Comité sénatorial permanent des transports et communications (TRCM) – 21 juin 2022, 9 h – 11 h

Les commentaires des participants sont fournis dans la langue d’origine.

Rapport préparé par

Direction des Affaires parlementaires et du Cabinet
Patrimoine canadien

Sujet de la réunion

La teneur du projet C-11, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d’autres lois

Témoins :

9 h à 10 h

À titre personnel

• L’honorable Konrad von Finckenstein, ancien président, Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes
• Michael Geist, Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit d’Internet et du commerce électronique, Faculté de droit, Université d’Ottawa

10 h à 11 h

À titre personnel

• Alain Saulnier, auteur et professeur de communication retraité de l’Université de Montréal
• Michèle Rioux, professeure, Département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal, directrice du Centre d’études sur l’intégration et la mondialisation

Sommaire

L’honorable Konrad von Finckenstein, ancien président, Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes

• Do not agree with the way it was done and the concept behind it
• More targeted legislation dealing with the specific problem of streamers would have been preferable versus potentially encompassing any transmission of music or video, or both, over the internet
• User-generated content, while it is generally exempted, can be made subject to the act by an exception to the exception built into subclause 4.1(2). Clearly, this clause was meant to deal with hybrid streamers such as YouTube, but there are great fears that it may affect other so-called “digital first” broadcasters who produce programs solely for the internet as well as ordinary Canadians uploading videos or music.
• Subclause 4.1(2) should be amended by limiting it as follows : Regulations made under subsection (b); i) only apply to online undertakings with paying subscribers or embedded advertising that transmit both their own or commercial content and user-generated content; and ii) must not affect user-generated content.
• Section 3.1 should be amended to provide the following : It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that; (d) the Canadian broadcasting system should; (i.1) reflect and be responsive to the preferences and interests of its audiences; (i.2) to the extent possible rely on market forces to ensure that Canadians obtain the programming of their choice
• Conditions imposed or regulations made by the Commission online undertakings pursuant to sections 9.1, 10 or 11 : a) not compel online broadcasting undertakings to change the methods by which they ascertain viewer’s choice; b) respect viewers choices and leave them unaltered; and 2) may, however, require online broadcasting undertakings to offer Canadian program alternatives as an addition to viewers’ choices.

Michael Geist, Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit d’Internet et du commerce électronique, Faculté de droit, Université d’Ottawa

• The regulation of user content and the absence of thresholds that leads to an expansive regulatory approach
• Many voices were excluded. These include Indigenous perspectives, such as the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, community radio, and platforms such as TikTok and Spotify.
• User content is treated as a program and the CRTC is empowered to create regulations applicable to programs that are uploaded to social media services.
• The risk isn’t that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard
• Remove the regulatory powers associated with user content but leave in the potential for contributions by the internet content platforms

Questions :

Leo Housakos (C)

• When the current CRTC chair appeared before the standing committee in the House of Commons on this bill, he was quite frank in acknowledging that the provisions of the bill permitted the CRTC to regulate user-generated content. Mr. Scott stated he is not interested in doing that, but he did acknowledge that the bill provides the power to do so. From my knowledge of the bureaucratic process, it seems logical that a principal reason that such a provision is in the bill is because the CRTC made sure it was there when the bill was drafted. In your view, why would such an opinion be written into the legislation if, as the current chair has stated, there is no desire to regulate user-generated content?
  • Finckenstein : the tighter the regulations are and the more specific they are, the easier they are to administer. If you give wide discretion and vast powers which you have to determine, everyone will try to squeeze themselves into these powers. So it is in their interests to have them precise.
• There are a number of matters that the commission is obligated to consider in making such regulations. Based on your understanding of what this means, can the commission consider matters not specifically listed in the bill, and do you see any limits to what the commission may consider when it makes its regulations?
  • Geist : It seems to me that the provisions themselves are potentially so broad as to encompass a very wide range of content. It doesn’t include non-commercial user-generated content. While it says that, at the same time, it speaks specifically to direct or indirect revenues.

