Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for the tremendous amount of work you've put into this report. A lot of people in my community have stopped me to raise it and to talk about how much they appreciate the voice given within all of this.

Two key issues get raised. One is the distinction between the service industry and our domestic industry, and ensuring that Canadian creators are included in the productions made in our country. The other is having payments being made into the system either through levies, as you talk about, or through spending requirements, so those productions can be made.

I want to talk about your recommendation 67, which talks about creative positions and says that where media creation undertakings include new Canadian dramas and long-form documentaries in their offerings that count toward their regulatory obligations, the CRTC should expect that a reasonable percentage of all key creative positions on those programs be occupied by Canadians. There are a whole bunch of qualifying terms. I was wondering if you could expand on it. When you talk about all creative positions, and also the reasonable percentage of those programs, what are you talking about?

[Janet Yale]

I'll start, and then my colleague will pick up. She's worked in the production industry for many years.

The main distinction we were trying to draw was between service productions and productions that count as contributing to Canadian culture. Service productions are great in the sense that jobs are created, there is employment, there is production capacity, and it's great for the Canadian economy. We don't want to take away anything from the contributions that have been made by organizations like Netflix and others, that have decided to invest in Canada to make those service productions.

That has nothing to do with cultural policy because the key creative positions, the writers, the actors and directors, are not held by Canadians. If we're trying to make sure that in a world of endless choices and voices there are Canadian choices, then those productions that we're saying they should invest in must meet the definition of Canadian content, in which case the key creative positions would have to be held by Canadians.

I'll let my colleague carry on.

[Monique Simard]

I really don't have much to add, but the writers, the people who write the programs and the films, are central to creation. These Canadian script writers are going to write Canadian stories seen through their eyes and their experiences. That's extremely important. Otherwise we will be robbed of the opportunity to tell our story.

Clearly, our report is very much rooted in a deep conviction about Canada's cultural sovereignty. This guides our entire report. It is our mainstay. So it makes sense that we propose what we propose, particularly in terms of creation, production and discoverability.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I only have a minute, so I'll jump into it quickly.

In your recommendation 62 you talk about having spending requirements rather than levies. Perhaps you could expand on why you would recommend one over the other.

[Janet Yale]

For the curators like Netflix, the idea was instead of asking them to be taxed and put money into a fund that would then be distributed, they're investing in Canada. All we're saying is, when you make those spending investments that right now are service productions, some portion of that spending should meet the Canadian content requirements so we're not then interfering with their business models, the categories of programming they make, what genres of programming they consider. It's completely up to them. All we're saying is that the CRTC would then be able to look at their Canadian revenues on an annual basis, with the additional data-gathering powers we recommended; figure out what their Canadian revenues were from subscription revenues in a given year, using the Netflix example; then some percentage of that revenue would have to be spent, not just in Canada, but on productions that meet Canadian content requirements as well as some discoverability obligations.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate your clarifying that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Yale and Ms. Dabrusin.

Before we go to the final two questioners, I'm wondering if you've given more thought to what I suggested earlier in terms of whether we want to go back to a quick first round where each party asks questions for probably four minutes or along those lines. When these next two questioners are done, we will go one, one, one and one for four minutes.

Is that okay or would you rather just stop?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Is everybody okay with that? There are no objections?

Okay. We'll do that.

Monsieur Champoux, you have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will remain on the same subject. There was talk of requiring foreign companies to make new investments and productions in Quebec and Canada. However, I imagine they would be asked, as you said, to make those investments according to the rules established in Canada to meet the requirements.

If we didn't impose quotas on French-language content, as we do for broadcasters, do you feel that these companies would take the initiative to produce French-language content for the Canadian market?

[Monique Simard]

In my opinion, this is the role that the new Canadian communications commission will have to play. These companies must respect linguistic duality, but it will be up to the commission to decide how and to what extent they should do so. In our opinion, the existence of both languages must be represented in all the measures that will be taken. That is a must.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Earlier you spoke of better regional representation. We were talking about CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate and having it produce programs that are a little more representative of reality, not just that of Montreal, in the case of Radio-Canada, in French, and not just that of Toronto, in the case of CBC.

