Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.
The starting point is the definition of an online undertaking, which is an “undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”.
As you can see, the concept of programs is part of the definition of an online undertaking. Here is how the act defines a program: “sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual images, whether or not combined with sounds, that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text”.
The starting point is that certain social media are included in the definition of an online undertaking. So they are subject to the act, barring an exclusion. As you know, there are two relevant exclusions—proposed subsection 2(2.1), which indicates that an individual who is using social media is not a broadcaster under the act, as well as the initially proposed section 4.1, which contained an exclusion for social media under certain circumstances.
When we testified for the first time to present the bill, we explained that the social media business model was complicated. Certain social media, like YouTube, are already included in one part of the bill. If they behave like a broadcaster—in other words, if the social media undertakings themselves are controlling content—they are subject to the act.
I repeat that the change proposed here is to replace what was initially planned in proposed section 4.1—which was deleted—with the limited powers described in the amendment the committee is now discussing.
The starting point is that social media are included in the definition of an online undertaking.