Canadian Heritage Committee on May 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It would be great if everyone could do the health break and this at the same time. I'm calling on your talents, as it were.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's such a good idea, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Let's break for a few moments.

I don't want to give you a time, but turn off your video now. When you're ready to come back on board, please turn on your video and I will look for a critical mass of active screens to go back on the air.

Let's suspend for a few moments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, thank you so much.

We have just heard the text of the subamendment from Mr. Champoux, and I'll have to give him the floor to start debate.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I explained earlier, this subamendment provides an additional safeguard in response to the concern raised in recent weeks by a number of people, including our colleagues in the Conservative Party, about the possible infringement on freedom of expression.

The purpose of my proposed subamendment is to ensure that, when making decisions, the CRTC will always consider the significance of the fundamental principle of freedom of expression.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Champoux said that the Conservative Party members were very concerned. I just want to point out that they aren't the only people concerned. We speak for many people across the country, including experts, as everyone has seen. Experts from a variety of backgrounds may have different opinions.

That said, it will still be a good initiative to protect freedom of expression in every possible place in the bill. As the saying goes, you can't be too careful. If, based on the comments and explanations provided by the experts, we can add an additional layer of protection to address the concerns of a number of experts and Canadians, that would be good.

I'll also be moving an amendment in this area soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, thank you.

I have Ms. Harder, and then Mr. Champoux.

Ms. Harder, you have the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I guess I'm just looking for some clarification. Again, perhaps Mr. Ripley would be the best one to comment on this.

It's about the phrase “freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings”. I'm not sure what that means, “freedom of expression enjoyed”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder.

I guess the starting point would be perhaps to point all members to subsection 2(3) of the act, which talks about the act being “construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.” At its heart, the Broadcasting Act has recognized that media are obviously in the business of sharing ideas and opinions and that freedom of expression is very important.

A lot of the debate over the last few weeks has focused on the issue of the interaction between social media services, which, again, are caught by the definition of “online undertaking” and being regulated, and the intersection with users who use those services.

If I understand the intention of the amendment correctly, it would be to clarify that the CRTC, in applying that discoverability power, should do it in a way that is consistent with freedom of expression, i.e., the ability for users to post and upload the content they wish to social media services.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

It has been argued that this is already the case, that the CRTC has to respect the charter, so is this redundant?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I heard Mr. Champoux, in the way he presented it, describe it as a way of removing any doubt about this fact. I think that's a fair way to characterize it. I pointed you toward a section at the beginning of the act that already talks about the act being applied consistently with freedom of expression.

You are correct. The committee heard from ministers yesterday that, at the end of the day, the CRTC is indeed bound by the charter, as you point out, and could be subject to a charter challenge if there was ever a question about one of its measures not being consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

I asked Mr. Ripley a question earlier with regard to the prioritization and deprioritization of content, also known as discoverability, meaning that some material can be found more easily than other material. That does, in and of itself, hinder the freedom that creators have to naturally generate followers and support, to organically expand their footprint within the world of social media. Is that correct?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder.

The committee heard from a number of experts earlier this week. Some of them highlighted the fact that there are obviously many factors that go into the consideration of the order in which content is given to us. We know that, on many of these services, individuals or companies are able to pay to have their content ranked above others.

The government's intention in putting forward this power, again, comes from the perspective that there is a public interest value among those factors. In that mix of factors, one of them is supporting Canadian creators. Yes, it is a factor that would be considered, potentially.

Again, I would highlight that I don't want to prejudge how this would ultimately be implemented by the CRTC. There are a variety of tools it could use, this being one of them. Again, I think it is an open question whether it would actually materialize in that way. If it did—you are right, Ms. Harder—it could be one factor taken into account in terms of the ranking of content.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Through the chair to you, Mr. Ripley, what I'm wondering is this. To put it in a different way, creators are doing a tremendous job in terms of promoting themselves on YouTube. Let's just take that as one example. I recently learned that there are about 25,000 Canadians who are able to rely on their income from YouTube because they have designed these channels for themselves and garnered support. There are 25,000 Canadians who have been able to turn that into full-time income for themselves, which is tremendous. It's amazing: 25,000 full-time jobs were created because these individuals have a talent or an ability or something to offer. They are able to go out there and organically generate support for what it is that they want to talk about, or sing about, or whatever talent they want to share with the world.

My question for Mr. Ripley is this: If discoverability mechanisms were put in place, would these individuals have the same opportunity to promote themselves organically and garner support, as they have done thus far, or would that organic reach be impacted by the algorithms used for discoverability?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder.

The goal is ultimately to increase the visibility and promotion of those creators. That is the starting point, in the sense that we know that many of these services are used by Canadians to connect with cultural content they want to consume and artists they want to follow.

The goal, again, is.... Look, I certainly appreciate how you're using the term “organic”, but I would submit that there are complex factors that go into that question. Again, the goal here is to insert a cultural policy objective into the mix.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Right.

Mr. Ripley, when you say that this is meant to promote Canadians, you would, to be fair, only be referring to those Canadians who fit within the definition of whatever the CRTC determines to be Canadian content. There are plenty of Canadians currently on YouTube. For the vast majority of Canadians who are on YouTube and are quite successful there, 90% of their audience is worldwide. Even though they are Canadian and they produce something in Canada—they might even be talking about Canada, or beavers or moose, who knows—they won't necessarily fall under the definition of the CRTC.

To be fair, I just want to be clear here. The definition of what is Canadian content that is going to be promoted doesn't mean that every single Canadian YouTuber is going to receive this promotion or this increased discoverability. Am I correct?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder. It's a really good one and it relates to the conversation that the committee was just having.

The answer to your question is no. The power, as currently crafted, breaks with this idea of Canadian content or Canadian program. Again, that was intentionally done, as Monsieur Champoux and Monsieur Boulerice highlighted. There's a whole definition or concept that comes with it that could be challenging to implement in a context like social media.

Again, I can't prejudge the outcome of CRTC proceedings on this, but the goal is to provide an opportunity for the CRTC to craft, to your point, a common-sense rule that makes sense in light of social media. To your point, the government's position is that it doesn't make sense to impose a definition of “Canadian program” in that context. That's why this power is crafted very specifically to be with respect to the individual creator.

Again, I would just highlight that there's a difference between.... It's “Canadian creators of programs”. If you go back and look at the definition of “program”, it's audio or audio-visual content. It's not “Canadian creators of Canadian programs”, which would import that whole concept of Canadian content or Canadian program. That's intentional.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Ripley, just to clarify, you're saying that it would apply to Canadian generators of content.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, please.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, the clock is ticking. We still have some things to discuss and I don't see how this discussion relates to the proposed subamendment. We're getting into semantics and into debates held on other occasions. I wonder whether some of these questions are really relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Of course, relevance is covered in the Standing Orders. Suffice it to say, Ms. Harder, that if you could stay within the confines of what we're talking about here, within the subamendment to amendment G-11.1, we'd really appreciate it.

Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, I do believe that I am within the parameters. I will—