Canadian Heritage Committee on May 24th, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

ADISQ is accustomed to making submissions to the CRTC, particularly when conventional media licences are being renewed. Is your confidence in the system based on your experience?

Are the concerns of the new players due to the fact that they have never really had to argue their position before the CRTC and so are not familiar with the rationale that comes of the hearings?

Do you think a lack of understanding of the system is to blame?

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

I wouldn't want to assume that there's a lack of understanding on their part.

Regardless, a mix of factors come into play. For years, I have been preparing CRTC submissions to advocate for Quebec's music industry, particularly when it comes to French-language music. What that experience has taught me is that the CRTC makes its decisions very carefully and that they are always based on evidence and facts. That is the approach it takes in regulating the industry.

I have never seen the CRTC set out rules that were completely out of step with the reality or consumer habits. The system is built on consumer behaviour.

Today, only 8% of our music is streamed, which is a paltry, marginal proportion. It's devastating to us. We know full well that the CRTC won't decide overnight that the proportion has to go up to 65%. The CRTC examines the situation before making decisions.

The platforms have the power to make an artist's career, just like radio or television. They have the ability to take an artist, help kick-start their career and put their music on the map by giving the public an opportunity to discover it. We have always seen that in Quebec. It's the same for platforms. They know what tools they have, and they know what works. When they appear before the CRTC, they can explain what the best tools and methods are. We can all work together to learn the best ways to regulate practices.

What matters at this stage is ensuring that the bill remains flexible. It has to be technology-neutral because we will be living with it for years, even decades, to come. We can't predict what the future will bring.

TikTok emerged after Bill C‑10 died on the Order Paper and before Bill C‑11 was being considered. The place of TikTok has completely changed in a few months.

Who knows where we'll be in 10 years. That is why the bill needs to be as technology-neutral as possible.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Ms. Desrochers, we recently talked about what happened in France in relation to platform regulation. The arguments used sound like an alarmist campaign. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, maybe it's an opinion, but I'm under the impression that this is what it's all about: scaring creators. We use, for example, expressions like "infringement on freedom of expression". You know what I mean.

Are you under the impression that the major platforms are trapping content creators by scaring them about the regulations?

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

Again, I don't want to speak for them, but certainly the platforms regularly use scaremongering arguments, relating, for instance, to censorship, freedom of expression or reduction of consumer choice.

These arguments have been used in Europe and the U.K. We spoke to representatives of groups and coalitions that represent the interests of creators in these countries. They confirmed that they had been in the exact same situation we are in now and had heard the same arguments and threats. They were told, for example, that the new regulations would break the Internet and that the legislators did not understand what they were about to regulate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to Peter Julian for the NDP for six minutes.

Go ahead, please, Peter.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Ms. Paré and Ms. Desrochers, you just said that the platforms have the power to launch careers. If the platforms have this power and if they are not subject to any regulatory framework, do you trust them to make decisions that will allow careers to be launched?

At the same time, if this bill were not before us and we had nothing to study at this time, what do you think the future of ADISQ and the Quebec industry would be?

Would some artists have difficulty breaking through and showcasing their talent?

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

Thank you for the question.

In the absence of a regulatory framework, I do not think that the platforms will use their power to launch the careers of Quebec or Canadian artists who speak French. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that for the simple reason that, since we started discussing the bill, we have become exceptionally and extraordinarily closer to these platforms.

These platforms have been present in our market since 2014, if not before. Until last October, the platforms refused to publish data on consumption in Quebec. I don't think that was necessarily bad faith. It was simply a misunderstanding of the fact that there are two markets in Canada, one of which is a francophone market. If we can't get details about our market, we can't understand how music is consumed. Consumers in Quebec do not behave at all in the same way as those in Canada. This is what the data we now have access to shows us.

Only one streaming service is willing to share this data right now. I sincerely believe that this bill has allowed certain platforms to realize that our market, the Quebec market and the Canadian francophone market, exists. That is already a very big step. I hope that this is just the beginning and that we will continue to work together to use this power to launch careers for the benefit of our artists. It is obvious that we need a regulatory framework.

You asked me whether artists would have difficulties without the bill. When we turn on the radio in Quebec, two out of three songs are in French, and that is what has always allowed people to choose our music afterwards. In the shop, they choose it. When they go to buy tickets for a show, they choose it.

As for the streaming music service, however, barely 8% of the music is in French and barely 5% of the music is in French from Quebec. The artists whose tracks are most listened to are already those whose music is broadcast on the radio. In other words, this means that at the moment, traditional media, which are subject to certain rules, are still what stimulates the discovery of our artists.

Without rules, in a world where the free market dominates, we're going to see standardization. We're all going to be listening to the same thing, and it won't be our music.

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

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Mr. Carrière, you spoke to us about the issue of local news, and I fully understand the amendment you are proposing. We will soon be studying Bill C‑18.

Am I to understand that what you are proposing is in addition to what is included in Bill C‑18?

[Randy Kitt]

No, we don't want to confuse the two. This is about broadcasting. I know Bill C-18 is platform-agnostic, which is great, but this isn't about Facebook and Google. This is about Netflix and Amazon. The CRTC and successive governments have allowed these foreign broadcasters and foreign streamers to come into Canada. It's completely changed the business model, and advertising revenues are down.

We need a separate fund in this bill for broadcasters. I envision a day when Bill C-18, Bill C-11 and journalism tax credits could all combine into one really nice fund. Right now, they're still separate, and the Facebook and Google money does not replace what the LPIF did for broadcast news from 2009 to 2014, which the CRTC took away. We need to replace that.

The broadcasters, like Netflix and Amazon—Amazon is a BDU—need to contribute to Canadian local news. It's slipping away. If we don't do it now and we don't ensure in Bill C-11 that the CRTC creates a fund, I fear it will slip further.

