Canadian Heritage Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[Daniel Bernhard]

We want to make room for the foreign players, to increase choice, and we want to reflect the fact that they're already here. However, we don't need to invite them to take over the existing infrastructure and dominate it. If there is a takeover bid, for example, of certain Canadian broadcasters and Canadian ownership is not a policy objective in the act, on what basis would the CRTC say no, this is not okay? We know there have been Canadian broadcasters.... Shaw tried to sell its shares in Corus recently and was unable to find a buyer. If we open things up, it may be able to sell them, but is that a desirable outcome for the country?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Bernhard.

[Daniel Bernhard]

That statement, what Unifor and ACTRA said, is exactly right, and we support them in this regard.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, everyone.

I'm going to have to be very strict about this break. I want to get back as soon as we can. Please, five minutes for a health break, and then we'll start right away.

We'll now suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone.

This meeting is on Bill C-10. The new format seems to be going well.

We just finished our first round, and we're on to our second round now, where the time has slightly changed. We now switch to five minutes, and we're going to start with Mr. Waugh.

Mr. Waugh, you have five minutes, please.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to start with Mr. Thomson. Thank you for your two amendments.

Do you have any faith in the CRTC? Let's start there. Because we're heavily regulated—and we've heard that throughout this whole Bill C-10 debate—are you comfortable with the CRTC taking on more work?

[Jay Thomson]

Well, like any other member of the industry, we're not big fans of over-regulation, and we have some concerns about the amount of regulation that our smaller cable members are currently subject to. What we're seeking here is maintenance of existing powers and confirmation of existing jurisdiction, which are critical to ensuring that consumers have affordable broadcasting services and choice in accessing the channels they want.

It's a balance that needs to be struck. We've had our challenges, and unless these issues are addressed, we fear we're going to have many more challenges going forward.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

You deal mostly with rural Canada. Do you do any newscasts, or do you have any community channels in your areas?

[Jay Thomson]

We have almost 20 of our members who offer some form of a community channel. Some, in the very smallest systems, are just alpha-numeric billboards, but we have other communities, such as Access, which serves Regina and lots of Saskatchewan. It has a very strong, active community channel that's very popular in the community and a very important source for access to local news and programming.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes, Access is very successful in this province.

I would like to ask BCE a question.

Last week, the National Football League signed massive TV agreements with NBC, CBS, FOX, but also streaming with ESPN+, which is owned by Disney; Peacock, which is owned by NBC; and Paramount, which is owned by CBS. Then you have Amazon's exclusive streaming rights to the Thursday night NFL game—$1 billion.

When I was reading newspapers, in USA Today they pretty well said that everything is going to streaming. The NFL and sports usually are the leaders. I think we saw that last week, when the NFL made the agreements with the streaming companies.

What are your thoughts on how that would play here in Canada, where Bell, for an example, could put the CFL on streaming if you so choose? Streaming is going to be the big thing we see in the next four or five years here.

[Jonathan Daniels]

Streaming is extremely important, and it's a competitive market out there, in terms of buying the rights, between us and the OTT providers and so on. This is another reason, in our mind, that it's important to level the playing field, to make sure that we actually have the opportunity, under the same rules, to compete with anyone else, because we're going to be buying the rights—or trying to buy the rights, let me put it that way—and competing with foreign streamers as well as Canadian streamers and broadcasters.

Our approach has been basically to do both, on streaming and on our major networks as well. It allows us to sort of innovate and bring it together. We just launched.... In fact, when you watch a Montreal Canadiens hockey game, we just launched a TSN app where you can get different angles and so on by using the app.

There are different advantages, but that's tying it to us as broadcaster. We need to make sure that we have the ability, as a broadcaster or streamer or whatever we're offering, to operate on the same level playing field as anyone else who can buy the rights and that we compete equally with the foreign providers.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I think the public would say to you that in prime time on CTV, 7:00 to 10:00, you buy American programming during that time; with regard to Canadian content, very few shows are showing up on CTV. We have the simulcast with the American channels, and the reality shows.

I'm looking to ACTRA, because they're a part of this. Prime-time Canadian television series are few and far between from 7:00 to 10:00 at night.

Mr. Daniels, can you work with Canadians in giving us more Canadian programming in prime-time television instead of off-peak times?

[Jonathan Daniels]

I'll start by saying that I don't think the answer is more prescriptive rules about the time for when you have to showcase or something like that, because the reality is that we are competing with the Netflixes of the world and so on. To take a traditional approach and worry about prime time specifically, and to have certain obligations that are on different providers to show CanCon or something like that, I think is going to be self-defeating.

