Evidence of meeting #23 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.
Thank you very much, Mr. Payette.
Madam Chair, I believe that's my time.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I am trying to unmute myself, Martin.
For the Bloc Québécois, Martin Champoux for two and a half minutes, please.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to return to what Mr. Geist was saying earlier. He mentioned that the audiovisual production sector was doing very well in Quebec.
Mr. Geist, with respect, I would say that the ratios are the same as in the rest of Canada. A lot of these figures still come from production services that are not involved in local creation. These are not productions that tell Quebec and Canadian stories. They are the same ratios with the same problems. So the situation is disastrous in Quebec too.
Let's assume that we agree that user-generated content, culture, the audiovisual production industry, broadcasters, and so on, all need tight regulation. If we were to agree on that, what would be the most appropriate regulatory body to administer it all? You don't seem to think that the CRTC is the right organization.
What would you suggest to regulate all this?
12:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't think I said the CRTC shouldn't be regulating. On the broadcast side, I think what I've tried to say is that user content and the work coming out of the Internet is not broadcast, so that ought to be outside of the CRTC's remit, because it's inappropriate to put it in this regulatory structure.
On the broadcast side, to respond to your question, the CRTC is the appropriate place, but there are other issues. You noted that it's not local production. With respect, that's often not true. For example, Jusqu'au déclin, produced by Netflix, had a Canadian production company, screenwriter, director, lead performers, director of photography, production designer, composer and editor—everything Canadian—and yet it's not treated as Canadian. I can name others: The Willoughbys, ARQ, In the Tall Grass. The reality is that we are seeing a lot of Canadian production from all of the major streaming services.
One of the problems that we face, whether in Quebec or outside of Quebec, is that we have definitions that frankly don't work if what we are truly trying to do is tell Canadian stories. As I noted off the top, one of the most ardent supporters of regulation in this space, Peter Grant, has himself said the Canadian content rules don't even require them to be Canadian stories. If your goal in this legislation is to ensure that this happens, then surely one of the things you need to do is ensure that the regulations themselves better reflect those Canadian stories.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'd like to ask you a final question, Mr. Geist. I'll be brief.
You don't acknowledge that streaming music and audiovisual productions on online platforms constitutes broadcasting activities.
Did I understand you correctly?
12:55 p.m.
Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No, I didn't say that. I said that user content—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Dr. Geist and Martin; we have ended. There is no more time.
We will go to the NDP and Peter Julian for two and a half minutes, please.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much to all the witnesses today.
I think the most disturbing testimony we heard was from you, Mr. Danks. We've heard about the secretive algorithms, and as Mr. Payette referenced, these massive companies that choose winners and losers without the public even being aware of how they have put these algorithms together. Your testimony about simply being refused by streaming services is very disturbing to me. If you could expand a bit more on these companies that basically refused service, how did they justify that exclusion? What recourse did you have?
12:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, OUTtv Network Inc.
They justified it by simply saying that they're not interested in LGBT content. One American company, one South Korean company and one Chinese company, all of whom you would know by name and through function, simply said, “We won't put that content on our platform.”
That is one of the bigger problems that I see us having in Canada. There's another problem related to that. You mentioned algorithms. Many of the streaming platforms use an algorithm to determine whether or not you'll have any subscribers, and they'll say, “We can't take you, because you're not going to have any subscribers.” We had an example with one where we literally had to hack their algorithm by putting content like ours on their free service in order to demonstrate that there was interest in the content.
We have a real problem, where the streaming services turn around to a Canadian service like APTN or others, for example, which are really important in Canada, and say, “Our algorithm says no one is going to watch you”. I'll say, “Yes, but that's maybe not true, because we have a lot of people in Canada who will.”
We have to be really careful, because algorithms are very backward-looking and they look at what's already been done, not what can be done in the future.
These are certainly big problems, but I'll reiterate that we are very concerned that many of the larger aggregators that will arrive.... I will not speak ill of Amazon, Apple and Roku. They've been terrific to Canadian providers, but there are others coming that will not have the same attitude. Some of them are extremely powerful, very popular, and owned by and have attachments to foreign governments. We will simply not be able to access those services without the CRTC's authority to say, “You shall be on and you shall be paid fairly”.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Peter.
You have six seconds. I don't know that you can get a Q and A into that.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you. This is very important testimony and we will take it to heart.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming. You've spent two hours with us. That's been a long time, so I want to thank you for your patience and your diversity of opinions.
With that said, we will suspend so that we can get into our next panel.
Thank you very much.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I call the meeting back to order.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses in the room.
For those of you who need interpretation, you have the choice at the bottom of the screen of English or French. I would remind you that all comments should be made and addressed through the chair.
