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 216
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd be happy to answer the question, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague for his question.
Clearly, the committee is sovereign and has the power to propose amendments that it believes will improve the bill. I was the first to admit from the beginning that any bill could be improved.
As you know, we are a minority government. In that context, we have already worked extensively with the opposition parties on a number of amendments. We remain open to working with them throughout the committee's work, of course.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, if I may add—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.
Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill C-69, which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all.
She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel.
I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.
The motion recognizes that Bill C-10 “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”
I think Bill C-10 actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I thank my colleague for his question.
I think we have done everything the committee has asked of us. Every time the committee has asked me, I have come to testify, even twice in the last two weeks. The committee asked for clarification of the original charter statement; that was submitted last week. My colleague the Minister of Justice is here with me today. We take this bill very seriously, as I think does the entire Quebec and Canadian arts community. You may have seen the petition launched by the Union des artistes and signed by Yvon Deschamps, Claude Legault and Ariane Moffatt, among others. I could talk about the letter published in the Toronto Star last week and signed by the great international artist Loreena McKennitt.
I could also talk about the unions. Again today, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec issued a press release in support of Bill C-10. There is also the Confederation of National Trade Unions, and even Unifor, the largest union in Canada.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I encourage you to get in the boat with me.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, may I respond to that?
Collapse
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.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized, you may recall, was under a Conservative government. That government put in place the entire regulatory ecosystem that we have today for conventional broadcasting. What we are trying to do through Bill C-10 is to adapt the regulations to the Web giants, who are becoming more and more important in the current ecosystem.
You mentioned net neutrality. As you know...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I will certainly answer the question, but the member gave a long preamble on the issue of net neutrality, so...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The first version of Bill C-10 that the committee received was at that time our best interpretation of what modernization of the Broadcasting Act should be. However, as soon as the bill was introduced, I was the first to say that it could be improved.
All political parties represented on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, including the Conservative Party, as well as many stakeholders, spoke out to argue that proposed section 4.1 created too broad an exemption. As Mr. Waugh said, under this section, the act would not have applied to a platform like YouTube, which is the largest music distributor in Canada today. This exemption was therefore too broad. As a result of these interventions, we decided to delete the proposed section.
Collapse
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...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm going to have to keep giving you the same answer, Mr. Rayes. The premise of your question is about content moderation. I would ask you to indicate...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.
Over the past few weeks, I've given several interviews about Bill C-10, and you'll probably have noticed that I've never mentioned the filibuster that your party is doing. Perhaps...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As you know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not sit on the committee. Since the committee is sovereign, it can propose amendments to the bill. In fact, I have invited it to do so on several occasions.
We have had discussions, you and I, and you have had discussions with other members of the committee as well. You ask me if we could go back. First of all, to do what you were originally proposing would have required, as I understand it, unanimous agreement of the committee members. Some felt that would have been a very slim possibility.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is a question based on a series of assumptions, and any answer from me would be highly hypothetical.
As we have seen over the past few weeks, there are clearly Canadians who believe that the Internet should not be subject to any form of regulation, whether it be on the cultural issue, hate speech, or media compensation. Some of these critics began their action at the same time the Yale report came out. I recall that the former leader of the official opposition had said that he would not even read the Yale report and would throw it in the trash.
Honestly, beyond all the debate surrounding proposed section 4.1, I think there is one political party that has decided to highlight this issue as if the entire bill C-10 revolves around a single section, which it obviously does not...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think that element is in one of the sections of the bill that was passed by the committee. That discussion has already taken place and is over.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I won't go through it, but you've probably heard that there is a long list of organizations in Quebec and in English Canada, a list many pages long, that have all come out in the last few weeks in support of Bill C-10, ranging from musicians to independent producers to writers and so on. I have spoken over the course of the last year to thousands of people in the culture sector, and they agree with what we're trying to do with Bill C-10.
Again, earlier in my speech I quoted polling results that were released recently showing that 78% of Canadians—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, that's not my plan, but there were many elements in your question, and I am trying to adequately answer all of them. One element you spoke about in your question concerned the cultural sector, so I answered that.
On the second part of your question, there is no situation in which a user has to respect any type of CRTC regulation. There is no situation in which a user, even with millions in revenues and dues, has to deal in any shape or form with the CRTC.
