Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intention with respect to the existing paragraph 3(1)(d)(ii) was not to remove anything relating to information analysis. It was actually to create a more robust provision in what is now proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii.1), which relates to news and cu

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Dabrusin is correct in that by reverting back to paragraph 3(1)(h), the motion would, in fact, circumscribe the provision to license broadcasters. As a result, it would not apply to online undertakings. If the committee is not in favour of that outcome,

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to get clarity on the specific portion we're discussing, so it's the part of subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i) that reads “in an equitable proportion, and”? Is that what we're discussing?

Canadian Heritage committee  Okay. To a certain degree this will be interpreted by the CRTC. It's not a defined term. It's not indicated elsewhere in the act. It would be up for interpretation by the commission.

Canadian Heritage committee  To answer the question, I agree with Mr. Champoux's statement that it's something that the act is striving towards and something that is obviously reflected in several other objectives of the act, as moved by the members of the committee on Friday, and today as well. The specific

Canadian Heritage committee  I think Mr. Ripley would like to answer this question.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii), this is a fairly heavy requirement that would involve some intervention from the commission with respect to the packages, contractual arrangements and terms of carriage. If the committee is in support of a

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. You are correct. Currently in proposed section 9.1, which I'm sure we'll get to in a couple of days, there is a condition of service power relating directly to discoverability, and this is not circumscribed to an

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I please have the language of the amendment again?

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes, please.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess there are a couple of things relating to this, perhaps just relating to the way in which the words are presented. It's whether the requirement being imposed is that the promotion itself and the recommendations themselves be done in both official la

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Rayes, for the question. There are a couple of points I would mention to the committee with respect to this motion. First of all, it seems to rely on an amended definition of “programming control” that was proposed in amendment BQ-3. T

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. The way that proposed section 9.1 is currently formulated makes it very clear the types of discoverability provisions required on undertakings that carry a social media service and those that don't. This specific amendment seems to be about

Canadian Heritage committee  For this to be an effective provision.... I understand what you're saying. These algorithms are constantly in flux, but I think the power speaks more generally to receiving broad information about how these algorithms work in a general sense. To get a precise snapshot of how an a

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. I interpret this as more of a precision. Mr. Champoux, I don't intend to speak to the intent of your motion, so I'd be happy to have you explain this as well. I see two aspects to this motion. One is about transparency for recommendati