Canadian Heritage Committee on May 17th, 2021

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Sorry, instead of going to Mr. Trudel—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Aitchison—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm afraid you are, just barely.

Ms. Dabrusin, you get the final question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question goes to Ms. Yale.

I was happy because we talked a little bit about not just proposed subsection 2.1 and then the removal of proposed section 4.1 but also the amendment I put forward, G-11.1, which really restricts what the CRTC powers would be as far as obligations go for social media companies to report revenue made in Canada and contribute a portion of that revenue to the Canadian cultural investment fund. The other part is that the discoverability requirement would be different from that which applies to radio and television. It is actually only for the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs and doesn't have the system we think of when we think about traditional broadcasters.

Taking into account that very restricted scope that's being proposed for the application to the social media platforms and the full exclusion of the application to people who are posting their content, do you think this bill should move ahead?

[Janet Yale]

Absolutely. I think there's a real sense of urgency. As a number of committee members have pointed out, these streaming and sharing platforms are extracting huge value from Canada through delighting audiences and reaping advertising and subscription revenues. On a simplified basis, as you've described, they would be required to make a contribution and to ensure that Canadian choices are made visible for people to choose from. I think that's a great thing and a really important step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Trudel, I would like to ask you the same question.

With clause 2.1 and with my amendment G-11.1, do you think that we should continue studying the bill?

[Pierre Trudel]

Yes.

In my opinion, the bill as amended provides additional guarantees and shuts the doors very well. In other words, it reduces to zero the probability that, at any given time, the CRTC will be making decisions or could, in any way at all, affect the freedom of Internet users.

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

Thank you.

I have only two minutes left, but I want to go back to you, Ms. Yale. You were at the start of this process, with your report and all of the consultations that you did. Did you have a closing comment for us as we end this discussion today?

[Janet Yale]

I would say that what really struck us was the sense of urgency on the part of the Canadian creative community.

It is true that some of these platforms and streaming services spend money in Canada on service productions, but the real test from a cultural policy perspective is whether or not there are investments in production in which the key creative positions are held by Canadians. That's what going to ensure that there is a vibrant cultural sector in Canada, and from a cultural policy perspective we strongly believe this. What we heard from coast to coast to coast was that we needed to bring these online services into the legislation and ensure that they make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural policy. We heard that loud and clear wherever we went.

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

Perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, colleagues. That brings us to an end.

I have an important question at the end, but before I do that I just want to say a huge thank you to our guests today. We put together this panel, and I agree with all my colleagues who said quite clearly that this has been a great discussion.

That said, I want to say thank Mr. Cash, Ms. Yale, Professor Trudel and Dr. Geist for joining us. Thank you very much to the four of you.

It was a fantastic job today. It was really impressive.

We have now, folks, unless I'm getting this wrong, satisfied the motion as to what we wanted. We do have a submission by the justice department regarding their update on the charter statement.

We have heard from Mr. Guilbeault, and we're going to hear from him again tomorrow. We're also going to hear from Minister Lametti tomorrow. They are going to be here for an hour, so what I'm suggesting is one of two things. We can start clause-by-clause consideration following the one hour from the ministers or we can continue with it on Wednesday at the same time, because we do have tomorrow and we do have Wednesday as well. We will start clause-by-clause study with G-11.1, the amendment that Ms. Dabrusin just mentioned a short time ago.

Let me go to the list.

Mr. Rayes, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the committee's agreement, I would like to make a proposal.

As you mentioned, we are going to meet with the Minister of Justice tomorrow. If I am not mistaken, last weekend, he tweeted that he would be appearing.

Here is my proposal. After the minister appears for one hour, we should adjourn the committee and decide on some technical items among ourselves. We would resume our study on Wednesday.

That would allow everyone to go back to see their parties and analyze everything that was said by the witnesses at the meetings last Friday and today. There is a lot of content. As you said, all the experts who testified today gave us a lot of information. Although some would have us believe that there is only one vision in this matter, there are a number of them and they have been very well represented. I must say that I feel that everyone has done good work today.

My proposal is that, after the minister appears tomorrow, we take a break for the rest of the day and resume our study on Wednesday at the same time. That would allow everyone the time to consider all the subjects we have discussed. What the minister tells us tomorrow will have an impact on our view of the amendments.

So I feel that it would be wise to listen to the minister's testimony and then work individually for the rest of the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Seeing no further discussion on that, if nobody else wants to have an opinion, I'm going to exercise my own bit of discretion here and say that I would agree. How about if we hear from both ministers tomorrow? It may run a little bit over an hour—who knows?—but we'll do it. At that point we can adjourn, and the following day we can pick up clause-by-clause, on Wednesday, with amendment G-11.1.

That said, do I see thumbs up?

Oh, sorry; go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, could you consider what I am about to say? Since we will not be using the second hour of the meeting to continue our work, may I ask you to think about the pattern of speaking time, so as not to limit ourselves one hour?

If you tell us that we will have time for two or three rounds, there would not have to be any real constraints on the time. We could then stray into the second hour, which is already on our schedule.

That is the suggestion I wanted to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, and that's valid, Mr. Champoux.

I'll tell you what. Usually what I try to do is get the first round done with six minutes each and then go on to the second round. I try to complete four questions in the first round and four questions in the second round as well. All right? Let's just say that I try to get that done.

I'm assuming that the minister will stick around at that point. If we go over our time, it's only by five or 10 minutes, but I will endeavour to have two rounds of questioning, with four in each round, representing each of the four recognized parties.

Is there any discussion on that?

Since our guests are still here, I just want to say thank you again for that fantastic discussion. That was very well done.

Okay, folks, that's it. Thank you. We will see you again tomorrow at 2:30 Eastern Time.

The meeting is adjourned.