Evidence of meeting #14 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Aimée Belmore
I apologize, Monsieur Champoux. This is to clarify.
The motion says that it must be proofread first.
If I understood correctly, you said that urgent documents could be distributed before being translated.
Is your goal to distribute the documents and then have them translated by the Translation Bureau or to have them translated by the Translation Bureau first?
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
That is an excellent question.
We should not delay the work, but we must still ensure that all documents submitted for committee consideration are rigorously well translated. Despite an apparently good translation, the meaning can change a great deal. It is therefore important to deal with certified translators, who will ensure consistency in the quality of the documents we work with.
If we receive documents at the last minute, we can show understanding. We can begin to study the content at the same time as we submit them for revision. When the revisers discover shortcomings, they may point them out to us and bring to our attention that on a particular page of a given document, it should have said this and not that.
In short, I don’t want this to slow down the work, but I want to make sure that the documents we’re going to work with are accurate, no matter what language they are written in.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much.
There are no more clarifications there.
I see Ms. Dabrusin with her hand up.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just to get back to the point I raised—I think our clerk touched upon it—it was about the public service side of things and to make sure we're taking that into account.
I'm absolutely in agreement with Monsieur Champoux that we should be getting materials that are proper in both official languages. I have no challenge on that part. It's just a question of whether anything needs to be done about timelines, or whether any kind of amendment is needed to make sure we're not adding undue strain.
That's the only point I'm raising: whether we need to consider anything on the timing and exchange of documents to make sure, for clarification's sake, that we need to do that. Otherwise, I'm good. I have no problem with this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That's duly noted, Ms. Dabrusin. Thank you very much.
However, I want to warn people that we're drifting outside the scope of this particular motion. I don't want to go too far away, because it is on the floor and we have to dispose of it. I'm just looking for any further comments on this issue.
Seeing none, I can proceed to the vote.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay, let's jump right in to the business at hand, unless I see something else.
We are back to Bill C-10 and our prestudy continues. We have three groups representing in the first hour. Be forewarned—we're about 16 minutes in—that I may stretch this particular meeting to a level that I think is appropriate. I hope you don't mind.
Let's start out with the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. We have Monika Ille, chief executive officer, and Joel Fortune, who is a legal adviser for APTN. We also have Dr. Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa; and from the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, we have Solange Drouin, vice-president for public affairs and director general.
Folks, we have five minutes. I'm afraid I'm going to have to be very strict on those five minutes, given that we're short of time.
We start with the APTN.
Madam, please proceed.
Monika Ille Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee.
[Witness spoke in Abenaki and provided the following text:]
Kwaï! Nd’aliwizi Monika Ille. Aln8ba sqwa nia odzi Odanak m8wkaw8gan.
[English]
My name is Monika Ille. I'm an Abenaki from the community of Odanak.
I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking with you from Tiohtiá:ke or Montreal, the unceded territories of the Kanienkehaka, and traditionally a land of exchange and gathering of many nations.
I'm the chief executive officer of APTN. I'm joined by Joel Fortune, our legal counsel.
Launched in 1999, APTN is the world's first indigenous broadcaster. APTN is available to all Canadians as part of the basic service on most cable and satellite services. We broadcast hundreds of hours of indigenous programs each year, including national newscasts. We broadcast in English, in French and in up to 15 different indigenous languages.
Our programming showcases the creativity of Aboriginal peoples and provides a unique opportunity to share our perspectives with all Canadians.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has recognized the role of the APTN in building bridges and understanding between Canadians and Aboriginal peoples.
We are very proud of the influence we have had on Aboriginal expression. At the launch of the network, there were very few independent Aboriginal producers. Today, we work regularly with about 100 of them, not counting the creators and the support teams that back them up.
If the CRTC had not used its powers, APTN would not exist and Aboriginal peoples would still be invisible on Canadian screens. APTN is a perfect example of what can be accomplished by a policy born of the Broadcasting Act, implemented through hard work and goodwill and supported by the regulatory tools available to the CRTC.
