Evidence of meeting #34 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 crtc.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Janet Yale  Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel
Michael Geist  Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Pierre Trudel  Professor, Public Law Research Centre, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Andrew Cash  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Shields.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

I was being rather generous with the 10 seconds.

After Mr. Louis, as I mentioned, we are going back to the Conservative slot one more time. It looks like we are going to get into that third round, folks, so we'll judge it accordingly.

Mr. Louis, you have five minutes, please.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate you all being here for this wonderful discussion.

I will start with Ms. Yale, because I believe there was a bit of confusion.

We talked about concerns for freedom of speech. You mentioned previously that there's nothing in this bill that threatens freedom of speech. You talk about users putting content online. Even if they are podcasts, they're still called programs. That's fine, but they're still carried on those platforms, and the platforms are the online undertakings that will be regulated. I believe there's a bit of confusion between Canadian artists and Canadian content regarding discoverability.

Can you expand on that and maybe clear this up, being the expert that you are?

4 p.m.

Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel

Janet Yale

I think you've really well characterized the distinction I've been drawing between programs and undertakings. I think the issue of discoverability is not a new one; it's just that the context of being online and the context of being on social media platforms is a new one in the sense of what it means to promote and create visibility for Canadian content on these platforms.

The way in which we've done it in traditional media is different than the way we're going to do it, I would posit, in the context of social media. It may be as simple as making sure that among.... If you think of Spotify, there could be Canadian playlists. When it comes to social media platforms, how we ensure that there are Canadian choices among the vast array of choices that you have in front of you is, I think, the appropriate one for a regulator to make over time.

You can't crystalize those sorts of things in legislation, because we couldn't have contemplated the Internet when the Broadcasting Act was put in place, and we couldn't imagine the evolution of the business models for streaming services and social media platforms either. It is the very job of the regulator to figure out what is appropriate at a particular point in time, because as circumstances and business models change, so too would the need for regulatory adaptation. I think flexibility is key in such a rapidly changing environment.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

I appreciate your saying that. I appreciate your bringing up playlists, because, as an artist, I understand how Canadian artists face challenges in competing with American conglomerates and resources. The Broadcasting Act has always ensured that Canadian artists have the resources to grow to become visible locally, nationally and internationally. I feel that when Canadians go online—for example, on YouTube or someplace that has a playlist—they have a hard time discovering any Canadian artists on these platforms. That's a concern for me. I know it's a concern for our Canadian artists and the whole culture sector. Our artists are the voices of Canadians. I don't think that those online should be solely exposed to American culture.

You have written, “As originally drafted, the Bill left open the possibility that some platforms, such as YouTube, might be able to avoid its obligations to make appropriate contributions. That oversight has now been remedied and we welcome that correction.”

Could you explain your comments in more detail? It's around proposed section 4.1, that balance between supporting our artists and protecting our own free speech.

4:05 p.m.

Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel

Janet Yale

Exactly, and I think the removal of proposed section 4.1 makes it clear that social media platforms are within the scope of Bill C-10, which might have been unclear before that.

As I've said, it is my view that because the user-generated content, which is still covered by clause 2.1, is exempt from regulation, I believe there is no threat to freedom of speech and that users will continue to be as free, once Bill C-10 is passed, to put whatever content they want online or on social media platforms as they are today.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Thank you.

Maybe I'll turn to Mr. Cash. I know I only have a minute, but I just want to say thank you. I've been a member of CIMA for a number of years, so I appreciate your advocacy for all artists out there. You mentioned that 80% of the music sector is self-employed. I've been one of them my entire life.

Can you explain to everyone the reduced income that happened with the shift to digital? Even CD off-sales would [Technical difficulty—Editor] live, would cover artists—or traditional radio play. Can you explain to everyone the amount of revenue that has been lost? I've talked to artists who I know were making about a quarter of a cent from some of this streaming, and I've talked to them about the amount of income that has been lost.

