Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Valerie Creighton]

No, it's not dead, but it's certainly suffering. The problem is that since the advent of the streamers coming into the country, we have had a two-tiered system. There is no question about it.

It's a fact that our Canadian system is required to contribute to the making of content. The foreign companies are not, yet they're a great source for producers and for productions to get made. As we've seen vertical integration and the downward pressure on the Canadian broadcasting system in particular, there are fewer doors to knock on, and it does become a question of resources and access to markets.

For sure I think it's not dead, and storytelling will happen no matter which way this bill goes. In order to achieve that balance, you may have to consider both. There may need to be a bit of flexibility provided to the Canadian broadcast system—we know they need it—but that shouldn't go too far so that, again, the whole system starts to collapse and there is less focus on Canadian content. Also, there has to be some direction to the streamers, whether it's regulation or some control, so that as everybody has referenced, the $2.7 billion ends up being one or two shows in the French market and a few in the English market.

The issue, of course, is that once the IP is taken by a foreign entity.... On almost all occasions, that company comes in and they love Canada. They use our great creative talent, our tremendous resources and our locations, but they take the IP and the ownership of that content. They are the ones who make the money around the world. That is what has to change.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Can I follow that up? It's tough to regulate the online streamers, but you can't charge them fees.

I'm just spitballing here. What do you think about this idea? What if we were to impose fees on those streaming giants and reduce the fees on traditional media? They're reducing anyhow.

[Valerie Creighton]

Scott, I think how you are going to deal with the streamers is absolutely the biggest question you have. Believe me, I'm star-struck with you guys, because you have the biggest job in the country right now: to figure that out. I think fees are an option for sure. Whatever technique or mechanism can be brought into the Canadian system to ensure.... I mean, the streamers are here. That horse has left the barn. They're a great advantage to content because they can distribute it around the world, but the system is a bit out of balance in that regard.

Whether you use a system of fees.... Regulation might be tougher but not impossible, and there have been many examples this morning from other countries around the world. I don't think we have to recreate the wheel here. We can look at what has been done in Australia, the U.K. and other places and model this in a similar fashion. Yes, the U.K. is a bit different, because their broadcasters put more resources into content than our Canadian broadcasters do. It's just a difference in the nature of the countries.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you do as long as you do something, because the worst-case scenario is that the Canadian broadcasters remain under pressure and the streamers do not contribute in any way, shape or form. That would trigger what you've just mentioned: the collapse, certainly, of our industry.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Fair enough. I'll be honest. Your final point is partly my fear. I fear that we are doing something for the sake of doing something, but not doing it as exceptionally as we could, which is why we're doing these.

Mr. Wente—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Aitchison, I apologize.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're running up against the clock.

Mr. Louis, you have five minutes.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate it.

Thank you, all, for your time and your advocacy.

Maybe I will continue with Ms. Creighton. Time is so short these days. I was going to talk about that as well.

You mentioned examples of other countries that have regulations. Are conversations happening with broadcasters across the world or with countries to see if we can work in solidarity against a very large platform distributor?

[Valerie Creighton]

Yes. We don't do them at the CMF, but I know our government officials have been in that conversation on a daily basis. It's ongoing. The models are on the table. They're looking at them. We do connect with those organizations on the content front.

I'm going to shut up, because I speak too long and it's your show. I'll be quiet now so that more questions can come.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

No, I had planned on your talking and waxing way more on that, so you can certainly expand.

Ms. Creighton, you mentioned a platform-agnostic approach. It's overdue that we're working on the Broadcasting Act, and one of the concerns people have is whether we are doing something that's going to survive the future revenue sources and changing technologies.

In your opinion, what can we do to make sure we get on top of this curve, stay there and work to make sure we don't have to come back and revisit every time technology changes?

[Valerie Creighton]

There are two things. You can focus on development and production and on having enough resources to do so in the country of Canada. We're trying to re-envision the CMF as we speak. We're going out for an industry-wide consultation starting in March to look at whether it's possible in this country to have a very strong—what I would call—content fund that ensures that our content gets made in both language markets, from the indigenous community and from racialized communities that have not been served appropriately.

If you focus on getting the content made, it won't matter what platform it gets on, because the world will want it. That's the first thing, and I've forgotten my second point. I'll think about it if I get another chance. I'm sorry.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I like the way you think. It's very out loud. I appreciate it, and I can relate. If you think about it, let us know.

[Valerie Creighton]

Yes.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Wente, that might be a good segue to speak with you.

Today and during these meetings, I'm very proud that we're talking about representing both official languages, about being racially diverse and gender-diverse and about first nations, Inuit and Métis. These are conversations that might not have happened in previous iterations of the Broadcasting Act.

