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.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. Let's go to Mr. Champoux, and then, Mr. Aitchison, you'll be following that.
Mr. Champoux.
1:30 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I definitely understand my colleague Mr. Shields' concern. I understand that smaller undertakings that wish to explore and take advantage of our market might be impeded by the regulations we put in place. However, we nevertheless have to consider the specific characteristics of our country, in both the Canadian and Quebec contexts. Of course, I'm far more inclined to want to protect the French fact because that's the culture I live in every day. However, there are also the specific characteristics of Canadian culture. It's not just the francophone aspect; it's the anglophone aspect as well. We have a kind of tradition and a responsibility to protect it in our broadcasting market.
We introduce regulations that may not be that attractive or appealing to the smallest undertakings, for which compliance with these regulations may be a heavier administrative burden. However, the fact remains that we introduce them precisely in order to protect our culture here at home, in Quebec and Canada, and to promote the content our creators and artists generate.
We've also voted in favour of some of these amendments for that purpose, to require that broadcasting undertakings submit to certain practices, including discoverability and the promotion of francophone and Canadian content, as well as indigenous languages. We all agree on that. The obligations we've established may be even harder to meet for these smaller undertakings you refer to, which would like to relocate from foreign countries and carry on their undertakings in Canada. However, when they agree to take up that challenge, to come here and enrich us with their content and to introduce their clientele to ours, they also have to show how they intend to comply with our regulations.
I don't see that as a major obstacle at this point. Our system's already quite regulated. It's very different from that of the United States, for example, which may need less protection for its cultural identity. I think that's understood and accepted. There are countries like that elsewhere in the world as well.
As you say, large undertakings may be better equipped to comply with information confidentiality. Small undertakings nevertheless have ways to justify why they might need to keep certain information confidential. They have ways of preserving their information and trade secrets and of retaining their competitive advantages.
I don't think these requirements impose an undue burden, quite the contrary. They are part and parcel of the overall conditions that encourage undertakings to come and do business in Canada, take advantage of our market and provide us with their goods and services.
The idea here is simply to provide the CRTC with the necessary tools to ensure compliance with what we've already asked undertakings to do. These are merely tools that we are adding to the toolbox.
May 28th, 2021 / 1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a bit of anxiety about giving the CRTC access to these algorithms.
I'd like to propose a subamendment, if I may. Is that possible right now?
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
If you have a copy, it would be great to pass it along, but to begin with, yes, please read it slowly into the record.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Okay, here we go.
The subamendment would read that, in the first line of Mr. Champoux's amendment, after the words “broadcasting services” we would add “excluding social media services whose programs are primarily uploaded by users”.
Then in his proposed subparagraph (vi), after the words “Canadian programming”, we would add “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”.
Is that as clear as mud?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It's a bit of a mouthful, but nevertheless I understand what you're getting at. What you want to do is fairly straightforward, but the language is a little longer.
Do you have a copy of that in both languages?
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I believe we do, actually. If you give me a moment, I think we can get it to you.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I have a couple of people who wish to speak to this. Let's do that first, and while we're doing that, you can send it to our clerk to distribute.
Mr. Louis.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
On that same topic, Mr. Chair, I am wondering whether we could have a copy of it in writing. For something that important, with that verbiage, this would let us study it.
It sounds as though it's on the way already, so thank you.
1:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
With regard to Mr. Aitchison's subamendment, I don't understand what would justify excluding social media undertakings from amendment BQ-23.
Amendments BQ-11 and G-8, which have been adopted, clearly state this requirement. Amendment BQ-11 proposes the following:
(q) online undertakings must clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery;
So we weren't excluding social media. Before Mr. Aitchison moved this subamendment, we should have made substantial subamendments to those amendments, which then would have applied automatically to amendment BQ-23.
We adopted amendments like BQ-11 and G-8, but, based on what's been suggested, we wouldn't be giving the CRTC the same resources for verifying social media undertakings as for broadcasting undertakings in general. I'm trying to understand the logic. The same rules should apply to everyone in this case.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Champoux, before I go to Mr. Boulerice, I'm just looking around. I know it is going to take a little bit of time for everyone to receive it.
Just as a reminder, this is a subamendment to amendment BQ-23, subamended by Mr. Aitchison. Given that, I'm assuming Mr. Boulerice would like to talk on it right now.
Let's go to Mr. Boulerice, and I'll update you as we go along about receiving a copy of it.
Mr. Boulerice.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I share Mr. Champoux's concerns regarding this subamendment. I think we all want to apply the principle of fairness in the broadcasting ecosystem. Excluding social media would be tantamount to denying the contemporary reality that social media are broadcasters. They are part of the digital broadcasting ecosystem and are bound increasingly to become broadcasters. By refusing to acknowledge that fact, we'd be maintaining a status quo that would undermine our system and our ability to invest in Quebec and Canadian cultural production. That would violate the principle involved in, and the very purpose of, modernizing the Broadcasting Act. This subamendment would be a step backward.
However, Mr. Champoux's amendment is entirely acceptable.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Rayes, I want to make sure that everyone has a good understanding of what we're discussing, because we are in the middle of discussing this subamendment.
I don't see any hands up showing that people want to stop for a moment, so I'm going to keep going with this.
Mr. Rayes is next.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to comment briefly on Mr. Champoux's remarks.
It's true that we initially didn't include this clarification in the other two amendments you mentioned. However, considering the initial version of the bill, its introduction by the minister and the version we have today, I don't think we're dealing with the same bill at all. Since the decision was made to delete clause 4.1 as initially proposed, we now have to add some clarification regarding social media.