We support the steps taken in Bill C-10 to recognize the place of indigenous peoples and indigenous languages in the broadcasting system, but—and this is a large but—there is a hole in Bill C-10.
Bill C-10 would remove the CRTC's ability to oversee and support the distribution of Canadian programming services such as APTN in an online environment. The CRTC powers that made APTN possible in the first place will, if Bill C-10 stays as it is, have no place in an online world. In the case of the proposed amendments to paragraph 3(1)(o), Bill C-10 is suggesting that indigenous people should be supported when they carry on traditional broadcasting, but not online broadcasting. This is not acceptable.
Today we're tabling amendments that will fill the hole in the bill. We have worked with the Independent Broadcast Group, a coalition of 12 different independent broadcast companies that includes ethnic broadcasters, local TV services, music channels, Canada's LGBTQ channel, minority language groups and others. Without the changes we're proposing, or something similar, the CRTC will not be able to ensure the fair treatment and visibility of Canadian services and apps, including APTN, in an online environment.
Right now, the Broadcasting Act is technologically neutral, so the CRTC does have the power to oversee online distribution, although it has exercised this power lightly.
To be honest, we don't understand why this authority would be taken away. You're well aware of the impact web giants have on newspapers and how difficult it is to bring the giants into the fold. Why, then, would we take them out of the Broadcasting Act when it comes to online distribution of Canadian programming services and apps?
In conclusion, there is much that we support in Bill C-10. The bill strives to better reflect indigenous people in broadcasting and the importance of indigenous languages and it acknowledges that we should operate our own broadcasting service. We fully support that aim. For services such as APTN and other indigenous and Canadian services, however, Bill C-10 as it stands does not see us playing a role in the future, and I'm concerned that it is actually excluding us from the online world.
Kchi wliwni. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much, Madam Ille.
Now we have a stranger in the House—Dr. Geist.
I'm sorry. I'm just being somewhat facetious, Dr. Geist. Please don't take it the wrong way. I have known you for many years, sir. You have been on many committees.
I don't think I have to tell you how this works. You have five minutes, sir, and it's all yours.
Dr. Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back at this committee.
Good afternoon. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law and I am a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. I appear here in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.
As you may know, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10; however, please understand that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for film and television production. Support through all levels of government is essential. Rather, the question is whether Bill C-10 is the best way to provide that support.
Having carefully studied the bill, I argue that it's not. I'd like to get started by pointing to four broad concerns.
First, there is no free lunch. What appears to be free, as in new free money for the sector, comes at an enormous cost, and not just to consumers in the form of higher bills at a particularly difficult economic time.
I recently was engaged in a debate with Janet Yale of the Yale report in which she acknowledged that broadcasting policy restricts consumer choice. We know, then, that there will be a cost to consumers. Less understood is the cost to creators from the bill: the loss of fundamental principles, such as Canadian ownership and control of the broadcast system, the loss of the predominance of Canadian talent, a risk to Canadian intellectual property, and in the short to medium term, less production because of an uncertain regulatory environment.
Second, the bill punts many of the most important details, leaving it to lengthy processes at the CRTC or secretive cabinet decisions. The level of uncertainty and what's not in the bill is astonishing. Legislation is supposed to remove uncertainty, and this does the opposite.
The minister has said he plans to issue a policy direction that could cover everything from exclusion of video games to an IP policy to revisiting the definition of Canadian programs. Respectfully, that simply isn't good enough to meet the kind of transparency standards the government has long set for itself. Indeed, there is so much unanswered that it will take years to sort out, and creators will have to wait at least until the latter half of this decade for the promised benefits.
Third, this isn't about levelling the playing field. I've written extensively about the advantages enjoyed by conventional broadcasters, whether simultaneous substitution, market protections, must-carry rules or copyright retransmission benefits. There is no “like for like” here.
