Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 28th, 2022

[David Dendooven]

Of course, we're very concerned about the state of the industry. We always want to hear the views of stakeholders. As the minister said, he plans to hold a national summit on arts, culture and heritage. This will give us the chance to hear from stakeholders who work in the arts, culture and heritage industry.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

However, you know that they'll probably repeat what they already told us in our two studies on the impact of the pandemic. You already know what they'll tell you at this type of summit.

Is that right?

[David Dendooven]

Of course, we looked at the testimony of the stakeholders who appeared before your committee. We'll also be looking at your report when it comes to the future of the industry in particular.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In my few remaining seconds, I want to pick up on the question that my colleague, Mr. Waugh, asked earlier about advertising investments. We've heard a great deal about this matter. I was deeply shocked to see, during a pandemic, heavy investments in digital giants Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix, or GAFAN, rather than investments directly in media. We know that this makes a huge difference in terms of their revenues.

Is any work being done to raise awareness so that we stop making GAFAN wealthier and so that the government sets an example by helping our media, especially our regional media?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.

I gave you the figures that I had available today on Canadian Heritage. The advertising budget policy isn't the responsibility of the department or the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It's managed across government. It falls under the responsibility of the Privy Council Office, which works with the people at Public Works and Government Services Canada on implementing it.

We can certainly send you the guidelines given to each department on how they should manage their advertising budget.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Do you know whether there's a guideline—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin. Time's up. I'm sorry about that.

Peter Julian is next, for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you for staying. We appreciate your work on behalf of the people of Canada.

Some of the people of Canada are in the live performance sector. We've been hearing from them first-hand. Because of the way the live performance sector works—with musicals, theatre productions—there's a long lead time. They are very concerned about what may happen if there are not additional supports put into place for them. Because of the long lead times—six months in some cases for music productions—and all of the rehearsals before they can actually get to the point where they're selling tickets and revenue comes back, are you currently examining and considering other supports that would go to the live performance sector?

[Joëlle Montminy]

Yes, in the platform commitment and in the mandate letter of our minister there is a commitment to look at support for mitigating the risks related to ticket sales, so revenues resulting from tickets. To your point, the investments in a lot of these productions have to be made up front and you only recoup your costs later on. We're looking at a measure that will alleviate some of the pressure and then inject additional funding so that we can help the live performance sector recover, and again mitigate these risks of the unknown in terms of the revenues that might be generated.

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

Thank you very much for that. I may make you uncomfortable, but I will ask the question, when? When would we expect to see those announcements made, then?

[Joëlle Montminy]

It is not in my hands. I cannot tell you exactly when. I would say this is a priority commitment for our minister.

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

Is it possible that it would be prior to a budget, or is it more likely that we would see provisions in the budget?

[Joëlle Montminy]

I cannot say, unfortunately. I don't know.

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

I'd like to go on to the issue of the web giants. Many organizations—the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, MIT—have correlated the rise in online hate and radicalization of people—which we saw, notably, in Ottawa over the last three weeks—with algorithms and a diet of toxic videos, toxic information that is sent to people, often people who had no prior experience with that. They may simply have asked whether vaccines are safe, and they're dragged into this echo chamber of very toxic misinformation that has led to radicalization and online hate.

I'm wondering to what extent the ministry is looking at that and to what extent you're engaging with the web giants on this—when I say the web giants, of course, I'm thinking of YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram—so that they have an awareness of their responsibilities to curb what is becoming an increasingly toxic sector.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The question of increased transparency in terms of how these platforms work and the impact on Canadians, and specifically on certain communities, was an important component of the proposal the government put forward in the summer. When it published its proposal with respect to online harms, some of the powers that would have been given to the new regulator that was proposed to be created would have touched on the issues that you described to ensure a better line of sight into the decision-making processes around algorithms.

We got a fair bit of feedback in response to that proposal. We had about 422 unique responses. We've been very transparent in terms of what we heard. The minister alluded to the broad recognition that the government has to act and to do something in this space, but as you will see in our “what we heard” report, a fair number of criticisms and concerns were raised by stakeholders around questions of privacy, questions around the charter and questions around the takedown provisions. It's in that spirit of recognizing that this is very important...but the legislative framework that is going to be put in place will also have to stand the test of time.

It's really from that perspective that the government is signalling, “Okay, we heard you. The proposal we published last summer doesn't quite hit the mark.” That's why the minister is pulling together this expert adviser group that will help him rework some elements of that proposal. Then we'll take it from there.

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

Are you looking at other best practices in other countries? For example, there is legislation before the U.S. Congress now that tackles that issue of transparency around algorithms and making the web giants responsible for the algorithms that are leading to this progressive radicalization and dramatic increase in online hate that's manifested often, as we've seen, in person. Are you looking at those models as a possible direction to take?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

We are. In the space of online harms, if I were to characterize it broadly, I would say there are about three big international models. You have the German takedown-type model. The proposal that the government put out last summer drew heavily on the experience of Germany. I would characterize the Australian model as one more of enforcement. In the Australian model, what they've done with their e-safety commissioner is really give that body the ability to investigate complaints and have certain enforcement powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, guys.

I think we need to end here, Peter. I'm sorry.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, he was just getting to the final example after Germany and Australia. If you can just give him another 10 seconds, you can take that off my next question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is everyone in agreement to allow that, because what we're gathering is information?

Hearing no dissent, we'll let him have 10 seconds to finish.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I will be super brief, Chair.

The third model is what I would characterize as the duty of care model that the U.K. has been putting forward. There's an emphasis on making sure that platforms have appropriate processes and mechanisms in place to deal with a variety of different online harms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Rachael Thomas, you have five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm wondering if perhaps you can offer a definition. The minister wasn't able to clarify it for me. The definition I'm looking for is with regard to Bill C-11. The word “program” is used throughout the bill. Of course, the entire bill has to do with regulating the uploading and the transmission of “programs”. I'm just wondering how you define that.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Broadly speaking, “program” covers audio and audiovisual content that is distributed by a broadcaster. It excludes primarily text-based content.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

How would you define a broadcaster?