I now want to welcome our witnesses, and we will begin. Witnesses have five minutes to present, regardless of whether there are two of you, so each organization has five minutes to present. That will be followed by a round of questions and answers.
We have with us Dr. Irene Berkowitz, senior policy fellow at the audience lab of the creative school at Toronto Metropolitan University. We also have Mr. Alain Saulnier, author and retired professor of communication from the Université de Montréal.
We'll begin with Ms. Berkowitz for five minutes.
Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
Dr. Irene Berkowitz Senior Policy Fellow, Audience Lab, The Creative School, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual
Hi, and thank you for inviting me. I am appearing as an individual, not on behalf of the Toronto Metropolitan University.
I've been writing publicly on issues relating to Bill C-11 since 2014, when I testified at “Let's Talk TV”.
Bill C-11 to me is not the visionary legislation we deserve. Its story could have been how a small nation of 37 million will engage a global audience of seven billion. As one of few researchers to table original data on new and legacy content, I'm deeply concerned that C-11 will chill Canadian media innovation.
Today, I'll share data from Watchtime Canada, the YouTube study I led, and my book Mediaucracy, which is on legacy media. To be clear, Bill C-11 does not support Canadian storytelling. It supports old ways that define and distribute our stories.
As you heard this morning, Bill C-11 needs clear, decisive amendments. Politicizing this process hurts all Canadians, because we all benefit from a strong media sector, and so does our tax base. Our media is our face to the world.
Our Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asserted in 2016 that Canada would be known for resourcefulness, not resources. Just this month, this May, Trudeau announced a $3.6-billion auto sector investment that will make Canada a global leader in electric vehicles, innovations that he said will create hundreds of jobs.
Without public investment, YouTube, costing more than $6 billion annually at no cost to Canada, created more than 160,000 Canadian entrepreneurs and 30,000 jobs. Make no mistake; as you've heard today, working YouTube, TikTok or Instagram is gruelling. We found that 60% of eligible channels on YouTube earned less than $10,000, and 9% did earn more than $100,000, but it's 100% risk—no free ride.
Yet in open global competition for audiences, Canadians are winning. They're YouTube's number one exporters, with 90% of views outside of Canada, diverse without quotas and enhancing the soft power of our values around the world.
YouTube has empowered local Canadians of every race, ethnicity, ability and gender to engage global audiences. French Canadian YouTubers include this year's Juno nominee singer Charlotte Cardin, Chef Carl is Cooking, beauty artist Cynthia Dulude and Radio-Canada journalist PL Cloutier.
Bill C-11's wrong turn starts with the notion that CRTC has jurisdiction over the whole internet for two reasons. The first is scale. Consider the math. On YouTube alone, 500 hours of content is uploaded per minute, which is 12,000 a day, 150,000 a week. Then add TikTok and other platforms. YouTube does know what's uploaded in Canada; it just doesn't know if the uploaders are Canadian or their team. They don't know if Canadians are uploading from any other place on earth, say, a Buffalo Airbnb, or a VPN. Shoving the new into the old instantly gets absurd.
Second, new media is a feature, not a bug. It's additive innovation. The open Internet paved our way to electric cars, mRNA vaccines and more. Why mess with the earnings of self-starters who never asked a penny from the public purse? If user-generated content, why not video games and reality TV? These are two genres that are healthy because they are market-driven. Bill C-11 gets it backwards. Instead of positioning new media as a model to engage audiences, it ensnares new media in the epic fail part of our old media: disregard for audiences.
Amendments to narrow scope and clearly delete user-generated content would have multiple benefits of quelling concerns about free speech, discoverability—at least for UGC—and the 1950s-style rule-making authorities. The result would focus CRTC on what it does urgently owe legacy media: producer-accessed, platform—agnostic funding.
As a researcher who believes in data-based, goal-driven policy, I ask this: What is C-11's goal? I get that Liberals have the power to pass Bill C-11 as it's written, yet if they do, I suspect challenges will long delay the urgent work and promised windfalls, as you heard this morning.
I'll close with the words by a legacy media CEO who recently sent me an email about Bill C-11. It's short. Here it is: “The industry is shooting itself in the foot.”
Thank you for your time. I'm truly honoured to be here, and I look forward to your questions.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Ms. Berkowitz.
I'm going to go to Alain Saulnier, author and retired professor of communications from Université de Montréal.
1:10 p.m.
Alain Saulnier Author and Retired Professor of Communication from Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Good afternoon.
I taught journalism, particularly investigative journalism, at the Université de Montréal for about 10 years. That's when I became particularly interested in the relationship the media and culture have with the Internet giants. My acquired expertise led me to publish a book in February whose title is Les barbares numériques: résister à l'invasion des GAFAM.
