Canadian Heritage Committee on May 30th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 12, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House of Commons agreement from November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy of March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, you can click on the mike. I'm sure you all know how to do this already, but I'll just go over it quickly. You can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you will see a little globe, and that is what you press if you want to have interpretation. Those on the floor actually have the interpretation there. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses who are here today.

You have five minutes for each organization, not each person, so you can decide amongst yourselves who is going to use up what time. I will say, “30 seconds” when it is time to wrap up.

With us today we have the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Representing them are Nathalie Blais, research representative, and Tulsa Valin-Landry, VP of communications sector. Also with us is the independent broadcasters group with Joel Fortune, legal counsel, and Luc Perreault, strategic adviser. From the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, we have Monica Auer, executive director. Also, from Music Canada, we have Patrick Rogers, CEO.

Without further ado, I will begin with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I don't know who will speak, but I am just turning on my little five-minute timer for you.

Thank you. You may be begin.

[Tulsa Valin-Landry, Vice-President, Communications Sector, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting us to discuss Bill C‑11 with you.

My name is Tulsa Valin‑Landry, and I am the vice‑president of CUPE‑Quebec's Communications Sector, which represents close to 6,700 broadcasting workers in Quebec. With me today is my colleague Nathalie Blais, who is the representative for CUPE's research service.

The members we represent work in all types of broadcasting companies, whether in distribution, radio, local specialty or community television, or on the Internet. They actively participate in our democratic life by producing local, regional, national and international news, and contribute to the production of entertainment programs, just like independent producers. This is a particular feature of Quebec that we would like to draw your attention to.

Bill C‑11 is very important to us. Since 2014, we have made multiple interventions, either alone or in a coalition, calling on the government to establish legislative and regulatory fairness between traditional broadcasting undertakings and online businesses operating in Canada, like Netflix or Spotify. The impact these foreign companies have had on our industry has been staggering. In just a few short years, television stations considered cultural flagships have gone into deficit, putting jobs, information and Canadian programming at risk.

The purpose of Bill C‑11 is to improve the competitive position of our broadcasters so that they can continue to produce and present programs that are relevant to us, while providing the high‑quality, well‑paying jobs that the Canadian economy needs. By integrating web giants into the Canadian broadcasting system and regulating them, the bill will put Canadian companies on an equal footing with their foreign competitors. It will also protect our cultural and economic sovereignty.

We need new legislation quickly to allow broadcasters to regain their profitability and to protect jobs. However, in its current form, Bill C‑11 contains too many uncertainties. Amendments are essential to strengthen this bill so that future provisions proposed in the Online Streaming Act are not challenged in court as soon as they are implemented. This would have a negative impact on workers, on Canadian broadcasting companies and on the cultural sector. We therefore propose some fundamental amendments to clarify the scope of the bill and ensure the success of the resulting regulations.

First of all, let's be clear that the purpose of Bill C‑11 is not to regulate the entire Internet, as some witnesses have said. This is not true. In fact, the bill applies to online businesses operating in whole or in part in Canada, under subsection 4(2) of the Broadcasting Act, which remains unchanged by Bill C‑11. The feedback we have heard so far suggests that the intent of Parliament needs to be more clearly expressed in the bill to avoid any ambiguity.

I'll pass things over to my colleague Nathalie Blais.

[Nathalie Blais, Research Representative, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

With respect to the proposed wording to replace paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act, CUPE-Quebec suggests an amendment to clarify what the Canadian broadcasting system is in the context of an open market on the Internet and, ultimately, to avoid the sale of Canadian broadcasting undertakings to foreign interests. The current proposed wording creates uncertainty by distinguishing between the Canadian broadcasting system and foreign broadcasting undertakings. We propose a description based on operation in Canada to make clear the legislative intent.

In addition, the CRTC's mandate and accountability should be strengthened with respect to the flagship objectives of Canadian broadcasting policy. In section 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, these objectives are distinguished from the others by their use of the present tense, which places their achievement at the forefront of the CRTC's responsibilities. These objectives include Canadian ownership and control of broadcasting undertakings, Canadian programming, employment in the Canadian broadcasting system, and the provision of broadcasting services in English and French to all Canadians.