Let me remind you that the sole regulation the CRTC can impose on a social media platform is the discoverability of Canadian creators. The Internet is infinite—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. The CRTC, in its last 50 years of existence, has never done content moderation, and Bill C-10 doesn't give the CRTC the ability to do content moderation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think we have a charter statement that is pretty clear about Bill C-10's respecting section 2 of the charter. We've also heard from deputy minister Drouin, who has been very clear on that as well.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would beg to differ with the premise of your question.
Many experts have come out in Quebec and in English Canada saying that Bill C-10 was not an infringement on freedom of speech or an attack on the charter. In fact, we now have a statement by the independent civil servants of the Department of Justice saying exactly that.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I recognize that there are people who believe there should be no regulation whatsoever when it comes to the Internet; that there should be no regulation on cultural issues, on issues such as hate speech or on fair remuneration of media, and part of the Canadian population agrees with them as well. I recognize that.
My government and I disagree with that point of view. We believe there should be regulation on all of these elements, and so do many other countries. I have had conversations with counterparts in Germany, in France, in the U.K., in Finland, in Ukraine—
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As you rightly pointed out, there is an organization whose mandate it is to do this.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's not up to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or any other politician to make that determination.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I love that film, but again, it's not up to the Canadian Minister of Heritage or any other politician to make those determinations.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You keep asking the same questions. Unfortunately, the answer will be the same.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's important to remember that the committee is sovereign, and if the committee identifies a potential problem, and we're a minority government, the—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You might have heard, like I did a few minutes ago, Justice Deputy Minister Drouin answer that question very clearly, specifying that the powers given to the CRTC are very narrow and targeted and don't have to do with content moderation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, may I be allowed to answer the question?
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, the concept of discoverability is ensuring that, as part of these platforms, Canadian content becomes more visible for Canadians, or actually any audience, to watch. There won't be any requirement, obviously, for users, just like is the case right now with YouTube—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is not an—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would be happy to provide the committee with the list of all Canadian experts and organizations that have been consulted for the preparation of the Bill C-10.
I'll also remind the members and the committee that, prior to Bill C-10 being tabled, there was an almost two-year consultation leading up to the Yale report that was done, and close to 2,000 papers were presented.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I don't think there was a question in that, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think achieving this goal is about three things, and not necessarily in this order. Certainly, it's who we nominate to take part in many of our institutions—the Canada Council for the Arts, our national museums and various other organizations. As minister, I've had the pleasure and privilege of nominating Jesse Wente, an indigenous person, an accomplished artist and producer, as chair of the Canada Council for the Arts. It's the first time ever, in the history of Canada, that we have an indigenous person at the head of the council. Gaëtane Verna, who's originally from Haiti, is also now on the board of the council. Isha Khan is the first Muslim woman to head a national Canadian museum.
We have to ensure that those organizations are a good reflection of what Canada is in its diversity. I think it's about ensuring that our programs are adapted to the needs of those communities. Again, in the audiovisual sector, we now have a fully funded indigenous screen office as per budget 2021. We are working on a Black screen office as well. I have been meeting with many of those witnesses who appeared in front of the committee to work with them to see how we can do this.
Third, it's about putting our money where our mouth is, ensuring that groups, that racialized Canadians and indigenous Canadians, have access to the resources they need to tell their stories, to express their arts, and to be visible, here and abroad.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. I think we still have a long way to go. There's still a lot of work to do, but Bill C-10 will enable us, as I said in my remarks initially, and will mean that around $830 million in additional money is added for the cultural sector and certainly for BIPOC communities and under-represented groups in our arts and culture sector.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your question.
It requires a multipart answer.
First, as repeatedly stated, Bill C-10 will not apply to individuals. You are right to say that new subsection 2(3) of the act refers to undertakings, not individuals, because the act will apply to undertakings, not individuals.
