Senator Miville-Dechêne: Your amendment is set out in two parts. I want to begin with the second part. You want to get rid of the clause that says that original French-language shows have to be part of what platforms and broadcasters promote. You want to delete that part of the legislation. I imagine that means that you think original French-language shows aren’t important enough to be entitled to some protection. As you know, and you explained it in your presentation, French is still a minority language in Canada and in North America, even though it is the majority language in Quebec.

Generally, when I see you trying to weaken the scope of discoverability — a concept that still needs to be defined — I come back to the comparison that you always make between the private sector and the public sector, as though culture were just another commodity. I absolutely agree with you that private companies can do all sorts of extraordinary things in product development based on what consumers are looking for. However, for very obvious reasons, culture has never been perceived as a commodity to others. That’s why governments have taken it upon themselves to ensure a certain common good.

Are you dropping original French-language shows because they don’t interest you? Do your really believe that culture is just another commodity?

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, first, I want to thank the committee for the dozens of hours that they put into this bill, and for the care and attention that they gave to the many witnesses. I attended some — but nowhere near all — of the committee meetings during both the witness phase and the clause-by-clause phase.

I was pleased that the committee made some quite consequential amendments. As a result, I support the bill being sent back to the House of Commons. I think it reflects well upon our obligation for sober second thought.

Now, having followed the committee, received briefings and listened to the excellent speeches in this chamber thus far — and there are more to come — I want to put on the record some of my thoughts and concerns.

First, I was struck by the testimony of Peter Menzies — he is an eminent journalist, a media executive and a former vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC — on the intentions of the bill. I agree, based on the briefings, with what he thought was the intention of the bill. He said:

. . . this is what the ministers were saying right from the beginning. The intent was to make sure the system gets money from web giants.

If that’s the problem, my suggestion is to just address that problem. There is no need to get into user-generated content and all these other areas, and start dealing with small businesses, advancing businesses or people taking advantage of the beauty and wonder of the internet and finding success. There’s no need to shut that down.

If it’s the traditional funds that you are after and the big web giants, just focus on that.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Thank you, senator, for your very thorough speech. I wanted to remind you that Bill C-11 already includes an exclusion with respect to the use of algorithms. Whatever it is that the chair, now the former chair — whatever it is he may have said — and he did, as you quoted correctly, make these statements to our committee — you will know that clause 9.1(8) actually states:

The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)‍(e) —

— that is the one you are suggesting be changed —

 — that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.

So, in fact, the bill, as it is, says that no algorithm manipulation will be allowed under orders of the CRTC.

I think your concern about algorithms is a little bit misplaced because, in fact, the CRTC cannot make a ruling on algorithms.