4:05 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association

Andrew Cash

Well, it's been widely covered that the streaming services are paying very little for the content they use. Part of the reason for that is that the market has been deflated, because we have one massive giant that doesn't need to negotiate with anyone. You're going to license it to YouTube because you want to do something, but that affects Spotify and that affects Apple Music, so there's that.

There's another aspect to this, too. SOCAN has just released some statistics. In the digital world, 90% of the royalties that they collect in Canada go to foreign songwriters and just 10% stay in Canada, as opposed to conventional media. Over 30% of the royalties conventional media collect in Canada stay in Canada. That's another key aspect to what we're dealing with here.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Thank you.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Cash.

We're off to a third round. Ms. Harder, you have five minutes, please.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

My apologies.

Go to my colleague Mr. Shields, please.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to Mr. Geist. You just heard that Ms. Yale backs all 97 of the recommendations, including one that I find to be divisive: that members of the CRTC would be recommended to live in the national capital region, which I find problematic.

Going beyond that, The Social Dilemma is a documentary out there that many have seen, including my granddaughter. She's very sharp—of course, all our grandkids are smart—and we discussed this particular bill. She is very savvy in technology. She understands how algorithms work and how they direct her from her past listening and what she does. What she objects to is the government's involvement in doing this; she very much does. This is a very sharp young person who objects to the government playing this role. She understands the private sector and their algorithms and how it affects her.

Mr. Geist, you talked about the dollars. We've had members saying that this is an emergency. You've described how we can get dollars, too. I think that's the house-burning idea. How do we get dollars out?

With regard to the dollar item and what other people have said about the Australian model, would you like to respond to that? How do we get there? How is Australia doing it?

4:10 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

Certainly I highlight some of that on the newspaper issues that Australia has moved forward on, but to focus specifically on the issue you raised about the algorithms, which I think is important, I will say that there's no question that there are concerns. Anyone who's seen some of the movies around social media comes away, I think, rightly concerned about some of these algorithms.

However, this bill is not a bill that addresses that issue. In fact, it substitutes, in some ways, the government's choices for the companies' choices. What we need instead is more algorithmic transparency on that issue.

This notion that somehow one of the problems we have to solve is discoverability.... You know, we've heard it several times. I must say two things.

First, Ms. Yale talked, as we heard, cross-country with a lot of people. They weren't able to come up with any evidence—zero—that there is a discoverability issue with user-generated content. There were no studies that cited that this is a problem. I'm sometimes left in this discussion wondering if people actually use these services. If you want to find Canadian content on Netflix, type in “Canada” or “Canadian”. If you don't think that there are Canadian playlists on Spotify, then perhaps you haven't used Spotify, with all due respect. There are numerous choices for precisely this kind of content.

That's not to suggest that we can't do better. However, to somehow think that what we need to do is take all the user-generated content, find some mechanism to categorize it as Canadian, and then have the government make choices about what gets prioritized or not is foolhardy. That's precisely the reason there is no one else on the planet who does it.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

You say “no one else on the planet”, and you've repeated that a number of times, and we've heard it before. Do you hear anybody else even talking about or reacting to the idea of what Canada is attempting to do?

4:10 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

I think there are significant risks with what we're proceeding towards. What this bill will do, when you get foreign services looking at Canada.... Obviously some of the big players already here aren't going to go anywhere, but some of the other services that are outside of the jurisdiction may look at some of these regulations and at the costs and say that we are going to block Canadian users from the marketplace.

Think of a service such as Molotov, a French-language service that is serving a whole series of French-language African countries. It's not available in Canada right now. Are they going to come into Canada if they face these kinds of regulations? There are India-based services that are the same, Korea-based services that are the same. This is going to hit our multicultural communities particularly hard, as services that might otherwise make themselves available within Canada will look at the costs, look at what we've already heard are clear obligations that they will face under these rules, and say that they're simply not going to operate in the Canadian market.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

You refer to a simple tax to support our cultural industries, and you would like to see it done. As a mechanism, could we do it quickly?

