Evidence of meeting #39 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 crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
It was a much longer answer to my question than I expected. You must be in politics now. Well done. You actually answered it right off the hop when you said, “That's exactly how the system works.”
At the risk of precipitating another longer answer, I wonder about this. If that's the way the system works, do you not recognize the risk of actually recreating the existing system on the Internet? I thought one of the great advantages of these online tools was the remarkable democratizing effect they had, where anybody could be producing what they want. I keep coming back to the example of Justin Bieber, who didn't have to worry about some producer in some tower in Manhattan deciding that he was good enough. He became a superstar because of this tool that was available to everybody, equally.
I appreciate what you're trying to do. You're Mr. Compromise, which is lovely, but do you not fear that with your amendment this is going to just perpetuate a really bad system on the Internet?
I'm sorry. That's to Mr. Manly as well.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before I go to Mr. Manly, can you please refine your answer to the question only? It's only because if I allow you to go any further.... You're also in the line up, but you're going to be jumping over Mr. Shields' intervention if I allow you to go any further.
Mr. Manly, you have the floor to answer the question, please.
2:25 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
No, I don't actually think that would be the same problem. With CTV or Global, you need to deal with a commissioning editor. You have to sell the program to them, either to have it commissioned or to be acquired afterwards.
With the Internet, it's not the same process. There's no commissioning editor. It's really just a button you click that says, this is Canadian content and I have filled out a form that says a, b, c or d—that the producer or director are Canadian, that it was shot in Canada or that the actors are Canadian, and that it meets six out of 10 points to be able to be recognized as Canadian content.
There's no commissioning editor on YouTube. That's not what I'm saying, and I think that the process would still be wide open. All I'm saying is that you would have something that would show, for discoverability purposes, that this is Canadian content and that would make it easy for Canadians to find to support Canadian talent.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
But Mr. Manly, isn't it a fairly wild assumption to think that the CRTC would only have discoverability requirements that say there has to be “Canada” in the tag? Clearly there's quite a process to adjudicate whether something is sufficiently Canadian to be promoted as Canadian. You can't just have a tag that says “Canadian”—
June 4th, 2021 / 2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think we've reached the point.... Right now, we are not going into CRTC regulatory-making pieces. This is going quite far afield from this amendment.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hold on. I don't want to spur an argument here between the two.
We've talked about this before. Let's try to stay germane to the amendment at hand in this particular case.
Mr. Manly, I believe you received a question. Do you wish to answer?
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I didn't really get to finish the question that I was asking him before I was unceremoniously interrupted there.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I just want to get to this point about how, Mr. Manly, you feel that we won't be recreating the same bad system, because there aren't two individuals to sort of decide what gets on CTV or CBC. The CRTC, through its discoverability rules.... Do you think it's conceivable that the only thing that they will require for discoverability rules is to have a tag that says it's Canadian?
What about all of the rules that determine what is sufficiently Canadian or not? You say right now that you have to fill out these lengthy forms to describe where it was produced and all of that kind of stuff, to determine how Canadian it is and whether it meets the Canadian content requirements.
I have to assume, then, that when the CRTC starts to apply these rules online, it will have to have more than just a simple “Canadian” tag. It would have to have an awful lot more detail, would it not?
2:25 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The CRTC process is very simple. It's a very simple form. This film is made by Paul Manly, a Canadian, directed by Paul Manly, a Canadian. The actors are Canadian or not Canadian. This was produced in Canada—check, check, check. Here's your CRTC number, and now you are there for discoverability.
The process of getting on CTV is about acquisition or commissioning. It is about money, and it is about selling a product to a corporation. With YouTube, that is not what you're doing. It is a platform that you can upload to freely. This would be a process of just saying this is a certified Canadian project or program, with the a, b, c, d simplified form. It's really simple, basic.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I think I'm done. I think Mr. Manly has more faith in the bureaucracy than I do, but that's good for me.
Thank you, sir.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Ripley and Mr. Manly.
Mr. Ripley, yes, I might be from Alberta, but I'm looking for classical instrumental, not that other type of music you might have referred to in reference to somebody coming from the west.
Mr. Manly, I'm going to get down to a numbers figure. Maybe you can't answer it, but maybe you can generalize. If these types of amendments we're talking about are approved, CRTC is then faced with, as you said, a conundrum. Has there been any discussion, if you're talking about implementing this at the CRTC in nine months, of cost and the number of employees it would take to do it? They have a conundrum to resolve if they implement this amendment.
2:30 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly meant no disrespect, Mr. Shields. For the record, I did my high school years out in Alberta, so I have lots of friends who like country music and lots of friends who don't like country music.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Yes, it's a split.
You referred to the conundrum before. The question for you, in the sense of this amendment being adopted, is about the cost and number of people who might have to deal with this in nine months.
2:30 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
I apologize. I wasn't clear if the question was for me or for Mr. Manly.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.
Indeed, there is a fair amount of regulatory work that needs to be completed over the course of nine months. From the get-go, the government has always acknowledged that the legislative piece is the first piece and the details do indeed get worked out through regulation. Nine months is the minister's stated intent, recognizing we need to give them some time to do that but also recognizing that, as the committee has pointed out, the Canadian broadcasting sector currently operates under a certain set of rules to which foreign online undertakings are not subject. They are really keen to ensure that there's a fair regulatory framework across the board.
The intention moving forward is that, like the current system, the CRTC's regulatory operational expenses would be recovered ultimately from the industry. The CRTC imposes what are called part I fees. Those get recovered. The idea is that moving forward, just like CTV and TVA and company have to pay in to the operation of the system, online undertakings such as Netflix or Spotify, etc., will need to contribute to the operation of the CRTC.
2:30 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.
The CRTC has the regulatory power already. The way the system works on the broadcasting side is through a cost-recovery model whereby the CRTC recovers approximately $30 million per year from the Canadian industry. This pays for the operation of the system, so to speak. The expectation is that model would continue and, moving forward, others will contribute to it.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Manly, it's your amendment, so you're getting lots of questions because of that and maybe because of your background.
You referred to the 90% or 95% who may have received...in the sense of what you thought they had done, and left a small, single-digit percentage for the others. How does that relate to the money for funding in the sense of support? Where does it follow in the sense of money? Does it follow to that 90% to 95% in the support they might get or to the five single-digit numbers?
This refers to your amendment, which I'm talking about as well.
2:35 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The money actually follows the commissioning. If I produce something and it's acquired, I'm not eligible for funding unless I get an acquisition, which is why I have other amendments coming up to deal with that specific issue. I think that system needs to be opened up in terms of the Canada Media Fund, so that people who strictly produce for things like YouTube and don't want to deal with the traditional broadcasters can have access to funding based on producing Canadian content.
The certification process, by the way, is an attestation system. It is like when you do your taxes, you are attesting that you have followed through, that everything you've said is truthful and you could be audited later on. It's not like bureaucrats are sitting there checking every box you have checked off. The idea is not as complicated as everybody would like to try to make it out to be.
If I could call the question, I would do it, but I don't think I have that ability. Thanks.