With respect to section 5 of the Broadcasting Act, we propose the production of an annual report to strengthen the commission's oversight and accountability for its primary objectives.

Finally, we suggest an expansion of the CRTC's regulatory authority over the funding of local news and community television; a strengthening of the Canadian broadcasting policy with respect to employment in Canada; a change to the definition of the community element; and a provision allowing the CRTC to review the rates of online undertakings distributing programming, in order to establish regulatory symmetry with traditional distribution undertakings.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Blais. That's right on the nose.

The next group will be the independent broadcasters group.

Monsieur Perreault will begin first. You have five minutes.

[Luc Perreault, Strategic Advisor, Independent Broadcasters Group]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Luc Perreault and I am a strategic advisor for the Stingray Group, which is a member of the Independent Broadcasters Group, more commonly known as the IBG. With me is Joel Fortune, who is legal counsel for the IBG.

Our association consists of 13 independent broadcasting companies that are not affiliated with any of the major Canadian cable or satellite distributors.

The members of our association are television and radio broadcasters working in all areas of digital media. We offer Canadians a wide variety of content: local news, weather information and emergency alerts, documentaries, lifestyle magazines and programs, Canadian and world-class cinema, music, drama and sports. We do this in French, English, indigenous languages and 25 third languages spoken in Canada today.

We support Bill C-11. Canada needs to update the Broadcasting Act to better reflect the Internet and the ever-increasing presence of online broadcasting services in Canada. Our primary concern is that Bill C-11 restricts the CRTC's authority to supervise a critical element of online activity: the oversight of the distribution, discoverability and fair treatment of Canadian apps and services online.

Let me be clear. We are not talking about access to social media services. What we are talking about is access to closed platforms operated by Internet services, like Roku, Amazon and Apple TV, and by Canadian operators, like Rogers, Bell and Quebecor. These large companies use the Internet to distribute third party programming services in the same way and compete directly with cable and satellite.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it intends to empower its regulator, Ofcom, to ensure that the U.K.'s services are offered and treated fairly by these online platforms. Ofcom will have a dispute resolution function to address issues that arise between online platforms and online services. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has already looked in depth into the regulatory treatment of virtual MVPDs. We call them “virtual BDUs” in our system. The FCC's review relates to whether these virtual BDUs should have carriage obligations for local television signals. This review remains open.

In other words, other major jurisdictions, including the U.S., are already seized with online distribution issues. Their expert regulatory agencies, Ofcom and the FCC, are exercising or being given the jurisdiction that IBG-GDI and others have proposed be included in Bill C-11 that are now absent.

[Joel Fortune, Legal Counsel, Independent Broadcasters Group]

Which authorities are we talking about?

First is the ability to set the terms of carriage, if necessary, for certain designated services. This could include, for example, APTN or TV5 Unis, or other existing 9(1)(h) services that are now made available to Canadians due to CRTC rules. Without CRTC intervention, these services would not exist today.

Second, the CRTC should have a general authority to create terms of service that relate to the distribution of online services and that go beyond individual services, such as APTN or TV5. For example, that authority could be used to ensure that local television services are offered in their own local markets by certain online services.

Third, the CRTC should have the authority to engage in dispute resolution involving online services and access to online distribution platforms. They exercise that authority today for cable and satellite distribution, and Internet distribution could well replace them in the future. The CRTC's powers should keep pace.

We have submitted our proposed amendments to the committee. They are all directed to this issue of distribution and are meant, at heart, to preserve the CRTC's authority to oversee certain business-to-business relationships that arise between programming services and distributors to preserve the competitiveness of our market, its openness to Canadian services and the advancement of broadcasting policy objectives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortune. Again, that was just under the wire. Very good.

Now I'd like to go to the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

Ms. Auer, you have five minutes, please.

[Monica Auer, Executive Director, Forum for Research and Policy in Communications]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications to appear today. We undertake empirical and policy research in communications and participate in a range of CRTC proceedings.

The forum strongly agrees that Canada needs a new statute to serve the public interest by ensuring the availability of and Canadians' access to high-quality Canadian news and entertainment programming and to serve our economy's need for jobs and investment, but we fear that the contradictions, gaps and loopholes that exist in Bill C-11 will thwart Parliament's objectives.

