Canadian Heritage Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

I don't have that data on hand. What I can tell you is that the report “The Shattered Mirror” from the study that was commissioned shows that in the last decade, Canada has lost half of its dailies and actually half of its professional journalism base since 2008.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Piché, if it's possible, if you're able to access that number, and you could send that to the committee, that would be great.

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

It's part of a public report.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We can get it ourselves then. Thank you.

For my second question, I'll go back to some of the questions I asked earlier.

We understand that the proposed change to Canadian control of broadcasters takes into account the current reality that foreign online companies are already here, already exploiting the Canadian market. Therefore, why would you not want to maintain the Canadian ownership requirements for traditional broadcasters in the act while in addition taking into account the presence of foreign online companies?

I'd like the answer to that, and could you also talk a little bit about whether this was something that you were obligated to do, to remove this reference to Canadian control?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

To be clear, the actual foreign ownership limitations have never been written into the act. This regulatory instrument that I spoke about has always existed to specify, for example, the actual percentages of foreign ownership that are allowed. It's complicated. If you go and look at it, you'll see there are certain percentages specified for direct control, indirect control, etc.

One of our goals with Bill C-10 moving forward is to ensure that our broadcasters are better able to compete. A big concern of ours is that right now—and I think the committee has heard witnesses speak on this—they're under huge stress and huge pressure. I alluded to some of the statistics in my opening remarks, with regard to the declines we are seeing. As you know, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has commissioned a report talking about the closures they foresee in the near future.

One of our goals is to actually ensure that moving forward we can continue to have Canadian broadcasters, because they are really an important part of the system.

We have certainly heard loud and clear that some stakeholders are worried about the act moving away from a statement about wanting to protect and foster Canadian ownership of broadcasters. We've heard that. As I said, the intention behind our changing that was just to recognize that the Canadian broadcasting system is no longer closed from that global marketplace. Certainly the intention of the policy moving forward is to support Canadian broadcasters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Okay, folks, we're going to have to suspend for a few moments.

Ms. Tsui, you won't be here for the next round. We thank you for your contribution and really appreciate that.

Mr. Ripley and Mr. Piché, we'll see you in just a few minutes.

We'll just suspend now for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone, as we reconvene once again.

We're discussing Bill C-10.

I want to thank our guests at this time, but before I do that, we have another guest I'd like to mention. Mr. Jaime Battiste is joining us from Sydney—Victoria. I forgot to mention you last time; my apologies. His beautiful riding is what I like to call the gateway to the island of Newfoundland.

I also want to say thank you to the minister, the Honourable Monsieur Guilbeault, who is joining us at this hour. Also, we have the deputy minister, Madam Laurendeau. Returning with us also we have Mr. Piché and Mr. Ripley to help us in our testimony.

Let's start with the minister.

Mr. Guilbeault, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and the other Haudenosaunee peoples.

Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure for me to appear before you today regarding the study of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would also like to acknowledge that today is International Women's Day.

I’d like to thank the members of the committee for the preliminary work you have been doing for some time now.

I’m delighted that this bill has finally passed second reading in the House of Commons. The delays that some Conservative members have caused were a concern for me, but we got there, and we can continue to move forward. Let us please remember that this is not a partisan bill. It is a bill that focuses on culture; it is a bill for Canadians, and it deserves to move forward.

I hope that all the members here and their caucuses recognize the urgency of modernizing the Broadcasting Act so that it can better serve the interests of Canadians in the digital world.

Today it's impossible to overlook the legislative imbalance that favours digital platforms to the detriment of Canadian broadcasters and creative industries. This reform responds to a pressing need. It is crucial to ensuring the vitality of Canadian businesses now and for decades to come. This is why our government will continue to work constructively and collaboratively so that Canadians can benefit from the most effective legislative tool possible, as soon as possible.

From the outset, the cultural and creative sectors have provided input into the modernization of the current legislation. They've expressed their support for this reform and this favourable movement is trending across the country, particularly in Quebec.

Moreover, since the tabling of the bill, this important discussion has continued in the public space and before your committee. It has given rise to several proposed amendments that we will examine with all the attention they deserve. We are, of course, open to improvements that would maximize the benefits of the amended Act for Canadians.

I know that you have received substantial input from several key contributors, and I look forward to seeing the results of the committee’s work in this regard.

I am well aware that the study of the bill must be carried out with care, for two reasons. First of all, because it introduces methods that are completely new in Canada for implementing a regulatory framework adapted to our current reality. Second, because this is an important issue. Many players in the creative and cultural industries are calling for this update to the Broadcasting Act and are counting on this new tool to continue to develop their work on digital platforms.

