Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Would Mr. Méla choose to give us an opinion with regard to what he just heard?

[Philippe Méla]

No, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any further debate?

Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I was hoping that Mr. Ripley could clearly help us understand. You mentioned that the term “Canadian program” is used throughout the legislation. Are you able to provide us with a clear understanding as to what is meant by that term?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

“Canadian program”, for the purposes of the regulatory regime, would be understood based on how the CRTC defines what we colloquially call “CanCon”. In the case of audiovisual content, that would be the 10-point scale. In the case of music, that would be the MAPL system, where you look at the musician, the lyrics, etc.

That's how it would be understood currently, and again, I'm not trying to.... I'm highlighting that it's a different term that hasn't been used, and I would defer to Mr. Nater in terms of his intention and whether he's seeking to use the concept of “Canadian content” or “Canadian program” as it's traditionally understood, or perhaps seeking to do something broader.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Monsieur Champoux, please go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I find it interesting that my friend Mr. Nater is proposing a definition for the word “discoverability”. I know it's a word that bothers him greatly, and it's a concept he's not very keen on.

However, the proposed definition for the word “discoverability”, as we understand it, does not really correspond to the actual meaning of the word. For example, the Office québécois de la langue française's definition is as follows:

The potential for content, available online, to be easily discovered by Internet users in cyberspace, particularly those who were not specifically looking for the content in question.

So the meaning is completely different.

If we want to give a definition of the word “discoverability” in the Broadcasting Act, I am very much in favour of using a definition that already exists and that represents much more the meaning of the concept we want to express.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Julian is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Clerk.

I always find what Mr. Nater is proposing interesting. However, the restrictions in his definition are more restrictive than anything else. Although I find the concept and definition interesting, I will vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We have Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

“Discoverability” is referred to in this legislation as wanting to create greater awareness around so-called CanCon or Canadian programs. We've heard testimony at this committee with regard to the CRTC putting in a framework that would create “discoverability” of Canadian content—or generate greater discoverability, I guess—and we know that when it comes to digital platforms and the ability to discover “Canadian content”, algorithms would be used. They would be required.

I think the goal here is to put a bit of a framework around what the CRTC will and will not do. Rather than giving the CRTC wide-reaching or broad scope in terms of what it gets to do with regard to determining how a company such as Spotify or YouTube makes content discoverable, instead we are wanting to provide at least a base definition of what this concept might look like.

I believe it is the responsibility of legislators to do that, rather than to just hand it off to the CRTC and allow it to make broad, sweeping changes or impose its definition or desire around this. This is a very simple definition with regard to the word “discoverability” that we are proposing to the committee here today.

It should also be noted for the committee that we are currently having this discussion around clause-by-clause and this specific discussion around the definition of discoverability without actually having heard from an adequate number of witnesses. I recognize that some of my colleagues in this committee would have preferred not to hear from any witnesses at all. They would have liked to ram this legislation through, but it is important to note and to have it on the record that there were many, many witnesses who expressed an interest in coming here and having their voices heard with regard to this legislation as a whole, but in particular with regard to discoverability.

If this isn't clearly defined and is left in the hands of the CRTC and it takes a broad, sweeping approach and dictates to what extent something should be able to be found on the Internet, it will indeed change the ability of users to be able to find the content they wish to find, and it will hinder the success of any Canadian new media creators or digital-first creators, because they are used to functioning within an ecosystem that allows for freedom. Within that freedom, they have worked incredibly hard. They have taken risks. They have been strategic, and they have garnered an audience for themselves. Now, with the threat of discoverability, we are looking at the government, through the CRTC, dictating what can be found and what cannot be found, whether something is bumped up in the queue or bumped down in the queue, and to what extent it can be located.

Instead of viewers finding content that they wish to find based on their personal preferences, what will likely happen instead is that CanCon, or Canadian programs, will be put in front of their eyeballs whether they want to see that or not. If they don't like that content, then it will hurt those artists, because this will downgrade it. That's very unfortunate, because this will actually hurt those individuals, then, that the government is claiming to help.

At the same time, there are other artists who will be forced to page 553 of the search engine. Theirs might be the exact content that a particular viewer is looking for, but they will not be discovered because the government doesn't think that content is worth promoting and so it's been pushed back into some black hole.