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

Thank you very much for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 44 seconds.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to go back to you, Mr. Kit.

We heard testimony earlier today about the discrimination or exclusion of OUTtv. It was simply being excluded from some streaming platforms, and there's some concern about the power that they have. We also heard testimony from Mr. Payette that the web giants are choosing winners and losers.

You raised the issue of local news as well. Are you concerned with what would happen if this legislation wasn't being brought forward? Simply, some of the concerns that were raised this morning would continue.

[Randy Kitt]

Absolutely. I said in 1999 that this had to happen. When I was local president in 2009, we sent a submission to the CRTC saying they absolutely had to regulate the Internet. Broadcasting over the Internet is broadcasting, and it needs to be regulated.

We have advocated for a revenue threshold, which I think would take care of all the concerns that, say, Mr. Hatfield would have. Let's say that was $10 million. I use this analogy: If you're posting cat videos on YouTube or TikTok and you're making $10 million, we should have some Canadian cats. That's all I'm saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Kitt, on that humorous note, I would like to move on.

We're now going to a second round of questions. These are for five minutes. Once again, you have five minutes for questions and answers.

We will begin with the Conservative Party, and it would be Ms. Thomas.

Ms. Thomas, you are required to have a House of Commons headset. Do you have one with you?

I'm afraid we cannot hear you, Ms. Thomas.

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

Madam Chair, if I might, perhaps we could go to Mr. Uppal for this slot and we can come back to Ms. Thomas in a future slot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

We have Mr. Uppal for five minutes.

[Tim Uppal]

Okay. I'm happy to jump in. Thank you.

I'm going to go to Matthew from OpenMedia. When Bill C-11 was released, you put this on your website:

Treating the Internet like cable television was a bad idea last year, and it’s a bad idea now.... The Online Streaming Act continues to give the CRTC the power to use sorely outdated 1980s ideas about what “Canadian” content is, to control what shows up on our online feeds and what doesn’t.

We also heard today from the former vice-chair of the CRTC that he believes it will take up to about five years for the CRTC to put together the expertise and the tools that it needs to regulate this for what it's being asked to do in Bill C-11.

Can you elaborate on why the rules designed for old television systems are not compatible with today's digital landscape?

[Matthew Hatfield]

I think that connects to, in a sense, what we're hearing from the other witnesses here. We're hearing a lot about revenue and the struggle of being in the industry. I don't think we're considering enough what it's like to be a Canadian Internet user and what people want from their services. Do people want to have a quota imposed on their content where, when I search for cats, 30% Canadian cats must appear in my feed? I don't think people want that.

I think people have an interest in making sure that there is some support available for the production of Canadian culture, but they don't want it crammed on them. They don't want it forced into all their search results. They don't want it forced into all their feeds. The reality is that the majority of the uses people make of the Internet today are not parochial. They're not focused on exclusively Canadian concerns. They are about connecting to a whole global community around many different things.

I don't know if we're speaking past each other or circling the same thing, but I think that Canadians ultimately want something that expands their choice, not that limits their choice. The kind of really heavy-handed provisions in Bill C-10 and, to a degree, in C-11 as well are still here and are about limiting peoples' choices. They're about manipulating the options that people get.

As I said in my opening remarks, we would never consider a situation where the Canadian government would go to Canadian bookstores and say, “We've thought about what Canadians need, and these are the types of titles we want you to put in your front window.” However, through the discoverability requirements we have in this legislation, that seems to be what we're doing through this legislation. It's inappropriate. It's an overreach. If we're supporting Canadian content, it needs to be in ways that are respectful of and responsive to what people in Canada want.

[Tim Uppal]

Thank you.

Much of the discussion around Bill C-11 has been about the discoverability of Canadian content in the new era of streaming services. Even though we have not heard a clear definition provided on discoverability yet, in your view, is Canadian content currently discoverable for Canadians?

[Matthew Hatfield]

I guess it depends on the nature of your feed and what you're looking for.

People have done experiments searching for Canadian artists on major streaming sites, and they tend to be very easy to find. I think what many people from the industry are asking for is to make it easier to find feeds that highlight Canadian content. A feed that specifically highlights Canadian content, we're not opposed to it if it's opt-in, if it's voluntary, if it's something that Canadian users can choose to take part in, or if I'm searching for music from somewhere else in the world or cultural content from somewhere else in the world, I will not have that forced on me and it will not be a mandatory part of the search algorithm on platforms. That's what we're asking for here.

[Tim Uppal]

I asked previous witnesses this before as well. We talk a lot about Canadian culture and diversity and trying to use Bill C-11 to protect that, but I've heard from—I'll call them—third-language or ethnic cultural news outlets and cultural media, social media creators, who are saying that they're concerned that Bill C-11 might cut them out because a lot of their content collaborates with international content. It's local but it's produced internationally.

Do you think the CRTC can properly regulate that so Canadians continue to see and connect with other countries? I know it's important for me. It's important for my kids to be able to connect with Punjabi culture and the Sikh faith. We use a lot of online content to do that.

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes, I think we have very serious concerns about how that's going to be done. I think we need to look at, not just what will happen to Canadian creators under this bill, but what will happen to their non-Canadian audiences. If France adopted a similar bill to this, that would be devastating for French Canadian creators.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I'm going to the Liberal Party for five minutes with Michael Coteau.

[Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you so much to all of our witnesses today.

I have a question for Ms. Paré, but first I want to say that listening to the conversation as someone who grew up in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and having a lot of Canadian content on radio, a lot of good Canadian content on cable, on public, I think it made me a better person—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I have another point of order. I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague Mr. Coteau.