I heard Mr. Boulerice say that social media will play a new role or an even more prominent role as broadcasters in future. I would remind you that all of us initially had the same objective for this broadcasting bill, which was to ensure that digital broadcasters such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+, which are major players affording access to programs, documentaries and series, were subject to the act on the same fair basis as our conventional broadcasters, such as CTV, Global, Radio-Canada, TVA and others.
However, a change was made to include social media in the bill that raised concerns not only among the Conservative party, but also among many experts, former CRTC officials and university professors, as we've noted on several occasions. Like us, I believe you're getting increasing numbers of messages from concerned Canadians. More and more people are taking an interest in this issue as a result of our constructive, structured and extensive discussions in committee. The media are suddenly interested in this issue as a result of testimony by the Minister of Justice and theMinister of Canadian Heritage before the committee.
We're no longer talking just about multinationals, but also about users and the content they put online. Even the Minister of Justice declined to tell us, during his testimony, whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected both individuals and the content they generate. He didn't want to venture an opinion on the matter after we produced, not a new legal opinion, but rather an explanatory document.
We've completely taken this new bill to another level, and we'll remain concerned until we've come up with an amendment to add section 9.2 to the act. Then we can determine whether it's possible to restore part of the content that was amended to ensure we protect freedom of expression and net neutrality, regardless of what it's called. These are topical and important issues.
As has been noted, we've been waiting for this bill for 30 years. We've heard the concerns of the cultural sector. There's a way to take them into consideration as well. The government is in no way prevented from supporting the cultural sector. I think it has to do so, and we all agree on that. No one is opposed to the idea of helping the cultural sector, not even Michael Geist, who was one of the country's biggest experts opposing this bill. And there are a lot of them; you need only to follow them on social media to see that's true. However, do we need to interfere with the Internet, and with these platforms that protect users, in order to help culture? They may be influencers, interlocutors or artists who, without being represented by certain groups, live solely from their work and aren't subsidized.
I'm satisfied that, over the next few minutes or meetings, we can discuss the opinion that the Minister of Justice has received requesting that he list all the platforms and apps that the CRTC would then have the authority to regulate. That even includes sports apps. While you were self-isolating, you may have downloaded a training app in an effort to stay in shape. That made me realize the impact of the bill we have before us.
Mr. Champoux, I think this is the only reason why we're concerned. Although we disagree on the very basis of the bill as it stands following the changes that have been made, we're trying in our own way to determine whether we can amend it and thus rectify the situation where we feel that's necessary.
I believe that's the intention behind this subamendment. I'm sure Mr. Aitchison can clarify it since he was the one who moved it. Personally, this is one of my concerns. I think we'll have to find a middle ground within the committee.
It wasn't talked about much in Quebec, but in my riding, people and artists who are on the web write me. For example, Mike Ward was upset by the fact that the government was trying to regulate the space where he is now disseminating his content. Some people might say that he's perhaps not the best example, but in my opinion, comedians are artists, just like singers, musicians and singer-songwriters. In my riding, there are artists who are only on social networks, have never asked for a grant and manage to earn a living. They want to be discovered not only by Canadians, but by the whole world. They are wondering about things and worried that other countries might be tempted to introduce similar regulations.
I think that's why we, and in fact many Canadians, are legitimately asking ourselves about all this.
I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before we proceed any further, yes, we do have a copy; no, you do not have it.
As you know, we passed a motion some time ago that anything sent to us has to be quality-checked with the translation bureau. We do not have a response yet from the translation bureau as to which translation to use. We have to wait for that, then, unless I can get permission to send it out.
I would have to have that permission unanimously, folks. I can't send it to you without its being checked by the translation bureau, if anyone disagrees. Does anybody object to my sending it out right now?
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you.
I believe we've strayed somewhat from the initial amendment, and even from Mr. Aitchison's subamendment.
I understand what Mr. Rayes is getting at. We've had the opportunity to properly understand the concerns about freedom of expression and all the discoverability issues raised over the past few weeks. It's true that some experts came to shore up our Conservative friends' version of things; other equally credible experts came to tell us otherwise. I can't speak for the entire committee, but I was very satisfied with some of the reassuring comments and opinions we heard, in particular those put forward by Mr. Pierre Trudel and Ms. Yale, who are also genuine experts and just as credible, in my opinion. We didn't get exactly what we were asking for from the minister, but we can nevertheless see that the information we've been given is rather credible. So I can understand how this might get people emotional here and there, but as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.
In response to Mr. Rayes, I would have to say that not one of my fellow citizens ever asked me that question. That doesn't mean that it can't be treated seriously, because people are worried about these issues. But I think we've dealt with their concerns.
As for Mr. Aitchison's subamendment, I understand that this too is related to apprehensions about freedom of expression and other issues. However, the requirements are there. They were in amendments BQ-11 and G-8, which were adopted. What we are proposing at the moment is simply a way of ensuring that they are implemented.
Let's look at a broadcasting undertaking like Netflix, which is required to generate Canadian content on its platform in Canada. It's only to be expected that the CRTC should be given the means to ensure that Netflix properly complies with whatever regulations it has agreed to. All we need is a mechanism to do so. It doesn't mean that the CRTC will have the power to investigate the trade secrets of broadcasting undertakings. Historically, the CRTC has not, to my knowledge, ever been that presumptuous and I don't think it's in the nature of the beast to do so in the near future.
So I think that fears like these are not necessarily justified in this instance. We're not trying to acquire means that would allow us to go and check that the regulations we are introducing are properly complied with. We don't want to pry. We simply want to make sure that the regulations we adopt are followed.
I'll stop there, because I think there are others who would like to comment.