I also spent time as the director of information at Radio-Canada. From 1992 to 1997, I was the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec. More recently, from 2017 to 2019, I co‑chaired Culture Montréal's Commission permanente Montréal numérique.
I said that I was particularly interested in the relationship the media and culture have with the Internet giants, most of which are American, and which I call barbaric.
Here is a quote from my book:
The history of the Western world will record that it was the most important conquest of the 21st century. What am I talking about? The conquest of the digital world and our lands by American superpowers. In fact, it was the most crushing attack on national sovereignty ever experienced by states in the new millennium.
That's why I believe that states and their institutions need to take appropriate measures to protect their media and their culture. In my brief, I place more of an emphasis on the protection of our francophone language and culture. The problem is that I don't think we've understood that for us, francophones, this invasion of our territory by the Internet giants has marginalized our media, our language and our culture. We must never forget that these superpowers are largely American. It's an invasion that has to be resisted.
I believe that Bill C‑11 is one way of accomplishing that. Additional measures will, I hope, be introduced. The CRTC could also address the various aspects of implementing this act. In any event, it's one way of regulating the cohabitation between American Internet giants and us. It's essential to place foreign digital companies and Canadian digital companies on an equal footing.
Giving the CRTC the power to regulate all digital activity pertaining to culture and communications could promote a healthy form of cohabitation between the Internet giants, on the one hand, and our own companies, creators and people, on the other.
Requiring superpowers to reinject a significant share of their revenues here, in creation and production by people from here, is one way of supporting our cultural milieu and our media. That would be the best way to counter the American content that dominates these platforms.
Protecting our cultural sovereignty is what it's all about. Doing nothing amounts to total laissez-faire. Playing the game with those rules would give us nothing. Doing nothing amounts to allowing these Internet giants and their marketplace laws to dictate for us what's good and what's bad. As we have been able to see, they have failed in terms of self-discipline in performing the role of major content regulatory bodies. False information has piled up, particularly over the past two years. And all the while, they have generated record profits.
In Canada, we have always been able to respond when American corporations have attempted to invade our territory with their cultural content. That's why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established in 1936, and why the CRTC was entrusted with the power to regulate communications. Similarly, the government introduced television in 1952 to counter American television when Americans treated Canada as part of their market.
In 1997, the CRTC unfortunately missed the boat when it decided not to regulate the Internet so that it could foster its growth. Well, the growth has happened, and that's the best I can say about it. These days, people under 35 years of age live strictly through the social networks and platforms operated by these American Internet giants. They obtain information through social networks, which weakens our own media. Their main source of music is now YouTube. A little earlier, Mr. Jérôme Payette pointed out that Quebec's market share was only 8% for those among the 10,000 most popular performers. How can you have a career in music when a single play on YouTube earns the songwriter only half a cent.
There is another source of concern. For the first time in our history, traditional television is being outpaced by streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+. According to the Media Technology Monitor, 70% of anglophones and 58% of francophones in Canada have a Netflix subscription. That's how people watch television series and movies now.
So today, we need to go through the same exercise again. The Internet giants want to establish their own ground rules and are challenging ours.
As we heard, they are lobbying heavily and fighting against state efforts to establish a healthy form of cohabitation between them and us. That's why we need to act now. Bill C‑11 is a first step in that direction.
As I wrote in my book, it's late, but it's not too late.
Thank you for your attention.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Mr. Saulnier.
I now go to the final panel group and that is the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. There are two witnesses there. There is Nathalie Guay, who is executive director, and Bill Skolnik who is co-chair.
You have five minutes between the two of you, so one of you may speak or you may split the time in two. It's your decision.
1:15 p.m.
Bill Skolnik Co-Chair, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
I'm going to start.
Thank you, Dr. Fry, and I'd like to thank the committee very much for having us once again. It's a great honour, and we're very pleased to be here. My name is Bill Skolnik. I am the co-chair of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
We are an alliance of 47 associations representing more than 200,000 performers, creators, technicians and professionals, and 2,000 organizations in music, screen production, book and music publishing, live performance and the visual arts. For more than 20 years, our members have been working together to protect and promote Canada's diverse cultural expressions. My colleague Nathalie Guay and I have been delegates at several UNESCO assemblies held to support the objectives of the 2005 UNESCO convention on the diversity of cultural expressions.
Canada, as I'm sure you are aware, was the first country to ratify this convention and is considered a leader in ensuring that the principles of the convention are upheld. This crucial protection and promotion requires the exercise of cultural sovereignty, and that is the essence of Bill C-11. The Broadcasting Act is cultural policy. It is our belief that this tradition and legacy must continue to thrive. Moreover, the review of the Broadcasting Act is an essential part of the tool kit needed to redefine and rebalance our ecosystems.