What really matters is that you get more money into the system and that, from that more money in the system, you allow everyone to produce the best content, the thing that makes the most business sense for them—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Daniels. I'm sorry. I have to cut it off there. I apologize. We are over time.

Just as a point of clarification, I know that in the business we tend to use a lot of acronyms. Mr. Daniels and others have used the term “OTT”. For people who are listening in from the outside, that's “over the top”, which is one of the original terms for streaming services, just so we don't get confused by some of the acronyms.

Nevertheless, we have Mr. Louis, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin my questioning with ACTRA. Due to your guidance, I will say “Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists”, instead of ACTRA. I appreciated that. Acronyms are a fast learning curve here in Ottawa.

I would like to talk about how you're saying that you're welcoming foreign investment but that we do need to tell our stories. In the previous hour, you mentioned the history of protecting our Canadian culture and how important it is to support our writers, our actors and all the workers in those sectors. We all see in the local productions in all of our ridings how much that helps to tell our stories and also how much it helps the Canadian economy.

Can you expand on the work that members of ACTRA are already doing right now in working for the digital giants in some of the shows and on the relationship you have with them now and how you are hoping that will change in the future with this proposed legislation?

[David Sparrow]

As a union of professional performers, we have a great relationship with the Netflixes and Disneys and other big streaming services that are up here doing foreign service work; that is, they're producing their own productions written largely by Americans. Right now, during COVID especially, because Canada has a better reputation for our ability to handle the virus on our sets, there is a lot of work going on, but we shouldn't be fooled by the fact that once COVID is under control and once America starts to open up in places like Atlanta—which is really the number two production centre in North America—and is able to host these productions, many of them will choose to leave and go back to the United States in order to support their own homegrown business.

That said, they're here because we have terrific crews, we have terrific actors and we have terrific post-production, so they are investing in Canada because it makes sense financially. Where the downfall comes in is that they are not producing Canadian content, so Canadian writers are not working on those shows unless those writers have moved to Los Angeles and are pursuing careers in a different country. We are also not getting those unique Canadian stories told, so we're not building up the culture, if you will, of Canada and helping to tell our stories to the world.

When we are doing that—let's just point it out—we're killing it in terms of the shows we are doing, with shows such as Murdoch Mysteries and others that are shown around the world, and shows such as Corner Gas and Kim's Convenience. It's interesting to see how popular those shows are when we make the proper investment in them, and then Netflix steps in and makes deals to put them on Netflix in order to attract even more eyeballs.

The point is that if we weaken what is CanCon, if we weaken the use of Canadian writers who are actually telling Canadian stories, then we are going to feel that pain well into the future. We have to make the rules and regulations now that will best support that industry going forward.

[Marie Kelly]

Can I add to that for just a second? We have to realize that the work we produce here in Canada, the body of work, is every bit as good as any other product from any other country. All I need to say is Schitt's Creek for us to recognize as Canadians the value of the work that we do.

The problem is that if we don't support it, if we don't make sure it's on prime-time viewing, if Canadians don't see it and if the world doesn't see it, then it will be perceived as not being of the same standard as others, but if we promote it the way other countries promote their content, then it will be world-renowned, like Schitt's Creek.

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

Then it's a matter of promotion as well as protecting the Canadian stories. Would you say that's an equal part of it? Is part of it just promoting our stories as well?

[David Sparrow]

Well, it's certainly the case that.... Our friends at BCE have pointed out the lack of a level playing field. One of those things is that creating a Canadian production has been one thing in the past, but there has been no money left over to actually promote it in the same way that a Law & Order or similar production bought from the U.S. will be promoted. That's what's really been the challenge in terms of getting things into prime time. It's actually less expensive for our friends at BCE to buy Law & Order and, in essence, just rerun it in Canada than it is to create a Canadian program. Part of it is levelling that playing field.

I'd like to speak briefly to levelling the playing field. We don't do that by weakening the regulations that our Canadian and domestic producers follow. We strengthen them, bringing the same regulations to the over-the-top streamers and the others, and make them play the same game that we're playing here in Canada, which is promoting Canadian culture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Sparrow and Mr. Louis.

Mr. Champoux, you may go ahead. You have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the BCE representatives.

Mr. Péladeau, the president and CEO of Quebecor, recently appeared before the committee. Afterwards, he told reporters that the committee was trying to regulate an area that was “unregulatable”, referring, of course, to the activities of the tech giants.

Do you agree?

Also, do you think it's possible to regulate the activities of the tech giants, while protecting Canada's online and traditional broadcasters and ensuring they can compete?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry to interrupt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

I don't have translation. I'm not sure if I'm the only one. I just want to make sure.