Fabian Manning (C)

• After considering the matters listed in the bill, in your view is the commission limited in its ability to prescribe programs, and would it be legally required for these matters listed in the bill to be met for the commission to prescribe programs in relation to how the bill applies?
  • Geist : My read is that it is exceptionally broad. It may well be that a policy direction that the government says is forthcoming, should the bill receive Royal Assent, will prescribe some limits, although, of course, that is just a direction. It is not in the legislation itself. The act is, by intention, very broad, and any audiovisual content located anywhere in the world that touches on Canada is conceivably included as a program.
  • Finckenstein : As a decision maker, the CRTC will not prescribe individual programs, but they will prescribe types of programs that get caught. As Mr. Geist said, it is very broad. If you want to, you can include anyone you want, and direction won’t help. If you want to exclude it, it should say so in the legislation. The legislation, by saying “shall consider,” does not include. It just forces you to take procedural steps before you can do what you want to do.

Pamela Wallin (GSC)

• You have described Bill C-11 as a fatally flawed gateway to government censorship. On the other hand, we get the sense that it is already allowed for in the bill. What is your distinction there?
  • Geist : I think I called it fatally flawed. I’m not sure I referred to it as government censorship.

Julie-Miville-Dechêne (GSI)

• Si je lis vos amendements, je comprends que vous voudriez non seulement que les petits joueurs soient exclus, mais je comprends que vous voulez aussi que You Tube soit exclu de la réglementation parce que, vous dites, qu’il faudrait que ce soit des organismes qui ont des abonnements payants. Comment peut-on exclure You Tube d’une telle loi considérant que, pour la culture canadienne et la culture québécoise francophone, c’est une plateforme de diffusion importante ? Ne pas essayer de faire la promotion de contenu canadien ou francophone sur cette plateforme nous prive d’un grand champ d’intervention.
  • Finckenstein : Je parlais d’exclure une partie de You Tube. You Tube paie ses contributions à la production canadienne, mais j’aimerais que le contenu non commercial présenté aux Canadiens ne fasse pas partie de la réglementation sur qu’est-ce qu’on peut découvrir, tu vas présenter, et ainsi de suite.

René Cormier (GSI)

• Le paragraphe 3 (4) du projet de loi modifie le libellé de l’alinéa 3 (1) f) de la loi, et précise entre autres, et c’est important, que les entreprises de radiodiffusion canadienne doivent employer des ressources humaines canadiennes pour la création, la production et la présentation de leur programmation. De leur côté les entreprises en ligne étrangère doivent, elles, « faire appel dans toute la mesure possible à ces mêmes ressources ». Alors, j’aimerais vous entendre sur cette différence faite entre deux types d’entreprises. Est-ce qu’il y a là un défi pour l’avenir de l’employabilité des ressources canadiennes ?
  • Geist : I think this is less about a discoverability issue and more about a CanCon system, Canadian content system, that, frankly, is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be addressed. One of the realities is that the large platforms already spend huge amounts of money in Canada. I think Netflix told the committee over $3 billion was spent on production and licensing in Canada over the last number of years. It makes them one of the largest contributors in the country. Disney said Canada was fourth on their list for production.
  • Finckenstein : On veut faciliter, on veut utiliser les ressources et les talents canadiens pour faire des productions canadiennes. Cependant, les politiques que nous avons adoptées dans CAVCO, dans Téléfilm ont comme but l’emploi des Canadiens et non pas la production canadienne qui reflète les Canadiens et leurs valeurs. Cela doit être changé. J’espère qu’une fois cette loi en vigueur, le CRTC va réexaminer les règles et que s’il applique ces règles, cela sera fait de façon uniforme, que ce soit basé sur la représentation du Canada et pas l’emploi des particuliers canadiens.

