Canadian Heritage Committee on May 19th, 2021

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

Thank you.

I think we've had a very helpful conversation and discussion so far. What I take from it is that it really helps to clarify the point that G-11.1, as it's been drafted, specifically in proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), has discoverability that does not apply to content, and the subamendment that has been proposed by Mr. Champoux would actually extend that to cover content.

I have found this actually very helpful, and I want to thank everyone for that. What helps me is that it gives me much greater comfort that, as worded, the original proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1) in G-11.1 specifically does not cover the content. It doesn't require discoverability of content, and it applies only to making Canadian creators more visible. I just wanted to thank you.

I will be voting against the amendment to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1) in G-11.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all my colleagues for their comments. I think there is still some confusion around the term “creator”. It is unclear and, once again, the CRTC is being asked to define what a Canadian creator is. Does that refer to screenwriters, composers, authors? Again, the door is being left wide open to an interpretation of what a creator is, while the point is for content to be discoverable.

That said, we have discussed this subamendment a great deal. I expected the second subamendment to lead to more discussion, but we are clearly ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before Ms. Harder proceeds, I'd like to remind everyone to put their electronic hands down when they're done talking. Thank you.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Very quickly, I want to make sure we're clear here. If we go back to the original, if we don't accept the subamendment as put forward, then I'm wondering, Mr. Ripley, if you can very clearly state who gets impacted by this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The impact would be for individual creators and artists who.... All of the powers being given to the CRTC are permissive, not obligatory, but if the CRTC chose to exercise this power, the focus would be on requiring social media services to raise the profile of the individual creators or artists. That's distinct from the programs they create, and that was intentional, again, to avoid the whole question of the CRTC determining what kinds of programs constitute Canadian programs on social media services, recognizing that, I think, we all agree that these types of services are very different from your conventional broadcasting type of service.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Would it make some artists or some creators or individuals who are posting within their social media service—according to the wording here—more discoverable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Ms. Harder.

Yes, the CRTC would have to determine, again in consultation with creators and social media services, how to give effect to the term “Canadian creator”. Mr. Champoux is right in that. That is not a defined term in the act, but the intention here, again, is to recognize that these services can do a lot in terms of promoting local artists and local creators whose work is shared on these platforms. The CRTC would have the task of sorting out how to give effect to that provision, how to give meaning to the term “Canadian creator”, and how to identify those creators on those services.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

Ms. Dabrusin in her comments seemed to indicate that programming services would mean apps as well. Is that a correct understanding?

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

I have a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, is it regarding the structure of what we're doing, or is it about the conversation on the content?

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

It's about the rephrasing of what I've said, which includes words I didn't say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, you can certainly get your name in the lineup to refute what she has said. I ask that you please do that. Thank you.

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

Okay, but it's unfortunate—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We go back to Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Harder, let me just clarify that I've understood the question correctly. The question is whether an app could constitute a programming undertaking as defined in the act. Is that the question?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Ripley, that is correct, yes. Thank you.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The answer to that is yes, depending on the app. As we know, more and more broadcasting services offer a variety of different ways to reach their audiences. Sometimes those take the form of an app—CBC Gem, or ICI TOU.TV—which you can download on your box at home and click through. The intention is that this type of app would be captured by “programming undertaking” or “online undertaking”.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After all I have heard, I would like to put a single question to Mr. Ripley.

I am wondering whether, ultimately, we should not just remove proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1). I am not making that request for the time being. Whether we are talking about Canadian creators of programs or, as Mr. Champoux proposes in his subamendment, about Canadian programs, we see that we don't have a definition for either of those terms. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Ripley, but we have no more idea of what a Canadian creator of programs is. As Mr. Champoux said, is it a director, a producer or someone else? I even think you used the term “artists”, Mr. Ripley. In some cases, we may be talking about individuals who create something they post on social networks. Otherwise, we may be talking about a Canadian program. This concerns discoverability.

Is it logical to assume that we could regulate all social media from around the world, those we know of and those we still don't know of? Earlier, I mentioned young people who are using social media we have not even named yet. Others will also be created in the future. Things are changing so fast. Four years ago, no one knew what TikTok was.

By trying to legislate in an area that is unmanageable, simply put, are we stepping into a field we should stay out of ? Am I wrong?

We have no definition of what a Canadian creator of programs is or of what a Canadian program is, and we will vote on an amendment that concerns the discoverability of something we have not defined. I am not even talking about social networks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.

It is not really up to me to be the judge, as this is a matter for the committee's consideration.

The government's position is that those social media services are a way for people to listen to music and interact with their favourite artists. So they are important tools for increasing the visibility of creators and artists. The intention is for those people to help promote Canadian artists and creators.

You are completely right in saying that we will have to define what a Canadian creator of programs is. The CRTC will have to fulfill that task, in consultation with creators who broadcast their work on social media, as well as with social media themselves, which will have their own opinion on the best way to do that.