Canadian Heritage Committee on June 4th, 2021

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect, Mr. Rayes is talking about amendments that the committee has not yet looked at, amendments that could be subject to subamendments.

I don't know how the senior officials are supposed to give us a reliable answer to a question that pertains to amendments the committee has yet to discuss and vote on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, yes, I understand some of it pertains to future amendments, but if you want to make it as part of your overall argument, I'm fine with that. The only thing is, if you start going into future amendments, that doesn't really give the person moving them a chance to debate them from the beginning.

I would ask that you try to refrain from talking about any possible future amendments, but if you want to include some of it in your current argument, I understand. I'm going to have to watch it. Police yourself accordingly.

Thank you.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will endeavour to show more discipline. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I was debating amendments G‑13 or BQ‑33. I agree with Mr. Champoux that the committee will discuss them in due course.

Nevertheless, when I look at the amendments, I realize that Mr. Manly's amendment will have repercussions for amendments G‑13 and BQ‑33. I believe the senior officials came prepared to answer our questions, so I am simply asking them to confirm whether my understanding of the situation is correct. I don't want to take it any further than that. I think it's a legitimate question, unless you say otherwise, Mr. Chair. If it is, I would like to be able to ask my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, that is fine. You can do that. I understand that sometimes these amendments can refer to one that's ahead or back and so on. I know this causes a lot of confusion sometimes, but what you just said is valid, so take that as a ruling.

Please proceed.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will repeat my question for Mr. Ripley, then. Does Mr. Manly's amendment have repercussions for amendments G‑13 and BQ‑33?

It's clear that certain elements tie in with registration requirements that could apply to users. That could potentially introduce other restrictions.

I would therefore like to know whether the amendment could have repercussions for amendments G‑13 and BQ‑33. I have absolutely no intention of debating those amendments. The committee will have those discussions in due course.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Rayes.

May I answer the question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry. I thought you were having such a great conversation that I didn't want to intervene.

Mr. Ripley, you have the floor.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C‑10 sets out the regulatory power to implement a registration system to help the CRTC administer the system. The CRTC would then know whether an online undertaking was operating in Canada, for instance. That is why the bill grants the power.

Of course, with the removal of new section 4.1, as initially proposed, and the inclusion of social media in the bill, regulations governing registration could apply to social media. However, I want to point out that the bill does not apply to users. Again, the powers granted under new sections 9.1, 10 and 11.1 really apply to online undertakings and traditional broadcasters.

The idea is not to establish a registration system that would apply to users. Again, the exclusion in new subsection 2(2.1) very clearly states that users are not considered to be broadcasters and are not subject to CRTC regulations. The requirement to register with the CRTC applies instead to social media services and other online undertakings.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

I have one last question, Mr. Chair, and then, someone else can have the floor.

With all due respect, Mr. Ripley, I wasn't asking you whether users or the content they post online would be regulated. That debate seems to come up every time. What I would like to know in order to make the right decision is whether Mr. Manly's amendment could have repercussions for amendments G‑13 and BQ‑33, which the committee will examine later. That is all I want to know. There seems to be a connection between the amendments, as I understand them, and that could have repercussions going forward.

I repeat, my intention is not to debate amendments G‑13 or BQ‑33. I simply want to know whether a conflict could potentially arise since they deal with the same thing.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Not directly, no, Mr. Rayes.

I'm not sure whether the assumption is that a registration system for Canadian creators is being created. Earlier, I tried to address that. I wanted to point out that the power set out in section 10, as proposed in the amendment, would not be used to put such a system in place.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

I'm done, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, everyone.

If I could just put a little bit of clarification beyond what I talked about earlier, for the most part we realize that future amendments proposed by parties are generally confidential, yes. However, in some cases one will affect the other and it gives the current debate a proper context, so what I'm asking members to be cognizant of is this. I have no problems if you want to refer to an amendment in the future that is one of your own, but I'm reticent, and I think Mr. Champoux stressed his concern, and rightly so, about how you would draw other people's amendments into the debate without their having to debate it or move it first.

To me, that's very important, so I ask that you use discretion.

My final point before I go any further is that it has come to my attention that we do have extra time afforded to us. I say that gingerly because I don't like telling people we're extending this debate without giving you advance notice. We're well within 24 hours. I like to do that, as you know, because I like to be respectful. However, since we started around just slightly under 20 minutes late, we can extend this up to 3:30 eastern time—I guess that's 1:30 Alberta time. We can extend up to that point.

