Canadian Heritage Committee on May 24th, 2022

[Randy Kitt]

Thank you, Peter.

Employment, obviously, is a big issue for Unifor. Our members work in media and work in local news and also work in the film industries. When we talk about local news, the only real way to ensure that local news is funded correctly is if we talk about feet on the street, we talk about reporters, we talk about editors, and we talk about people in our communities writing about the things we need written about and shooting the things we need shot.

Employment is extremely important. When we talk about foreign services and employment, it's different when we talk about Canadian news because we don't want foreign news services in this country. We want Canadian news services in this country, and it has to be funded correctly. That funding has to go to feet on the street and journalism, and to making sure that our communities are bound together and that it's done in a way so that the money that flows to these organizations goes to news and ensures that it goes to news. That's why we talked about, in our presentation, that the money should be earmarked for local news.

The CRTC has been engaged in a process to ensure—we only see aggregate numbers, of course, and this is a similar issue with Bill C-18 that Unifor has raised—accountability and that the money that is received through these funds goes to local news. We know that in the CMF, for instance, the Canada Media Fund, when funding is received for a film, that film is made and we know that product is there. It's the same for local news. If local news receives funding, then that money goes to feet on the street.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Kitt.

I go now to the Conservatives for five minutes with John Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, thank you for the answers thus far.

I want to start with Mr. Hatfield as well and follow up on something he mentioned in response to a question from Mr. Champoux in which he used the terminology of basically firewalling parts of Canada off to effectively prevent international participation. I was just wondering if you could follow up a little bit more about this.

I'm thinking about Canadian creators, indigenous Canadians, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and people from racialized communities who have found success through online means of basically exporting Canadian-created content internationally and how Bill C-11 might impact their ability to reach the global market, especially with very important groups that may not find that success domestically but have found that reach globally thanks to online means.

[Matthew Hatfield]

A lot of traditional broadcasting legislation, I think it's fair to say, was built on a fear that we would be swamped by primarily American content if left to our own devices. In the modern Internet, it's not really the U.S. that is dominating that for us. We are participating in a global system in which we experience content from creators all around the world and in which many of our creators—most of them, I would say—find most of their success outside of Canada.

The reason that's relevant here is that it's very risky for a small country like Canada to encourage this kind of model of prioritizing our own content. The benefits are pretty meagre if we make it work for our local content. The risk, if a larger country like France were to do the same thing, is enormous to us. We're talking about the majority of revenue that many people creating that kind of content could stand to lose, or they could at least have their content downgraded and earn less of that revenue.

We think it's a risky approach that we shouldn't be embracing here.

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

It goes back to that message that OpenMedia provided earlier about the challenges of those participating in user-generated content who aren't professional but aren't amateur and are in that middle territory. They're making some money online but wouldn't qualify for CanCon provisions, so they can't access that. Nonetheless, they are going to be potentially harmed or at least will not benefit from the new rules.

Could you provide some comments on that segment of the online community? It's that person who makes some monetary gains online but falls out of both categories, so they have the worst of both worlds in that scenario.

[Matthew Hatfield]

As we've said elsewhere, we think in an ideal situation people who are in the intermediary category that you spoke of should be able to access CanCon financial support—whatever is available there either currently or under the new system—but they shouldn't be subject to the full parameters of broadcasting regulation.

Our concern with where we are today, based on the lack of clarity about where the CanCon process is going and the fact that user-generated content is still plainly included, is that the opposite is true. Those people look like they may be subject to broadcast regulation and completely locked out financially from future CanCon support, which is completely wrong-headed in terms of how to support those small creators.

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

Thank you for that.

In my next question I'm going to go both to you, Mr. Hatfield, and Madame Paré.

It's more of a question of where things are today and to get your sense of whether you think there should be some form of research, audit or consultation done on where Canadian content is currently before anything is implemented. How are we doing online? Where are we reaching? Where are we going?

I'd like to get your thoughts on whether we should be determining where we are and where we stand today before implementing any of these new measures.

[Matthew Hatfield]

It's a good idea, but I think we should have started this whole process by talking about what CanCon is. What is Canadian content? We think the government's afraid of that question, because it's a hard question. It may have changed significantly in the last 40 years.

