Canadian Heritage Committee on June 4th, 2021

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I feel that we're debating the debate that was in the House and not the amendment that's on the floor. If Ms. Harder would like to discuss this amendment, that would be lovely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm not going to make a ruling on that, other than to state the fact that there have been discussions outside committee. That is true. I would not want us to get into a full-fledged conversation, although two parties in this committee have now discussed it.

I please ask, once again, that we stick to the clause-by-clause that is before us, on Bill C-10, and we are currently on PV-21.1, an amendment moved by Mr. Manly.

Ms. Harder, you have the floor again.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

With regard to the amendment that is on the floor that was presented by Mr. Manly, essentially this would make it so that some content is still more discoverable than others. It would be picking winners and losers.

You have content creators and they work hard to display their talent on, let's say, a platform like YouTube and to garner an audience for themselves, and they work organically in order to be able to do that. They're incredibly successful in and of themselves. They're able to thrive as digital first artists or creators. Now, under this bill, and further, with this amendment, there would be this—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

As you know, I'm loath to interrupt Ms. Harder, but I think we were listening to Mr. Housefather talk about the amendment before us. It seems as though Ms. Harder is doing the exact same thing. She appears to be debating the amendment and giving her views on it, rather than raising a point of order. What's more, Mr. Housefather had the floor.

I will leave it to you to judge the relevance of what's being said, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I was under the impression that Mr. Housefather had concluded.

If Mr. Housefather agrees with you, I can put him back in the queue for debate.

In the meantime, Ms. Harder, you still have the floor. Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

The amendment that is before us, then, which Mr. Manly has brought to the committee for consideration, essentially is asking these different content generators, these creators, to determine on their own, to check a box to say, “Yes, I'm CanCon approved” or “No, I'm not CanCon approved”, and then they would check another box saying, “Yes, I wish to have the government's dictatorial algorithm applied to me” or “No, I don't wish to have the government's dictatorial algorithm applied to me”. This then, of course, would determine whether or not they're going to be shown the favour of being discovered, if they do meet the Canadian requirements. If they don't meet the Canadian requirements, then it's claimed by Mr. Manly—and I believe by the other members at the table from the government side—that they're fine. They'll be left alone.

That doesn't work. You can't have one artist in first place, in terms of their discoverability, or in other words, how often they're seen by the general public or the viewers who would look for them. They're in first place, and then someone else who meets the requirements, makes the grade, is going to be bumped up to first place. You can't have two at first place. It doesn't work. I played sports as a kid, and I never knew that two teams could come out in first place. That just wasn't a thing. Perhaps Mr. Manly could expand on that and show me how that's possible.

To my knowledge, if something is going to be bumped up to first place, then that original thing that was at first place has to be bumped down to second place, and so on and so forth. If you have certain artists, certain creators or certain content providers who are meeting this requirement to be “Canadian”, as determined by the government, and then you have other creators who are not meeting the criteria to be “Canadian”, then you inevitably have some who are being bumped up and some who are being bumped down.

This amendment that we're debating does nothing to protect content creators or digital first artists. My question, through you, Chair, if you would be willing to allow Mr. Manly to respond, is this: How can you have two content generators both exist at first place?

If I'm understanding him correctly, he's stating that this amendment would not result in the downgrading of one creator in order to promote another. I fail to see how that's possible. I think in order to bump one person into first place, someone has to drop down to second place. This means very quickly, then, this algorithm that the government is putting out there is going to determine who gets to be at the top and who has to fall to the bottom, which is a form of favouritism.

It's picking winners and losers. It's determining which artists get to succeed and which artists unfortunately have to fail, which artists can be discovered by Canadians and which artists have to be pushed to the back room. Last I knew, artists weren't asking for this. The government likes to say in the House of Commons that artists are wanting this bill, they need the support of the government, they need to be dictated to, and they need these algorithms that are going to bump them up or bump them down in terms of their discoverability.

I've talked to a lot of creators. None of them have said that. In fact, they've all said quite the opposite. They've said, we want the government to get out of the way. We're quite capable of thriving on our own. We've managed to be able to successfully put our talent out there for the world to enjoy and elicit an audience. Of course, as Canadians are watching them.... I should mention that it's not only Canadians but 90% of the audience of most creators in Canada are beyond our borders. That's amazing. They're enjoying phenomenal success. Kudos to them.

They're not telling me that they need the government to intervene. They're not telling me that they want the government to pick winners and losers, to choose favourites or to determine whether or not their content is Canadian enough to be in the first frame on someone's computer screen or have to drop down to frame 27. They're not telling me that.

I feel it's important to state that because the heritage minister in the House of Commons has advised me to speak with creators, and he has referenced a number of niche lobby groups that he has talked to, so I feel it's important to report back to the committee that I have gone and spoken to many of these creators who are doing phenomenal wonders for themselves and are generating content that Canadians are really enjoying and able to engage with.

These individuals are very successful on YouTube, not just in terms of being able to provide content that Canadians enjoy and like—and it's not only Canadian but a world-wide audience—but also in terms of being able to generate an income for themselves.

Because they're growing an audience organically and because they have that audience, then of course there are companies that wish to advertise on their channels. Those companies pay in order to do that, which allows these artists or these creators to generate a bit of an income. It's phenomenal. It's absolutely amazing.

