Canadian Heritage Committee on March 12th, 2021

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

Mr. Péladeau, I'd like a straightforward answer to the following question.

Without going into the details, could you tell me whether you think the CRTC has the capacity required to enforce the new regulations to restrict foreign online companies? I'd like to hear your opinion, but only briefly, because I have other questions.

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

I think I answered that earlier.

I have trouble seeing how an institution like the CRTC could regulate the Internet. This is all about the Internet and regulating it.

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

We were stunned when we found out that the CRTC was holding public hearings for CBC/Radio-Canada while we were studying Bill C-10. The bill does not affect the CBC/radio-Canada mandate at all in terms of determining how to make it more profitable, to review its role and other aspects. You spoke about it in your address.

Could you give us more details about something that I think you consider somewhat irresponsible on the part of the government?

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

Excuse the expression, but we're playing a form of ping-pong. The government, or at least the Department of Canadian Heritage, is saying that this is is not within their jurisdiction and that they are going to assign the CRTC responsibility for regulating CBC/radio-Canada. The CRTC asked the CBC, and they said that jurisdiction is with the Department of Canadian Heritage, not the CRTC. Why not the Department of Finance, since the CBC's budgets are involved?

As I was saying, this situation itself is also Kafkaesque. What we're talking about here is a practical matter, and I want to emphasize that. Were no longer talking about state television or cultural missions, but practical matters, particularly in connection with the capacity to counter private broadcasters. For some of them…

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

...the one and only source of revenue is advertising. We're also talking about an undertaking that is no longer accountable to anyone, whether the CRTC or the Department of Canadian Heritage.

So if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Mr. Péladeau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Péladeau.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Excuse me.

We just ran out of time there.

Ms. Ien, you have six minutes, please.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who have joined us today. I appreciate your joining us.

Ms. Noss, I want to start with you. As you mentioned, most of your members are based in the United States, so it's interesting to have your perspective on this while you have so many Canadians working with you. You've stated that “a flexible approach” is the right approach. You have also said that people want choice, and you've asked that a walled garden approach not be replicated.

What does that mean?

[Wendy Noss]

Well, I think it means that you're building policy for the future here, and that policy needs to be predicated on the fact that these are not the same business models as broadcasters'. They are not producing the same kinds of content. They do not have the same regulatory benefits, and they're not protected from competition in the same way. There have been witnesses who have come before you and have said that you should just impose on online services the same obligations and same definitions that Canadian broadcasters have.

That simply makes no sense. As I said, the content strategies are different, the services are different and there are unique opportunities that foreign players can offer to young Canadian creators of diverse backgrounds and diverse experiences in a wide range of creative roles and on a wide range of projects, in working at the top of their class and getting training and with the ability to stay in Canada while they do that.

Those are some of the things that global studios can provide Canadians. As I said, the idea that you're just going to take 30-year-old broadcasting policy and attach that to a completely different business model at a completely different time in a completely different market just is not going to build opportunity for Canadian creators and consumers.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Ms. Noss, thank you so much.

I want to move on to the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions now.

As you mentioned, the coalition is here on behalf of 43 associations and groups, more than 200,000 creators and professionals and 2,000 cultural organizations as well.

If you can characterize this for us, how severely has the cultural sector has been impacted by the growing supply of online content?

[Bill Skolnik]

If you're talking about actual numbers, I don't have them at hand, but I can tell you that if you want to read The Globe and Mail of two days ago, you can see what has happened to great people who have been classified as stars, such as Ashley MacIsaac and Old Man Luedecke. It has been devastating. It has been devastating because of COVID, but it started long before COVID. Who knows when it will come back or if it will come back?

There's an opportunity with this act, with amendments to this act, to recreate production for all of these folks, to say that we are going to take responsibility, that we're going to provide the opportunity for our Canadians—our creators, our performers and our producers—to work within this system and to resurrect, to get rejuvenated. The devastation that we hear of from all of our organizations is incredible. You can read the stats in terms of the entertainment industry and the cultural industry being hit harder than anybody, I think, except perhaps hospitality and tourism. I'm not sure, but it's there.

This is something that.... If we bring them back, it's going to affect a lot of you folks. You represent major festivals even in the small towns: the Festival of the Sound, the old Drummondville folkloric festival, the Victoriaville festival and the Orford one, which is a famous festival—we even have a string quartet named after it. All these things can become rejuvenated.

We need to take responsibility. We should not be embarrassed about saying that we're going to help Canadian performers, creators, producers and publishers with all of this. That's something we can do.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

With that in mind, how do we strike that middle ground? How do we strike that balance that you say is necessary?

