Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2022

[Ian Scott]

Certain priorities.... I mean, there are obviously parameters. We are an arm's-length adjudicative body and there are limits, but yes, the government of the day has the ability to issue a policy direction to the commission as you describe.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

One of those issues that may be contained and would be likely to be contained within that would be the concept of discoverability. Would that be a good assumption?

[Ian Scott]

To be honest, I think it would be presumptuous of me to guess what the minister and the government might issue in terms of a policy direction.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I will back up a step, then. If there is no mention of discoverability within a policy directive, how would you interpret that when you're coming to draft regulations? How would you implement discoverability for an online streamer?

[Ian Scott]

As my colleague Mr. Hutton responded to Mr. Champoux before, as we do today. It would obviously apply to a larger group, but it's really about outcomes. What we're focused on are outcomes, and in that case what we're trying to ensure is that Canadians can find Canadian content.

Let's be clear: Today the platforms we're talking about are also doing that. Netflix identifies Canadian content. Prime does. Spotify does in the audio area. YouTube does and compensates artists, so this isn't new. We would continue to do that, and we would be focused on ensuring that Canadians can find Canadian stories and content.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

There is a possibility, then, that the CRTC could just step back altogether when it comes to the concept of discoverability and leave it as it is now. If the platforms are already—

[Ian Scott]

It's a bit vague, and I can't predict what the commission would do, but what I would say is that what we do is pursue.... I've described it as the alternative version of what the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are—to make sure that those Canadian stories are told, that they're distributed and that they're discoverable. Yes, we will continue to do that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You mentioned outcomes. Does the CRTC have the ability to regulate outcomes?

[Ian Scott]

We have the ability to identify what desired outcomes are and then—I hope—in the future to use, as much as possible, incentives rather than prescription. If you go back to the “Harnessing Change” report, it's one of the key elements of that report.

We need to be adaptable. We need to recognize that different players have different business models. We need to find an equitable framework but not an identical one, and we need to try to incentivize behaviour that is positive for producers—digital content producers and traditional producers alike.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a different question. If our outcome is that we want to have Canadian content—stories being told by Canadians, available to Canadians—how do you get to that outcome in a meaningful way? How do you force—for lack of a better word—people to have Canadian content available?

[Ian Scott]

My answer, as I said a minute ago, is preferably by incentives.

As I said, they're doing it, and they have good reason to do so. If you take Netflix as an example, or Crave, whether it's a foreign or Canadian producer, they want people to watch programming, and Canadian programming is popular. They will identify it and we will persist in asking them to make sure Canadians can find that content

That doesn't make anybody watch it. It makes sure that people can find it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

How much of that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. You have eight seconds, John, so I think we could finish that round, and I will move on.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

In my eight seconds, I'll say thank you as well for the discussion. I'm sure we can follow up another time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

From the Liberals, we have Mr. Coteau for five minutes.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much for being here.

I have a quick question: Have you read the charter statement?

[Ian Scott]

Yes, we have, and counsel actually reviewed it today.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay. That's great.

Can counsel give us your thoughts on it? Does it contradict anything that you do as an organization?

[Ian Scott]

I'll ask counsel to respond, please.

[Rachelle Frenette]

My understanding of the charter statement that was issued by the Department of Justice is that it set out that programs that are uploaded by an unaffiliated user of social media would not be subject to the act unless prescribed by regulation. In deciding to prescribe such regulation, the statement then goes on to list the number of factors that are set out in Bill C-11.

It would appear that the Department of Justice charter statement did in fact have these provisions within their contemplation when they made the statement that Bill C-11 is charter compliant.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

There's a lot of discussion about the bill and what it means for YouTube, TikTok, Netflix and other platforms. While Bill C-11 directs you to respect the different ways in which these platforms operate, the act is fundamentally technology neutral and platform agnostic. Can you tell us what that means to you?

[Ian Scott]

Again, it's not an interest in the user-uploaded content but rather in the behaviour and actions of the platform itself. Just as today we encourage licensees, through conditions of licence, to do certain things, we would potentially ask them, in the discoverability example, to take measures to ensure that Canadians can find Canadian stories. That would be an example.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

It's that simple.

[Ian Scott]

Yes, it is.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I appreciate it.

I'm going to pass it over to my colleague.