Have you considered the fee-based options available? I'm thinking of ICI TOU.TV EXTRA, for instance.

Did these things come up in your discussions? What do we do with them?

[Monique Simard]

It came up in our discussions but we didn't take any position that Radio-Canada cannot, for example, have subscription services like the one you just mentioned. There are currently complaints filed with the CRTC about that.

For CBC/Radio-Canada, we objected to advertising revenue, but we did not go so far as to object to subscription revenue. One of the biggest frustrations we heard across the country is that people do not get news from their part of the country. I personally went to Newfoundland and Labrador, among other places, and I remember it very well. It is the national public broadcaster's duty to provide that content. A number of stations have closed and there has been a huge decline. That is where the problem lies. There is considerabvle urgency in that respect.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, you have two and a half minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you again.

I would like to follow up on how we're going to support Canadian content in Canada and make sure that it's happening. Could you comment a bit on how the NFB would play into that, and the possibility that the NFB is in a critical funding shortage at the moment? What would be required to have that...?

[Janet Yale]

It's yours.

[Monique Simard]

She worked at the CRTC. I worked at the NFB.

The National Film Board, or NFB, produces only Canadian content. It's mandatory. That''s all it produces. So, yes, the NFB should have more money. The current debate is about how that money is spent. We were not mandated to study the NFB, but we are clearly saying that the NFB, like other federal cultural institutions, must be adequately funded to produce what it produces, which is exceptional content.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to pivot a little bit—a different sort of pivot—and ask you what you consider to be the risk to our democracy currently, or the current state of risk, in terms of online.

[Monique Simard]

I would say that the greatest risk is really the disappearance of reliable news and that it affects all parts of the country. Every time a radio station, a local newspaper or journalistic activities disappear, it represents a risk to democracy.

The other risk are social harms originating on social networks, Facebook and others. Despite their good intentions, they do not really regulate what happens on their networks. The federal government is not the only one with a responsibility in this regard. The provinces can also take action. In Quebec, there is talk of establishing regulations or legislation to this effect.

There's also misinformation. We had never even heard of the term “fake news” a few years ago. It is now a huge danger, however. Indeed, anything can be said about anyone. In addition, there is the phenomenon of amplification. The digital world, the social networks, are amplifiers. There have always been people who lied or slandered, but with national and international amplifiers, they begin to pose an extremely serious threat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Ms. Simard.

Okay. We're now into our bonus round. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like the proverbial game show host, but we are into a bonus round, and we are going to allow each party to ask one question for the duration of three minutes.

Mr. Blaney, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I would like to share my time, I'm only going to use my first two minutes.

I want to thank Mr. Champoux for mentioning copyright.

My question stems from a comment made by Sophie Prégent, who is satisfied with the report. That said, have you noticed a specificity of the cultural industry market in Quebec? Could a global approach, somewhat like what has been proposed, respond adequately to the special nature of the Quebec cultural, digital and artistic market?

[Monique Simard]

I would say that, on one level, what we are proposing is good for everyone. Then we recommend that the future regulatory entity, which we want to call the “Canadian Communications Commission”, refine that. There are a lot of things we haven't specified, such as percentages and quotas. We aren't excluding them, but we feel that it's up to the new entity to specify them.

For those who don't know, Ms. Prégent is president of the Union des artistes du Québec. The fragile nature of the francophone market is due to the fact that it has difficulty selling its products in anglophone markets. We must redouble our efforts in terms of promotion, discoverability and the opening of new markets, including in the francophonie.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Simard.

I will now turn to Madam Shin for the remaining time.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Simard and Ms. Yale, thank you so much for being here and sharing your thoughts with us.

The unique situation here is that I do have an arts background, and I have spent time in the music industry, so this is a very fascinating conversation. I really appreciate your comments on the copyright issue.

My question has to do with ethnic media. I know that Canada is a diverse country with many nationalities represented, and a lot of ethnic communities look to their own media outlets because of the language barrier.

What is your recommendation in terms of how the government can intervene to make news more accessible to different communities? I know that some media outlets have expressed real challenges in getting funding as well. I will just allow you to speak to that.