[Bill Skolnik]

Well, I think the amendments we're offering—I'm not going to go over them—do provide some opportunities to do that. I also think that having American production companies here, as Wendy has pointed out, and the training that we receive and the experience that our people receive just result in even better products from Canadians. These things are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to say one and not the other. You just have to make sure that there's a level playing field, that people are treated the same and all of their experiences are noted when policy is made.

Like I said in my comments, this isn't the case of just massaging regulations. It's a case of saying, and not being embarrassed about saying, “We're here with this act to make sure that Canadian culture is there, front and centre, and it's there all the time—our stories, our folks, our performers, our producers.”

You know, they get it in Quebec. I just hope the rest of the country can pick it up from there, too.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Skolnik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ien.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my turn to thank all the witnesses for being here with us today.

My first question is for Ms. Guay, of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

Ms. Guay, this week, at the ADISQ meetings, the minister began by talking about Bill C-10 and the Broadcasting Act as a piece of cultural legislation.

Yesterday, we learned about the direction that the minister intends to send to this CRTC when the bill is adopted. What was your reaction yesterday when you learned about this letter and this direction?

[Nathalie Guay]

As you mentioned, this happened yesterday. We're certainly going to meet with our members to discuss it.

I spoke to us several of them and can already tell you that they are extremely disappointed with the approach, which looks more like market regulation than the cultural act it ought to be. Some even said they were afraid that the sector would be deregulated.

Having said that, we've held many meetings since the month of August to argue our point of view and we get the impression that quite a few people are listening.

At this point, we could say that if our amendments are accepted, it would encourage us to work on the draft order to suggest changes that are in line with our goals.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Let's talk a bit about your amendments.

The matter of protecting original francophone and Canadian content is of great concern to you. You are suggesting three amendments to Bill C-10 for the protection of French-language productions.

If these proposed amendments are not adopted, what do you feel the consequences will be?

[Nathalie Guay]

Thank you for your question.

We're afraid that we will end up with more translated content or content subtitled in French unless the act is strengthened. We believe that it's important to strengthen the act with respect to original francophone content.

I'd like to remind you that several of our members appealed to the Governor in Council in 2017 when the CRTC reviewed conditions for the renewal of television service licences for the large French-language private ownership groups.

It's clear that the act needs to be strengthened to prevent this from happening again, all the more so as it will now apply to foreign undertakings.

To begin with, we are proposing something that is central to Canada's broadcasting policy, which is the addition of original French language productions from official language minority communities. Ms. Pilon spoke to us about that earlier.

Secondly, we are arguing that regulation and monitoring should give preference to the presentation of Canadian programs to Canadians that have been created and produced in both official languages and in indigenous languages.

I won't talk about the third amendment, because I think you want to ask another question.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's right. Our time is very limited. We could talk about it for hours, but I would also like to address some questions to the people from Quebecor.

I'd like to ask M. Péladeau a question.

M. Péladeau, you frequently mentioned that traditional Canadian broadcasters have very onerous regulatory requirements. You would like to have some of these removed.

Could you give us a few examples of requirements you would like to see eliminated so that you can be more nimble in this rapidly changing market?

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

Gladly, Mr. Champoux.

It's true that these requirements may appear tedious. I have a list in front of me, and so I'll run through them.

To begin with, there are the content quotas. For example, TVA must have 50% Canadian content in the evening. After that there are the Canadian programming expenditure requirements, the expenditure requirements for national interest programs, the independent production and local production requirements. We also have to comply with the expenditures and the number of hours for local news. We also have subtitling and described video requirements, and the obligation to contribute to independent funds and the CMF. Added to all that are the regulations for providing the $25 basic service and the requirement to distribute certain programming services, like APTN, CPAC, AMI-télé, TV5 and Unis TV. And then, there are all the reports, including the two audit reports each year, annual financial reports, production reports, women in production reports, ownership reports, programming and recording records, and cultural diversity reports.

As you can see, instead of investing in Quebec and Canadian production, we spend a lot of time on red tape and administration, while our foreign competitors are not obliged to do so.

I was listening with interest to Ms. Guay just a short while ago. The fact is that we don't need regulation to know that we need to invest in Canadian programming. We have always considerably exceeded the established thresholds. And yet we still have this mandatory administrative burden. We know full well that it's important for us to disseminate Canadian content, and that's what we do. We also provide work for the craftspeople and all those involved in the cultural, television and cable sectors, and all for one very simple reason—our audience. God knows that there's talent in Quebec, and the audience expects us to put it on the screen. That's what we've always done. And we were doing it long before Quebecor bought TVA. It's a natural historical development in Quebec. It's not because of regulations that require Canadian and Quebec broadcasters to offer Canadian content that they do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That does indeed amount to a lot of paperwork.

Thank you.