The concept of discoverability is one that is incredibly dictatorial in nature, and it is one that likens Canada to places like North Korea or China where, there too, content is forced in front of the eyeballs of citizens who use the Internet. It's unfortunate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to make one final comment on this definition. It's something that I've brought up throughout this process on Bill C-11, and that's the policy directive. I've brought it up in the House of Commons. I've brought it up during closure motions.

Frankly, this definition wouldn't be needed had we seen the policy directive. At some point in the next months or years after this bill receives royal assent, the minister will issue a policy directive to the CRTC that will include discoverability, but we have yet to know how discoverability will be interpreted by either the CRTC or the directions that the government will provide to it.

We are operating here in a black box. We don't know how the minister will define it, so that is why we've gone to the step of having a clear approach to it through this definition. I think it's important that we do that. Canadians expect us to have that, and anyone who operates online regularly, whether on search engines or whether on a foreign or domestic streaming platform, would understand how the search functions work and be able to access the content they're interested in having.

I'm going to leave my comments there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

I will call the vote on Mr. Nater's amendment.

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

Thank you very much. Now I shall move to LIB-1, from Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

This is just a bit of a cleanup exercise. In Bill C-10 we consistently used the phrase “official language minority communities”.

In French, Bill C‑10 used the expression “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire”.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑11 has different terminology, and it uses various formulations. I would like us to revisit the terminology in Bill C‑10.

It was a demand of the French-speaking communities from outside Quebec and the English-speaking community in Quebec to use the terminology they would normally use to refer to themselves, which is “official language minority community”. That is one cleanup. I've done it throughout the bill, and I wanted to define it.

The second thing I will just raise, because you'll see it also, is “original French-language programs”. Also, in the bill, there is no clarity, so I've brought in amendments to clarify that it means programs that are originally in French, not original programs dubbed into French.

Those are the two things I wanted to raise, and this is just one clarifying thing, what an “official language minority community” is, and to use it consistently in the bill.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to ask Mr. Housefather if he would like to repeat the same discussions as last year on this point.

I fully agree with the amendment. However, I would like to hear a firm commitment from my Liberal Party colleagues, who are proposing this amendment, to ensure that francophone communities outside Quebec have access to as much variety in radio, television or content in their language that the anglophone minority has in Quebec. We know that there is no shortage of English‑language radio and television stations, and sources of information in Quebec. It may be a little more deficient in French in the rest of Canada for francophone communities.

I would like to hear a firm commitment to ensure that access to French‑language content for francophone communities outside Quebec is also an objective to be achieved by this definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will be supporting this amendment. I think it's important that linguistic communities outside Quebec—I am thinking here of Franco-Columbians in particular—be able to express themselves, and talk about their history and their communities. This is extremely important. That's why I support Mr. Housefather's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather is next.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I really appreciated Mr. Champoux's comments.

I simply want to point out the following. There is no doubt that a market of 1.2 million English‑speaking people is concentrated on the Island of Montreal and that the size of that market is larger than that of the francophone communities in the various regions of Canada. Because of that, access available to that market is greater.

That doesn't mean I'm insensitive to the needs, which vary by province. I’m very sensitive to that. I want to be very clear. Francophones in British Columbia face very significant challenges that are different from those of francophones in northern New Brunswick, a region where they are in the majority. We have to treat all these communities as unique cases and find ways to support them.

I will stand by my friend, and I'm sure he'll do the same thing when it comes to supporting anglophones in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, John.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've appreciated the conversation that's been happening thus far.

As former vice-chair of the official languages committee, I have some interest in this matter. As an Anglo who has tried to learn French later in life or throughout my life, I think it's important.

I would just say that we will support this amendment. I think it is important that this be a common definition. It is important that we have that on the record in the definition part. I know, looking through the amendments, that it comes up again, and I'm sure it will be debated again at that point, but, from a definition standpoint, this does seem to be the commonly accepted definition of an official language minority community throughout Canada, so I think we will support it from that perspective.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

LIB-1 will carry. As a result, Liberal amendments 3, 6, 7 and 8, being consequential amendments, will also be adopted.

Thank you very much.

We now move on to—