Without knowing what Canadian content is, it's very hard to calculate it and very likely that we would be leaving some important folk out if we just revert to more traditional definitions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 17 seconds, John. Do you want to go for that? I think we can't, really.

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

I'll take the 17 seconds to make the observation that this is one of the challenges we're seeing. What we might think of as Canadian content from a subjective standpoint may not be considered Canadian content in an objective context when the CRTC checks the boxes under the CAVCO or the MAPL system. That might be a concern for many Canadians. I'm sure we can follow up on this in future rounds or in other venues.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, John.

I'm going to go now to Michael Coteau for five minutes.

How are we doing, Michael?

[Michael Coteau]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm good. How are you doing? Can you hear me loud and clear now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're asking the clerk and the interpreters.

[The Clerk]

Yes. They need a few more words.

[Michael Coteau]

I hope everyone's having a great day today. Thank you so much for joining us in this very important work.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Coteau, we are going to do our absolute best with the sound quality we have available to us. If you could speak slowly and clearly, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much, and thank you to the interpreters for their important work as well.

I wanted to start off by saying that, in listening to this conversation over the last five hours, I've thought a lot about growing up in Canada in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and about turning on the radio and picking up some Platinum Blonde or Glass Tiger. Even before that, I listened to 1970s Canadian content and could turn on the television and see a lot of that content.

I think we would all agree, regardless of what your position is on this specific piece of legislation, that putting forward good Canadian content is good for Canadians. It actually teaches about our history and about our present. It helps us understand where we're going as a nation, as well.

I think we need to find a balancing act. The simple truth is that these big Internet giants have become the new deliverers of content. The Amazons, Googles and YouTubes deliver content. If you go into any household in this country today and talk to a young kid, most of their content is coming from online services. We need to build a modern system that's reflective of our values as Canadians, but which also puts in place the realities of today. The world has changed.

I do appreciate everyone joining in on this conversation.

I have a question for Ms. Paré.

Specifically, why is it essential for us to include social media platforms in Bill C-11? Why is the regulatory flexibility under the bill so important to the music sector?

[Eve Paré]

I will let my colleague Marie‑Julie Desrochers answer your question.

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

Thank you for your question.

YouTube is a dominant actor in music listening. We have data from a recent survey—not all the data has been published, but we will soon publish it—which shows how important YouTube is in Quebeckers' music listening activities. This is a trend seen all over the world.

A bill was introduced whose main mission is to re‑establish a balance or equity in a system that has been marked by inequity for 20 years. Yet if the core of the bill has a new inequity introduced by excluding services that play a major role in the music industry, the target is missed.

We are worried about passing a bill that is unfair and would not level the playing field for all platforms that play an important role in music broadcasting. The bill would be vulnerable and objectionable. Why would we ask Spotify to support our music and not ask the same of YouTube? There is no logical reason for that, when we know that people are using both platforms in the same way.

We must simply ensure that, when the same activity takes place on different platforms, it is regulated equitably. I don't want to presume businesses are acting in bad faith, but according to my experience, even when there are rules, broadcasters are always looking to maximize their profits. If they think that, by trying to circumvent the rules, they will keep more freedom of action and a larger potential for profit, they will do whatever it takes to do that. So every time rules are tightened and criteria are established to which companies can adapt by changing a bit, there is a risk of them successfully excluding themselves from the legislation's scope, quite simply.

The legislation will help us not only set rules, but also get data to understand the impact of every service in our market. Right now, we have to conduct surveys. That's good, as it gives us a nice overview of the situation, but we should have access to the number of users—

[Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but could I ask, Chair, how much more time I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 46 seconds.

[Michael Coteau]

I'm going to take the last 30 seconds—and I'm very grateful for the answer—to state that there was a bit of discussion on digital first creators and eligibility, and I know they are eligible for CMF funding. That's something I want to put on the record because there was some discussion about it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Michael.

Now we will go to a third round. I think we can do that given the time we have left.

I'll begin right away with the Conservative Party. I don't know if Mrs. Thomas is able to be on.

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

Madam Chair, I think it's me. I think I'm the only one with a working microphone right now, so you're stuck with me this time around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're stuck with you. Are we, John?