Fourth, with all due respect, some of the claims about the bill simply don't stand up to scrutiny. The minister has told the House of Commons that the bill contains economic thresholds, when it doesn't; that it excludes news, when it doesn't; that it won't affect Canadian ownership requirements, when it will; that the entire process will somehow be completed by this year, which it quite clearly won't be; and that it is similar in approach to what has been implemented in Europe, when it isn't.
These aren't inconsequential issues. As you may know, I've written a 20-part series about the bill that I'd be happy to table with the committee. With more time, I would delve into the many issues that are raised in that series. They include concerns about the approach of regulating all Internet streaming services anywhere in the world with some Canadian subscribers and then working backwards by saying that some might be exempted in a process that will take years to unfold.
That simply doesn't work. The registration and data disclosure requirements would still apply to all, and the inevitable result would be less choice for consumers and less revenue for creators as services block the Canadian market or simply license their content into Canada.
Moreover, the risks to Canadian intellectual property are enormous, potentially making Netflix and Amazon the kingmakers of Canadian content and leaving Canadian broadcasters with leftover scraps.
In my last minute, let me ask how we can fix this. I'll make three points.
First, thresholds in the legislation are essential so that rules only apply to the largest companies that have a real and substantial connection to the Canadian market.
Second, a transparent approach on critical policies is needed before the legislation is passed, not after. No bill should create more questions than it answers.
Third, there is a solution that would put money into the hands or creators this year, not in five years. I think we all want large Internet companies to make an appropriate contribution in Canada, and we have a system for that. It's called taxation.
Tax revenues can be used in whatever way we want, including in direct support for film and television production. The government could say that 30% of these new revenues go directly to the sector. That doesn't require changing the core policies of the Broadcasting Act. It doesn't require a secretive policy direction or years of litigation at the CRTC. It doesn't lessen competition, increase consumer costs during the pandemic or decrease choice. It also doesn't create huge uncertainty in the market for the foreseeable future.
The Broadcasting Act is an essential piece of legislation, not only for the film and television sector but for all Canadians. We all deserve better.
I welcome your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I told you Dr. Geist was here before. I asked for five minutes and he just gave me exactly five minutes, right on the nanosecond.
Thank you, sir.
Madame Drouin, there is no pressure. You're up, for five minutes, please.
Solange Drouin Vice-President, Public Affairs and Director General, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
Good afternoon.
Before I read my text to you, I would like to point out that Mr. Geist was speaking on his own behalf, while I represent an association, a large group of companies and individuals. In addition, I am co-chair of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which also represents at least 200,000 artists and thousands of businesses. But we all feel that, although the bill needs to be improved, it meets many of the expectations we have had for a long time. We must therefore put all of this into perspective. I took a minute to say that, but I thought it was important.
I will now put on my hat as a representative of the music community. What is the ADISQ? Who are we? The Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo has been in existence for over 40 years. Our companies are independent businesses that are mainly based in Quebec, but that support the national and international development of the careers of song and music artists, most of whom are French-speaking.
Our mission is to support this cultural and economic sector, let’s not forget, by setting up a legislative, regulatory and financial business context favourable to its development. In a little over 40 years of history, our music and songs have been able to take off, firstly thanks to the talent of our artists and the entrepreneurship of our businesses, but also thanks to a set of important cultural policies, including those mentioned by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN.
Let’s go back 40 years, long before the digital reality surrounded us. The music industry was dominated by a few foreign multinationals. The music offered to Canadians by these companies consisted in distributing music from elsewhere and, with a few exceptions, presenting French-language versions of English-language songs.
Even today, these companies are still part of our landscape. They are represented here by Music Canada, which you invite from time to time. They play the same role they used to play, but they have become a little more involved, in terms of production, in Canadian culture—almost exclusively English-speaking. These companies are totally absent from the production of French-language content. Our national production of French-language content is carried out almost entirely by independent Canadian companies, including those I am representing here before you.
The sizes of these two business segments are not comparable. We are small companies and they are large multinationals. Despite this disparity in resources, Canadian artists, particularly Francophone artists, have been able to achieve great success. However, none of this would have been possible without the implementation of cultural policies and government measures.
