Canadian Heritage Committee on June 7th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Mr. Rayes, I will just point this out to everybody. I know we have been doing this a lot lately, where we ask our colleagues pointed questions. I think they are perfectly valid, but just a note to colleagues that they don't have to take the floor if they don't wish to.

I'm not saying you wouldn't, Mr. Rayes, so it's back to you if you desire to take the floor to answer the question.

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

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair, but it's always a pleasure for me. I never try to shy away when I am asked questions, whether they come from a reporter or a colleague in everyday life. I try to answer them to the best of my ability and, if I am wrong, I apologize.

To answer your question, Ms. McPherson, I should say that I have consulted with over 40 organizations in the cultural community since we began our study of Bill C‑10. This is not to say that all cultural organizations agreed with us during these exchanges. However, for all of the amendments that we put forward, or almost—I just want to protect myself, because I don't have all of my data—we made it a guideline to make sure that they represented more than one entity, so that they were not too specific. I don't have the list at hand, because God knows how much documentation I have from all my meetings, but we based it on the concerns of some groups that weren't necessarily against this idea.

That being said, the bill changed along the way, and I apologize for that. If we had known that social networks were going to be included, as a party, we would have invited witnesses who represent those who were left out and whom we did not hear from in committee in the first place. So with this amendment, people that we never had a chance to hear from will now be able to come and talk to us about their concerns. We were surprised, as everyone else was, by what happened.

I repeat, this amendment is perfectly aligned with what Australia is doing. Moreover, the thresholds it proposes, which were recommended by former CRTC experts, are below those of Australia. So I find these thresholds to be legitimate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

Hold on. I thought I had Mr. Shields in there first.

Mr. Shields, if I got that wrong I apologize in advance, but according to my list here, Ms. Dabrusin, I have you next.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps the department can help me with getting some clarification, because the way I understood Mr. Waugh's argument, he was talking about user-uploaded content to companies, and I understand that user-uploaded content is excluded.

I wonder if I could get some clarification. This proposal is about the companies, is it not? Could you help to clarify that for me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm looking to Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin.

The term that's being used in the amendment is “online undertaking”, which the committee may recall is the umbrella term that captures a variety of different online businesses, including streaming services like Netflix, Crave or Spotify, as well as the more distribution-type services like Amazon channels or another kind of service like that, as well as—as the committee knows well at this point—social media services.

The amendment on the table is not only with respect to social media services. The term “online undertaking” is an umbrella term capturing all those types of services that I just alluded to.

On the question about how this interfaces with other provisions in the act, I'll just remind the committee that proposed subsection (2.1) of the act specifically excludes non-affiliated users who upload content [Technical difficulty—Editor]—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It seems that we've lost Mr. Ripley. I'm not the only one, right?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

—or a Facebook user who has a very large following and may be earning a substantial amount of revenue, and they would not be caught by the act because of that exclusion. The amendment that's on the table doesn't change that fact. Proposed subsection (2.1) is currently still part of the bill and would apply.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It's only a technical thing, Mr. Chair.

I believe Mr. Ripley's transmission was broken, and I just couldn't hear him at a very critical spot. I wonder if he could repeat that, just on a technical side. I don't believe we could hear his answer fully.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for that, Mr. Louis. I was going to intervene myself.

Mr. Ripley, you were momentarily cut off. The flow of the conversation didn't quite sync up at some point. It's no reflection on your ability, sir; it's just your Internet.

Would you repeat the last point once more?

Then, Mr. Louis, you can give me a thumbs-up if you're satisfied.

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Certainly, Mr. Chair. Maybe you could indicate where I was cut off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Louis, I'm going to call on you right now for that.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

If you could repeat the whole answer, it would really help with the flow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley, how about we do it all again for posterity? Go ahead.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Just to recap what I indicated, the term being used by the amendment is “online undertaking”, which, as the committee is aware, is a definition provided for in the act that captures a variety of different online business models, including streaming services like Netflix, Crave TV or Spotify, as well as more distribution-type services, and one could think of the Amazon channels or comparable services as well as social media services.

With respect to the interplay with other provisions in the act, what I reminded the committee is that proposed subsection (2.1) is in the act, and what (2.1) says is that an unaffiliated user of a social media service is not to be considered a broadcaster for the purposes of the act. It doesn't matter how many subscribers they may have or how much revenue they earn from those activities; if they are using a social media service to carry out those activities, they are not considered a broadcaster for the purposes of the act. I was simply highlighting that the amendment on the table doesn't override or change that proposed subsection (2.1) and the exclusion provided in it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

Is everyone able to hear me and see me? I need some thumbs. I'm having issues of my own here. As long as you can hear me, just let me proceed.

Ms. Dabrusin, were you finished?

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

I was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Shields, go ahead. I apologize if I overlooked you earlier.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going way back in the conversation to when we started.

Mr. Chair, you suggested we could ask other colleagues on the panel questions. If they choose to respond that's up to them.

Ms. Dabrusin, you were expressing concern about financial contributions that would go to cultural groups. I think this amendment established a base. I'm not an accountant; I'm absolutely not. That's the last thing I am.

I am wondering if you believe this created a loss of revenue for the cultural groups. I just thought a base, just in the sense of one level or another like the Australian model, had some validity to it in the sense of numbers and money. I know the G7 came to some kind of a tax thing on the weekend, and already somebody was pointing out the loopholes via which Amazon might get around that. We may face that with this as well.

Is it your belief that this type of amendment was built around trying to get around the revenue from the major technology companies we've talked about many times? Is your concern that there's a loss of revenue here with this type of amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, would you like to weigh in?

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

I would just to quickly say that I was just pointing out that it has come up in the House in debate and it came up in that article that the Conservatives have said that Canadian creators are a niche market and that there has been a certain denigration of having cultural production programs and funds to support our Canadian creators. That does cause me to question the filibustering we have seen as well as the onslaught of these many new amendments being proposed and how that's been happening.

That is my point, and I think it's been raised in the House in debate, here at committee in the ongoing debate, and in that article that I quoted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You're not referring specifically to this amendment, as you believe it's a loss of revenue to...? You're speaking about other issues that you've heard about in different places then.