I appreciate your being here and bringing your voice and this idea to the table. It's nice. No, it's not fast enough and far enough, but we're moving in the right direction. Of that, I am proud.

The stories you talk about, which talk about the who, and the careers you have made as writers, producers, directors, musicians, actors, journalists and production teams often start in very local productions. The only way to get these bigger companies, then, is to support them at local levels.

Can you highlight the importance of supporting local sectors in those early independent days and perhaps share a success story? It's always nice to have a tangible story to show how support can make a difference.

[Jesse Wente]

I think the ecosystems we see in the screen sector vary across the country, because, of course, there are local supports that may not exist in other places—tax credits and those sorts of things. I think specifically, certainly for historically marginalized communities, when they're gaining access to a sector, they will begin independently and then grow. We need that investment now for racialized storytellers in this sector, because they historically have lacked that investment.

What we're seeing now is a great demand for content, but we don't necessarily have the infrastructure there to meet that demand. Therefore, we do need to have very targeted investment, national investment in local production companies and local talent, to help foster that growth. I think that is certainly exceedingly important.

In terms of a great example, if you just look at what was recently announced on the slate of the Berlinale—the film festival in Berlin—we see two different first nations productions there. One is a dystopian sort of sci-fi film by Danis Goulet, who is an artist based in Saskatchewan. Then we also see Beans, a story by Tracey Deer, which is set in a historical event, the Oka crisis, the conflict at Kanesatake and Kahnawake in the nineties.

They're two very different films. One is an indigenous future-looking project, and one is examining the past through a very personal lens. The Danis Goulet project is called Night Raiders. That is the promise of indigenous content.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Wente.

Mr. Champoux, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will be going back to Mr. Pelletier and Ms. Cyr of the ARRQ.

Mr. Pelletier and Ms. Cyr, when we met, and it was too long ago, the bill had been introduced for a few weeks only. We talked about the importance of including clear protection mechanisms in the act so that the CRTC could make decisions with a view to protecting French-language and Quebec content.

Are you still of the opinion that not insisting on that in the act could well give the CRTC some latitude and potentially weaken francophone and Quebec culture?

[Gabriel Pelletier]

We always put our trust in the CRTC in imposing requirements on broadcasters. We believe in our institutions. Of course, the CRTC will have to be provided with ways in which it can act.

However, we are recommending keeping the ability to appeal to the governor in council to set aside CRTC decisions. We believe in the current system. The important point is to establish clear objectives that the CRTC must follow in the years to come. In that way, the CRTC will be able to set requirements that accommodate our concerns.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

A bill like this one is huge. As you know, it is missing a lot of things that we would like to add. But we will perhaps not have the time to do everything.

What do you think of the idea that the Bloc Québécois has proposed: a mandatory review of the Broadcasting Act every three or five years? That could ensure that, with the industry evolving so rapidly, we would let nothing escape us and we would not end up with injustices in the area.

[Gabriel Pelletier]

The Copyright Act has a similar mechanism. We are aware that reviews of that kind are difficult and complex.

The world is changing so quickly. Bill C-10 is already playing catch-up. It is really urgent to act. That has been said over and over again. So it is a good idea to review—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, sir.

You have my apologies.

Ms. McPherson, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Wente, if I could.

This committee has heard from a number of different organizations, including members from the APTN, who spoke about their concerns with Bill C-10. I also think that Bill C-10 needs to be stronger.

I'm curious as to whether you could point out what exactly you like about this bill. You spoke of the importance of storytelling and broadcasting legislation that ensures our stories reflect the diverse stories and voices of our country. How do you think this bill will ensure that first nations, Métis and Inuit stories are heard?

[Jesse Wente]

I think the big piece was the dropping of the qualifiers around the need for indigenous content to be represented within the Canadian broadcast system. As you know, the previous legislation used the phrase, I believe it was, “when resources become available”. Of course, in practice, resources never became available, or if they did, they became available very recently. Most of the indigenous-specific funding is less than a decade old. I think that's where we take encouragement.

We would agree with and support our colleagues at APTN, the REMC, as well as the black journalists association, in their calls. We think that those calls are very appropriate.

The biggest move was to drop those qualifiers, which we think should allow the Governor in Council to direct the CRTC to look at ways to enforce the presentation or the production of indigenous content and the dissemination of it within the screen sector.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Knowing that those are some of the things you'd like to see, do you think it would be better to have more transparent communication on what the CRTC directive would be? Would it be more valuable if you could get more of that information available?

[Jesse Wente]

Yes, of course. More information is always valuable.

We think that those directions need to be very clear and that the supports are in line with what we see in terms of French and English already.

I would agree with Valerie. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. What we need to do is to make sure that wheel is applicable to all of the communities we're trying to serve within the screen sector.