Our written submission recommends changing eight aspects of Bill C-11. As other witnesses have already addressed some of these issues, I will highlight just three points today.

First, while the current Broadcasting Act and Bill C-11 state that the best way to implement Canada's broadcasting policy is through a single independent public authority, Bill C-11 erodes this independence by handing cabinet the power, in proposed subsection 7(7), to override the CRTC when it exercises any or all 39 of the CRTC's powers in part II.

Proposed part II.2 also lets cabinet regulate eight administrative violations. Bill C-11 also leaves intact the existing limit on CRTC decision-making independence, enabled by the chairperson's power to “decide who decides”—that is, which CRTC commissioners may actually make decisions. Rather than weakening the CRTC's decision-making independence, Bill C-11 should strengthen it.

Second, gaps in Bill C-11 will make current serious problems with the CRTC's transparency, accountability and timing even worse. The section 5 regulatory policy now ignores the public interest and discourages the CRTC from regulating if doing so may be a “burden”. It is next to impossible for the public to refute claims about future burdens or to make the case for stronger regulation to implement the broadcasting policy. Despite collecting programming data from Canadian radio and TV programming services for half a century, the CRTC has not published such data in decades.

Bill C-11 should require the CRTC to report annually on section 3's implementation to enable oversight by Parliament and Canadians alike, and should set a more rational test for undue regulatory burdens. Bill C-11 does propose that the CRTC publish relevant evidence before consultations affecting minority-language communities, but it should do so before all consultations, and CRTC determinations should be signed by those who make them.

As for timeliness, divining when the CRTC will decide matters is now based on guesses or gossip. Bill C-11 ignores this problem and makes it worse, since those accused of administrative violations may wait forever to be formally cleared of wrongdoing. The bill should require the CRTC to complete its investigations within a reasonable period. In brief, this bill is a rare opportunity to reduce problems with the CRTC's transparency, accountability and timeliness.

Finally, drafting loopholes may, in any event, stymie Bill C-11's implementation. In particular, proposed paragraph 2(2.3)(a) excludes online programs that are “ancillary” to a business's primary activities. This may simply encourage creative business structuring and court challenges, and is at odds with the existing requirement in section 9 that the CRTC exempt broadcasters unable to contribute materially to the broadcasting policy. Requiring off-line but not online distributors to negotiate reasonable terms of carriage with programming services will simply hurt, if not kill off, Canada's small and medium-sized domestic programming services, fuelling, in the interim, calls for “me too” deregulation. If Bill C-11 wants the single system envisaged in subsection 3(2), it should clearly define its reach and treat “like” media alike.

To conclude, our fear is that, if left as written, Bill C-11 will simply not achieve Parliament's stated objectives, and that, even worse, court challenges of its implementation by the CRTC will create long delays and cost Canada and those working in its creative sectors quite dearly.

Fixing Bill C-11's drafting problems will strengthen Canada's communications system by ensuring that it is an independent regulatory authority actually serving the public interest by making evidence-based decisions in a fair and timely manner.

We strongly support the general purpose of Bill C-11, but thoughtful revision now gives you the opportunity to craft outstanding 21st-century legislation. We are confident that this is your committee's intent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I will go to Music Canada and Patrick Rogers.

[Patrick Rogers, Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada]

Good morning.

It's a pleasure to be here with the committee to discuss Bill C-11. Music Canada is the trade association for Canada's major labels: Sony Music Entertainment Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada. Canada's major labels sign and partner with Canadian artists, helping them achieve commercial success in Canada and export that music abroad. Overwhelmingly, it is artists partnered with major labels that Canadians listen to on the radio, stream or hear synched to their favourite TV shows. I'm in the enviable position of telling the committee we support Bill C-11's core principles of accessibility of Canadian content through regulating broadcasting on the Internet.

Canada's commercial radio rules, developed five decades ago, were integral to today's successful Canadian music industry, with Canada's major labels leading the way. Those rules opened new opportunities for careers and professional development for artists, labels, studios, managers, venues and an entire emerging Canadian music industry. That commercial success in turn enabled businesses to reinvest in the next generation of talent. In fact, I like to think that our members have served as an example for this bill.

Proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) requires making the “greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources”. That is the business model of Canada's major labels. We have offices in Toronto and Montreal full of Canadians, making Canadian music for the Canadian market and the world. In a global digital marketplace, success in Canada is a stepping stone to international success.

Music is one of the most recognizable and successful exports. Canada is the eighth-largest streaming market in the world. Out of the top 10 most streamed artists in the world, three of them are Canadian. Those names you all know—Bieber, The Weeknd and Drake—but I want to tell you about some of today's biggest Canadian success stories that perhaps you haven't heard about.

Ali Gatie, raised in Mississauga, is an artist of Iraqi descent who surpassed 3.5 billion streams for his 2019 single, It's You. Tate McRae, a singer-songwriter from Calgary, one of the world's artists to watch, held down the number one spot for five weeks on Billboard's emerging artists chart, with over 3.2 billion career streams. Eli Rose, a Montrealer, named Breakthrough Artist of the Year at the 2020 ADISQ awards, with numerous hits, has 14 million global streams and counting. These are just a few of the names of the next generation of Canadian talent, and they're finding success in streaming that maybe they wouldn't have found in radio alone. These successes come from both the incredible talent of these artists and from the investments made by our members, publishers, indies and the platforms that license the music.

Turning to the bill, we support the bill as the minister describes it. We agree when he says the CRTC should not regulate the algorithms of online services or user-generated content. We hope the committee will clarify the bill text to clearly reflect the minister's intent. The committee has now heard about the CRTC's potential to reach into algorithms and to regulate user-generated content. That wiggle room in the bill, compared to the minister's certainties, was at first confusing, but following the outgoing chair of the CRTC's testimony here, that wiggle room is concerning. This can be fixed by honing the language of the bill to reflect the minister's stated intent. The bill can be amended to clarify the prohibition on the CRTC regulating algorithms, and the language regarding professional content can be sharpened to reflect the minister's statement of no cat videos.

The global music industry has just come back from nearly two decades of decline. The growth reflects the hard work of companies like ours to ensure that music uses are licensed and artists are paid when their music is played. We know what happens when Canadians feel there's too much friction between them and what they want to hear: They will find their music elsewhere. If regulation proves too burdensome on our industry partners, we know that consumers will move to unregulated spaces, which, by definition, will be harder to license, which will mean a devaluation of music, making it harder for artists to be paid when their music is played. That flies in the face of the good intentions of this bill.

To that end, I ask the committee to listen carefully to the platforms that will be regulated. They are our business partners, and they are where our artists and labels increasingly make a living in the 21st century. Ultimately, they are the people who bring your favourite artists to your phone, your car and your living room.

In conclusion, this is an important bill, with real-world goals.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I'll now go to the Walt Disney Company and Mr. Fares, for five minutes.

[David Fares, Vice President, Global Public Policy, The Walt Disney Company]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me here today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important relationship between Canada and the Walt Disney Company, as well as Bill C-11.

Canada is one of Disney's top four production markets. In the last three years, our content spend in Canada, across all of our production companies, was approximately $3 billion on content to be featured on multiple platforms for worldwide distribution.

We produced six of our most recent feature films in Canada. In 2021, we produced 18 TV and VOD original series in Canada, with Disney+ Originals offering a source of growth for productions in Canada. Indeed, when Disney+ launched, three of the six originals on the platform were produced in Canada.

We have also produced in Canada uniquely Canadian stories. Barkskins, produced by National Geographic, tells a unique Quebec story, following two French families over a 300-year period, beginning with their arrival in New France. The Barkskins production team worked closely with the Wendat nation to ensure historical accuracy and respect.

Turning Red, a Pixar animation film released on Disney+ on March 11, is a love story to growing up in Canada, created and directed by Canadian award-winner, Domee Shi.

We are also producing a series based on the award-winning Canadian novel, Washington Black.

It is important to note that Barkskins, Turning Red and Washington Black do not qualify as Canadian programs under the CRTC's current definition, notwithstanding their unique Canadian stories.