Let’s use radio as an example. About 50 years ago, the Canadian government required minimum standards for the presentation of Canadian and French-language content. By ensuring that Canadians could discover their artists on the radio, the government allowed them to be appreciated; then the public would choose to buy their records or tickets to shows. Without this valuable showcase put in place more than 50 years ago, this virtuous circle of development would have been impossible.
Even today, this privileged access of artists to the Canadian public through radio plays an enormous role in the careers of Canadian artists. Other forms of consumption have emerged over the past 15 years, such as Spotify and YouTube. It is therefore urgent that the government act in such an innovative and bold way with respect to digital platforms, and that is what Bill C-10 seeks to do. This is why the entire cultural community is very enthusiastic about the historic nature of the approach taken by this bill.
Admittedly, this bill is not perfect. You have the duty and the power to improve it. It must be strengthened in order to maintain the Canadian character of the system, restore the obligation to make maximum use of Canadian creative resources, more adequately protect the production of original French-language content, and give the CRTC the power to act on all elements of the system, including social networks. We must not miss this historic meeting and make it a missed opportunity.
Today, we hope to see Bill C-10 finally pass second reading in the House of Commons.
I will be happy to answer your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. Drouin. You are very kind.
I've never done this before, but I think it's worth mentioning just very quickly to everyone since what we study at this committee is culture, arts, heritage and cinema. I just noticed the passing of Christopher Plummer, the actor. Christopher Plummer was not only an international star in the world of acting, he was also, equally, an incredible ambassador for this country of Canada. I would like to take it upon myself to express, on behalf of the committee members, sympathies to his family. May he rest in peace.
Nevertheless, let's get on with our questioning. As I mentioned earlier, please say who you're addressing your question to. That makes life a lot easier for us and for the people handling this world virtually, of course.
We're now going to go to questioning. We will start with six minutes for the Conservative Party.
Mr. Waugh, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the three groups that have come in front of us today at the Canadian heritage committee.
Dr. Geist, I've looked through your 20-part series. You've been the most controversial person, if you don't mind my saying so, in the country towards the broadcasting Bill C-10. You've talked about it for five minutes. We can probably hear from you for an hour.
You spent a month dissecting this bill. You feel it is deeply flawed. You gave us some reasons why, but it's going to have a major impact if it is passed through the House of Commons, and I'd like you to comment on that.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thanks for reading and thanks for the question.
I tried to highlight a few of the things. I think the impact will be felt across a number of different kinds of stakeholders.
From a consumer perspective, as I noted, what this is going to do is decrease choice and raise costs. There will be services that will not enter the Canadian market. This will particularly hit multicultural communities in Canada that often rely upon different services from other countries that stream in. Many of them look at the associated regulated costs and say they're simply not interested in entering into the marketplace. There will be less choice and higher costs for consumers at a difficult time.
From a broadcaster perspective, I think it actually puts many of them at a disadvantage as well. They're going to have to compete with some of the large companies like Netflix and Amazon for Canadian content. They're going to get outbid and they're going to be left with intellectual property that isn't the very best because that's going to be scooped up by some of their American counterparts. They're going to find themselves in a difficult position because streaming services, even Canadian streaming services, will be able to get more in capital. They'll still be restricted and not have access to the same kind of capital.
From a creator perspective, I want to emphasize again, this is going to take years. Anyone who's done anything at the CRTC knows we are talking about lengthy hearings, followed by judicial review, followed by the prospect of more hearings. It will take at least half a decade to get this sorted out.
From a creator perspective, there aren't a whole lot of gains to be had, certainly not in the short term. It's somewhat ironic given that the sector, at least pre-COVID, was enjoying robust financing and in fact had record-setting amounts of film and TV production in Canada.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I agree with you there.
The minister and the Liberals have talked about comparing this to what they do in France and in the U.K, and what they're trying to do in Australia. You feel that's misleading in this bill. Why do you feel that?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It simply isn't what's happening.
