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.
3:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thanks for that.
On this specific issue, I don't think there is any doubt that we need to put proposed section 4.1 back in or exclude all scope of regulation of this kind of content. That would include discoverability, which does go, without question—as we've heard even from Professor Trudel—to choices and then ultimately to net neutrality.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Trudel, what is your opinion on that? I know you're not worried about the infringement of freedom of expression, but do you think an amendment should be made to clarify all this, out of conscience and to reassure people who are concerned?
3:50 p.m.
Professor, Public Law Research Centre, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
First, I would like to make one correction.
Internet neutrality applies to the network in terms of the service, the pipes. Internet neutrality is not about platforms. The literature around the world deals with Internet neutrality in terms of the Internet connection, the pipes. It does not apply to Google or to YouTube, which are companies.
If I am a doctor practising medicine online, I am still bound by the rules that govern the practice of medicine. If I am punished as a result or if I am prohibited from doing certain things, the issue is not with Internet neutrality. The same applies to broadcasting or to content being sent by the platforms. So the claim that Internet neutrality is affected seems to me to have no basis.
Internet neutrality prevents those supplying connectivity from blocking or favouring certain content. Service providers are not the targets of the bill. The YouTube and Spotify platforms of the world are. The principle of Internet neutrality has never been thought to apply to companies such as those.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've been focusing a lot on the risks Bill C-10 puts forward and concerns that people—experts—have raised about freedom of expression.
I wonder if I could ask one quick question, Mr. Cash, of you in terms of the potential of Bill C-10. If a version of Bill C-10 is passed that does provide support for our artistic community, could you talk a little bit about the growing international marketplace and how it could impact the sector if Bill C-10 was passed?
3:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association
There's no question that the sector is changing, and it's changing based on a global market. Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian artists and the entire independent music sector could be poised to play a significant role in our country's post-COVID economic recovery, one that's centred around creating good middle-class green jobs, developing Canadian-owned intellectual property by artists and entrepreneurs who have the know-how and the experience to export at scale to every market on the planet, quite frankly.
The needs of the sector could very much be helped by the injection of support into the sector that Bill C-10 promises. We need to work quickly to get this through because we have a lot of work to do at the CRTC to make sure this happens.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
I'm going to ask some questions—I probably don't have a ton of time—of Mr. Geist.
Mr. Geist, my colleague Mr. Champoux has just asked what we could do to make Bill C-10 something that you would be able to support. You speak about taking out that proposed section 4.1.
My concern is that we need to find a way to do this broadcasting legislation. We know it's 30 years overdue. What are the things, aside from that one, that you would like to see us do to ensure this legislation does what we've asked it to do in terms of levelling the playing field, protecting our artistic sector and our broadcasting sector, and also in terms of protecting freedom of expression?
3:55 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As I mentioned earlier today, my view is that the legislation is flawed on a number of levels. Frankly, if the goals you just articulated are important ones, my view, especially on the finance side, is that the best thing we can do is make sure that money is made available quickly. We can do that through things like the digital services tax and other related tax measures.
I think that in many ways we have to go back and take a harder look at some of the approaches that are contained in this bill. I'm struggling a little bit with even some of the comments that I've heard today.
On this notion, for example, of net neutrality, which is a core principle that ought to be protected, we've had now both Ms. Yale and Professor Trudel say it has nothing to do with that. Their own report specifically notes that there are other emerging issues that go beyond classical Internet access and have much in common with the goals of net neutrality. I don't know if that was written by some of the members who aren't standing with them anymore and have broken away from the BTLR, but nevertheless it's clear that these are issues we need to be thinking about.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Dr. Geist.
We will go to Mr. Aitchison and Mr. Shields. Again, I have both of you here. Would you like to split that time?
Mr. Aitchison, do you want to use your discretion on that?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I'd first like to ask if it's possible for us to consider extending the time. This is a really valuable conversation. We have some very intelligent, educated people here, and I think we should ask them more questions.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
How about we deal with that as we get closer to the allotted time? That would be 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Usually it's implied consent that we shut down at that time. However, if we are in the middle of something, we can extend it a bit.
In the meantime, I will try to find out if that's possible, because I have to check the logistics of the room and so on and so forth—with your blessing, of course.
Mr. Aitchison, I'll go to you. When you're ready, you can hand it over to your colleague Mr. Shields.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you very much. That is what I intend to do.
I want to focus very specifically on comments that you made, Ms. Yale and Dr. Geist. What I'm struggling with understanding is how, if you regulate the online platforms—the media and the forums by which individual Canadians create content and share them with the world—you are not indirectly regulating the content creators themselves. You made the point that you're regulating the platforms and not the content creators, but you are indirectly regulating the content creators, are you not?
I'd like Dr. Geist and Ms. Yale to speak to that, please.
3:55 p.m.
Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel
Michael, do you want to go first?
3:55 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Go ahead.
May 17th, 2021 / 3:55 p.m.
Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel
All right.
What I've tried to do is draw that distinction. Maybe I haven't done it clearly. The later amendments make it clear that the only thing that will be regulated with respect to platforms.... Let's keep the streaming services aside, because I think the controversy now seems to be more about the social media platforms than the streaming services.
Streaming services, as curators, purchase and create the content that they then package and make available to you. If a producer creates a show that is then offered on Netflix, it's generated by a creator, but I don't think we're talking about that in the same way as what we think of on YouTube as user-generated content where people make things—podcasts, songs, dances, whatever—and then post them to a platform. They're user-generated. They're not contracted directly by a streaming service. The platforms are available to people to put things on at their discretion.
That discretion doesn't change. People can post whatever they want on social media platforms. There's no regulation. The more recent amendments that Minister Guilbeault spoke to said that there would only be three things that could be done vis-à-vis those platforms—only three. There's been a real contraction of the regulation-making power of the CRTC vis-à-vis those platforms.
The three things are that, first, they have to provide information about their revenues, whether advertising or subscriptions. Two, those revenues are used to calculate what their levy will be, or their spending requirement, as the case may be. It's just how much you are making in Canada and what the appropriate amount is to make as a contribution. The third piece is what we've been calling discoverability, which is how to make the Canadian creative content visible.
That's it. I have a hard time seeing how that's regulation of the content. It just isn't.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Okay. Thanks. We're running out of time, though, so I want to go to Dr. Geist, if you don't mind. Thank you very much.
4 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thanks for that.
It absolutely is, and I think you get it exactly right. What we effectively have is now an outsourcing of that regulation to the tech platforms, which actually provides Canadians with even less protection. It's government doing indirectly what it would think would be difficult to do directly, which is regulate the discoverability of that content.
Let's even leave aside the notion of how we would even figure that out. If I do a video with my siblings who live in the United States and in other countries, is that Canadian content? Is that not Canadian content? We have a hard time figuring out what constitutes Canadian content for certified productions. Suddenly now we're going to ask the CRTC to decide which cat video constitutes Canadian content and which one doesn't. When you ask the government to decide what gets prioritized and what does not, that is absolutely regulation. Deputizing tech platforms to enforce those government edicts in many respects is even worse, because they aren't subject to some of the same kinds of restrictions.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you.
I have a million more questions, but I think I need to go to Mr. Shields now.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Have one very quick question, Mr. Shields; otherwise, we are going to go back to the Conservatives after Mr. Louis.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Ms. Yale, do you back all 97 recommendations that you had in the Yale report?
4 p.m.
Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel
Of course, and I would note that those 97 recommendations are unanimous recommendations of the entire committee.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
That would mean that you would then back members of that board—