Canadian Heritage Committee on June 9th, 2021

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Right.

From what I understand of how social media algorithms are supposed to work—and I know there are others calling for greater algorithmic transparency in general, which there are obviously pros and cons for—essentially they are reinforcing things that people seem to like by giving them more things they want.

You're not going to see much Canadian content if you're not clicking on, watching and paying attention to Canadian content. If I start watching Schitt's Creek clips on my Facebook, then it will offer me more of those clips to view. The implication, though, of the regulatory direction here is that I might not be selecting those clips and still have those clips continually offered to me. The government might require Facebook to offer me clips that don't conform to my past patterns of use based on some criteria they establish. That's, I guess, what's meant by it. Maybe you could clarify that point.

Also, I want you to just clarify the impact that this amendment in particular around users could have on those requirements as they pertain to my use of Facebook.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Chair.

You're right. My apologies for forgetting that first question in your first batch.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

No problem.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The impact on the discoverability piece is minimal. What this amendment that's on the table would do is, again, clarify or deem that social media services do not exercise programming control over unaffiliated content that's uploaded to those services.

Again, in part, it would be Parliament answering the question of fact very clearly that it considers all programming that's uploaded to social media services by unaffiliated users not to be under the programming control of those social media services. It wouldn't detract from the fact that the committee has voted to give the CRTC the power to require discoverability measures to increase the prominence of Canadian creators. That would still be in effect and still exist.

With respect to your other question, the way I would frame it is that all recommendation engines likely have many different factors that are driving the recommendations that are made to us. At the end of the day, if you're dealing with a for-profit company, those algorithms, those recommendation engines, would be fundamentally about supporting the business model of that online undertaking.

What I've indicated to the committee before is that the government's position on the discoverability piece is not to fundamentally kind of say that this isn't about not surfacing content that individuals want to watch on these services, but saying that amongst all those factors we think it's appropriate that those platforms make an effort to surface local Canadian artists and creators. It would be one factor that gets fed into that broader calculation that is done that ultimately surfaces content on the platforms that we use.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this will be my last question for you, Mr. Ripley. It's in just a slightly different vein.

With respect to the idea that social media content is not under the programming control of the platform, how does this compare to the way that something like hate speech is evaluated? That's obviously not what this bill is about, but if a person posts something that is in violation of a hate speech law, presumably that content is deemed to be under their control, not the platform's control—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, on a point of order.

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

I think we've let it go quite wide, but now we're not talking about this amendment anymore. We're going further out. I would suggest that it's getting quite late and perhaps it's a good idea to bring it back.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, just on that same point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis, on the same point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—it's interesting that Ms. Dabrusin is objecting. My question is about the context in which content that's on social media would be deemed under the programming control of the user or the platform—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Before you go on any further about that, I understand. I can read the amendment where there's a lot of latitude here in the debate, and I'm hearing a lot of it. I do have to caution, sometimes, as we go a little bit off target, to come back to the middle.

I suggest that we try to zero in on target once more to what you're asking. I believe you were about to ask Mr. Ripley a question, so I'll let you have the floor again.

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

I'll interject with a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, Mr. Genuis. We have a point of order from Mr. Waugh.

Go ahead.

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

We've been going on for hours. The meeting was scheduled to end in the next 30 seconds, at 8:45. We're coming back again tomorrow morning from 11 until one, I believe. It may be extended, but we are coming back.

I think that in fairness to the interpreters, the clerks and everybody, Mr. Chair, plus—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's your birthday.

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

Exactly. Here I am. It's a milestone birthday and I'm spending it with you. Now, I love everyone on the heritage committee, but I would like to go home and celebrate.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Perhaps we should sing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before we launch into that, it was probably the most celebratory point of order I've heard in ages. I want to wish you, sir, if I may be so bold as to say it's from all of us here at the committee, a big happy birthday.

Going back to your point about the timing, as I've said before, and I'll say again, it's always with implied consent that we end at the scheduled time.

Now I know it was 8:45 eastern time, but what happened was that there was a delay in allowing some members to get back to this particular virtual meeting because of the votes that were taking place.

However, that time is not far away. The way that this works is this: Even though there's implied consent that we end, if people are speaking, I am not one to stifle debate; the debate will continue.

That being said, I've been notified that services will allow us to go beyond 8:45. We can exceed it and go to 9:30 or 9:45, if you wish. I'm just saying that for the sake of absolute transparency. I'm not saying you have to go to that time. If you feel that this has gone on too long, there is a remedy for that, and I don't think I need to explain what that remedy is.

Mr. Waugh, God love you. It's your birthday, and I appreciate that. However, in the meantime, I do have to run the committee.

I think that deals with the points of order that were raised. I'm going to go back to Mr. Genuis, unless somebody else wants to weigh in on that point of order as well.

I know there are hands up, but I am assuming that's only for the debate.

Mr. Champoux and Mr. Rayes, I'll get to you during the debate.

In the meantime, Mr. Genuis, you still have the floor.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

I raised my hand to speak about the point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I apologize, Mr. Rayes. I didn't realize that you were rising on a point of order.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know the procedure and I'm not sure that I understood the reason for Mr. Waugh's point of order. However, I feel completely worn out from my day. I'm also thinking of the interpreters, who have been here since 4:30 p.m., when we received the first notice for the meeting. I'm also thinking of the staff who are here with us. I'm wondering about the procedure for seeking to adjourn the meeting.

I should point out that a gag order has been imposed. We have five hours of debate. Since we have a two‑hour meeting scheduled for tomorrow, we'll have used up the five hours by the end of tomorrow's session anyway.