I don't need an answer right now. I'd just like for you to have a discussion amongst yourselves if you can. Text each other and let me know, because in order for me to extend I need unanimous consent to do it. That's adding an extra half-hour onto this meeting.

Just think about it for now and when the time comes at three eastern, which is when we normally break, I will ask once again.

That being said, I don't really need UC to extend, but as you understand, I would like to have unanimous consent. That's what I'm trying to say.

Let's go to Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to the officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I, too, want to thank Mr. Manly for his efforts in bringing forward amendments to the Broadcasting Act. As you've all talked about, it hasn't been updated for 10 years. I think for the last several months we forgot about the conventional broadcasters. We've dipped into the digital world, and when we first started this it was all about the conventional broadcasters, who are suffering badly in this country.

Many radio and television stations are leaving the airwaves almost monthly. Mr. Manly would know that because he was a part of community radio for many years. He's a producer. It gets harder and harder to sell a product when there is black on TV channels. I look at B.C. and see that all the radio stations out there have gone dark over the last year, and he's seen that too.

I want to thank Mr. Manly for talking about the point system, because it's very complicated. You need the score of six out 10. When we talk about Canadians.... Where is it being shot? Where is it being produced? Who are the actors or actresses involved? Then there's the MAPL system. Those are the discussions we can't forget about here in committee, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Mr. Manly for bringing that out, because he's been involved in community radio for decades, and as a producer he gives us some insight into that.

To the department officials, this is an interesting proposition, because Ian Scott, the current chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, came to the committee on March 26. Now what we're seeing, and the departmental officials have acknowledged this today, is that this will be an operational challenge. Since proposed section 4.1 was eliminated in April, Mr. Scott hasn't had the ability to talk about the CRTC.

When Mr. Scott was in committee and I asked him point-blank whether he had the capability to enforce Bill C-10, the first answer coming out of his mouth was “yes” but that he had to go to Treasury Board. We all know what that's going to be, asking for more money on behalf of the CRTC to operate this. It is a concern.

Mr. Ripley, I'm just going to ask you this, because like I said, on March 26 we had the CRTC in front of us, and then we've seen all of these changes and operational challenges. What you've told us here today will be front and centre with the CRTC. Could you elaborate on those operational challenges, not only money-wise but with the capacity of the CRTC?

You have heard me and Mr. Manly talk about the capacity of the CRTC for years. They give the seven-year licences and then walk away, and then come back six and a half years later to have a peek. When I hear operational challenges tied into the CRTC, wow, I see a red flag.

I will leave it up to the department officials. I would like you to explain the operational challenges to the committee as we move forward with this amendment. What are the operational challenges that you, as a department, see the CRTC will have to be aware of going forward here?

This is for anyone in the department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for the question and for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

My comments to Mr. Rayes were specifically with respect to the proposal on the table by Mr. Manly to introduce a mechanism whereby creators could opt in to a discoverability framework set up by the CRTC with the implication that some creators would be outside of that. The point I was making is that this type of framework raises operational challenges for both the CRTC, which would have to think about how you actually put in place a mechanism where a creator could put up their hand and say, I want in, and others could say, I'm not in, and at the service level on a service like YouTube, which would have to navigate how you actually put that into practice in real life.

That was the point I was trying to make. I think just stepping back a level, the proposal that the committee had previously looked at and adopted with respect to proposed section 9.1, to reiterate that, the first step when it comes to thinking about how to move forward with a discoverability framework will be the CRTC doing a regulatory hearing on what makes sense.

Again, I think there are a variety of different ways we could imagine that social media services could help raise the profile or visibility of Canadian creators. Part of the job of the CRTC will be balancing those interests of creators and social media services, who are going to say they have very real practical limits in terms of what they're able to do and here's how the service operates.

Again, my comment was not so much at a general level but recognizing that the committee has previously adopted those powers, including the discoverability one, and is suggesting that it be given to the CRTC, while what Mr. Manly has put on the table is something that has a degree of tension with that. That's what I was trying to highlight, because it gives the ability for some people to be a part of it and other people not. I think it's just very challenging to think about how that would be put into practice day to day, given the nature of social media.

That was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I have one other question if I can, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Ripley.

Really what you're saying is that this would still mean those creators approved and licensed by the CRTC would still see their social media videos and posts prioritized over those of other social media creators and the issues would still be the same, I believe.

