Evidence of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage EVIDENCE NUMBER 037 Friday, May 28, 2021 Chair: Mr. Scott Simms 1 Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Friday, May 28, 2021 ● (1300) graph 9.1(1)(j)(v), that the information on broadcasting services in‐ [English] cludes “any information related to any means of programming con‐ trol.” We would also like to add subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(vi) to in‐ The Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre clude “information related to any means of promoting, recommend‐ Dame, Lib.)): Welcome, everybody. It's been a bit of a break, but ing or selecting programming, including Canadian programming.” we're all back here at the Standing Committee on Canadian Her‐ itage discussing, once again, clause-by-clause of Bill C-10. I think it's important that we give the CRTC the necessary tools This is meeting number 37. Pursuant to the order of reference of to verify whether persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings Tuesday, February 16, 2021, and the motion adopted by the com‐ meet the requirements set for them. mittee on May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill I'm open to discussion and await your comments. C-10. ● (1305) Today’s meeting takes place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. I would like to remind everyone [English] on board that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Champoux. permitted. Also when you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. You all know that. Not seeing anyone who would like to discuss that, it is moved— put forward. Since we are doing clause-by-clause, I'll give just a quick re‐ minder. If you go back to the documents you have here, you will Before I go any further I have to say that I've had a couple of see in the top right-hand corner—for the people who are watching people contact me. I should have said this at the beginning and I from all around the world or at least all around the World Wide apologize. They were asking members to please explain the amend‐ Web in our universe—if I say PV and a number, PV stands for Par‐ ment that they're putting forward in a little more of a direct manner, ti vert, which is a Green Party-proposed amendment. If it says CPC, because people cannot see that from home if they're watching from that would be a Conservative Party-proposed amendment. NDP abroad. That would be great if you could do that. would be from the New Democrats. BQ would be from the Bloc Québécois. Of course, LIB is from the Liberal members on our I say that in congratulations because I'm pretty sure Mr. Cham‐ committee. Finally, if an amendment has G and a number attached poux did just that by describing BQ-23. to it, that is a proposed amendment from the government. Mr. Rayes. (On clause 7) [Translation] The Chair: If you go back to our regularly scheduled program‐ Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Thank you, ming, you will see that we are currently on BQ-23. Mr. Chair. For that, we're going to go to Mr. Champoux. I'm going to add something to your comment. Yes, it's important [Translation] that it be succinct, but we nevertheless need certain details, hence my first question. Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like Mr. Ripley or one of the other senior officials here to ex‐ plain the consequences of the Bloc Québécois' amendment. I'm glad to see you again, friends and colleagues. [English] Amendment BQ‑23 concerns a provision that, under Bill C‑10, would be added to the Broadcasting Act to give the Canadian Ra‐ The Chair: Mr. Smith seems to want to take this on. dio-television and Telecommunications Commission the necessary Mr. Patrick Smith (Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legisla‐ verification tools to meet the regulation-related requests it receives. tive Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): Yes, thank you, Among other things, persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings Mr. Chair. are asked to grant the CRTC access to certain information. With this amendment, we wish to clarify, in proposed subpara‐ Thank you, Mr. Rayes, for the question. 2 CHPC-37 May 28, 2021 There are a couple of points I would mention to the committee [English] with respect to this motion. First of all, it seems to rely on an amended definition of “programming control” that was proposed in The Chair: Before you do, for all members here, this happened amendment BQ-3. That amendment was negatived, so as a result, last time. I started this thing with Ms. Harder. Ms. Harder was ask‐ the definition of “programming control” remains the “control over ing a question to the officials. I let it go back and forth as we would the selection of programs for transmission, but does not include treat a normal witness, and before I was not doing that. control over the selection of a programming service for retransmis‐ sion”. This is a defined term in the bill, and it refers to it, so I just Let's set up this particular system as I do it on the fly. I apolo‐ wanted to point that out. gize, but I want to get this thing running smoothly. If you're asking Given that BQ-3 was not carried, the definition of “programming a question of the department, of the officials we have here, and you control” as adopted by the committee in clause 1 will be limited to wish to counter that point or ask another question, physically put the editorial function, you could say, of a person, corporate or oth‐ your hand up so that I know you're in a back-and-forth with that erwise, in choosing the program for a service or putting together particular witness. Otherwise, I normally would go to the next per‐ programming for a schedule. It does not necessarily extend to the son in line. Let's do it that way. algorithmic control that would have been imported by the defini‐ tional change in BQ-3. Is everybody okay with that? I see that everyone is. Secondly, I would bring to the committee's attention that, given the changes imported by amendment G-11.1, conditions of service Monsieur Rayes, why don't you go ahead? Then I'll go to Mr. relating to discoverability on social media services will be limited Shields. to the discoverability of Canadian creators. Online undertakings that are not providing a social media service will be subject to pro‐ ● (1310) gramming discoverability orders more generally. As a result, the changes imported by BQ-23 would be aimed at seeking information [Translation] about recommendation algorithms employed by the platform itself, it would appear, and how it operates its algorithms generally or in Mr. Alain Rayes: That's fine. relation to the order-making powers outlined in proposed section 9.1. First, thank you for your explanation, Mr. Smith. Since I think you've put the ball right back in the legislative clerks' court, I'd like These algorithms are treated as trade secrets, generally, and a to hear what they have to say about the rest of your explanation. competitive advantage for the services that employ them. There‐ fore, any request for information on the matter is likely to be met with heavy resistance from the platform itself. I wanted to flag that Just before that, however, I'd like to ask you a direct question. for the committee. This would be especially so given the definition Under this amendment, will the act make it clear whether social of “programming control” that was adopted by the committee. media sites will be considered? Finally, I have a minor point, and I would defer to the expertise [English] of the legislative clerk on this point. It's really not a question of content, but rather a point with respect to the form of the motion. Mr. Patrick Smith: Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. The placement of the proposed amendment may not be ideal. Pro‐ posed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v) is currently included as a sort of basket clause in order to provide flexibility for the CRTC in this The way that proposed section 9.1 is currently formulated makes section generally. If the committee wishes to adopt the amendment, it very clear the types of discoverability provisions required on un‐ it might be more appropriate to sever the first part and include it as dertakings that carry a social media service and those that don't. a subparagraph (iv.1), for example, and similarly label the second This specific amendment seems to be about information that shows part of the amendment as subparagraph (iv.2). how those recommendation systems or algorithms function. As a result, it's more about the functioning of those algorithms or the Again, I am not a drafting expert, but as written, the motion may recommendation systems. indirectly restrict the original intent of proposed subparagraph (v), which was intended to provide some flexibility to the CRTC. It's more focused in that stream, I would say. Thank you. The Chair: Okay. Mr Rayes, you have a look of puzzlement. I The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Smith. mean that in a nice kind of way. I see, Mr. Rayes, your hand is up again. Did you want to ask an‐ other question, or did you want to go after Mr.