Let us remember that the current broadcasting system has served Canadians well for decades. It has fostered the emergence of strong national creative and cultural industries. It has supported the delivery of original content that reflects our identity and our values. Bill C-10 aims to preserve that legacy. However, it also aims to include many new players and new activities. It must therefore take an approach designed to include online broadcasters and ensure their equitable contribution.

With this bill, we want to make the diversity of Canadian voices resonate more clearly: francophone and anglophone voices, the voices of minority communities, Indigenous voices; and the voices of all communities across the country, including ethnocultural communities, racialized communities, and others that are too often underrepresented on the screen and elsewhere.

I want to make it clear that this bill is not intended to change the regulatory structure in broadcasting. Rather, it is intended to update the objectives of the legislation and the tools of the CRTC. It therefore preserves the autonomy conferred on the CRTC to implement the appropriate regulations and achieve the objectives of the Act. This autonomy is all the more important as the broadcasting system begins to incorporate new players with different business models, and as the system continues to evolve.

This bill does not address the regulation of online hate nor the equitable compensation of journalists by the web giants, as these are not strictly broadcasting issues; however, I intend to introduce two more bills on these issues in the near future. In due course, I will be pleased to appear before your committee regarding these other bills, always in the spirit of constructive co-operation.

I will be pleased to provide you with the Order in Council that we intend to issue following the passage of the bill. Please note, however, that this Order in Council was drafted prior to the introduction of the bill. It may therefore be redrafted as a result of amendments to Bill C-10 between now and Royal Assent.

As well, in the interest of transparency and as required by law, the Order will undergo a period of public consultation to invite feedback from Canadians.

I invite you to use the Order in Council as background material for your study, but to focus your efforts on the bill itself. Because that is the legislation that will be with us for several decades and will ensure the sustainability of the broadcasting sector. Over the years, governments will come and go, and will issue various Orders in Council to the CRTC as they respond to changing circumstances.

Finally, I would like to clarify the following situation. When I appeared on November 5, 2020, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska asked me what calculations the department had used to determine that the additional investments in Canadian content through digital television broadcasts would amount to $830 million. On December 11, 2020, the department provided the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the answers to the questions asked at the meetings of October 30 and November 5, 2020, including the one dealing with the calculation of the $830 million. At my last appearance before the committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Very quickly, sir.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes. Thirty seconds, Mr. Chair.

I feel that this is important.

At my last appearance before the committee, on January 29, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that the committee had not yet received that information. I am sure that he does not want to mislead the members of the committee, or the Canadians listening in, by wrongly stating that he had received nothing. I invite him to look at his email inbox, because he did in fact receive the information, which was distributed to all members of the committee.

With that, I thank you. I will stay with you to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rayes, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the Minister and his colleagues for joining us.

Allow me to correct some of the Minister's comments, or at least to describe them as I see them.

The Minister does not want this bill to become a partisan issue and he wants us to recognize its urgency. I would like to inform him that the committee unanimously agreed to fast-track consideration of this bill, despite the perfectly legitimate privilege that members of Parliament have to express their views in the House of Commons and to ask questions about the bill. I remind him that the Liberal government took five years to introduce this bill. It also prorogued Parliament, which set back consideration of important bills such as this one on broadcasting. We are in full agreement on the principle. If it is not too much to ask, I would like the minister to be a little circumspect at the moment, rather than trying to lecture to us as he is doing now.

With that said, yes, he is right: we actually did receive a notice buried in a document, several pages long, containing exactly the same information that had been given to us: that the calculation had been done using scenarios. I would like to tell the Minister that his Deputy Minister, Ms. Laurendeau, took the time at that same meeting to say that it would be important to provide explanations when the document was submitted, because it was supposedly complex. So I feel that there has been some confusion. I will grant him that we certainly received the information, but nothing was very precise. Once more, we are going to have to wait for the guidelines from the CRTC.

I would like to return to this bill; it is so important but it does not consider a number of factors. As the Minister himself said in his presentation, the bill nowhere deals with hate speech or revenue-sharing. Social media are not included in the bill. Despite the urgency and the consultations by the CRTC, nothing has yet been done to review the role that CBC/Radio-Canada has to play. Therefore, many questions arise.

When the Minister of Official Languages tabled her working document, her supposed white paper, she spoke to us about the importance of French and the importance that the government sees in promoting and defending it. She said that French would have a major role in broadcasting, and a lot of hard work was going to be done.

However, when we look at Bill C-10, that deals mostly with the digital players, we realize that the only measure designed to enhance the place of French, to promote it and to ensure French-language content, is to remove the words “as resources become available” at the end of paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act. It now simply reads that “a range of broadcasting services in French and in English shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.

