Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. It is not really up to me to be the judge, as this is a matter for the committee's consideration. The government's position is that those social media services are a way for people to listen to music and interact with their favourite artists.

Canadian Heritage committee  Mr. Shields, thank you for that question. The short form is yes: The difference is between the individual and the program. Again, I think the intention is not to deny the fact that these services are used in a variety of ways. That is what makes them so challenging to deal with from a regulatory perspective.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The impact would be for individual creators and artists who.... All of the powers being given to the CRTC are permissive, not obligatory, but if the CRTC chose to exercise this power, the focus would be on requiring social media services to raise the profile of the individual creators or artists.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Ms. Harder. Yes, the CRTC would have to determine, again in consultation with creators and social media services, how to give effect to the term “Canadian creator”. Mr. Champoux is right in that. That is not a defined term in the act, but the intention here, again, is to recognize that these services can do a lot in terms of promoting local artists and local creators whose work is shared on these platforms.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Harder, let me just clarify that I've understood the question correctly. The question is whether an app could constitute a programming undertaking as defined in the act. Is that the question?

Canadian Heritage committee  The answer to that is yes, depending on the app. As we know, more and more broadcasting services offer a variety of different ways to reach their audiences. Sometimes those take the form of an app—CBC Gem, or ICI TOU.TV—which you can download on your box at home and click through.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. I will not pass judgment on whether it is wise or not to do what you are proposing, because that is the committee's decision. However, I can say that every term is definitely not defined in a bill or an act. A number of terms are used. Often, a definition will be provided for a term if it is very technical, if it is not part of common language and if people don't understand it very well.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. The starting point is the definition of an online undertaking, which is an “undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question. “Discoverability” is a high-level term, and I would just caution about jumping to conclusions in terms of what that may look like at the end of the day. The expectation in terms of how the CRTC uses all of these powers is that it would come to its conclusions through consultations with the industry, with social media services themselves and with broadcasters, in relation to these powers.

Canadian Heritage committee  You're right, Ms. Harder, in the sense that “social media” is not a defined term in the bill. Not every term is defined. Where a term isn't defined, it would be understood in relation to its ordinary meaning. In this instance, it was intentional to leave the term undefined, to be understood in terms of its ordinary meaning, so that the framework can continue to evolve over time.

Canadian Heritage committee  You are right, in the sense that when the CRTC moves into implementation of this, the CRTC will have to articulate who precisely is caught and subject to any potential obligations. In doing that work, the CRTC would first, like the committee, look to whether there's a definition in this act, and there isn't.

Canadian Heritage committee  It's whichever you wish, Ms. Harder: Mr. Ripley or Owen.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder. Just to recap a little bit what has transpired, with the removal of proposed section 4.1, the social media services and the programming that is on those services get scoped in. What G-11.1 would do is restrict, essentially, the CRTC's ability to regulate those services to the three things that I think the committee is now well aware of.

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes, Ms. Harder, that is correct. If the subamendment by Monsieur Champoux were to pass, the focus would be on the programming and raising the visibility or discoverability of programs, as opposed to the person who is the creator of the program.

Canadian Heritage committee  The CRTC, as the regulator, would be the one to exercise this power, and it would have to determine what constitutes a Canadian program in the context of social media services.