Canadian Heritage committee  Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill C‑10 sets out the regulatory power to implement a registration system to help the CRTC administer the system. The CRTC would then know whether an online undertaking was operating in Canada, for instance. That is why the bill grants the power.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for your question, Mr. Rayes. As initially proposed, section 4.1 excluded user-generated programming. As the committee members are aware, that section was replaced by a limited power granted to the CRTC under new section 9.1. We haven't yet addressed the issue as it relates to section 10.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for your question. Again, we need to consider things in context. Under proposed subsection 2(2.1), individuals would not be treated as broadcasters if they are not affiliated with an online undertaking or a social media service. The discoverability requirements apply to online undertakings and social media services.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank Mr. Rayes for his question. The answer is that it is up to the CRTC to oversee the matter and put a system in place, given that responsibility for implementing Canada's broadcasting system falls on the CRTC. Operationalizing that will certainly pose challenges.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. I would point out a couple of things. The first one is with respect to the reintroduction of language along the lines of proposed section 4.1. The challenge for the committee is that this language is in a certain degree of tension with amendments that the committee has now passed.

Canadian Heritage committee  Perhaps I'll just start by taking a step back and reminding the committee that Bill C-10 proposes transitioning from a licence-based model to what we have called a conditions of service type of model. The bill proposes that conditions of service, which could be through orders at proposed section 9.1, regulations at proposed section 10 or proposed section 11.1, not be necessarily time limited.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. One observation I would have is—I heard Monsieur Champoux express that this wasn't his intention, but the concern would be—that this potentially imposes a seven-year cap on all proposed section 9.1 orders. I certainly understand that the spirit of this is to ensure that the CRTC reviews orders from time to time.

Canadian Heritage committee  If I understand what's taking place, Mr. Rayes has tabled an amendment that alludes to a future amendment that introduces, I think, something along the lines of a public interest test for the corporation. The changes with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10, as it was tabled, were very limited in the sense that the government acknowledged that there were recommendations in the Yale report with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada, but that it was not including CBC/Radio-Canada within the scope of Bill C-10 for the most part and that the role and mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada would be looked at in a future phase of reform.

Canadian Heritage committee  Mr. Manly, with respect to the question of whether they would be caught under the act, the definition of “program” is broad in that it encompasses both audiovisual and audio content. It's clear that for the purposes of the act, there is no time limitation, necessarily, with respect to what may constitute a program.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder. It's a really good one and it relates to the conversation that the committee was just having. The answer to your question is no. The power, as currently crafted, breaks with this idea of Canadian content or Canadian program. Again, that was intentionally done, as Monsieur Champoux and Monsieur Boulerice highlighted.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder. The goal is ultimately to increase the visibility and promotion of those creators. That is the starting point, in the sense that we know that many of these services are used by Canadians to connect with cultural content they want to consume and artists they want to follow.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder. I guess the starting point would be perhaps to point all members to subsection 2(3) of the act, which talks about the act being “construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.”

Canadian Heritage committee  I heard Mr. Champoux, in the way he presented it, describe it as a way of removing any doubt about this fact. I think that's a fair way to characterize it. I pointed you toward a section at the beginning of the act that already talks about the act being applied consistently with freedom of expression.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder. The committee heard from a number of experts earlier this week. Some of them highlighted the fact that there are obviously many factors that go into the consideration of the order in which content is given to us. We know that, on many of these services, individuals or companies are able to pay to have their content ranked above others.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. I'll try to make this clear. Under proposed subsection 2(2.1), a non-affiliated user can never be considered a broadcaster. The user can't suddenly be considered a broadcaster. You're right that the purpose of the CRTC's discoverability power is to promote individual Canadians.