Canadian Heritage Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Richard Gingras]

I should add quickly, just to clarify the record, that I believe on YouTube we may label the CBC as publicly funded media. However, I'm not sure of that. You can check it on YouTube.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I referred to it to say that the somewhat malicious intent behind the label was to indirectly compare the CBC with propaganda media in totalitarian countries.

What I mean by this is that Google, which belongs to Alphabet, is a public company. Is it possible that one day, an individual like Elon Musk, or someone else who might be less rigorous about the quality of what's published or shared on these platforms, could end up as the majority shareholder of a business like yours?

[Kent Walker]

From the very beginning, we had a mission statement that is focused on organizing the world of information to make it universally accessible and useful. That is a core tenet of the company. When we provide background about individual sources, we try to do that in the most principled and rigorous way we can.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understand that full well and I appreciate it. However, no company is safe from someone coming in with a completely different vision. That's why it's important to have legislation. In the bill we are currently debating, there are criteria we consider essential for our journalism.

When you propose a fund and other methods, it removes the opportunity for us here in Canada and Quebec to keep our own fundamental criteria for journalism. I think that Bill C‑18 is good and important, even if you don't approve of the way it's written or the method we plan to use. It's still up to us to decide how we are going to manage this type of informational content.

My time is almost up, but we'll have time to come back to it later, Mr. Walker, because I think you wanted to respond.

[Kent Walker]

I would say quickly that we agree with that sentiment and we agree that Canada Media Fund adopts precisely the right set of criteria. We would encourage those criteria to be used as the benchmark for any fund distribution.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Walker.

We'll move now to Mr. Julian of the New Democratic Party for two and a half minutes.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to reiterate that is indeed the problem. We saw Twitter basically go over a cliff, with a billionaire who has no respect for diversity of opinions, is promoting far-right, crazed conspiracy theories and has taken Twitter, which was a strong institution, literally a town hall for so many people around the world, and turned it into a garbage pit of conspiracy theories, hate and far-right propaganda.

This is the concern and why, as legislators, we have to put in place rules that companies, regardless of who owns them, who runs them, have to respect.

With that comment, I will now pass to questions.

To continue on the test and the impact that had in terms of Canadians, can you confirm that 1.2 million Canadians were impacted?

[Richard Gingras]

I can't confirm the precise number. As we noted, we look at IP addresses. It was roughly 3.3% of the IP addresses. IP addresses can be to a computer that's used by more than one person, so I would be careful about associating an IP address literally with a number of people. However, I think it's fair to say it's roughly in that order.

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

How many IP addresses were impacted?

[Richard Gingras]

It was 3.3% of the IP addresses—

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

I'm asking for a number.

[Richard Gingras]

I think the approximation of 1.1 million is probably fair.

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

Thank you.

What kind of demographic matrix or other matrix was used for the formulation of this test? It was random in nature. You're saying journalists weren't targeted. There was no geographical targeting. What were the other criteria that were brought into this particular test?

[Richard Gingras]

There were no other criteria brought into the test.

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

No geometric—

[Richard Gingras]

There were simply IP addresses randomized.

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

There was no geometric criteria. You would know, based on the random test, how many of the IP addresses were impacted, for example, in British Columbia or Ontario.

[Richard Gingras]

I would suggest that, again, based on random methodology and statistical principles, the population of British Columbia would be proportionately represented in the test relevant to their population, with regard to the overall population of about 37 million Canadians.

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

Share that information with us. Of the IP addresses, how many were impacted in each province, and how many were impacted in the territories?

[Richard Gingras]

We can certainly see if we can provide further information there.

I'm not sure how accurately we can do that, because that also includes mobile devices and people moving around.

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

I think it would be helpful for this committee to know that. If you could provide it, as best you can, that would be appreciated.

[Richard Gingras]

We would be pleased to.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll move now to Mr. Shields of the Conservative Party. We have five minutes for Mr. Shields.

Go ahead, sir.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Just to start with, having been around this issue a couple of times over the years with heritage, do you understand how important it is that you are here? In previous times, when we had other people but requested you, that set a tone that we could be very frustrated and angry. Do you understand the difference between sending people who we didn't request and having you come? Do you understand how that sets a different frame?

[Kent Walker]

We appreciate the point, sir. That's why we're here voluntarily today. We have traditionally looked to our country managers and to our people in the country who are most familiar with the issues to respond to various issues, but under the circumstances we felt it was appropriate for us to appear voluntarily today.