Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2021

[Patrick Smith]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Here is the English version of BQ-11. It is that Bill C-10, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 4 the following:

(q) online undertakings must clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery; and

[Patrick Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess there are a couple of things relating to this, perhaps just relating to the way in which the words are presented. It's whether the requirement being imposed is that the promotion itself and the recommendations themselves be done in both official languages as well as indigenous languages, and then whether this is related more towards a discoverability requirement, as we discussed earlier. I guess I'm having a bit of a hard time following the intent of the amendment as well.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for allowing me to explain the intent.

Through regulation, there would be obligations to present original Canadian content and original francophone content on platforms. We also have to make sure that the undertakings do promotion. For example, if you have subscribed to streaming services, you will probably occasionally receive emails suggesting audio or audiovisual material that you might be tempted to download or listen to. I want to make sure that in these promotional efforts by online undertakings and distributors there will still be visibility for our content.

That's the intent of this amendment. I want Spotify and Apple Music to send content recommendations to our Canadian and Quebec artists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We have Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we have the word “clearly” in here, I am going to ask the staff if this in a sense is then leaving it to the commission to determine and define “clearly”. I can understand what “promote” means, but when we put “clearly” in there, to the staff, how would you interpret this? Is the commission going to interpret what “clearly” means?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

By “staff”, do you mean the department?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

From the department, I am looking for a volunteer. Mr. Smith?

I'm sorry, Mr. Olsen. I'll let you decide.

[Drew Olsen, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Shields.

Yes, that would be my interpretation. It would be up to the CRTC to determine what is “clearly” promoting and recommending.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right. Seeing no further discussion on BQ-11, we will now go to a vote.

Shall BQ-11 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Folks, we're over time by one minute. I think we're drawing to a conclusion unless you all want to continue, and by the looks of all these faces and squares, I get the feeling you don't.

Therefore, we'll pick up again on Friday. By the way, we're going to seek out another three-hour time slot for Friday, similar to last Friday. If that doesn't work out, we'll let you know, but we're going to seek out three hours as we did before. I'm assuming there will be no objections to that. When we pick up, we will go to NDP-8 on page 6 on Friday.

Are there any further comments?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I have a question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Can you explain what you just said? You said you wanted to have a three-hour meeting. But last week, the meeting began at 12:30 p.m. and ended at 4:00 p.m. The meeting therefore lasted three and a half hours. Are you saying that the meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 4:00 p.m.?

Personally, that's what I would like. I believe that three hours is enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I was thinking a 12:30 p.m. start, but if you want to go from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m....

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That's three and a half hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, it was three and a half hours, because we went up to four o'clock. We went from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. I can't recall if there is.... I'm going to ask Aimée to help me out on this one, because I can't remember if four o'clock was a cut-off for technical reasons.

Mr. Rayes, go ahead.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Last Friday, the meeting lasted three and a half hours, not three hours. The meeting ran from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

You mentioned just now that you were going to hold a three-hour meeting next Friday. Personally, that's what I would like, and I'll explain why. Because question period comes right before our meeting, it doesn't leave us very much time to have a little something to eat. It's important to eat at lunchtime after all. I think that it would be appropriate for the meeting to last three hours, meaning 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and not 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, I'm sorry. I confused the three and a half hours with the three. That's on me. You have my apologies.

I have a proposal from one o'clock to four o'clock. Do I see any dissension among the ranks? No.

How about we try for one o'clock to four o'clock, and if it doesn't work, I'll email an alternative. It's one o'clock to four o'clock eastern time—I should clarify that always—for this coming Friday to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-10.

We'll see you on Friday, hopefully at one o'clock eastern.