You no doubt heard the deputy minister, Ms. Drouin, very clearly say that the Department of Justice issued a statement indicating that Bill C-10, as amended, respects the charter, on one hand. On the other hand, as she just explained, the CRTC also has an obligation to respect the charter in exercising its authority. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that happens.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd like to say one more thing.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not on the committee. In addition, we are a minority government. The committee can decide to propose amendments to Bill C-10. It is true that the bill has already undergone a hundred or so amendments, which, by the way, is not unusual for a bill. As lawmakers, I think we can always do better; a bill can always be improved.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would like to address the first element of the question, which is about freedom of speech. As you've seen, and as you've heard today, we have a charter statement that was written by the independent civil service—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Could I be allowed just to finish my answer on the charter statement? You have a charter statement in front of you. You've heard Deputy Minister Drouin explain very clearly that Bill C-10 respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,. Not only that, but there are mechanisms in place for the CRTC to ensure that it does that. It has discretionary powers, but these powers are not absolute. They have to be exercised in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
My government is not interested in having an election. I think we've seen that some parties have been fundraising around the controversy they created around Bill C-10. We haven't been doing that. We've been hard at work trying to do everything we can to help the arts and culture sector.
I would remind you that the budget that was just presented by Deputy Prime Minister Freeland is a historic budget when it comes to the arts and culture sector in this country. We have never seen such an important budget to help our artists, our musicians, our creators. It is a historic budget. I think we've seen that we are there for our artists, and Bill C-10 is another clear example of that.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and the other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure for me to appear before you today regarding the study of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
I would also like to acknowledge that today is International Women's Day.
I’d like to thank the members of the committee for the preliminary work you have been doing for some time now.
I’m delighted that this bill has finally passed second reading in the House of Commons. The delays that some Conservative members have caused were a concern for me, but we got there, and we can continue to move forward. Let us please remember that this is not a partisan bill. It is a bill that focuses on culture; it is a bill for Canadians, and it deserves to move forward.
I hope that all the members here and their caucuses recognize the urgency of modernizing the Broadcasting Act so that it can better serve the interests of Canadians in the digital world.
Today it's impossible to overlook the legislative imbalance that favours digital platforms to the detriment of Canadian broadcasters and creative industries. This reform responds to a pressing need. It is crucial to ensuring the vitality of Canadian businesses now and for decades to come. This is why our government will continue to work constructively and collaboratively so that Canadians can benefit from the most effective legislative tool possible, as soon as possible.
From the outset, the cultural and creative sectors have provided input into the modernization of the current legislation. They've expressed their support for this reform and this favourable movement is trending across the country, particularly in Quebec.
Moreover, since the tabling of the bill, this important discussion has continued in the public space and before your committee. It has given rise to several proposed amendments that we will examine with all the attention they deserve. We are, of course, open to improvements that would maximize the benefits of the amended Act for Canadians.
I know that you have received substantial input from several key contributors, and I look forward to seeing the results of the committee’s work in this regard.
I am well aware that the study of the bill must be carried out with care, for two reasons. First of all, because it introduces methods that are completely new in Canada for implementing a regulatory framework adapted to our current reality. Second, because this is an important issue. Many players in the creative and cultural industries are calling for this update to the Broadcasting Act and are counting on this new tool to continue to develop their work on digital platforms.
Let us remember that the current broadcasting system has served Canadians well for decades. It has fostered the emergence of strong national creative and cultural industries. It has supported the delivery of original content that reflects our identity and our values. Bill C-10 aims to preserve that legacy. However, it also aims to include many new players and new activities. It must therefore take an approach designed to include online broadcasters and ensure their equitable contribution.
With this bill, we want to make the diversity of Canadian voices resonate more clearly: francophone and anglophone voices, the voices of minority communities, Indigenous voices; and the voices of all communities across the country, including ethnocultural communities, racialized communities, and others that are too often underrepresented on the screen and elsewhere.
I want to make it clear that this bill is not intended to change the regulatory structure in broadcasting. Rather, it is intended to update the objectives of the legislation and the tools of the CRTC. It therefore preserves the autonomy conferred on the CRTC to implement the appropriate regulations and achieve the objectives of the Act. This autonomy is all the more important as the broadcasting system begins to incorporate new players with different business models, and as the system continues to evolve.
This bill does not address the regulation of online hate nor the equitable compensation of journalists by the web giants, as these are not strictly broadcasting issues; however, I intend to introduce two more bills on these issues in the near future. In due course, I will be pleased to appear before your committee regarding these other bills, always in the spirit of constructive co-operation.
I will be pleased to provide you with the Order in Council that we intend to issue following the passage of the bill. Please note, however, that this Order in Council was drafted prior to the introduction of the bill. It may therefore be redrafted as a result of amendments to Bill C-10 between now and Royal Assent.
As well, in the interest of transparency and as required by law, the Order will undergo a period of public consultation to invite feedback from Canadians.
