would agree that the bill could be sent to committee. Some hon. members still want to speak in the House.
Procedurally, a number of bills are unavoidable. The bill on the economic statement is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, it will be very bad for the country. So some priorities are higher than others, and can't be sidestepped. However, I am hopeful that we will have a moment in the House to quickly conclude debate on Bill C-10 so that it can be referred to committee.
Thank you for doing a preliminary study even if the bill isn't yet before you. This will allow us to speed things up. Once again, thank you.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Earlier, I told your colleague that I made a quick inquiry with the deputy minister to find out whether this action violated a code of conduct or a code of ethics and whether it had ever happened before. This was not the case for either the first or the second question.
Are we losing employees from the Department of Canadian Heritage who were recruited by these platforms? This isn't the case either. Perhaps Ms. Laurendeau can tell you more about this.
Facebook is calling on governments to regulate the issue of online hate. If this is the case for all platforms, between you and me, not to mention everyone listening to us, it's perhaps to share a little bit of the pressure that these companies are under because of everything that's going on. The more governments intervene, the more this pressure will be shared between them and us.
This appeal to the government to intervene is not completely disinterested.
Results: 136 - 150 of 358 | Page: 10 of 24

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data