Canadian Heritage Committee on March 29th, 2021

[Kevin Chan]

I don't think so, ma'am. Again, I'm looking at the Canadian situation. Some of our experts at the Ryerson Leadership Lab have come out with statistics looking at where Canadians actually get news, and you can look at what they've produced. The survey I've seen says that about 25% of Canadians get some aspect of their news from Facebook. It's the fourth or fifth source, and the top source is TV. Also above Facebook is people navigating directly to newspaper websites.

Facebook is one place, obviously, for people to get some part of their news diet, but it's not the case that Facebook is somehow synonymous with the Internet or synonymous with access to news, as data from the Ryerson Leadership Lab itself points out.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm going to jump in. I'm glad you brought in the Canadian context. As you know, right now the Canadian government is looking at different models for local news, and I'm curious to get your opinion on this.

Is it Facebook's strategy to cut off access to news and public health information in Canada should the government choose to take on legislation about local news in Canada?

[Kevin Chan]

We haven't seen any specific proposal, ma'am, from the government. It is not something we would ever want to do unless we really had no choice. As I mentioned to you, in the case of Australia, the framework provided an exit, which was to say that if the regulatory burden was too high, Facebook could exit the market.

I am confident that in Canada, when we talk about a made-in-Canada approach, what we really mean is the ambition to do better: to build frameworks that are based on facts and that are based on the reality of how the Internet works.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I only have one more minute, so I want to jump in here. When you were complaining about the Australian model, you talked about mandatory versus voluntary agreements and the binding nature of those.

Why wouldn't a mandatory system be appropriate when dealing with these types of power imbalances with local news?

[Kevin Chan]

The reality is, if you speak to some of the local news publishers, that they are in fact benefiting from being able to share freely. They'll tell you that. We gave you the numbers. Don't take my word for it is what I'm saying, ma'am. Speak with Jeff Elgie, CEO of Village Media, who has said that free distribution offered half a million dollars in January 2021 alone to his business.

I guess what I am humbly suggesting to this committee is that we should be reframing a bit how we look at this. It's the fact that free platforms drive distribution back to publications directly on their sites, and they monetize when traffic is redirected there.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alain Rayes]

I thank Mr. Chan and Ms. Dabrusin.

We will now continue with Mr. Champoux for two and a half minutes. These are normally five-minute segments, but Mr. Champoux and Ms. McPherson are sharing the same segment.

You have the floor, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I was hoping you would forget that detail, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chan, I am very interested in the topic you and Ms. Dabrusin just touched on, but I would like to return to the question I asked earlier.

Disinformation is recognized as a direct threat to public health in the context of COVID-19. According to an article published in La Presse last week, 12 people are believed to be responsible for 73% of the content against vaccination. Obviously, this disinformation is based on unreliable sources. Yet these accounts are still active today.

You say you want to fight disinformation. You deleted several fake accounts and, I think, several fake news stories. Why do you persist in not deleting these accounts?

If I were to show you the 12 accounts that the Public Health Agency of Canada says are a public health hazard in the context of COVID-19, what would you do with this information that I...

[Kevin Chan]

We would very much welcome you to share these with us. We will take a look at them. Obviously I cannot promise you that it will result in one outcome or another, but we would be very much interested in taking a look at these 12. We will do our—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

They were presented last week, in Congress, before your CEO, Mr. Zuckerberg, who nevertheless refused to commit to removing them.

If you really intend to fight disinformation, be a good citizen, and take responsibility for what you do, I have a hard time explaining this decision, Mr. Chan.

[Kevin Chan]

I'm not aware of that. You'll excuse me, sir, for not being up to date on all the things that were discussed at the hearing last week. I would just say that we stand with public health experts. We rely on them to flag things for us that they believe are harmful misinformation.

As you may know, we partner with the Public Health Agency of Canada to ensure that we have a good posture in Canada and that we drive good information to Canadians. We've directed over two billion people directly to public health information around the world, and millions in Canada to the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Tam will be engaging in a Facebook Live with us on Wednesday to speak directly with Canadians about getting good information about the vaccine. We want to do our part.

I am also mindful, sir, of the other pieces Mr. Shields mentioned. There is a delicate striking of a balance between allowing people to say what they think and feel, and ensuring that we keep our community safe. In this case, I would humbly submit to you that we're trying to strike that balance between—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alain Rayes]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Ms. McPherson, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have some quick questions for the witnesses on some of the online hate regulations.

Mr. Chan, in your last appearance before the committee, you stated that Facebook supports legislation that sets standards to prohibit hateful content online and that the current self-regulation of platforms is not sustainable.

Do you agree that the government's delay in introducing legislation is exacerbating the spread of hateful content online?

[Kevin Chan]

I really don't know, ma'am.

First of all, we haven't seen a proposal, so I don't want to speculate on what it may or may not include. I can tell you that at Facebook, we have rules in our community standards about harmful content. We are working hard every day to enforce our community standards.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do you think the government should provide for sufficiently strong monetary and criminal penalties to encourage platforms to act quickly to remove hateful content?

[Kevin Chan]

Ma'am, again, I haven't seen any specific proposals. As I've said elsewhere, it is probably unwise to comment on something that hasn't been presented to anybody.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Maybe just from your own perspective, even though you have [Technical difficulty—Editor] make sense for there to be strong monetary and criminal penalties, if social media platforms don't take off hateful comment in a timely manner?

[Kevin Chan]

As you may know, there are already criminal provisions under the law in Canada. Obviously, the platform and Facebook and other Internet companies live with that framework.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm assuming that's a yes, and that you also agree that there would be a reason for us to be able to use judicial and financial penalties to hold Facebook to account if it were not taking down hateful content in a timely manner.

[Kevin Chan]

We've indicated that yes, if we aren't seen to be in good faith building the right systems to enforce against our standards, then absolutely we should be subject to some kind of penalty and held to account.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alain Rayes]

Thank you, Mr. Chan and Ms. McPherson.

Mr. Shields, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Chair, that would be Mr. Aitchison.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alain Rayes]

Yes, you're right, I'm sorry.

My apologies, Mr. Aitchison. You have the floor.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

No worries. Nobody could accuse you of showing favouritism towards the Conservatives. It's a good thing.

What I'm struggling with is that Facebook is a new technology and, much like we've been discussing with the Broadcasting Act, new technologies are overtaking old technologies. That said, I love my local newspaper. I'm actually working on a project right now where I'm doing a lot of research on old editions of The Huntsville Forester, which are all online. They are just a treasure trove of information.

We've talked a lot about Facebook trying to [Technical difficulty—Editor] online. It is like a community square where people get to stand up and say what they want to say. I guess the big difference between Facebook and a community newspaper is that Facebook doesn't actually produce much content.

Can you speak to that? Does Facebook actually produce any content itself, or is it simply a platform for others?

[Kevin Chan]

There may be some experiments that I personally am not aware of, but I think the way you described it is correct, sir. We're a platform. Content is user generated from the vast majority.... Then there is some percentage, perhaps less than 4%, that is page content, meaning content that comes from pages such as, for example, your Facebook page, sir. It could also come from a newspaper. It could come from a university, the House of Commons or the Parliament of Canada, but yes, you're absolutely right that it is a platform that is really based on user-generated content.