Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2022

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all our panellists for being here today. It is much appreciated.

I will direct my question to Professor Trudel.

Much of the debate on Bill C-11 has muddled a very important distinction. The Internet does not simply equate to social media platforms, and platforms don't equate to the whole of the Internet. Social media platforms are headed by companies that are making tutorial, algorithmic, data-led business choices every day in running these platforms, and that has a direct impact on creators on these platforms and the users themselves.

Can you speak on this distinction and on why it's important that we study Bill C-11's regulatory obligations for these companies?

[Pierre Trudel]

In fact, the issue of algorithms is crucial, because by default, that's how speech is regulated in the large platforms. At present, it is the companies that own these large platforms that have control over the algorithmic processes, and it is they who are targeted by the bill. Let's not kid ourselves. It is not individuals who are targeted, but the large companies that own the large platforms. However, these algorithmic processes have the disadvantage of being very opaque. They are not very visible. We do not know how these platforms and algorithms work, and no independent authority is in a position to know.

The strength of Bill C‑11 is that it puts in place mechanisms that will allow an independent body, the CRTC, to hold the major platforms accountable, particularly with respect to the operation of their algorithms.

Are the algorithms of these platforms compatible with the principle and values of inclusion that we cherish in Canada? Do these algorithms discriminate against some of our fellow citizens, for example against LGBT+ groups, which were mentioned earlier? We don't know at this point. We must rely on the good faith of companies, and I do not doubt their good faith. In fact, if these companies are acting in good faith, they should have no difficulty explaining how these algorithms work and demonstrating that this is completely compatible with Canadian values, particularly with regard to equality.

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

Thank you for that.

I can maybe sum it up by saying that the users control what they're saying online, but the companies and the platforms are controlling what they see.

We're also hearing the assertion that a lot of the regulation proposed in the bill doesn't apply to platforms but is actually applying to the content directly. Can you assuage those fears?

[Pierre Trudel]

In fact, the regulation applies to the platforms. The Broadcasting Act practically never regulated the content itself, and it's the same thing today. What the CRTC does is regulate the way companies organize their operations, not the direct content. The CRTC does not censor or interfere with content. The CRTC, under the Broadcasting Act, simply ensures that undertakings operate in a manner consistent with the principles and objectives of the Broadcasting Act. These principles contain values of inclusion that ensure that Canadians can find material and content that stem from Canadian creativity. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about regulating individuals; we are talking about regulating businesses and the way they operate.

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

Thank you.

Some people are saying proposed section 4.2 provides sweeping powers. You've already addressed it, but it bears talking more about it.

Can you correct the false assumption that there are sweeping powers for the CRTC in proposed section 4.2? What are those regulatory powers that are granted?

[Pierre Trudel]

I do not believe that this gives the CRTC too much power. When exercising its powers under proposed section 4.2, the CRTC must at least ensure that it respects freedom of expression. So I don't see why there is any concern that users or individuals will be harmed by this section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Trudel.

Now we go into another round. That will begin with the Conservatives, and Mr. Uppal for five minutes.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, it's actually going to be Mrs. Thomas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay.

Mrs. Thomas, you have five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Denton, I'm hoping you can weigh in here.

There's been a lot of talk around the Broadcasting Act and it needing to “be updated”. It's said that this is what Bill C-11 is all about. However, in your opening remarks you would say otherwise. I'm hoping that perhaps you can talk a little bit about how this bill is actually quite regressive in nature and how it brings speech under the control of government through the categorization of “broadcasting”.

[Timothy Denton]

Thank you.

What we have here is something that appears to be about broadcasting because it derives from broadcasting law and its intense regulation, but through the way it has defined the word “program”, that which is regulated by the CRTC has escaped any previous technological boundaries, any particular way in which the communication is to be achieved so as to expand the range of regulated entities from Canadian broadcasters, as we've understood them—there are about 4,000 to 4,500 entities—to potentially millions of websites and users who generate content.

When you think about it, the idea of a user who generates content, the Internet and computers have empowered people to create. Look at Oorbee Roy. They have empowered people to create, and these creative people now have new tools at their disposal. They have sound and video, not just computers which crack out emails and perhaps download or upload a video. They have entirely new capacities and the freedom to communicate, and this, say the authors of this bill, is a problem that needs fixing. It needs to be made to conform to an obsolete artifact of the 20th century called broadcasting technology and broadcasting regulation.

It may have made sense when there were very few voices talking to very many voices who couldn't talk back. Broadcasting regulations made sense in the mid-20th century, but after the invention of the Internet, with millions talking to millions, it's just essentially quite crazy. I don't think we should mince words about it.

I hope I've answered your question. There we go.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Denton, thank you.

Mr. Trudel seems to be raising his disagreement with you on that.

If I were to give you an opportunity to respond or address some of the arguments that he is making, would you wish to do that?