I invite you to use the Order in Council as background material for your study, but to focus your efforts on the bill itself. Because that is the legislation that will be with us for several decades and will ensure the sustainability of the broadcasting sector. Over the years, governments will come and go, and will issue various Orders in Council to the CRTC as they respond to changing circumstances.
Finally, I would like to clarify the following situation. When I appeared on November 5, 2020, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska asked me what calculations the department had used to determine that the additional investments in Canadian content through digital television broadcasts would amount to $830 million. On December 11, 2020, the department provided the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the answers to the questions asked at the meetings of October 30 and November 5, 2020, including the one dealing with the calculation of the $830 million. At my last appearance before the committee—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. Thirty seconds, Mr. Chair.
I feel that this is important.
At my last appearance before the committee, on January 29, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that the committee had not yet received that information. I am sure that he does not want to mislead the members of the committee, or the Canadians listening in, by wrongly stating that he had received nothing. I invite him to look at his email inbox, because he did in fact receive the information, which was distributed to all members of the committee.
With that, I thank you. I will stay with you to answer your questions.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Rayes.
I'd like to address several points.
First, as Mr. Ripley told you earlier, we did not get the $830 million figure out of a Cracker Jack box. That number was arrived at through a series of 16 simulations based on different assumptions. That's what allowed us to arrive at a forecast of the amount to be invested. It could be a little more or a little less. The exact amounts will be defined in the regulations that will be implemented by the CRTC. That's the first thing.
In addition...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
...it is not true to...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I was just getting to that, the French question.
Just before, I wanted to clarify that you made a second false claim when you mentioned that this bill would not apply to social networks. Earlier, you heard Mr. Ripley explain very clearly how, in cases where social networks act as broadcasters, the act will be able to apply to businesses that operate digital platforms. So, it's not true to say as you did that the bill does not apply to social networks.
The third point I wanted to make concerns the French fact. How have we managed to protect the French fact over the decades? The CRTC has made various decisions requiring that broadcasters invest in French-language content, and it is because of these decisions that the most watched French-language programs today, whether on television or on the big screen, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, are produced here. We want these investments in French-language content to continue. In addition to conventional broadcasters, digital platforms will now be subject to spending obligations, including on French-language content.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
There are a number of elements in what you just said. I'll start with your last point: how culture and tourism and hospitality go hand in hand. It is true for our larger urban centres, but it's certainly true for many of our regions across the country. People will go to a festival. They will stay in local hotels or bed and breakfasts. They will go to restaurants. They will do some sightseeing. This is really an ecosystem.
When we talk about the anticipated $830 million in new revenue invested in Canadian culture, I think it is important to remember that if we don't do that.... It's not $830 million more that we will have. Because of the declining revenues for conventional traditional broadcasters, we are heading in a direction where there would be more than $1 billion less in available funding for arts and culture in Canada.
What we are trying to do is hugely important for the preservation of that ecosystem, as you said, for regions. It used to be that film or TV shootings would happen in downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto, but now it's really happening all across the country. There are things being produced in Newfoundland, and you have productions in the Prairies. Obviously, Vancouver also has become a really big hub.
What we are doing with this is trying to ensure a vibrant arts and culture sector in Canada for all parts of the country.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As Jean-Stéphen and Owen explained earlier on, we are keeping most of the infrastructure of the actual broadcasting legislation and regulation.
What we're doing with C-10, and I think why the bill has been saluted by so many, is we're keeping what's working and we're adding this whole other layer of elements where Canadian regulations will be able to be applied to online giants, like Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Prime and Apple Music.
To correct something Mr. Rayes said earlier, he said that we've been waiting for five years. Actually, we haven't. My predecessor commissioned a group of people who went across the country and received almost 2,000 position papers from different organizations. That concluded in the Yale report, which was tabled in early 2020. We then took that and started working on the bill, which was introduced a year later in the middle of the greatest pandemic we've seen in 100 years.
I don't think we've actually been losing a lot of time on this. We have acted very promptly to make this happen.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. It's clearly not what we're doing.
There's no censorship in Canadian broadcasting right now. There are different types of stations, different types of TV and radio stations that will have different angles on the political spectrum. This is totally normal in a democracy. What we're trying to do is apply that regulatory framework to online broadcasters.
