Canadian Heritage Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Did anything else in the draft directive jump out at you?

[Pascale St-Onge]

Yes.

My colleague, Julien Laflamme, may have some comments on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Of course.

[Julien Laflamme, Coordinator, Research and Women's Services, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture]

Yes, certainly.

We have more or less the same concern we have regarding the bill and the way it's written. In other words, certain portions lead us to think the CRTC may be tempted to water down regulatory requirements. The draft directive actually refers a lot to flexibility in the regulatory approach. It contains little in the way of instructions that have a bit more teeth. I would say the language in the directive and the bill needs to be stronger.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You feel it's too soft. Given that the act has not been reviewed in 30 years, the government could have put more teeth into it.

[Julien Laflamme]

Exactly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Laflamme.

Now I have a question for Mr. Bernhard, from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

You've talked a lot about algorithms. In his draft instructions, the minister directs the CRTC to ensure the methodology is “informed by data collected from broadcasting undertakings”, at paragraph 5(b).

Mr. Bernhard, I know you are quite skeptical when it comes to social media and other online platforms being transparent about their algorithms and the data they agree to share. I'd like to hear your views on the subject.

[Daniel Bernhard]

You're right. I am very skeptical about the contributions and statements made by social media companies and other tech giants like Netflix. Since 2014, the year Netflix went before the CRTC to argue its case on camera, we have been trying to figure out a way to regulate Netflix.

The algorithms matter a lot because they are behind the decisions. The Broadcasting Act has numerous provisions on the decisions broadcasters make in relation to programming, advertising standards, the assignment of political advertising time and so forth. Accordingly, the act needs to include clear provisions on algorithms so that the companies behind them are accountable for the decisions based on those algorithms.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Is that not currently the case? Would you say the humans programming the algorithms are not responsible for the errors those algorithms make?

[Daniel Bernhard]

It's not clear. The idea of programming control indicates or can indicate human control in distinguishing the decisions being made. That is why it is so important to clarify things.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You talk about regulating or including social media and user-generated content on platforms like YouTube.

Does it feel more like the bill is regulating community radio, which gives hosts and artists some freedom in choosing content?

Would you say the regulatory scheme resembles what exists in the community media sector?

[Daniel Bernhard]

Yes, exactly.

It's all about size. You need a certain set of standards and requirements for small broadcasters, and a stricter set for big broadcasters. For example, YouTube has users who post content online but who are actually professional broadcasting companies that are much larger than Canadian licensed broadcasters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Bernhard—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, folks. We're just past the time.

Before I go to Ms. McPherson, I want to say that time is just flying along as we're having so much fun. The fact is, we're almost up to an hour. I mentioned two rounds. How about we do one round and then go to our health break for just a few minutes following Ms. McPherson's questioning?

Ms. McPherson, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for joining us this morning.

I'd like to start with a few questions for our colleagues with Unifor.

You spoke about paragraph 3(1)(a) and the wording that you are proposing. As we know, Bill C-10 removes the first objective of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in paragraph 3(1)(a)—“the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians”—and you've put forward a modification that “the Canadian broadcasting system should maximize ownership and control by Canadians”.

Can you comment further on why you think it's so important to have that change to the act? I will go to ACTRA afterwards and get some clarification from them on the same point, so they can prepare now.

[Katha Fortier]

Thanks very much.

I'm going to ask Howard Law, our media director, to take that question.

[Howard Law, Director of Media and National Representative, Unifor]

The reason we've suggested an amendment, as opposed to a repeal of this section, is that it obviously needs to be modified if it's to recognize and take into account the reality that foreign streamers are part of the system. To repeal it outright is a very dangerous thing to do, we think. We've proposed the same amendment, by the way, as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, so maybe we're both onto something here.

The explanation given by Mr. Ripley and the minister in their previous appearances in front of the committee was that, because we have a cabinet directive from 1997 that establishes Canadian ownership, we can repeal this section. Respectfully, we disagree, and we're alarmed that it might happen. The reason for this is that the directive from 1997 was passed to parse out what Canadian ownership meant in terms of the percentage of control of public companies, whether it was a two-thirds ownership requirement or a four-fifths ownership requirement. The deep concern we have is that not only could a future government have a change of mind and repeal the cabinet directive, but in a court proceeding it's quite possible that a litigant would challenge Canadian ownership on the basis that there is no enabling section in the act to authorize it in the first place and that the cabinet directive is, frankly, invalid or unenforceable.

I think everybody is on the same page in terms of what they want for Canadian ownership. We just have to make sure that we don't accidentally repeal the governing provision in the act.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We may weaken it unintentionally or intentionally, as the case may be.

[Howard Law]

Yes, absolutely.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Sparrow, did you have any comments on that? I know that you have also spoken quite a bit about this. I'm wondering if you feel that the need for such prescriptive language as “maximum” is required.

[David Sparrow]

I do. We are a sovereign country with unique stories. We live in a competitive world, and we've always maintained the airwaves in Canada both [Technical difficulty—Editor] Canadians. We allow companies, whether they are domestic or foreign, to use those airwaves by paying into the system. It's therefore mandatory, quite frankly, that we continue to own them and that Canadians own them.

Perhaps our national executive director, Marie Kelly, has more to add on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Ms. Kelly.

[Marie Kelly]

We have a history in Canada of protecting ourselves, whether it's through the regulatory system for broadcast or through trade, because we have that big country to the south of us—America. We've had to be very cautious about protecting Canadian content.

We believe that we need to keep the protections as they exist today for Canadian content and Canadian broadcasters. We don't want to see them watered down. We see the system as not a perfect system. We're concerned about change. We welcome the change on the one hand, because we believe we need to have the change and need to cover the OTT, but we're concerned that any change [Technical difficulty—Editor] regulations that are required for Canadian content, Canadian producers and writers, and Canadian actors to tell the Canadian story.

When I think about this issue when I'm talking to representatives at the House of Commons, I think about your job. Your job is to govern Canada, but you're also the image that we portray to the globe. It's the values you portray and the work you do that open up what Canada is to the rest of the world.

Our members do that each and every day. It's the stories they portray. It's the stories that are told here in Canada that provide a global audience for who Canadians are. What do we value? What do we believe in? What are our lives like? What are our stories? It's so important to keep them uniquely Canadian. We must not allow them to be either watered down or changed because we haven't done what we should in protecting the system that has done so well to protect Canada in this global environment.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Kelly. I know that you've spoken about the importance, in particular, of the Canadian writers telling our stories, and I appreciate that as well.

Mr. Law, you said that your amendment was very similar to that of Mr. Bernhard, so perhaps, Mr. Bernhard, I could go to you. I know I only have a few seconds left, but do you have anything else you want to add on Canadian content, very quickly?