Our close relationship with Canada is not limited to productions but includes a permanent physical footprint with state-of-the-art and innovative facilities staffed by high-skilled talent. Two of Disney's production companies have a physical presence in Canada and are expanding to fuel growth in the audiovisual sector, including infrastructure and skills development. Industrial Light & Magic, a visual effects subsidiary of Lucasfilm, has one of its five global offices in Vancouver, employing 500 people at any given time. ILM is expanding its footprint in Vancouver, building a 20,000-square-foot virtual production stage. The Stagecraft LED system will ensure that Vancouver continues to be one of the most innovative visual effects hubs in the world.

In August 2021, Walt Disney Animation Studios announced that it will open its first production facility outside of Burbank, California, in Vancouver, hiring 400 high-skilled employees over the next two years.

Disney also works with independent Canadian production companies, helping them grow and establish themselves as leaders in their fields. Two important examples are Mercury Filmworks in Ottawa, an animation studio with which Disney has worked on at least 10 productions, and Omnifilm Entertainment, based in Vancouver, which is a live action production company with which we have worked on at least five productions.

Madam Chair and committee members, I understand that a main motivating driver behind Bill C-11 is that, if you benefit from Canada, you should contribute to Canada. I hope that in the last few minutes, I have successfully demonstrated Disney's proud contributions to Canada and its creative ecosystem. We hope to invest further in Canada, and a flexible regulatory regime will allow us to maximize those future investments.

From our perspective, a flexible regulatory regime would recognize that each company offers a different proposition to its consumers. Accordingly, consumer expectations flow from a company's particular offering. Disney+ is unique in that it predominantly offers content from Disney's own brands: Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic and Star. Given this unique offering, we hope that Bill C-11 will allow each company to contribute to the health of the Canadian AV ecosystem in a manner consistent with the service it offers, thereby fuelling consumer choice, benefit and diversity.

As I noted, Disney is proud of our contributions to Canada, but they differ from those of Canadian broadcasters by the very nature of the content we offer. For example, Canadian broadcasters devote a significant portion of their content spend on news and sports, which is content that Disney does not produce in Canada. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you to ensure that Bill C-11 recognizes and embraces such differences.

The Motion Picture Association of Canada will be filing proposed amendments to the committee in writing, and the Walt Disney Company fully subscribes to these amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fares.

Now that ends our witness period. We're going to move to the question-and-answer period. This is going to begin with a round of six minutes. Just so witnesses know, that six minutes includes the question and the answer.

I shall begin, for six minutes, with the Conservative Party and John Nater.

John, you have six minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, thanks to our witnesses for their testimony this morning. It's been an interesting morning thus far. I'm looking forward to the questions and comments as well.

I want to start with Mr. Fares from the Disney corporation.

You mentioned three very specific examples of productions that told Canadian stories and were developed with Canadian content but aren't considered Canadian under the CRTC's Canadian content principles. Could you expand on that a little bit and talk about how that works as a detriment to your organization—or perhaps “challenge” might be a better word—when you're producing what many of us would consider Canadian content that isn't considered Canadian content under the CRTC rules? Could you give us some thoughts on that?

[David Fares]

Thank you for the question, MP Nater.

I would begin by saying that every program that is produced in Canada contributes to the overall health of the Canadian AV ecosystem by training skilled workers and developing infrastructure. We also sometimes tell stories, as I mentioned, whether it's Barkskins, Turning Red or Washington Black, that are truly Canadian, but because the Walt Disney Company owns the intellectual property, even if with the significant talent you could meet the points system under the definition of Canadian content today, it could not qualify as Canadian content.

Ironically, on the other hand, there may be content produced in the United States that does not tell a Canadian story, but that, nonetheless, because it meets the points system with the particular high-level creative talent working on the program, would constitute Canadian content because it is perhaps owned by a company that has majority ownership by Canadians.

