Canadian Heritage Committee on April 23rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

According to the list, we're going to CPC-5.

I see Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment begins by asking that the bill be amended by replacing line 35 on page 4 with the following:

and reception by other users of the service, provided that such programs are uploaded by a user of the social media service that has fewer than 250,000 subscribers in Canada and receives less than 50 million dollars per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada;

The amendment also proposes amending the bill by adding after line 37 on page 4 the following:

(1.1) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings that have fewer than 250,000 subscribers in Canada and receive less than 50 million dollars per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Proposed section 4.1 has created some confusion for people on whether or not social media is excluded or included, so we recommend voting against proposed section 4.1. I am recommending that because we would be making it clear that social media is included if they're acting like a broadcaster.

Since proposed section 4.1 seems to have caused some confusion, we recommend just getting rid of it altogether so that we don't have that confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Seeing no further conversation or debate, we will now call for the vote.

Shall CPC-5 carry?

Ms. McPherson, I see your hand up.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a quick clarity question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I pause only because I don't know when your hand went up. It was either before I put the question, or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just want to make sure I understand, because of course I'm new to all of this.

Ms. Dabrusin has put forward something that would have us take out proposed section 4.1 entirely, yet we are now voting on whether we would accept one of the changes to it. What are we voting on here? Are we voting to remove it or are we voting to amend it?

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

The problem is that we have this amendment before us, and it's amending proposed section 4.1, which is the part that we're proposing we vote against when it gets called. I'm voting against the amendment, because it's amending a piece of the bill that I will be voting to not be part of the bill as a whole.

I hope that clarifies it a bit. It's just that you don't want to be amending something that you're ultimately going to vote out in its entirety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understand what Ms. Dabrusin is saying. However, at what point in the process would we vote to completely remove the entire proposed clause 4.1? Wouldn't it be easier two put forward a subamendment to amendment CPC-5 to remove proposed clause 4.1?

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

I wonder if that's a question I can put to the clerk and the chair. It seems to me that it's more of a process question, a chicken-and-egg question of which comes first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I can confer with the clerk shortly.

I'll hear from Mr. Housefather first.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to perhaps answer that. The amendment to a clause would come first. We would deal with any amendments to a clause and then we would vote on the clause.

If you wanted to defeat proposed section 4.1, you would vote against the clause when it came up to a vote after the amendments on the clause were dealt with. We have to deal with this amendment first, because it's on the clause. Whether it wins or loses, in the end the next vote will be on whether the clause carries or whether the clause as amended carries.

Hopefully, that answers the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you. I think it might.

In the meantime, just for some added exposure to this, I will ask our legislative clerk Philippe to take the floor.

Go ahead, please, Philippe.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Housefather is quite right. The other possible solution would be a withdrawal of CPC-5 by Mr. Rayes.

Aside from that, since the vote has been called, the committee can vote on CPC-5. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, when the chair calls clause 3, if it's the will of the committee to remove proposed section 4.1 from the bill, the committee can just vote against carrying clause 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, one thing I want to point, though, Philippe, is that I didn't call for the vote on CPC-5. I went back to Ms. McPherson, because, as I said, I think she had her hand up before I called for the vote. I don't know if that changes....

Mr. Waugh, go ahead.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This was one of the main things I brought up during testimony. We are seeing a lot of non-broadcasters going on Facebook and so on. Even now YouTube has major league baseball and yesterday offered a game with the Houston Astros on YouTube.

Could I get a ruling from the department on this, as we are actually seeing more and more former broadcasters going on Facebook. I think CPC-5 is a very important amendment I see going forth with this Broadcasting Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're still on CPC-5.

I'm going to go to Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Right now, as Bill C-10 currently stands—and as the committee is aware—it excludes social media services from the ambit of the act, unless there's a situation of an affiliation contract or a mandatary relationship in place.

CPC-5, if it was adopted—if I understand correctly the spirit of the amendment—would impose certain limitations on that to the effect that if a social media service crossed a certain threshold in terms of the users of the service, the subscribers in Canada, etc., then suddenly it would get pulled into the ambit of the act and would be subject to the act like any other broadcasters. In other words, the social media exclusion would not apply to them.

If I understand correctly from the debate that's currently taking place, as Ms. Dabrusin has signalled, the government intends to suggest the repeal of proposed section 4.1 altogether, meaning that there would no longer be any exclusion for social media services at all.

Just maybe for the benefit of the committee, in our previous sessions the committee upheld the exclusion for individual users of social media companies. In other words, when you or I upload something to YouTube or some other sharing service, we will not be considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act. In other words, the CRTC couldn't call us before them, and we couldn't be subject to CRTC hearings and whatnot.

However, if the exclusion here is removed and 4.1 is struck down, the programming we upload onto YouTube, the programming we place on that service, would be subject to regulation moving forward but would be the responsibility of YouTube or whatever the sharing service is. That programming that is uploaded, then, could be subject to things like discoverability requirements or certain obligations like that.

Again, if the way forward ultimately is to maintain the exclusion for individual users but to strike down the exclusion for social media companies, it means that all the programming that is on those services would be subject to the act, regardless of whether it's put there by an affiliate or a mandatary of the company.

I hope that helps clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

Seeing that we have two things going parallel with each other regarding process and content, I hope everyone is clear on both and I don't have to go back to it. We thank you for your input.

Seeing no further discussion, we go to a vote.

Should CPC-5 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That being the only one that was put forward for that particular clause, we now go to clause 3 and a vote.

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

I propose that we negative on division.

(Clause 3 negatived on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I actually realized that we weren't voting on 4.1 there.