Evidence of meeting #24 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a question, because this has a lot of similarities to the last one that we just spoke about, but also some important differences.
I wonder if the department can clarify the impact of BQ-3. We talked a bit about the NDP one, but perhaps they could specify the difference in BQ-3.
Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to do that. Ms. Dabrusin, thank you for the question.
The first thing I see here is that there's a notion of including retransmission in this. Retransmission is cable companies retransmitting broadcast programs. For example, CTV broadcasts over the air, and then Rogers, Shaw or Videotron retransmits that to consumers, but they don't have any control over the programming that is in the CTV signal.
This definition appears to me to include the retransmission element, which would then give the Shaws, Rogers and Videotrons of the world responsibility, or deem them to be responsible, over the programming. They have the same issue now that we had in the last amendment with proposed paragraph 3(1)(h), and even the new proposed paragraph 3(1)(g) would apply to them, in terms of putting a burden on them for programming being of high standard and their being responsible for the programming. That's the first thing I've noticed.
Obviously, the new words there are also “recommendation or prioritization of programs or programming services”, which don't appear in the current proposed definition in Bill C-10. That would change it, and I am not really sure how that would apply to the retransmission world and I'm not sure how an over-the-air broadcaster does recommendations.
I think that's meant to apply just to online, but I'm not sure how that would apply in the traditional broadcasting space.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
I just want to get one quick clarification.
I know this doesn't explicitly talk about algorithms, but I just want to clarify something with Mr. Ripley.
It was my understanding that you had told the committee that decisions made by algorithms were meant to be included in this bill. Is that accurate?
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Ms. McPherson. It's a good one, in the sense that, as the committee knows, there are elements of Bill C-10 that give the CRTC powers to impose discoverability requirements on online undertakings. Certainly we understand that in those contexts, the ways that recommender algorithms are working are very relevant to the CRTC's work.
It's not a question of saying yes, they're within the scope of the act, and the CRTC would be able to ask for information from online undertakings such as Netflix or Crave about the way their algorithms are prioritizing or servicing Canadian content as part of those processes. The implication in this particular context is where the term “programming control” is used elsewhere in the act. For example, proposed paragraph 10(1)(c) says:
standards for programs over which a person carrying on a broadcasting undertaking has programming control
I think there's another regulatory power that also references it, so my previous comments were speaking to the potential implication of this—that again the committee would be extending the scope of those powers in potentially requiring companies that are simply in the business of retransmitting or distributing content made by others to suddenly be responsible for the standards or the content of that content.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Perhaps my interpretation requires an adjustment.
I'd like to make a clarification with regard to Mr. Ripley's response to Ms. McPherson's question.
In terms of retransmission undertakings, you gave the example of an undertaking that will rebroadcast or provide content on its platform. The programming undertakings still have some control over the recommendation and prioritization of programs. We aren't necessarily talking about the programs in a programming schedule, but about the available and accessible services.
In my opinion, these elements should be added to the definition of “programming control.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no more discussion, we'll proceed to the vote.
Shall BQ-3 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hearing “no”, we'll now go to a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now move to NDP-2.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
The purpose of this amendment is to delete this article of the bill, which allows social media such as YouTube and Facebook to escape regulation. It is also to prevent the situation that occurs when some broadcasters decide to supplement their own online broadcasting and thus circumvent the requirements to which traditional broadcasters would be subject.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
We respect that the matter of online harms is an important thing, and we're going to be dealing with it in upcoming legislation.
My concern about this amendment, in particular, is that it seems that it would actually extend the CRTC's ability to regulate social media users. The users piece is particularly important, because this is the Broadcasting Act. I don't believe any of us have the intention of actually, within the Broadcasting Act, starting to regulate what users choose to upload to social media. When I say “users”, I mean individuals like any one of us, or people in our families and communities.
I would oppose this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further discussion on this amendment, we now proceed to the vote. Shall NDP-2 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'd like to call on the clerk for a vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1[See Minutes of Proceedings])
Before I go to the next one, I wanted to give you an alert. In 10 minutes, we have a health break. We have a lot of excited faces. Welcome to the world of Zoom.
We now go to PV-4.
Go ahead, Mr. Manly.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'll try to keep it short so we can get to that health break.
This bill excludes social media users from being subject to the act, but the act's application to social media providers is not defined. This amendment adds text to clarify that social media are subject to the act when undertaking broadcasting activities, without removing the exemption for social media users.
Further, the bill states that all persons who carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs that they are broadcasting and over which they have programming control. Social media platforms should have responsibility for what is posted on their sites, and this amendment would at least make social media providers, not users, responsible for what they broadcast.
Thank you.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have to admit this amendment I found to be a bit more confusing. Every now and then there are some amendments that are a bit more confusing to me in terms of how they may have an impact.
Perhaps the department can help me to understand what clarity this brings, if any.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for the question.
There is already language in the bill that clarifies that when a social media user is an affiliate—i.e., when they have a relationship with a social media company—they do not benefit from the exclusion. That is already part of the bill.
Based on what I understand Mr. Manly to be proposing, it is that he's proposing to simply clarify that the opposite is true—to explicitly state that when an affiliate is broadcasting, they don't benefit from the exception.
The government's perspective would be that this is already implicit in the current bill and therefore that this amendment would simply be stating the opposite reading.
Those would be my thoughts on it, Mr. Chair.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes, that's correct. The intent is to make it explicit so that it's clear in the language.