Canadian Heritage Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sorry, let's be really clear here then. When you say “potential stretching” could take place in how this bill is used to require these different platforms to curate content in a specific way according to whatever the government mandates through the CRTC, what are you potentially concerned about?

Today it looks innocent. It looks like it's just propping up Canadian content, even though it's an antiquated definition, and that certainly is harmful in and of itself. Nevertheless, beyond that do you have any other concerns?

[Jay Goldberg]

Absolutely. This legislation sets the stage for the government, through the CRTC, to be able to decide what ought to be promoted and what ought not to be promoted as we view products online. So, yes, today the criteria might be Canadian, that is, whether or not something is considered to be Canadian content. However, I would note here that some of the programming decisions are very outdated. A film called Gotta Love Trump is actually considered Canadian content while The Handmaid's Tale is not.

There are lots of problems there. But what I would also say is, yes, there could be expansion. Today the government's talking about whether or not something is considered to be Canadian. We've heard Minister Mendicino talk about things like social cohesion. We know that the topic of online harms is coming down the pipeline, and so we're very concerned that this could create a mechanism through which the government could promote and demote certain Canadian content—what people are saying based on standards that are not just Canadian and that could go all the way to social cohesion, which is very vague and allows a lot of room for the government to make decisions like that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

With regard to the bill, presently there is no policy directive that has been given to the CRTC. In other words, Bill C-11 is vague in some areas, and it will be left up to the CRTC to determine how they are going to apply the bill at large.

Without a policy directive, it is impossible for the CRTC to understand what the minister's intent is. Now, the minister is saying that will come later, and he's asking Parliament to trust him as he requests that this legislation be moved forward. However, that seems out of step. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Jay Goldberg]

Absolutely. I'll say as Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”

If the government is trying to say that they're going to create this legislation and pass this, and then they're going to figure out exactly what the orders are down the line, Canadians shouldn't have to trust that. We need proof of exactly what the government intends to do with this legislation. The regulations, the rules and the instructions should all be coming first. This is a very backward way of doing things in government, to pass a bill, to give all kinds of power to an organization that is rather unaccountable, and then just to presume that the minister, based on what the minister decides at a later date, will simply make a determination, which, because the power has already been given, Parliament has little way to stop.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The minister has said that user-generated content, in other words the content put up by individuals, is exempt from the bill. However, the chair of the CRTC, Mr. Scott, has said nope, that in fact it is captured by the bill. Obviously, there's a discrepancy there that I would say is all the more reason for clear guidelines to be established at the beginning.

Do you have thoughts with regard to the capturing of user-generated content?

[Jay Goldberg]

Absolutely. I've had conversations with Professor Michael Geist, one of the foremost experts in this area. What he says is that there's an exception for user-generated content, but then there's immediately an exception to the exception, which he says throws the door wide open,. As I quoted Mr. Scott earlier, he said, “section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe, by regulation, user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.” That's pretty open and shut. There is room for the regulation of user-generated content. If the CRTC is the organization that's going to be getting that power—and indeed they themselves are saying they're getting that power—then I think they're the ones we have to listen to.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Some content will be bumped up in the queue and some will be bumped down when people are using their search bars to look for information. Of course, we know the content that will be bumped up is that which fits the definition of CanCon, which is very antiquated. Then anything that doesn't fit that definition will be bumped down.

It could even be produced by a Canadian on Canadian soil and be full of Canadian songs, etc., but it will not capture the attention of an audience because it will be bumped back to page 500 of the Internet, where it's undiscoverable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Do you have thoughts on that?

[Jay Goldberg]

Absolutely. There is a great documentary on the Maple Leafs' playoff run in 2021. Lots of us love the Maple Leafs. It's not considered Canadian content and it will go down to the bottom of your streaming service, while Gotta Love Trump will be right at the top because it's considered Canadian.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Thomas.

Now I go to the Liberals and Anthony Housefather for six minutes, please.

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

Actually, Madam Chair, I'll take this slot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. Thank you. I am just reading from the list I've been given.

Chris Bittle, you have six minutes. Thank you.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

That was an interesting discussion. It was almost as if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't exist in our society.

Before I get to the witnesses, I do want to make a quick apology to them. We had a very good discussion last night about what to do next. There was a motion on the floor from Mr. Julian and we didn't quite get to voting. Voting should only take about a minute. I have six minutes and this shouldn't take more than six minutes. I'm happy to cede that time back to the chair.

I'd like to put Mr. Julian's motion back on the floor. Also I'd like us to think, in terms of the original motion, that this was for the equivalent of 20 hours of meeting study. Five weeks was the equivalent of that study. We're at the end of that and so I'd like to hear from Mr. Julian and Monsieur Champoux about moving into clause-by-clause, since we have reached the end of that.

Again, I apologize to the witnesses. This should only take a couple of minutes as we vote on Mr. Julian's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Yes, I believe Mr. Bittle has moved my motion, which he is able to do. It was to have the amendment deadline for Friday at 4:00 p.m., I believe.

As we talked about yesterday, Madam Chair, of course that would mean that amendments could still be brought to the clause-by-clause. It just prepares the ground so that amendments can actually be prepared and translated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Nater, your hand is up.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this requires more discussion than the six minutes that is currently involved. I'll make a few comments.

Again, we still haven't heard from the minister. The minister will be speaking later in this meeting. At least I hope the minister will be speaking later in this meeting. Again, until we've at least heard from the minister, I am not prepared to anticipate or prepare to provide a deadline for amendments. That's the first thing I would point out.

Second, I think it's perhaps disappointing—I'll use that word—that we're doing this in the middle of testimony. We've heard from our witnesses, but obviously we've only had six minutes' worth of questions and I have obviously a lot of things I'd like to ask our witnesses.

I'd like to ask more about their interpretation of what they would like to see with Canadian content and what types of changes they'd like to see, particularly in the music industry. I know we have both Mr. Cash and Ms. Kokonis from SOCAN. I'd like to hear their opinions of where we'd want to go with Canadian content.

Others have mentioned discoverability. I'd like to hear more in-depth what their opinions are on where we're going forward and obviously what changes might be needed or might be required in terms of amendments.

I'd want to hear from Mr. Norouzi about ICI Télévision and what his thoughts are on part II licence fees, which are effectively a tax on broadcasters.

Those are some of the things I want to be hearing about. I want to hear about what their thoughts are in terms of amendments and changes to this piece of legislation.

My suggestion at this point—and I will move this—is that we adjourn debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I understand that, now that you have moved to adjourn debate on the motion, the motion to adjourn takes precedence. We have other speakers on the floor who wish to speak to this motion, but we will have to adjourn the motion.

We are continuing. There is—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Madame Chair.

I am so sorry; I think you need to put that to a vote, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay, let's do that.

Those opposing the motion to adjourn, please raise your hand.

Would the clerk please note this for me?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would ask for a roll call.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You would like us to do a roll call.

Will the clerk please do the roll call?

Thank you.

[Alexie Labelle]

The motion is to adjourn the debate.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])