4:10 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

The government has already announced it. It has said that it's going to implement a digital services tax starting next year. There are some concerns about moving forward in that regard without an international consensus, but the government has made it clear that it wants to move forward with it.

They've talked about the revenue it's going to generate. It seems to me there is nothing to stop the government from saying that it is going to take a portion of those proceeds and put them into the very funds we're talking about right now to support the creators and ensure that there is money right now, as distinct from the Bill C-10 approach, which is going to take, as I say, years to sort out through the courts and the CRTC.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, folks.

Mr. Housefather, take five minutes, please.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a pleasure to listen to the witnesses today and to the vibrant debate.

I also want to say that some people have been heralded as champions of freedom of expression. I believe each and every one of the witnesses is a champion of freedom of expression, as are Canadian artists and as are all of the members of the committee. We are all devoted to and care about freedom of expression.

I would point out that at the meeting we had with Department of Justice officials and Minister Guilbeault last week, I was the only member who asked about whether or not there was interplay with section 1 and section 2(b) of the charter when it came to discoverability, which is one of the issues that was raised today by Dr. Geist.

I want to walk through with Maître Yale—as I'm going to call her because I'm from Quebec—a couple of the issues that I have, as questions.

We're going to start from the premise that I think we all agree that users are not governed by proposed new section 2.1. The users themselves are not governed. If a user's content is governed, it's solely governed through the online undertaking, which would be governed to a lesser extent in very specific ways, provided that Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted by the committee.

Those specific ways would be, number one, that they would have to disclose their revenues in Canada. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. Number two, they would be required to contribute to Canadian culture. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. The only freedom of expression issue, in my view, could lie with a third factor, which is discoverability, which is the only other thing that could be regulated if Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted.

Maître Yale, would it be true, in your perspective right now, that online undertakings such as social media platforms—and I will use Facebook as an example—can actually censor the content of user posts based on their own documented rules and regulations?

4:15 p.m.

Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel

Janet Yale

I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we think of social media platforms and the ability of these large tech platforms to intervene in content. If there is content that they consider illegal, they do today monitor content. I think it's a bit of a fiction to suggest that there is no regulation of content online. These undertakings self-regulate, because there are no rules of the game. They are thus quite vigilant—

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

I wasn't arguing that; I was actually arguing the contrary. I was saying that beyond illegal content, social media providers will frequently say that certain things cannot be posted that are racist but that are not illegal and not hate speech. Their actual rules go beyond just legality. Isn't that correct?

May 17th, 2021 / 4:15 p.m.

Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel

Janet Yale

Absolutely. It's really a subject for another day as to whether they self-regulate what I call the lawful but awful content today. Each platform has its own rules and regulations. Some take it down for different reasons and don't make it available. That is going on already, for sure.

That was one of the reasons that I made the point that the notion that these algorithms are innocuous is not true. Each platform has its own rules and its own accountability as to what it monitors, what it takes down, what it promotes and what it pushes out at you. I don't buy the argument that somehow freedom of choice on the part of consumers reigns. It's the platforms' commercial interest that dictates to a large extent what you get to see, so I totally agree with you. I think it's better that we make sure some of those choices are Canadian ones.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

I understand. Just to go beyond, I agree with you, but getting to the algorithms, we have platforms that are publicly stating that their algorithms will serve their own private interests. They will push people towards different types of content. People will not go only to content that is their preference. In fact, Facebook itself has heralded the fact that if you are searching for Holocaust denial, Facebook will use its algorithms now to redirect you to the Yad Vashem website. It's making the decision that you should now see the truth about the Holocaust, as opposed to the types of lies that you may be stumbling onto on their platform.

Their algorithms are not subject to the charter, because they're not a government. Is that correct, Ms. Yale? Can their algorithms be whatever the heck they want them to be?