The reference point is often to the European audiovisual directive, but we should be clear: There are only four member states—Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the U.K.—that have currently transposed the directive. That means there are more than 20 member states that haven't even moved forward with it. If we take a look at the obligations, even of the countries that have implemented this, they're far different from what is being proposed here.
Denmark, for example, has a 2% direct-investment requirement. That's a far cry from the 30% that the minister has been thinking about, and there is no content quota at all in Denmark. In Germany, the levy runs between 1.8% and 2.2%. Spain is thinking about a 5% requirement. The dollars are just dramatically different compared with what the government is thinking about when it talks about its billion dollars in terms of new gains compared with what is being posed in Europe.
It's an inapt comparison more broadly because the requirement is applied across the EU. We're a single, small market. If you have an obligation that can be spread, let's say, 1% across nearly 30 member states, that is very different from the same 30% on one country with 37 million or 38 million people.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
We don't share the enthusiasm of the minister regarding the $835 million that the minister claims will be the windfall in this from streaming providers, because there is no accountability with the $835 million. We've asked for the information. Now we've heard that it's coming, but at the same time, when we talk to companies like Disney, Netflix, Amazon and Apple they don't see this at all—
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification about its not being forthcoming, on the point that was raised, it was actually, in fact, already shared months ago.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin. I'll leave it at that.
Mr. Waugh, we will go back to you.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
The concern about the $835 million that they claim will be the windfall from these streaming companies is with where it will go. We can't find out other than hearing that they have brought it forward now, but that's not shared when you talk to Netflix, Amazon, Apple and so on. They do not share the robust $835 million that they may be in charge of in bringing extra money to Canada.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Let me just run with a couple of things. One, it's great that the information was provided to the committee months ago. It would be even greater if the Canadian public had access to that information. The fact that so much of this data has not been provided about the implementation, about even some of the analysis, to the broader public, I think, has been problematic, with all due respect.
In terms of the money, a lot of it is not even new money. These companies are already investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada. We know that because we've seen increased spending in film and TV production in Canada in recent years. Much of that is coming from foreign-based services.
What we know will happen is that in the short term many of them may cut back because of the uncertainty as to whether or not it will count for the purposes of these new requirements. Once they then figure that out, it's just going to be shifting dollars from one pot to another. The idea that this brings in all of this new revenue simply isn't right. In fact, we run the risk as well that certain services that might otherwise come into the market and invest will say that the Canadian market isn't worth the hassle. That's less money for creators and of course higher costs and less choice for consumers.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Waugh, I'm going to have to leave it at that. I apologize.
Ms. Ien, you have six minutes. Go ahead, please.
February 5th, 2021 / 1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marci Ien Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ille, I'd love to start with you if I might. You said there is a big hole in Bill C-10. As a trail-blazing broadcaster, could you tell us specifically, if you can, how APTN would be impacted by the hole that you described?
Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
As you know, APTN is mandatory carriage, so right now we get 35¢ per subscriber per month. We do have a place in the landscape, and it took time for us to get there. When APTN started we were way far on the BDUs' dial. You'd have lots of snow before you got to APTN. There was an issue with being discoverable then.
If CRTC is not overseeing that APTN is discoverable and accessible on the online platform, BDUs will probably not want APTN to be there. They were obligated before, and we're very thankful for that, but we will not be in the online world. We are available right now directly to consumers with our OTT platform, but I think you need way more than that.
When you're a broadcaster, you want to share your stories. You want to entertain people. You want to inform people. You want to bring reflection, and you want people to have a better understanding. If we can't transfer that to online, then what's the use? Our stories will be there, but people won't access them.
It's a question of the future—our future as a broadcaster and for our stories.
Cord cutting is happening. We're seeing a decline in our revenues as well. It's all of this. Our revenues are declining, and we won't be discoverable.
Liberal
Marci Ien Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Thank you so much for that, Ms. Ille.
Ms. Drouin, I want to go to you now. You say that in Bill C-10 there is a lot that you agree with, but that it is not perfect yet. Those were your words. Can you tell us maybe one or two ways to make it more robust, in your opinion?