What we're calling for is a flexible system around Canadian content that allows each one of us to contribute to the AV ecosystem in a manner consistent with the service we offer. As I mentioned in my opening statement, Disney+ is unique in the video streaming space in that we largely and predominantly distribute our own proprietary content across the six brands that we own. Therefore, that means it's IP that we own. Given the nature of our business, there needs to be flexibility introduced into the definition of Canadian content, both to deal with the irony that I outlined but also to allow companies like the Walt Disney Company to maximize how we contribute to the Canadian AV ecosystem.

I think there can be a very simple fix in this. That is, there are several criteria set out in the draft legislation: IP ownership, creative talent that participates and creative story. No single one of them should determine what constitutes Canadian content. Flexibility can be incorporated into the definition.

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

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate that commentary.

I'm going to move to Mr. Rogers with Music Canada.

You mentioned a little bit about the wiggle room, which was first questionable and is now concerning, and the need for clarity within the piece of legislation to confirm that algorithms wouldn't be affected and that user-generated content would be excluded.

Do you have specific suggestions with respect to the legislation itself in terms of what parts of the legislation ought to be changed? Whether it's proposed section 4.2 or whether it's other parts of legislation, what would you suggest that the committee ought to be considering when we're doing the amendments during clause-by-clause?

[Patrick Rogers]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for the question.

We divide this into two pieces, but the heart of it is, frankly, that we think the minister's right. When the minister says, no algorithms and no to cat videos, we think the language in the bill should reflect that.

On algorithms, I would say that proposed subsection 9.1(8) can be amended to make it less about that particular section and more about the act, therefore prohibiting requirements regarding algorithms in anything from the act. We can provide that language as a follow-up. With regard to user-generated content, I would say that the individual platforms are probably the best to get hard language on, but I would tell you that we support that.

I would just go back again to my opening statement about this. This has gone from being a hypothetical with nervous lawyers in the back of the room concerned that the language isn't clear enough to, following the CRTC chair's explanation that there is wiggle room, now something we think the committee should address to, again, reflect what the minister said.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to turn for my last bit of time to Ms. Monica Auer, from the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

You made a comment about timelines and the timeliness of the CRTC—I think you said based on rumours, guesses and gossip. I'm not sure I have that written down exactly.

If the CRTC is going to be given this additional responsibility through Bill C-11—and down the road through Bill C-18 as well—how do you see that affecting the timeliness and the responsiveness of the CRTC going forward, given this new scope of responsibilities that they'll receive through this piece of legislation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 40 seconds, Ms. Auer.

[Monica Auer]

I think it's likely that you'll see continuing delays. The CRTC has had its resources increased over the last 10 years. That's true. On the other hand, delays have simply increased in the last 10 years in terms of licensing decisions. You're probably familiar with the CBC coming up on now nearly 10 years of a licence, thanks to the CRTC's administrative extensions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

You have 14 seconds left, John. I don't know that you can do anything with that.

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

Madam Chair, you underestimate me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I walked into that, John. I think we've used up those 14 seconds.

Now I'm going to go to the Liberals and Ms. Lisa Hepfner, for six minutes, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today.

I would like to start with either Mr. Fortune or Mr. Perreault, from the independent broadcasters group.

I know that you represent small broadcasters, and in your opening remarks you touched on the environment for small broadcasters being up against international platforms. How important is it for this legislation to pass in terms of the broadcast environment out there right now?

[Joel Fortune]

I can maybe start with that and then let Luc pick it up.

It is a challenging environment right now. Obviously, change is upon us, and I think a lot of the challenges faced by independent broadcasters stem from the structure of the Canadian industry itself, not just the international environment.

As you know, Canada has a consolidated and vertically integrated communications environment, and the regulatory environment has been changed over the last decade or so. It said it favours competition, and that's fair, but what has been the outcome of that competition? At IBG, we've conducted studies that have shown that by and large, in our environment, the smaller independent players tend to do less well than the larger vertically integrated players. It naturally follows: If you own the means of distribution, there are more opportunities to provide advantages to your own services.

That's the domestic environment in which we operate, and that has a big impact on how we're faring. We're concerned about some of those disadvantages in our domestic environment now being compounded by similar phenomena in the global online environment, where we're also dealing with players who own the means of distribution. They own platforms. They have some of their own content services. We're quite worried about replicating that environment and then bringing it into Canada without sufficient support for independent services.