Paula Simons (GSI)

• I want to start with Mr. von Finckenstein, and it has to do with the question you raised at the end of your comments about free trade and CUSMA. I wonder if you could, with a little more time, perhaps explain in more detail where you consider that there may be trade frictions engendered by Bill C-11.
  • Finckenstein : What I’m worried about is that we’re going to ask Prime, Netflix, YouTube and all these American firms to pay large amounts into a fund for Canadian production
• Let’s assume the hypothetical of $1 billion a year. What action do we need to take to make sure that money is distributed fairly so that emerging artists can also have access to that money?
  • Geist : I think the $1 billion is incredibly optimistic. In fact, I think it’s a bit misleading. What we heard from many of the large streamers is that they already spend significantly in Canada.

Donna Dasko (GSI)

• I would like to dig a little deeper into the Cancon issue, which was just raised a couple of minutes ago. Is the measurement of Cancon going to change? I assume so, but I would like your sense of how you think it will change. Also, what about the requirements for Cancon? We know that broadcasters have very specific requirements. Are the requirements going to change?
  • Geist : I would argue that these rules should have changed really before this legislation came forward. In a sense, regarding the success of what is trying to be achieved here in enhancing the amount of Canadian production, we have to arrive at what it means to have Canadian productions in the current environment.

Marty Klyne (GPS)

• “Discoverable,” to me, is starting to take on a connotation of foisting content on audiences, hoping that they can lure some into that, whereas with “sought after,” there are creative services that will promote things. Where do you think the money should go—to be discoverable and foisting audiences and Cancon on people or markets, hoping for a strike, or something sought after that’s more methodical and purposeful in a promotional way?
  • Geist : I would emphasize that not only is there little evidence that there is a discoverability problem, the Yale report couldn’t find much in the way of any evidence. I would urge any senator to go on YouTube or NetFlix and start with a fresh account and see how quickly the system responds to what you are looking for. I tried it in both English and French on YouTube. Inside of literally a few minutes of watching some videos consistent with my likes, it is recommending more of that.

Sommaire :

Michèle Rioux, professeure, Département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal, directrice du Centre d’études sur l’intégration et la mondialisation

• Nous en sommes arrivés à une conclusion de coresponsabilité pour faire tomber ces barrières à la découvrabilité.
• C’est autant aux usagers de savoir que leur façon de consommer va influer la machine algorithmique, la façon dont la plateforme va interagir avec eux, qu’aux industriels de s’adapter aux standards des plateformes.
• Trouve très intéressante l’idée d’avoir un cadre réglementaire évolutif capable d’innover au cours du temps. C’est, à mon avis, le modèle de l’avenir

Alain Saulnier, auteur et professeur de communication retraité de l’Université de Montréal

• Rappelons-nous toujours que ces superpuissances sont majoritairement américaines. Il faut résister à cette invasion.
• Je considère que l’actuel projet de loi C-11 est un véritable moyen de le faire. Il y aura d’autres mesures additionnelles pour résister aux GAFAM, je le souhaite. Mais déjà, voilà une façon de réguler la cohabitation entre les géants numériques américains et nous.
• Donner le pouvoir au CRTC de réguler toute l’activité numérique en matière de culture et de communications peut favoriser une saine cohabitation entre ces géants numériques et nos entreprises, nos créateurs et le public.
• Obliger ces superpuissances à réinjecter une proportion importante de leurs chiffres d’affaires réalisés au pays dans le domaine de la création et de la production, faite par des gens d’ici, est une façon de soutenir notre milieu de la culture et nos médias.

Questions :

Julie-Miville-Dechêne (GSI)

• Comme vous le savez, aucun pays, même pas la France, n’a essayé de modifier la découvrabilité de la musique sur des chaînes comme YouTube et c’est sans précédent. Comment pensez-vous qu’on pourra y arriver ? Les algorithmes ont été exclus par le gouvernement. Les musiciens ne veulent pas juste de l’argent, ils veulent aussi être écoutés. Comment arriver à cela concrètement ?
  • Saulnier : Il va sans dire qu’il faudra toujours une stratégie de soutien au milieu culturel, en particulier au domaine de la chanson.

