Canadian Heritage Committee on March 23rd, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Benzie. I'm sorry, but we do have to leave it there.

Next up we have Tim Louis from the Liberals for a five-minute round.

Tim, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. This has been extremely helpful to hear.

I would like to start with Mr. Jang. We haven't heard from him since the beginning, but he really set the tone.

It was something you said, Mr. Jang. You said that artists don't say how much they make per year; they say how much they make per month. As a musician for my whole life, that really resonated with me. I actually would set goals for how much I would need to make each week for what bills would get paid that week, so I wanted to set the stage. We've talked about it today: The median income of artists is almost 50% lower than of all Canadians.

The volatility, especially in the performing arts section, which we would be very aware of as we have heard that repeatedly, is not because people didn't want to work, but because they couldn't work. We've also heard that most artists don't have any of the social benefits such as paid vacation time, sick leave, maternity or paternity leave, supplementary health care through an employer or any kind of retirement or pension, yet at the same time, about half the artists are self-employed.

As you have seen, your performing arts centre has so many different sectors. What extra challenges do you feel all those factors have for someone whose career already was precarious before the pandemic and now faces a sector that admittedly, as you said, is going to be one of the last to recover? What can we learn from supports and what can we do moving forward?

[Howard R. Jang]

I focused on basic income because one of the words that jumped out to me when you were asking us to appear was for us to talk about the “basic working conditions”. The word “basic” is actually pretty critical. One other area that I did not have time to get into and is not necessarily a federal area is the area of housing as well, and the issues around housing.

When we talk about basic needs, we are talking about, as I said, the reference to stating your income in terms of monthly income, which comes from a long study that has been done and which I've read, with interviews of 200 artists, artists who are not the celebrity artists. They are the ones who are really trying to make it on the bare minimum.

Housing is the issue. Income is the issue. Also, it's housing as it relates to not just where they live, but where they do their work, the studios in which they need to work, with the equipment they need to have. When I was at the Banff Centre, one of the things we did to encourage a residency was that instead of paying for the residency in their home, we paid for them to rent equipment so they could do the work they needed to do.

These basic needs, the infrastructure, are really what's at stake right now.

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

I thank you. I wish I could expand on this, but I want to move on just because my time is limited.

Mr. Welsman and Mr. Rowley from the Screen Composers Guild, I know—we don't have to mention it now—that one of your asks that we talked about was child care, which would fit in with housing and those kinds of supports for people in need.

Today we heard “take it or leave” conditions from you. We heard about surrendering legal creative rights, and you and I have spoken about maintaining legal creator rights and those copyrights. I know we've heard it before, but I think it bears repeating that you're the only key creatives in that Canadian content certification system who are asked to surrender their legal creator rights. You mentioned that Quebec doesn't have that condition, so what can we learn from the Quebec model? Also, if you don't mind, can you expand on one of your asks, which was about the definition of a producer, to make sure we capture those independents?

[John Welsman]

Thank you, Mr. Louis, for the question.

Briefly about the Quebec situation, it was AQPM, the producers organization in Quebec, that negotiated an agreement. I believe it was under the provincial status of the artist act in Quebec. Whichever is the case, they have an agreement with the composers guild there, SPACQ. This ask from producers doesn't take place in Quebec, so we are treated differently in English Canada.

I will ask my colleague John Rowley to expand on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

If you could do so in about 20 seconds, that would be great.

[John Rowley]

Thank you.

Tim, what did the second part of the question relate to?

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

It was on the definition of producer that captures independents.

[John Rowley]

Yes. Right now the act is ambiguous as to whether those producers who actually execute on the broadcaster's requirements to participate in a CanCon system are captured. It's unclear. We believe they're captured but we would like clarity in the act to make sure that it's clear that they are and that we can put them on notice to negotiate.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you for that round, Mr. Louis.

We will now move to Monsieur Champoux.

Mr. Champoux, you have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to talk to Mr. Benzie a bit and set the record straight, in a way.

Mr. Benzie, we had artists here on Monday, “TikTokers”, if I can put it that way. They are very successful, and that's very good. You also said that we didn't really know what we were talking about when we discussed this. I find it a little condescending to appear before a committee, when we're discussing the Status of the Artist Act, and talk about something completely different and say that we don't know what we're talking about.

On the contrary, we are very open to artists who produce content on digital platforms. In fact, I call them artists, Mr. Benzie. My door is wide open, and I would welcome them to listen to their expectations and to see how we can include and represent them, especially since user‑generated content must not be regulated. I find it a bit rich when you and people in your industry treat us as if we don't know what we're talking about.

That being said, in your first intervention, you raised the fact that you were not absolutely convinced that you met the criteria that would allow you to be defined as artists. Personally, I think that you are artists by right, and the Status of the Artist Act gives you the opportunity to form an association and perhaps obtain the strength you need to negotiate with the platforms.

On Monday, Mr. Michael, who has been quoted several times by my colleagues, talked about the danger of regulating this industry, but he was quite happy to say that he was part of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, or ACTRA, and that he had his pension fund and the benefits that come with it. Your organization could consider something like that. Once again, Mr. Benzie, I'm telling you that my door is wide open. You say that you have been patronized by the members of Parliament you have met. Personally, I have never had a request to meet with anyone from your organization, but I would be happy to sit down with you.

