Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Rayes, for the question.
There are a couple of points I would mention to the committee with respect to this motion. First of all, it seems to rely on an amended definition of “programming control” that was proposed in amendment BQ-3. That amendment was negatived, so as a result, the definition of “programming control” remains the “control over the selection of programs for transmission, but does not include control over the selection of a programming service for retransmission”. This is a defined term in the bill, and it refers to it, so I just wanted to point that out.
Given that BQ-3 was not carried, the definition of “programming control” as adopted by the committee in clause 1 will be limited to the editorial function, you could say, of a person, corporate or otherwise, in choosing the program for a service or putting together programming for a schedule. It does not necessarily extend to the algorithmic control that would have been imported by the definitional change in BQ-3.
Secondly, I would bring to the committee's attention that, given the changes imported by amendment G-11.1, conditions of service relating to discoverability on social media services will be limited to the discoverability of Canadian creators. Online undertakings that are not providing a social media service will be subject to programming discoverability orders more generally. As a result, the changes imported by BQ-23 would be aimed at seeking information about recommendation algorithms employed by the platform itself, it would appear, and how it operates its algorithms generally or in relation to the order-making powers outlined in proposed section 9.1.
These algorithms are treated as trade secrets, generally, and a competitive advantage for the services that employ them. Therefore, any request for information on the matter is likely to be met with heavy resistance from the platform itself. I wanted to flag that for the committee. This would be especially so given the definition of “programming control” that was adopted by the committee.
Finally, I have a minor point, and I would defer to the expertise of the legislative clerk on this point. It's really not a question of content, but rather a point with respect to the form of the motion. The placement of the proposed amendment may not be ideal. Proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v) is currently included as a sort of basket clause in order to provide flexibility for the CRTC in this section generally. If the committee wishes to adopt the amendment, it might be more appropriate to sever the first part and include it as a subparagraph (iv.1), for example, and similarly label the second part of the amendment as subparagraph (iv.2).
Again, I am not a drafting expert, but as written, the motion may indirectly restrict the original intent of proposed subparagraph (v), which was intended to provide some flexibility to the CRTC.
Thank you.