This committee has had the chance to learn at length about the impact COVID has had on our sector. The CDCE applauded the tabling of Bill C-11 on February 2. We can only hope that this attempt to revise our legislation will conclude shortly so the benefits can reach Canadian creators, artists, producers and organizations as soon as possible. They have been waiting for a very long time.
Finally, allow me to recall that, according to a recent Nanos poll, the legislation has broad support from the public.
I will now turn the floor over to Nathalie who will present the changes that we ask you to consider. These proposals emerged from intense and detailed discussion, and represent a broad and unified consensus crafted by our multi-faceted membership and beyond.
Thank you.
1:15 p.m.
Nathalie Guay Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Nathalie Guay, the Executive Director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which has only a few requests to make with a view to improving Bill C‑11.
First, the broadcasting system must continue to promote Canadian talent. The suggested wording of paragraph 3(1)(f) establishes two regimes. The first sets higher expectations for Canadian undertakings, including online Canadian undertakings, with respect to the use of Canadian creative resources, expenses related to Canadian programming, contributions to the fund for the support of content development and efforts to promote Canadian programming. The second regime opens the door to reduced requirements on foreign online companies in these areas.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the Canadian Heritage estimate that the bill could lead to the injection of an additional $830 million per year in our ecosystems was largely based on an estimate of spending on Canadian programming and on a contribution comparable to the current obligations of Canadian broadcasting undertakings. With a two tier system, there is a risk of setting this objective aside, not to mention the fact that an imbalance is being introduced between the respective obligations of Canadian undertakings and foreign undertakings.
Second, we think that the CRTC orders need to be subject to the possibility of an appeal to the Governor in Council to have them cancelled or referred back to the CRTC for review and a new hearing. It would simply adapt the current provision in the Broadcasting Act to the new regulatory framework. In addition, it could strengthen both parties' confidence in the CRTC.
Third, we would like to see a public hearing process for orders. We think that this would encourage a more effective way of factoring in the various points of view, particularly with respect to potential stakeholders' varying levels of experience and resources, and also because hearings provide an opportunity to respond to the arguments of other parties.
Fourth, we suggest an amendment to subsection 8(2) to allow for providing full representations concerning a notice rather than simply a summary.
Fifth, we would like the committee to reintroduce a number of terms that had been adopted in the former legislative instrument, Bill C‑10. I could explain that in further detail if anyone would like me to.
To conclude, we are not proposing any changes to the social media provisions. The government has already tightened this up by proposing criteria that the CRTC should use for its analysis. We also believe that adding further details would make the framework less flexible and would create loopholes that would make the new framework obsolete.
Thank you very much for your attention.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
That brings us to an end of the witness testimony. Now we're going to the question and answer segment. It's a six-minute round. Those six minutes include questions and answers.
I will begin with Mr. Kevin Waugh for the Conservatives.
1:20 p.m.
Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the three groups that are in front of us here this afternoon.
I'll start with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. I believe you were in front of us on Bill C-10, so what's changed, in your mind, between Bill C-10 and Bill C-11?
Nathalie, I noticed that you talked about the $830 million that was supposed to be generated. At the time, it was Minister Guilbeault. Nobody substantiated that $830 million. Nobody knew where that number came from. To be honest with you, as a hypothetical number, the minister at the time said that would be the windfall for Canadian producers. Maybe you can comment on that, because you did bring up the number of $830 million.
1:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
Thank you very much for the question. I'd be glad to answer it.
I found the methodology used for the calculation at the Canadian Heritage site. I'd be happy to send you the information. It clearly explains how these amounts were determined for both the audiovisual and music sectors.
We would like to point out four major differences between Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11. First, in Bill C‑10, there is a mention of “original programs in French”, whereas in Bill C‑11, unfortunately, the reference is to “original French language programs”. In addition, it's important to us that the expression “official language minority communities” be put back into Bill C‑11.
Then there is the question of the factors that would encourage independent producers to own the intellectual property. I'm talking about the new section that provides guidelines for the definition of Canadian programs.
Finally, with respect to paragraph 3(1)(a) of Bill C‑11, which concerns the fact that the Canadian system ought to be the property of Canadians and under their control, we would propose a different wording, because we believe that the changes made could make it easier for foreign undertakings to acquire Canadian undertakings.
Of course, there is also the new item on social media. We had been satisfied with the final wording in Bill C‑10. Now, we consider the sandbox, as it has been called, to be an acceptable solution. We are very much looking forward to the next phase so that the CRTC can do the work of reviewing the data. We're hearing a lot about how this might play out, and about the various types of regulations that could affect social media. However, it's important to remember that the first phase consists of conducting an analysis and that this can only be done once there is enough transparency and data sharing among the principal stakeholders and the CRTC.