The question of what kind of content gets deprioritized is just as important, in my mind, as those that would be prioritized. I can see a big issue here with cultural and art groups because many of them are well connected and lobby the CRTC. They'll still be able to gain a major advantage, I think, of having the CRTC force social media sites to promote their content over that of the universe of independent YouTube creators, artists and influencers who really don't have the same advantages. It's really not a level playing field.

Am I reading that right, Mr. Ripley?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

The impetus from the government's perspective in terms of providing the CRTC with this discoverability power with respect to, again, Canadian creators, recognizes that social media can be a very powerful tool for helping individuals find and connect and discover new artists and creators. The impetus is simply recognizing the powerful role they can play.

Again, I am going to be cautious on presupposing the outcome of those regulatory proceedings at the CRTC, but the goal at a simple level would be to say, okay, when you're on a social media service and you're researching.... I don't know. Pick a genre of music that may be of interest to you, whether it's country or whatever, Mr. Waugh, because you're from the west—

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

The Sheepdogs.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

You're fundamentally asking those companies to think about ways they could service local Canadian artists and creators so that they're doing their part to raise their profile. When you use those services to ask, “Okay, what's the country music scene around me?” you're given the profiles of Canadian artists or creators who may be relevant to you.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Does the CRTC have to do this nine months after this bill passes?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

What the minister had said, Mr. Waugh, was that he intended to bring forward the policy direction following royal assent of the bill and to ask for the first tranche of regulatory work to be completed in the nine months. That first tranche primarily includes putting in place a framework whereby the online undertakings—the online broadcasters—would be required to contribute.

I think there is recognition that it would ambitious to expect everything related to C-10 to be completed in nine months. That's why that first phase would focus on having the online undertakings contribute, with a two-year horizon for all of the work to be completed.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

Thank you for referencing one of my favourite bands, the Sheepdogs, the pride of Saskatoon.

Let's now go to Mr. Aitchison, who is in the committee room.

Mr. Aitchison.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Ripley for those final few comments. I automatically thought “cue the lobbyists”, because there are nine months to try to influence things to make them the way you want them to be.

I actually want to focus specifically on that issue.... In general, it relates, I think, to my problem overall with big government programs. The bigger the government, the more interference and the greater the chance for undue influence. Mr. Waugh quite capably raised that issue. I actually want to ask the question of Mr. Manly, specifically, because he has some experience with the system as it exists today. I have absolutely zero experience with the traditional broadcasting realm.

If I could start with this question, I'm curious to know, Mr. Manly, in the process of trying to get recognized as Canadian content in the traditional system, were you aware of situations where high-paid lobbyists were clearly able to get their client's product broadcast somewhere, ahead of a smaller operation like yours?

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

That's exactly how the system works, actually. The number of productions that get produced in this country for the traditional broadcasters by producers.... It's about 90% to 95% of the same people who produce over and over again. To break into that system is very difficult. It's actually a small number of commissioning editors who determine what gets commissioned in this country by CTV, Global or any of the provincial broadcasters, or CBC, so it's a difficult thing to break into.

I just want to correct Mr. Waugh, as I've spent a very small amount of time in community radio. I actually worked on hundreds of TV episodes in the broadcast industry. I've produced and directed documentaries of my own and commissioned documentaries. I have worked in artist management and done record deals, international deals, international licensing agreements for artists who have succeeded all across the planet. I've done very well through the CanCon system, which helped them finance tours into the United States, because they could afford to get in a van and drive across the States based on the money they made in Canada by having radio play in Canada.

There is a system in place that is stacked towards companies that work very closely with the big broadcasters. I have produced lots of films that have just gone on to YouTube or on to my own pay-per-view through Vimeo, or other avenues. I have other things that are licensed here and there in other parts of the world. When I have had a broadcaster pick something up, then I go through the CRTC process of certification. It's a fairly straightforward process.

In terms of the comments by Mr. Ripley about how the social media could work with this, well, when you upload a video to YouTube, you can set a number of tags on there. I can say my name, where it was produced and what the key subject areas are. I don't know if anybody here has done web design, but it's a pretty straightforward process to add another line in there asking if this is Canadian content and if you have a CanCon, a CRTC certification number. When you're doing searches online, on YouTube, it would simply say, “Are you interested in Canadian content? Click here.”

These kinds of things can be done quite easily through web design. It's not rocket science anymore. I did do some work in computer engineering as well, way back in the day. It's not a black box. It's not a huge problem.

Those are my comments. Thank you.