Paula Simons (GSI)

• One of the problems isn’t just the discoverability of Canadian content; it is that algorithms, particularly on YouTube, will tend to raise to the surface the most divisive, hateful and controversial things, because they get more clicks. Do you think there is a way that the government could demand more transparency to let us understand how these algorithms are working on us?
  • Rioux : I think it is the future. It is the future, not only in terms of transparency, but acknowledging the fact that the wealth that is generated by data—our data—is being taken from us without any—of course, this question is evolving; there is a debate about that, but I think we should and we must do something more important, not only for protecting the individuals, which is something that a lot of people are talking about, but also protecting the public interest and public policy objectives.

René Cormier (GSI)

• En ce qui concerne le projet de loi C-11, quels sont les ajustements qui devraient être faits ? J’aimerais vous entendre, particulièrement sur les artistes émergents, parce que d’après certains commentaires, ils ne voudraient pas de réglementation pour laisser libre cours à leur créativité et à l’accès aux marchés.
  • Saulnier : Je pense qu’il est possible de composer avec le fait d’être un artiste émergent et de pouvoir être présent à l’intérieur des différentes plateformes qui nous sont proposées.
  • Rioux : Il ne faut pas diaboliser ces plateformes, mais il faut plutôt conscientiser les gens sur la concentration économique et l’effet sur les asymétries qui existaient déjà auparavant, mais qui sont exacerbées ou accentuées par la concentration.

Pamela Wallin (GSC)

• Let’s just say that the government decides to force algorithms to carry or push forward specific content. In the context of this discussion, French-speaking content or French cultural content. Even if you push it forward, even if you fund it, you still can’t make people watch it. These algorithms already respond to people’s behavior. How do you think this will help the issue in the end?
  • Rioux : What the problem is right now is that we have to understand that we need to increase freedom and diversity. It is proactive and fighting discrimination, in a sense.

Fabian Manning (C)

• What happens if other countries decide to reciprocate the legislation that we are looking at here in Canada? While it would promote artists and our culture and heritage within Canada, I’m wondering, if other countries start doing the same thing, are we limiting the success of our artists globally?
  • Rioux : I think it’s important in this global internet to have strong international cooperation.

Sénateur Dawson (GPS)

• Pensez-vous qu’un front commun des francophones pourrait aider face à la mondialisation numérique des GAFA pour nous protéger contre cet envahissement ?
  • Saulnier : C’est essentiel et fondamental.

Sénateur Quinn (GSC)

• How do we prevent smaller areas of the country being consumed by the larger areas of the country? How do we balance that?
  • Saulnier : C’est très certainement un défi. Les régionalismes font en sorte qu’il y de plus en plus de gens qui vont quitter leur région pour venir faire de la culture dans de grandes régions comme Montréal et Québec, et cela pose un problème justement pour l’industrie et pour les créateurs. En même temps, je ne pense pas que le projet de loi C-11 va résoudre ce problème non plus, c’est-à-dire qu’il y aura toujours cette cohabitation entre les régions plus importantes que d’autres

Donna Dasko (GSI)

• Let’s use Netflix and Spotify as examples. What do you think would be the best way for them to deal with discoverability within the framework of Bill C-11? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying about this.
  • Rioux : I’m not sure what the CRTC would do because the CRTC is probably thinking about how to be digitally ready. I can only tell you about my experience, and I know that I was able to conceptualize and document this way of measuring discoverability. The CRTC will probably do it in a very different way, but I’m just saying that it is possible.

Prochaine réunion :

Le comité se réunira demain pour poursuivre sa pré-étude du projet de loi C-11.