Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[Sean Speer]

If that is a predacious problem in the market, then I think there will possibly be a role for public policy and obviously a role for the players in addressing it. Again, I find myself more optimistic. I subscribe to multiple outlets, precisely because I want to read what they're producing. I think that's the increasing news consumption habit for a lot of people in the digital age.

To go back to a conversation we were having earlier, I think one way to incentivize or encourage that type of news consumption behaviour would be to increase the subscription tax credit, which is presently non-refundable. That is to say, if you're not paying taxes, you're not eligible to claim it, and it's limited to 15%. France has a subscription tax credit that is refundable, and it's 50%. It's mostly seamless for the subscriber. In fact, the media player is responsible for claiming the credit with the government.

There are ways for public policy, in effect, to continue to nudge in the direction of a stronger relationship between news outlets and audiences. I think that's a direction in which the sector is broadly headed and one way that public policy could support it.

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

I agree with you.

I think podcasts are going to take over from radio stations. You're right; when you come across a podcast that you like, you do subscribe. That's one of the new emerging players we're seeing in the marketplace, with podcasts, right now, attracting more listeners than radio stations do. It's consumer choice. That's the other one people have forgotten. The consumer will decide what they want to hear or listen to, and that will drive the market where it needs to go.

[Sean Speer]

I would say there are inherent trade-offs to everything we're talking about. I think the other witnesses raised serious challenges that policy-makers in Canada and elsewhere ought to focus on. There are trade-offs in all the choices before us.

One upside that I wouldn't want to go underexplored or underconsidered is the democratization of news that has occurred over the past 20 years. The barrier to entry for podcasts is essentially your iPhone. Everyone can be a podcaster. Then, of course, it's up to consumers to make judgments about what is reliable, what can be trusted and so on. That has given voice to so many people who, in the traditional era of a concentrated news media, were closed out of the public conversation, both in terms of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Speer, I'm sorry. You're about a minute over time, so I'm going to ask you to end there. You can probably answer further in the other round of questions.

Thank you.

Now, I'm going to the Liberals and Mr. Noormohamed for five minutes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I've been fascinated by a lot of what I've heard, because there's so much for us to really dig into here.

Ms. Benavidez, you talked a lot about.... Mr. Julian, when he was asking you—I don't know if he misspoke or if it was intentional—used the word “algorithm”, but it sounded like “malgorithm”, and I wonder if that's what we need to start calling it. “Malgorithm” is a great term.

Was it intentional?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes, on a point of order, Madam Chair, that was from testimony from Mr. Ahmed, from the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I see. It's fantastic. I should really start using that word.

When you look at the use of these algorithms as they pump some of this content out—particularly, as Mr. Julian pointed out, the hateful comments, the anti-Semitic comments and the Islamophobic comments, the stuff that really can cause material damage to people—who tends to benefit from the spread of that misinformation? When the algorithms on these platforms spread that information, who tends to be the beneficiary, politically?

[Nora Benavidez]

Thank you so much.

We know that, in the most recent year, with Elon Musk taking over Twitter, part of why he has reinstated so many previously banned accounts is to try to build up revenue, and many advertisers who have departed that platform have done so because they've seen that their brand content is featured next to horrific, hateful, white supremacist, neo-Nazi content. On the question of who benefits, I'm not sure. Elon Musk surely has not, and Twitter is now valued at less than half of what he bought it for over a year ago.

There are other benefits, though, and many of the companies are benefiting because of ad revenue for eyeballs in other contexts. When Meta realizes that its revenue comes primarily from eyeballs that see incendiary content, they are boosting that type of stuff and pushing for users to see the most controversial content, because they know it will get more attention, more engagement, more likes, more comments and more shares.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

In your experience—and I'm going to ask the same question to Mr. Peinert—is it primarily right-wing content or primarily left-wing content?

This question, just to be clear, is not meant to make a political statement, but to really determine whether the platforms are agnostic as to whom they decide to exploit. Do you see it on one particular side of the spectrum or the other?

[Nora Benavidez]

Given many of the opacity problems I've mentioned previously, it's difficult to say with certainty, certainly across every platform, what content is being boosted more than others. We have anecdotal evidence at best, and that's part of why we continue to call for greater disclosures and greater auditing of what processes are occurring within these companies, but one of the pieces we know is that far-right and extremist content has been engaged with over six times more than other content that is politically neutral.

The NYU ad observatory, which was kicked off Facebook for doing this research, found many of those various pieces of evidence and pointed to the way conservative and far-right content is getting amplified more. There's a current effort, at least in the United States, to recharacterize this attack, and part of what we have to be very careful about is the way that we point to evidence, to make sure that we are not making claims we cannot support. When lawmakers say that X or Y type of content is boosted, we have to make sure we have evidence to show, and that's why the precursor is necessary.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Peinert, I'll pose the same question to you. I think this is an important conversation for us to have, and Ms. Benavidez has mentioned that it's about six times more that you'll see far-right extremist content being pushed.

Has that been your experience? How do you see the notion of the content that is being shared? Do you see it more the same way, primarily far-right content, very conservative content, or are you seeing it equally spread across the spectrum?

[Dr. Erik Peinert]

I would primarily reiterate what Ms. Benavidez has said. I can say only anecdotally that it seems that far-right content is more prevalent, but I do want to emphasize that, from the companies' perspective, it's clear that it's primarily driven by algorithms that are simply meant to keep users engaged to the maximum degree possible, and the companies don't appear to care what the political orientation of that content is as long as they can keep users engaged and, to some degree, addicted to the platform in order to maximize eyeballs on screens.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I'll now go to Mr. Champoux from the Bloc Québécois, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, this committee has frequently looked into the influence the digital giants have on the media industry, particularly in the news sector. In some cases, it's more of a domination. Many components of the news industry are affected, such as advertising sales, of course, but also the way the news is broadcasted. The media definitely need to be more agile in this regard so they can compete more effectively with companies operating with new technologies.

It's probably these changes and this domination of the digital giants that are forcing large Quebec and Canadian media companies to make major budget adjustments and cut jobs, as we saw this week with the announcement made by Catherine Tait at CBC/Radio-Canada.

Madam Chair, I would therefore like to introduce the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee summons Catherine Tait, CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada to testify on the subject of the job cuts announced at CBC/Radio-Canada for the year 2024, for a period of two hours. That the Committee prioritize this motion over all other current and future studies and other Committee business, so that the Committee devote its first meeting at the return from the holiday recess...

Madam Chair, the clerk has distributed the motion in English and in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

May we suspend while we distribute the motion, please?

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. I just need clarification.

Were we given notice? Is he giving notice of the motion, or is he moving it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No. He's moving the motion now, because it's within the context of what we're studying. He doesn't have to give 48 hours' notice.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I understand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We can resume the meeting.

Peter, did you wish to say something?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order. I have no objection to Mr. Champoux's moving this, though we do have important witnesses. I still have questions, so I'd like to seek unanimous consent to give him the opportunity to speak after we complete this round, so that he will then be able to move his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'll ask Mr. Champoux, because if Mr. Champoux says no, we're not going to get unanimous consent.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The last time I accepted that kind of compromise, we held a debate and didn't address the motion. I therefore reject it because I want us to address it. It's a very simple motion, and I believe the parties will promptly approve it.

I'd like us to address it, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

I will ask the witnesses to bear with us. Hopefully, we can get rid of this very quickly, and then get back to you. Just bear with us for a second.

We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Champoux.

Is there any discussion on the motion? Shall I call the question?

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.