It seems to me that the bill provides for nothing substantial in this regard. However, the Minister told us that, for her, French is important and that she was going to make sure that it would be a factor in all departments. Now here we are studying this bill that we have been waiting for for more than 30 years. According to the Minister and his senior officials, the bill is historic. But it contains only one single item that deals with protecting French.

How do you respond to all the organizations that are concerned about the place of French in Acadia, in Quebec and in the French-speaking communities outside Quebec? I am not talking about quotas; don't try to tell me that there are quotas.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Rayes.

I'd like to address several points.

First, as Mr. Ripley told you earlier, we did not get the $830 million figure out of a Cracker Jack box. That number was arrived at through a series of 16 simulations based on different assumptions. That's what allowed us to arrive at a forecast of the amount to be invested. It could be a little more or a little less. The exact amounts will be defined in the regulations that will be implemented by the CRTC. That's the first thing.

In addition...

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Minister, if I may interrupt...

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

...it is not true to...

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

It is the privilege of the questioner: I'll stop you right there, Minister. You want to go back to the $830 million. The information we received...

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

You were the one who mentioned it in your comments.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That's fine. You want to go back to this, but my question was about French. I just wanted to correct the record by saying that we did receive the document, but all it said was that there had been a simulation.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

There were 16 simulations, in fact.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We just heard the clarification about the 16 simulations today. It was not mentioned anywhere in the information that we received in writing. We asked for access to the calculations, but we never received them. I expected, based on Ms. Laurendeau's comment, that we would get a verbal explanation, given the complexity of these calculations. We did not get one.

I don't want to debate this at this time. My question is about French.

Minister Joly told us that French would be considered in broadcasting. Yet in this all-important mega-bill, only one small paragraph provides something more concrete for the protection of French.

Can you elaborate on what measures in the bill could reassure organizations that seek to protect the French language?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I was just getting to that, the French question.

Just before, I wanted to clarify that you made a second false claim when you mentioned that this bill would not apply to social networks. Earlier, you heard Mr. Ripley explain very clearly how, in cases where social networks act as broadcasters, the act will be able to apply to businesses that operate digital platforms. So, it's not true to say as you did that the bill does not apply to social networks.

The third point I wanted to make concerns the French fact. How have we managed to protect the French fact over the decades? The CRTC has made various decisions requiring that broadcasters invest in French-language content, and it is because of these decisions that the most watched French-language programs today, whether on television or on the big screen, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, are produced here. We want these investments in French-language content to continue. In addition to conventional broadcasters, digital platforms will now be subject to spending obligations, including on French-language content.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Guilbeault.

We are going to go to Mr. Louis for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and witnesses, for being here today. I appreciate this. As we work on this important legislation, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you to get some more information.

We know that the Broadcasting Act will give us more opportunities in film and video and in the sound recording industries. It is really important to support those jobs and invest in our culture sector, especially today.

I can speak from experience here in the Waterloo region. We have a very vibrant music scene of which I am well aware, and we have very vibrant film and TV film production also going on in the region, including shows like The Handmaid's Tale, Anne with an E, Murdoch Mysteries and others, and a lot of commercials.

I'm hoping you could expand on how updating the Broadcasting Act will generate almost $1 billion in foreign investment per year in our films, our television and our music at a time when the arts and culture sector is disproportionately affected by this pandemic, and on how important the entire arts ecosystem is to our local economies, particularly the tourism and hospitality sectors, which are also hit very hard by the pandemic.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

There are a number of elements in what you just said. I'll start with your last point: how culture and tourism and hospitality go hand in hand. It is true for our larger urban centres, but it's certainly true for many of our regions across the country. People will go to a festival. They will stay in local hotels or bed and breakfasts. They will go to restaurants. They will do some sightseeing. This is really an ecosystem.

When we talk about the anticipated $830 million in new revenue invested in Canadian culture, I think it is important to remember that if we don't do that.... It's not $830 million more that we will have. Because of the declining revenues for conventional traditional broadcasters, we are heading in a direction where there would be more than $1 billion less in available funding for arts and culture in Canada.

What we are trying to do is hugely important for the preservation of that ecosystem, as you said, for regions. It used to be that film or TV shootings would happen in downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto, but now it's really happening all across the country. There are things being produced in Newfoundland, and you have productions in the Prairies. Obviously, Vancouver also has become a really big hub.

What we are doing with this is trying to ensure a vibrant arts and culture sector in Canada for all parts of the country.

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

I appreciate your saying that.

I would like to drill down on it a bit more. The previous witnesses mentioned a type of production fund—you're talking about the $830 million a year—to make sure that there are contributions from companies like Spotify that are profiting from our artists right now without making the significant, appropriate contributions to our cultural sector. Can you explain a bit more how that process might work, how we can make sure that the people who are profiting—if there are international companies profiting—from our arts and our artists are now contributing, and how that can make it to our local artists?