In the case of YouTube, for example, we're not particularly interested in what people...you know, when my great-uncle posts pictures of his cats, that's not what we're interested in as a legislator.
When YouTube or Facebook act as a broadcaster, then the legislation would apply to them and the CRTC would define how that would happen. But really, we're not interested in user-generated content. We are interested in what broadcasters are doing.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.
Do you find many provisions in the current act that have helped French carve out the place it has today on the small and big screen? The answer to that question is no. It is thanks to the regulations and the various decisions of the CRTC that we have succeeded in building an internationally renowned French-language industry in Canada. Today, our directors are sought after and highly coveted all over the world, especially in the United States. Yet there is little in the current act that defines the French fact or protects it.
Could amendments be made to the bill so that there is greater recognition of French? As I said before, if there is something that needs to be added to the bill, I am very much open to that possibility. However, it should be understood that the mechanics will be handled by regulation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think you misunderstand the role of a regulator. Personally, I have never intervened with the CRTC, but I have intervened with many Quebec and federal energy regulators.
A regulator does not make its decisions according to the number of companies that lobby it for deregulation or for better regulation. That is not how a regulator works, not the Régie de l'énergie du Québec, not the Canada Energy Regulator, not the CRTC. Rather, it considers all of the positions submitted to it, in light of the law that governs its work.
In addition, through Bill C-10, the government is giving itself greater ability to give direction to the CRTC.
In light of all this, this is how the CRTC and all regulatory agencies make decisions.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
There is indeed a big difference between the two. Ms. Messier and you are absolutely right.
I have said it before and I will say it again: if amendments need to be made to the bill to clarify a number of things, I will be very much in favour of that.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, not at all. In fact, Mr. Ripley answered that question very well earlier, in the first hour of the meeting, when he said that it was not a law, but a directive. The CRTC has no authority over this issue. It's a government decision.
Could another government decide to change things? A government is always sovereign and free to make its own decisions. In any event, the CRTC cannot do that, and the act does not change that. The directive that is in place stays in place.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I was under the impression that we were going to talk about Bill C-10 today, so most of the information I have with me is on issues relating to Bill C-10.
You may recall that our government made a record-level investment into the CBC in the previous mandate, after years of cutbacks under the Harper government.
I do not have that information offhand; I'm sure we could provide it to you.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I've been clear from the beginning. Bill C-10 won't fix everything when it comes to looking at broadcasting generally defined. It doesn't address issues related to the CBC.
We are a minority government. We took those elements of the Yale report that we felt were the most crucial to implement. As I've said before, there are a number of other recommendations coming out of the Yale report that we would like to move forward with. We just can't do everything at once. If I presented the House and this committee with a bill that encompassed everything under the sun, I sincerely doubt we would ever be able to get the bill through.
I do think we can get Bill C-10 adopted. It won't solve everything, but it will solve an important part of the equation. My government believes in the Canadian broadcaster. We have made significant investments in the Canadian broadcaster, and I want to ensure a healthy future for our Canadian broadcaster.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm going to give you the same answer that Jean-Stéphen gave you earlier. We don't have these numbers offhand. We would be happy to provide them.
If you will allow me, what I would add is that there's a trend in this country, which started before our government, with the previous government, of putting more and more money in terms of publicity into online platforms. This is something we have started to change. You won't see it before next year. We have started to change the investment we make in publicity away from online platforms.
I agree. We've done too much investment in online platforms, and we need to change this.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
We've already started working on that.
As I said, this year's numbers, once they become available and they've been compiled, will show that we've started changing that trend, but the issue is not resolved. I'm the first one to admit that.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As Mr. Ripley explained earlier, we're not sacrificing the ownership of Canadian broadcasters. We're not. That's simply not the case.
What we're doing, through those modifications in the proposed bill, is ensuring that Canadian laws and regulations can apply to online platforms, which they can't right now. If we don't create a space in the bill to do that, how can we apply our laws and regulations to them? If we don't do that, then this whole discussion about that additional $830 million for Canadian culture will never be able to manifest itself.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It may have only been two ads—and we would have to verify that—but under the Harper government, it would have been zero ads, so I guess two is better than zero. That's the first thing I would say.
The second thing I would say is that we have provided close to $800 million of funding since budget 2019 to help Canadian media through this crisis.
