Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I go by Owen. Thank you for asking. The big difference is kind of the unit to which the discoverability power would apply. As it's currently crafted, the obligation or the power is in relation to the individual creator or artist, so if the CRTC were to exercise that, it would be limited in requiring social media services to raise the visibility of the creator or artist, as opposed to their programming.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin. If I understand the amendment correctly, it would replace the phrase “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs” or “Canadian programming”. Indeed, that is a change, in the sense that, as drafted right now, the discoverability power that is being provided to the CRTC is explicit about raising the visibility of Canadian creators, so the emphasis is on the individual creator or artist and showcasing them on these services, not their programs.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. Unfortunately, I'm not here to give my opinion on such an issue, but rather to support the committee by providing technical explanations of its work. There is definitely a difference between the effect of the originally proposed section 4.1, which was withdrawn by the committee, and the amendment proposed by Ms.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. As we discussed earlier, the original section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming uploaded to a social media service by someone not affiliated with that service. The amendment just introduced by Ms. Dabrusin sets out the regulatory tools in proposed section 9.1 that can be used to regulate social media.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. I would be happy to speak about what the effect of the amendment would be. What the amendment would do is in proposed new section 9.1 of the bill. It would add an additional order-making power for the CRTC with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service.

Canadian Heritage committee  Again, to the extent that a broadcasting undertaking was to migrate to being an online undertaking—i.e., does not require a licence to operate—there would be no.... This power, this amendment, for the CRTC to make orders respecting changes in ownership or control would not apply to that online undertaking.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh. The question would hinge on whether Crave is a licensed undertaking or not. It's an online undertaking, but because it's part of a larger corporate family, it would depend on exactly the way it is operated. My understanding is that right now, it does operate under the exemption order and therefore is not part of any licensed activity of Bell.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. The answer is actually similar to the one I gave Mr. Aitchison and Mr. Waugh. Currently, as you know, there is a directive stipulating that only Canadian enterprises can hold licenses in Canada. I would say that the amendment is much in the same spirit, because it is impossible for a foreign company to obtain a license to operate a broadcasting enterprise in Canada.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. The amendment as currently drafted, as members of the committee will note, talks about undertakings that are carried on under a licence. The way that Bill C-10 is structured, as you may recall, is that online undertakings actually do not need to hold a licence, and so the amendment that Mr.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. While I won't comment on the trade risk, what I would say is that the effect of this would be to allow either party, one or the other, to request facilitation, and it would prevent, as you pointed out, a party from signing the process by refusing to go to facilitation.

Canadian Heritage committee  The delay, Mr. Chair, is because we were organizing our thoughts on this. What I would—

Canadian Heritage committee  What I would say is that the law is specific, generally, wherever it grants the CRTC the power to impose terms or conditions. Our view is that even if you struck it—again, because there are other instances in the act, I think, wherein it explicitly references terms and conditions—the reading would likely be that it doesn't include it here.

Canadian Heritage committee  I do, and I will probably defer to Mr. Méla on the drafting. To clarify, there would indeed be a substantial change. Right now, as drafted, facilitation could only be invoked at the joint request of the parties, meaning that if one party wanted facilitation but the other party didn't, you wouldn't meet the test for engaging the facilitation.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. To clarify, what is on the table through this amendment is an extension, with some changes, of what we call mandatory distribution in the conventional system. Right now the CRTC has the ability to require cable and satellite companies to carry certain TV channels, such as APTN, CPAC or your provincial legislative channel.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. The answer would be no, amendment BQ-18 as drafted only covers French programming. It adds a new order-making power for the CRTC. I would point the committee to new subsection 9.1(1), paragraph (a) of the Broadcasting Act, which already in Bill C-10 has provided the commission with the ability to make orders with respect to the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be Canadian programs and the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs; Then it continues in paragraph (b) with “the presentation of programs for selection by the public”, etc.