Evidence of meeting #101 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-18.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
We'll go to Mr. Champoux, and then we're going to move on for two and a half minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I just want to react to that point of order, Mr. Chair.
It's absolutely fair for the Liberals to attack the Conservatives and for the Conservatives to attack the Liberals. That's part of the game and I understand it.
In this instance, however, the obstruction didn't come from the Conservatives. My point is that it's the Liberals and the NDP who voted to overturn your decision, Mr. Chair. I repeat: your decision was based on the Standing Orders as written, which are clear and should be followed.
A decision of the chair may be overturned in exceptional cases, but I think this is becoming a habit and it worries me.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
Mr. Julian from the NDP, you have two and a half minutes.
November 28th, 2023 / 12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Of course, that decision was on the line. The committee has the perfect right to make that decision. I would agree with Mr. Champoux that committee work means working often by unanimous consent, and I'm hoping that we get back to that.
Mr. Ahmed, I want to come back to you.
I'm stunned to learn that you have 25 members on your team. Please pass on our sincere appreciation for 25 people doing such remarkable work in the face of the big tech juggernauts and the massive increase in hate and disinformation we are seeing.
One of the things that can help to push back against this hate and disinformation is having transparency around online algorithms. Bill C-292, before the Canadian Parliament, seeks to do that.
In the United States, before the U.S. Congress, as I know you are aware, Senator Ed Markey has put forward similar legislation to oblige big techs to actually expose the algorithms they use to force-feed, in this case, hate and disinformation to so many people.
The concern in big tech, of course, is that they'll be libel if there is a direct link between the massive terrorist attacks that we've seen linked to hatred, whether anti-Semitic, homophobic or racist, and their algorithms. A legal liability would be established.
How important is it for Parliament and the U.S. Congress to adopt this kind of legislation to hold big tech libel for the egregious practices they have?
12:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Center for Countering Digital Hate
That transparency legislation is vital, because without it, we can't actually create the arguments for liability. Transparency is the absolute bedrock of an effective mechanism for accountability, and then shared responsibility for any harms that are created.
The European Union is also doing some really interesting things right now. It will be setting up new algorithmic studies in Seville, which will be operating soon. That will give us a lot more data on how these platforms are working.
Let's be absolutely clear: Algorithms are the product. If you think they are content platforms, they're not. They're an algorithm platform that publishes a timeline that is algorithmically ordered to keep you addicted. That's what is crucial about the legislation you're promulgating.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you very much.
We've run out of time at two and a half minutes.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Center for Countering Digital Hate
I'll be happy to provide something in writing to the committee.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
The last two rounds are scheduled for five minutes. Seeing the clock, I'm going to say there are three minutes each for the Conservatives and the Liberals, if that's okay, in order to round out the third round.
We have the Conservatives for three minutes. We'll start with Mrs. Thomas.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Geist, with regard to Bill C-11, you mentioned that indigenous folks, BIPOC folks and others who function within this digital space.... We often call them “digital-first creators”. Those individuals were not adequately consulted. You used the word “sidelined” in your remarks.
Can you talk to me about the impact Bill C-11 is having on digital-first creators in Canada and will potentially have on them, going forward?
12:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thanks for that question.
I think there remains deep concern among many digital creators about the implications of Bill C-11. Obviously, there's been a policy direction that has tried to assuage some of those concerns. However, even within that policy direction, there still remain references to the prospect of dealing with algorithms and the like. I think there are still some concerns. There was media coverage, particularly on the issue of indigenous and BIPOC creators. In one instance, Vanessa Brousseau, who goes by the handle Resilient Inuk, went to meet with heritage officials and walked away feeling completely intimidated and disrespected.
I have to say that I find such an incredible disconnect between what are, legitimately, a whole raft of changes in the legislation designed to support those communities and their creativity, and—at the same time—the lived experience some have had within the legislative process, where efforts to bring their concerns to the table, whether at this committee or later at the Senate, may have been sidelined. The Senate heard from far more digital creators, from all walks, than this committee took the time to hear from, when it came to Bill C-11.
I think you have to do more than just have legislation that sounds good. You have to ensure the groups that are affected have an opportunity to be heard as well.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Dr. Geist.
At this time, I would Ike to move a motion that was tabled and moved at the last meeting. However, we didn't have an opportunity to bring it to a vote. It's my hope that, today, we can bring it to a vote quite quickly and go onward.
I'll read the motion into the record:
Given that, the Department of Canadian Heritage, under the leadership of the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, approved ‘anti-racism’ grants upwards of $130,000 to Laith Marouf of the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC), on October 21, 2022, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez appeared before the Heritage Committee, during which time he was asked by a number of MPs about the date he was made aware of Laith Marouf’s derogatory remarks about Jews and Francophones and the minister reported to the Committee that he was not informed until after August 22, 2022, an article by the Globe and Mail and an Access to Information Request indicate emails circulated from the former Diversity and Inclusion Minister, the Honourable Ahmed Hussein, his former chief of staff, Minister Rodriguez’s former chief of staff, and the deputy minister at Canadian Heritage between August 17th and August 19th, 2022, including one sent to Minister Rodriguez’s personal email account titled “Laith Marouf and antisemitic hate speech,” the Committee invite the former Minister for Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, to appear before the committee as soon as possible for no fewer than two hours to clarify his remarks concerning Laith Marouf, and that the committee report its findings to the House.
Mr. Chair, I have read the motion into the record. My request is clear: that we hear from the former minister of Canadian heritage. He is the one who made the decision or signed off on the $130,000 that went to Laith Marouf. He is, further, the one who requested that the money be paid back. It has not been. Laith Marouf should have been scolded and had the money taken from him far sooner than it was by this minister, who chose instead to turn a blind eye.
It is incumbent upon this minister to come to the committee and explain to us why he made the decision he did or to clarify his previous comments.
I move the motion.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.
I'm going to call the vote to move to debate. That's the correct—
Go ahead, Mr. Coteau.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
We were just asked if we would agree to an additional three minutes on each side. That was the request.
Obviously, the member can move a motion whenever she wants, but when we as a committee agree that we're going to provide three minutes to each side—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Do you know what? I'm sorry, but the only way this committee can work in the sense of working together is by honouring the agreements we make.
If I knew that we were going to get into a debate over a motion at the last minute, four minutes or three minutes before the end of the meeting, we wouldn't have agreed to extend.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Actually, Mr. Coteau, if you look at the third round, instead of five minutes each for the Conservatives and the Liberals, I made an editorial change to three minutes. It was still in the third round, but because of the clock, I moved to the—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Yes, but I was specifically asked through the clerk, through the chair, if we were okay with that. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good way for us to proceed. It's not the right way as a committee to operate.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Every single week, actually twice a week now, we have witnesses who, in some cases, come from all across the country to provide us.... They are not being paid like members of this committee to sit here. They're actually coming of their own free will because they are interested in issues that matter to them, issues that they care about. For them to come into this committee and, first of all, lose the opportunity to fulfill their opportunity to speak on these issues, it is not a great way for a committee to proceed.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
I am going to move to call for the vote...to the debate.