[Timothy Denton]

First of all, I think Mr. Trudel is making a brilliant defence of a system that is technologically obsolescent and in the process of being replaced, as regularly happens with technology and capitalism. It takes an obsolete system and renders it useless. It renders it hopeless. The situation that is usually engaged in when you have a business model that is failing is to use law, the power of law, to hobble your competitors, and this is what we see is really going on in the most simple and brutal terms. The broadcasting interests in this country want everything to be made to be as regulated as they are, and to make the new world conform to the older one that is passing out of existence.

That, I think, is at the core of the arguments the Internet Society is coming from. We are in a natural and quite normal process of revolutionary change in technologies. To attempt to say, no, this old world of few voices, highly regulated, must be carried on, this closed and subsidized system of creators needs to carry on into the future.... Forgive me, Oorbee Roy, but when you look at her, you see that she's the future. She's what's happening. She's doing it on her own, and she's doing it without subsidy, without regulation, without licensing, without permission from anybody. She's just doing it. This is a frightening spectacle for a lot of people in the Canadian broadcasting industry who read the writing on the wall and say that it's time for government to come and save us.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Denton. I appreciate your time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

We're going to just finish this round very quickly, because we do have a 15-minute business meeting.

Therefore, I'd like to go to Monsieur Champoux for two and a half minutes, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. It's Mr. Bittle.

We may not be able to finish this round, folks.

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Professor Trudel, would you like to respond to Mr. Denton's comments?

[Pierre Trudel]

In fact, the challenge is to update the regulations that all the countries of the world have deemed necessary to implement to ensure that everyone has a real voice and can have a say. Of course, the technical world of the Internet allows for many more possibilities. However, we have seen and are seeing more and more that the Internet, as it currently operates, is dominated by a number of large companies that are practically monopolies, and it is these companies that regulate the system.

So, indeed, the great challenge is to update the regulation not to try to keep some kind of dead regulation artificially alive, but rather to modernize the state's way of doing things. The presence of the Internet implies changes in everyone's way of doing things, including those of the state. I am among those who believe that Bill C‑11 will have to change the way regulations, particularly through the CRTC, operate to take into account the fact that we have a technological framework that is very different from the one that existed before.

What does not change, however, is the need to ensure the fair operation of this space for exchanges, which has become considerable and impressive. We need to make sure that it continues to work in such a way that Canadians also have a voice.

I think that is how Bill C‑11 should be viewed—not as an attempt to keep an embalmed corpse alive when things are dying. It is quite the opposite. There are opportunities, and we need to make sure the regulatory system works in a way that equips all Canadians to take their place in this different but challenging environment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Professor.

I wonder if you could, please, explain the scope of the bill pertaining to discoverability obligations.

[Pierre Trudel]

The discoverability obligations are a very good example of the phenomenon we are witnessing. The large platforms do not operate in a neutral manner, but rather according to commercial interests. So they do not have a natural interest in promoting material from minority cultures in Canada, such as francophone communities or aboriginal peoples, among others. In other words, the natural function of platforms is to serve the majority or the general public. The regulation aims to ensure that this natural function comes with conditions that allow everyone to find the material that corresponds to their preferences, but also to their cultural identity. Currently, platforms do not allow this. Music platforms, for example, do not allow for the discovery of Canadian works, especially francophone works. You only have to go to Spotify to see this.

Discoverability has become a phenomenon that we absolutely must monitor if we want to ensure that the works produced by our Canadian creators are viable. If we want our creators to be able to make a living from their work, we have to be able to find them. Currently, that is not what is happening. That is why we need regulatory mechanisms to ensure that our creators' works can be discovered.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 22 seconds, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

That's fine, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Just before we finish this, I will just allow the Bloc and the New Democrats to go for two and a half minutes each.

Mr. Champoux, you have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a few minutes ago, we were talking about discoverability with Mr. Trudel and I found that very interesting.

I would now like to turn to Ms. Roy.

Ms. Roy, at the beginning of one of your interventions, you said that you would be very happy to be able to benefit from financial support. I agree with you.

Earlier, you said that you did not identify with what you saw. That reminds me of a time when francophone artists in Quebec did not identify with what they heard on the radio and did not have a place in the media in general. That is why the CRTC established obligations for broadcasters to include and present content from francophone artists. Today, Quebec's francophone cultural community is doing well. This includes artists as well as creators of music and audiovisual productions. These people have access to grants and are shining on a global scale, as well as on digital platforms.

Don't you think that a well-adapted regulation would benefit digital content creators like yourself?

[Oorbee Roy]

Thank you for the question.

Ultimately I think you have to make good content that's interesting for people to watch. If people like the content, they'll watch it. I don't need help in order to do that. I study it, I learn it and then I create good content. Ultimately if I'm being regulated, that's going to restrict me, so yes, sure, I'd like some help from the platforms. I talk to them all the time about it. There is a French creator Patrick Watson, who created a song a few years ago and is killing it on TikTok right now. I think that there are opportunities for creators. You just have to make good content.