The third thing I would say, which I said in my remarks initially, is that we are working on a bill. Broadcasting is not the same as media, but I'm on record many times as saying that I'm in favour of fair compensation for Canadian media by web giants like Facebook and Google. I therefore respectfully disagree with Mr. Chan's comments publicly or to this committee. At Canada's initiative, we have started an international coalition of countries working together to do just that, with Australia, Germany, France, Finland and, soon enough, many others. I don't think we've been passive on this. We've been very proactive.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Where to start? CBC does not have a monopoly. There are plenty of other broadcasters across the country, both on radio and on television. I think what CBC is doing in terms of moving some content online is what a number of broadcasters are doing.
We could be talking about Bell Media. We could be talking about Quebecor. This is because more and more users.... I know for a fact that my kids don't listen to the radio as I do and certainly don't read newspapers—paper copies—like I do. That's not how they get their information. I think what the CBC is doing is a reflection of what pretty much everybody in the market is doing.
What we're trying to do with Bill C-10 is to ensure that Canadian broadcasters, Canadian producers of culture and artists get their fair share out of this transformation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for your intervention and your questions.
We don't get to revise a bill like the broadcasting bill every other day of the week—it's been 30 years. If we're doing it now let's try to make it the best possible bill that it can be and resolve as many issues as possible. So of course I would be happy to contemplate changes that would improve it even more.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Obviously, intellectual property is a very important aspect of Canadian production, not just in Canada. It's an important aspect of cultural productions all around the world and it's certainly top of mind.
We've had numerous conversations. I've met with independent producers a number of times over the course of the last year and a half. I've heard their concerns, I've heard their ideas, and we are looking at how best, through the modification of the Broadcasting Act, we can help foster intellectual property so it serves Canadian artists and Canadian companies as best as possible. That's what we're working toward.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, that's a really important point. I've said it earlier, we are a minority government. The reality of minority government in the British parliamentary system is that they don't tend to last very long. I think we do have a shot at being able to adopt this bill and it's not me saying it. A number of organizations you've met have said that this was a groundbreaking bill. Someone called it historic.
Let's work together and get this adopted as soon as possible. I'm not saying we have to cut corners or shortchange anything, but let's work together to try to get this done. If we do that, I think we'll all be able to go home and say we've helped Canadian artists; we've helped Canadian culture come into the next century.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The phenomenon you mention is obviously related to the advent of platforms and the very significant upheaval we have seen in the broadcasting world in Canada and elsewhere in the world. That is why this bill is important; it will regulate what is done online. Obviously, it will regulate the online activities of the Web giants, but it will also regulate the online activities of Canadian businesses.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
We must be careful; the legislator cannot act on behalf of the regulator, just as the regulator cannot take the place of the legislator. In our ecosystem, we all have functions and roles to play. One of the innovations in Bill C-10 is to increase the ability of the government to give direction to the CRTC. It is possible to do so now, but it is not easy. With this amendment, we are giving ourselves more flexibility.
Imagine what would happen if the legislator, in this case the committee that meets for a few hours a week, tried to hold public hearings to define regulatory elements. It would never happen. France, Britain and Australia have a regulatory body that enforces their broadcasting legislation. I don't know of any country that operates differently. I don't think we invented the model. If anything, we may have been among the first to use it, a long time ago.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Facebook and Google are not exempt from—I think Mr. Ripley, Mr. Piché and I have answered that question—the law or the regulation. When they act as broadcasters, then the regulation will apply to them.
As I said earlier in a response to a question asked by Mr. Waugh, as a legislator, I'm not particularly interested when my step-uncle posts pictures of his cats on YouTube or Facebook. This is why we've excluded user-generated content from the regulation. When they act as broadcasters, then the regulation will apply to them.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As I said, Bill C-10 does not exclude Facebook and YouTube. This is a false assumption that you're making. They're simply not....
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
—a bill about everything under the sun. I'm sorry, we just couldn't do that.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much. My apologies for the lateness of my arrival. It seems that events are conspiring against my participation in this committee meeting. We had a fire alarm where I am right now, so we had to exit the building.
That being said, we actually explored the possibility of my joining by phone outside. That was technologically complicated, it seems.
I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and Haudenosaunee peoples.
I want to start by acknowledging that, four years ago today, a gunman took the lives of six people at the Quebec City mosque and seriously injured 19 others. They were Muslim fathers, husbands, loved ones and friends. Their sudden and tragic deaths were heartbreaking not just for their families, but also for Muslim communities around the world and all Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I am very happy to be appearing before you again today.