We're talking about more than 25,000 Canadians who are able to generate a full-time income of more than $100,000 a year because of their incredible success on YouTube. They did it all on their own. Imagine that. They did it all on their own, without government support, without government getting their hands in there.

We're talking about individuals who are not only remarkably talented in whatever their craft is that they're putting on YouTube for others to enjoy, but who are also very savvy when it comes to entrepreneurship and being able to market themselves.

All that to say that I wanted to make sure the committee knew that I have had conversations with many of these individuals, as I was advised to do, and certainly, they are reporting to me that they don't really want this legislation. They don't want the government to put algorithms in place that would meddle with their business and what they're doing online, and the way that they function as creatives.

All that to say, coming back around, my understanding of Mr. Manly's amendment, based on what he said, is that it would require that these creators, those who are putting content online, check a box, and that box would either be, yes, they want to be considered within the algorithmic scheme, or, no, they don't want to be considered within the algorithmic scheme. If they decide yes, chances are they have already gone through the approval process for CanCon, which, for the sake of time I won't go into today. I'll leave it for now.

Maybe then they have CanCon approval, so they would check the box and say, yes, I want to be considered for just exactly how “Canadian” I am, and then that would, I guess, give permission for them to be bumped up or bumped down in terms of their discoverability, but that same box could also just be left blank and I guess those content creators would not be considered by the algorithm. That is what I understand Mr. Manly to be proposing.

He seems to be proposing that if you leave the box empty, if you don't choose to have it checked, then you're left unaffected. You just get to exist without being bumped up or bumped down, but coming back around to the main point here, I just don't see how that's possible. If you're going to bump up those who check the box, then inevitably, those who didn't check the box or who don't make the cut are going to get bumped down. You can't have two people in first place. It just doesn't work.

I mean, imagine watching the hockey playoffs if two or three or four teams all came in first place. It just doesn't work. Someone has to be second. Someone has to be third. Someone has to be fourth. That's just the nature of the game. If checking the box moves you up to first place perhaps, then if you're someone who didn't check the box maybe you got demoted to page 27 of the platform. We're still dealing with a significant problem here, then, in terms of censorship, accessibility and discoverability.

These artists deserve better. Their voices deserve to be heard. We have heard from experts who have said section 2(b) of the Charter makes sure that someone enjoys freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of opinion. It is freedom of speech. That freedom of speech and freedom of expression covers two things. One is the freedom to be able to express your ideas or have them be known. Second is the freedom to be able to access someone's ideas.

There are two things going on there, then. An artist does have the right and should have the freedom to put their ideas out there. As a viewer, I should have the right to be able to see, access or read those things or listen to that content.

By preventing that—or censoring that, I should say—the government would actually be infringing upon our Charter rights as Canadians because it's the government determining to what extent something can or cannot be said, to the extent that something can be discovered or not discovered. It is this hindrance, not only of the expression being put out there, but also this barrier to the expression being found and enjoyed.... It is wrong. It is just so wrong to go in that direction.

My question still remains. I am wondering if Mr. Manly can help me understand. If creators and content generators have to pick which box to check or if they want their content to fall under the guise of the algorithm or not, how does that work for two creators to both come in at first place? How does it work that you could somehow remain not impacted by this amendment or by the legislation as a whole if you leave the box blank, in terms of being considered by the algorithm?

I am looking for some clarification there, through you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Manly, before you start, I'd ask you to keep it specifically to the question she has asked because I have Mr. Shields waiting.

Mr. Manly, you have the floor.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

It is simply a way of finding Canadian content. I don't know how you figure out, when you're watching YouTube, what is Canadian content or not.

I think we have had this discussion for quite a while now. This is simply a matter of continuing to talk about bumping up and bumping down and that two productions can't be first. How do you find Canadian content on YouTube? How do Canadians support Canadian content?

The filibuster is kind of just wearing thin. I will just leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Harder, you asked a question. That doesn't mean you cede the floor. Are you finished?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

There is so much in that statement. I am being accused of filibustering, which is often referred to in a derogatory way. I kind of take exception to that.

Nevertheless, in addition to that, my question hasn't exactly been answered. I was genuinely seeking some clarification. Maybe I am missing something here, but I just don't understand how two things can both be coming in at first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields, you have the floor.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are two things. One, because of what Mr. Housefather said, I can call it a point of order. I don't really like to do that, but I will. I've known Mr. Housefather for a while and I find him very honourable. I find him a very good politician and parliamentarian. I very much respect him.

I ask questions, and I ask lots of questions at times. I'm looking for information. To suggest what I am doing and have done for many years here on committees.... I had a good debate with the parliamentary secretary last night in the House on this particular topic, in the late show, and I appreciated that. That was a debate where we both stated some obvious positions. To suggest that I am not looking for clarification, not looking for opportunities for discussion, getting feedback and learning more about what these things will do, I take exception to that.

I know MP Housefather's an honourable gentleman and MP. I appreciate that he's frustrated, but I take exception to his labelling of what I do as a parliamentarian as damaging and harmful to the process of democracy. It at times can be messy, but it's democracy. I object to the comments that he made.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would move for adjournment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Just so you know, I gave you that latitude because Mr. Housefather brought it up. I let you answer it; that's fine.

I'm sorry, Mr. Housefather. Did you have something...?

A motion has been moved for the adjournment of the meeting.

Am I getting that correctly, Mr. Shields? Is that what you meant?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. We'll go to a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

The meeting is adjourned. We'll see everybody at the usual time on Monday.