When we talk to online platforms like YouTube and TikTok, we understand each other. They know that broadcasting activities can and should be regulated. They agree with that. We agree that freedom of expression must be protected and that users who want to share content on digital platforms must do so without being subject to the same regulations as people and companies that have broadcasting activities. I think there is a case for agreement. We can sit down, discuss and respect each other's objectives. I think that, in order to do that, we have to lower our voices and treat each other with a minimum of respect. We may not understand your industry enough to your liking, but we are open to learning more. So I wanted to reach out to you today.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

That is the time for that round.

Thank you very much, Mr. Champoux.

For the next round, we will move to Mr. Julian, who has two and a half minutes.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree with what Mr. Champoux just said. It's important that we get to the bottom of things and that we ask good questions. It's also important that both sides feel respected.

That said, I will come back to Mr. Jang.

Mr. Jang, as you were giving your presentation, you were going to speak more about the examples in Ireland and upstate New York. I know you have other examples as well to give us. We've seen in other countries that artists are actually supported by things like a guaranteed livable basic income. Are these the kinds of things that can make a difference, and what are the international examples you really want to give us or reiterate?

[Howard R. Jang]

Thank you very much.

I mentioned three examples from Ireland. Under that country's basic income program, $6 million was earmarked for $1,000 monthly stipends for up to 130 artists and cultural workers. The recipients received their first disbursements early this past year with monthly payments to continue for at least the next six months.

In Finland there was actually a two-year study of the treatment for basic income. A group of 2,000 randomly picked initially unemployed people received a guaranteed, unconditional and automatic cash payment, although it was only a modest 560 euros per month instead of the basic unemployment allowance of a similar amount. McKinsey did a report on this two-year study and released it earlier this year. The final results from that are in, and the findings are intriguing. The basic income in Finland led to small increases in employment, significantly boosted multiple measures of the recipients' well-being, and reinforced positive and social feedback loops.

In upstate New York they launched a pilot of universal basic income for 100 Ulster County residents, and those residents, who must make less than $46,900 annually, received $500 monthly cheques for a year.

The results are coming in on this kind of very basic need, and it's actually about the nets that are there to really support the work. I quoted an artist who talked about the impact of the CERB program here in Canada and what that actually did to free them up to create the work they wanted to create.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Jang.

Thank you, Mr. Julian. That concludes that set of questioning.

The next round goes to Ms. Gladu.

Marilyn, you have five minutes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

As a recording artist, an author and a former stand-up comic, I will say that certainly the arts are quite important to me. I want to start by talking about who's covered by this act and who's not.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Benzie. You were a bit reticent to comment on whether or not you were covered. Is there a concern that if you were covered you would be over-regulated, or what is the concern there?

[Scott Benzie]

To be completely honest, I had no idea this act existed up until about a month ago. digital first creators have never had to operate under any rules or regulations to make themselves successful. We've never really needed the government to intervene on our behalf, so this is all relatively new to us.

I don't actually believe I can give you a very good answer, but the act itself says nothing about our world today.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

But you haven't been regulated and there hasn't been any problem. Is that fair to say?

[Scott Benzie]

That's correct. In fact, our organization didn't exist before Bill C-10, and I hope it doesn't exist six months from now, but we'll see where that goes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Very good.

Mr. Forget, you talked about how this act doesn't cover self-employed artists, and we saw, in some of the programs the government rolled out, that anybody who was self-employed kind of fell through the cracks in those. Do you think the self-employed artists should be part of this act?

[Dave Forget]

The act does cover the self-employed. I think what we're talking about here is precarious workers, gig economy workers. I'll give you the example of our directors. When they're hired by the NFB to direct a production, they are hired as contract workers. They are hired only for the purpose of fulfilling that task. So the contract, the engagement for that work, is subject to the act, while the contracts that cover all of the directors who do similar work for the National Film Board are negotiated collectively by the directors guild. So it's just to keep in mind that we are not talking about continuous employment and engagement.

Also, by the way, if you will permit me just a quick comment, in our last renewal with the National Film Board, we actually included a provision for TikTok videos. They are really short-form videos that are exhibited on platforms like TikTok. We call them TikTok videos for shorthand, but they could just as well be on YouTube. The NFB recognizes that this is short-form content so it clearly seems to recognize that the artists who are working on content that will be exhibited on those platforms are artists and are subject to the legislation provided that the employer—in this case it is the National Film Board, but if it were the CBC hiring someone at arm's length to do similar work, they would also be subject to it. I just don't want to make it—actually I'm trying to make it less complicated. We don't represent those artists, but in our view, those are creative artists and they certainly should be covered by the same protections that we provide for other artists.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Lefebvre, you talked about artists and the differences between those who create audio content and those who create videos, films, television programs, and so on. These artists lose their copyright.

What can the federal government do to correct that?

[Éric Lefebvre]

Quite simply, it could repeal section 17 of the Copyright Act. This provision ensures that a performer's rights related to a performance can no longer be invoked when the performance is integrated into a film, video or television program.

Furthermore, Canada is not yet a signatory to the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, which deals specifically with the performances of performers that are integrated into audiovisual works. This international treaty was negotiated a few years ago. It might be a good idea for Canada to adhere to it and, by doing so, to ensure that the Copyright Act is consistent with this international convention. That would give performers a number of rights.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bittle, the floor is yours for the final round of questioning, for five minutes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Benzie, we're dealing with organizations under the Status of the Artist Act, and they're transparent organizations. Like these organizations that we're dealing with, was there an election for your position to be representing digital first creators?