With me is the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau; as well as Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister.
The pandemic continues to weigh heavily on Canada's heritage, arts, culture and sport communities. We are all committed to helping them get through the crisis and supporting them in their recovery.
I want to thank the committee for pursuing it's important work despite the difficult circumstances. Your study on the challenges faced by the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors caused by COVID-19 will be a valuable asset in these efforts. Canadian Heritage was pleased to participate.
I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work you have done on Bill C-5, which seeks to establish the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation as a statutory holiday.
When we met for the main and supplementary budget estimates review, I had just tabled Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. It will be referred to your committee shortly, and we will welcome your input on this legislation as well.
As I indicated before the holidays, I look forward to better understanding your perspectives and how the bill could be improved.
Like many Canadians, our government is concerned about the current imbalance that favours the web giants at the expense of Canadian businesses. The economic and social stakes resulting from this situation are too important for us to stand idly by.
That is why the Speech from the Throne mentioned that things must change to ensure more equitable sharing of revenues with our Canadian creators and media.
Mr. Chair, our government is committed to regulating digital platforms and putting them to work for Canadians. One of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to require those platforms to invest in our creators, our music and our stories, which could lead to more than $800 million of additional money being invested here in Canada every year.
This bill has been positively received by the community and stakeholders. I must share the credit for this success with the employees of Canadian Heritage, as it would not have been possible without their supporting work. I would like to salute their expertise and professionalism. As you know, it is up to elected officials to lead the development of public policy, and our government has been very clear on how we want to tackle social media platforms and web giants. The Canadian Heritage team is providing excellent evidence-based support in this regard.
Our government will also complement these efforts by levelling the playing field on the tax front, as we proposed in the 2020 fall economic statement. Digital businesses will now be required to collect and remit the GST. We will also ensure that digital corporations pay their fair share of taxes in respect of their activities in Canada.
I must also note that we are currently studying a made-in-Canada formula to ensure fair remuneration of news publishers by online platforms, similar to what you might have seen move ahead in certain other countries.
We have seen during the pandemic that digital platforms are more than ever at the heart of communications between Canadians, and are keeping us connected. Unfortunately, some Internet users are also exploiting these platforms maliciously to spread hate, racism and child pornography. There is currently illegal content being uploaded and shared online, to the detriment of Canadians and our society. This is simply unacceptable.
My apologies, Mr. Chair, but I'm having some technical problems.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm going to stop here. I'm sure I'll be able to tell whatever I need to tell as I answer questions from my colleagues from the House.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, absolutely. Thank you for your question.
Perhaps I should turn to Mr. Piché or Ms. Laurendeau, but I believe we can get you the information on the calculation or formula behind the $800-million-plus figure. Either a public servant or someone from the department could appear before the committee, or we could provide the information in writing. I should also point out that it's a projection, not an exact figure.
We can certainly provide the information to the committee. You're right that it's entirely appropriate to share the information with the committee members.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Laurendeau, Mr. Piché, could one of you round out my answer to Mr. Rayes?
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Rayes, I think Mr. Piché can provide you with more information.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your question.
This morning, I read an excellent piece on Radio-Canada's site about how the shooter had become radicalized on social media before doing what he did on January 29. A few months ago now, we undertook a joint initiative with several departments and ministers. The Department of Canadian Heritage is working with the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Innovation. We are preparing to bring forward a bill that will set out a regulatory framework to control hate speech, child pornography, incitement to violence, incitement to terrorism and the non-consensual disclosure of images.
Not many countries have tackled the problem, but a few have. Meetings and discussions have been held with representatives of those countries, at both the working level and the political level. The idea is to see how we could adapt existing models to Canada's reality and needs. Just last week, I was talking to Australia's eSafety Commissioner in an effort to really understand how the country went about implementing its system and what to watch out for.
Like anyone who endeavours to introduce these types of controls, we are concerned about protecting freedom of expression. In the real world, however, we established rules over the years to control freedom of expression, through both laws and court rulings. We are working to determine how we can replicate the framework that already exists in the real world and apply it to the virtual world.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It should be this spring. We want to introduce this bill during the current parliamentary session.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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—
Collapse
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—
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
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.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 100 of 216 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data