Evidence of meeting #37 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
No, you're being very generous. I have massacred your name all ways to Sunday, so thank you for the correction once again, Mr. Aitchison.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
You could just call me Scott number three or something like that, if you'd like.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If it's easier, maybe what I will do is just read the whole thing.
Our subamendment would read this way: “broadcasting services, excluding social media services whose programs are primarily uploaded by users, including any information related to any means of programming control, and” in proposed subparagraph (vi), “information related to any means of promoting, recommending or selecting programming, including Canadian programming, with the exception of algorithms or other means used by a social media service to determine the presentation of programs uploaded by users of the social media service.”
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have looked through what we received, and it looks like the clerk circulated two different amendments. One is the subamendment recently proposed by Mr. Aitchison, and one is a different subamendment for a different amendment that I guess he intends to propose at some future time.
In addition, in the French version, there is an explanation as to the purpose of the subamendment, but it is not part of the subamendment.
If it helps Mr. Méla, there is a lot of superfluous language, but I do believe the French translation of the subamendment Mr. Aitchison put forward is correct.
There is then superfluous information after it and an additional amendment that he didn't mean to move all buried in what the clerk sent us.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
You're right. In the document we received, not only is there subamendment 1 but also subamendment 4, which is about something else. Not only that, but after the subamendment, there is an explanation, some arguments and even an editorial comment about the importance of the subamendment.
Are we supposed to vote on the comments too, or just the subamendment?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We're voting on the subamendment, but I thank you for that. It is very nice of you to say.
I'm going to ask Mr. Méla to jump in. He is our legislative clerk, and he may grant some sunshine on this.
Thank you, Mr. Méla.
2:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the French version, as pointed out by Mr. Housefather, indeed, there are explanations at the end, after the quotation marks. There are two lines of explanation that don't belong in the subamendment, so that would be that.
In terms of the lines, it says:
"Que le projet de loi C-10, à l'article 7, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 2, page 8 [...]"
That would be, in fact, line 40 on page 7, because you removed the term “radiodiffusion” in French, so the amendment needs to start at “radiodiffusion” and takes off “services de”. Otherwise, you would have “services de services de radiodiffusion” once it was all included in the text of the bill.
The other problem is that the text you have received from Mr. Aitchison is the text once the amendment of Mr. Champoux is amended, where you need to vote on the subamendment first and then, if adopted, the amendment as amended. There are two things here. If you vote on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Aitchison—what you have received—the French incorporates the whole thing. The English incorporates the whole thing as well, rather than having subamendments as it should be.
Basically, in English it should read that the amendment be amended by adding after “broadcasting services”, the following...and that would be “excluding social media” and so on. Then it would continue that the amendment be amended by adding after “Canadian programming”, the following.... Then you would vote on that. If that's adopted, then you would vote on the amendment as amended, which would look like what Mr. Aitchison sent us.
I hope that's clear.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That basically outlines what we're voting on.
Just to be clear, and it may not have been communicated in the recent email you received from us about this, we're voting on this subamendment. We've explained this now a few times. I really would like to have word from our law clerk, but we don't have word as of yet as to how the translation's going to go through.
I'm sorry, folks. That is the motion that was passed by this committee, so I'm going to have to stick with that for now and wait until we get the translation before we vote on that.
In the meantime, I want to say a big welcome to Mr. Regan, who's a special guest today from the riding of Halifax West. I believe that's right.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's the correct riding. Congratulations. Of course, you've only known me for—what?—a decade and a half or so now. I forget.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, I know, my friend. If we were here any longer, we'd be called senators.
In the absence of the translation, with your permission, we could proceed to a vote. I'm somewhat reticent to do that, for obvious reasons.
I'm going to go to Mr. Champoux right now.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, while waiting for the translation to be checked and confirmed, I'd like to speak briefly about the CRTC's handling of confidential documents and information.
This is something that already happens. The CRTC often receives requests from companies to keep information confidential. This happens frequently, and the CRTC often takes this into account for companies. Today's algorithms are probably what accounting records looked like at a certain period. I might be talking through my hat, but I would imagine that there have always been trade secrets and confidentiality to protect; it's the technology and business practices that have been changing.
I believe that government and regulatory organizations have always taken this into account for companies. I personally don't find it worrisome at all that the CRTC might, one day or another, need to request access to this type of information with due regard to any future corporate requests for the confidentiality of some information they consider more sensitive. However, this doesn't mean that it will be done systematically.
The CRTC already has that in its arsenal, and it is part of its normal working procedures. It seems to me that we are depriving ourselves once again of an extremely useful mechanism that would ensure we can monitor the implementation of the regulations we are putting in place on the basis of a fear that is not really well-founded. I have no doubt that the CRTC is fully capable of handling confidentiality cases when undertakings request it.
I wanted to comment on this before the vote on this subamendment, which I feel is superfluous. I don't think that it's necessary. On the other hand, the algorithms should be part of the information to which the CRTC has access if required.
Thank you.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to express my absolute joy at what Mr. Champoux just said. He said that he thought that my subamendment was superfluous. He didn't say it was a bad idea. He just said it doesn't make any difference basically. From what I understand, that's what superfluous means in English.
I'm wondering if maybe he's inclined to vote in favour of it because to him it makes no difference and, therefore, he's comfortable with it.
Again, I guess we're still in a translation hell here, but does it mean the same thing? Did I understand exactly what he said there?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I read here, “being more than is sufficient or required; excessive” and “unnecessary or needless” is the second meaning. This is straight from the dictionary as per my phone.
Mr. Shields.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would back you up on the position that we need both languages officially translated for a vote. I've been on both sides of these issues many times in committee. When we err and do it the wrong way, there are repercussions. We should follow the rules, and I would support you in doing that.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You are absolutely correct, Mr. Shields, if I may be so biased in a neutral position.
Mr. Boulerice.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can understand Mr. Aitchison's sudden expression of joy. However, I don't think he has properly understood Mr. Champoux's intent.
With respect to the subamendment and this exemption for social media, I'd like to repeat some recent comments from our former colleague, Andrew Cash, who is now the director of the Canadian Independent Music Association. The largest music streaming platform for singers is YouTube, not Spotify. We don't understand how a system could regulate Spotify, but not YouTube, which is in fact the largest platform for this category of artists.
I just wanted to remind everyone of this, Mr. Chair.
2:25 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'd just like to say that I would like to see the CRTC have the ability to examine these algorithms and find out how Canadians are being censored, because that is in fact what's happening on the Internet on these platforms.
They're using automated content moderation. There is algorithmic bias, and we have a perfect example on May 5, the National Day of Awareness of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Red Dress Day, where hundreds of posts were disappeared off Instagram and Facebook. How did that happen? It would be good to examine that. It would be good to examine and for the CRTC to be able to see how free speech is actually being manipulated. We've seen organizations like Cambridge Analytica undermining the democracy of the U.K.
We need to—
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I don't want to challenge Mr. Manly's arguments, but I think we're somewhere else entirely. We're talking about allowing the CRTC to check whether broadcasting undertakings are complying with creative content regulations. We're certainly not talking about allowing the CRTC to have control over what users put online. That's an entirely different matter.
I'd like to thank Mr. Manly for his contribution to the debate, but it's important to remain within the boundaries of the discussion because at the moment, we're somewhere else entirely. I think that we need to return to the subject at hand, which is broadcasting undertakings, cultural, artistic, music and audiovisual content, and our Canadian and Quebec artists and creators. We will certainly need several meetings to talk about all these other things, but I think that at the moment, we've gone off topic.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
Yes, that's a good point.
Mr. Manly, I noticed we were drifting aboard.