Canadian Heritage Committee on May 30th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good afternoon everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I want 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 Thursday, 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.

Pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are in their place during proceedings. You can speak through a mask and be fully heard. I just wanted you to know that, if you feel you need to wear a mask at all times.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and mute yourself when you're not speaking. I may say that for those on the floor as well, because when the floor isn't muted, I hear my voice like a disembodied thing shouting in the room.

Regarding interpretation for those on Zoom, there is a round globe at the bottom of your screen, and that is your interpretation button. You can go to English, French or whatever you desire. For those in the room, you know you can use your earpiece to get translation. You're not allowed to take photographs of this meeting.

Secondly, the first round would be for witnesses. That's all of you in the little boxes here. You're going to have five minutes to speak. That five minutes could be divided. That's five minutes per organization, so if there are more than one of you for an organization, you can split it any way you like or just designate one person to speak. After that, there will be a question and answer period, and that will be followed according to the formula that we have. Please remember to direct all questions through the chair.

Thank you very much, everyone.

We're going to begin this meeting.

With us today, from the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, we have Eleanor Noble and Lisa Blanchette. From the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, we have Catherine Edwards, executive director. From Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, we have Amélie Hinse. From Digital First Canada, we have Scott Benzie, executive director. From the Directors Guild of Canada, we have Warren Sonoda, president, and Dave Forget, national executive director. Finally, from Music Publishers Canada, we have Margaret McGuffin, chief executive officer.

We will begin for five minutes with the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, and either Ms. Noble or Ms. Blanchette.

You have five minutes. Let's begin.

[Eleanor Noble, National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice-Chairs, committee members and staff.

I'm Eleanor Noble. I'm a Canadian performer and national president of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. Joining me today is Lisa Blanchette, ACTRA national's director of public affairs and communications.

On behalf of ACTRA's 28,000 members working in English-language screen productions across Canada, I am pleased to appear today to share the artist's perspective as part of the committee's study of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

We've been closely following the progress of this bill and, like other industry stakeholders, we also want to ensure a strong and vibrant industry for Canadian content for years to come. That is why we were pleased to see that the proposed legislation will require online undertakings, including foreign services, to contribute to the production and discoverability of Canadian programs.

While we welcome the majority of the changes in Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act, we wish to voice our concern about some of the bill's amendments that would have a significant and detrimental impact on our industry, jobs and our culture. As a working Canadian performer, I can tell you that Canadian content production is at risk.

Before any changes are made to the current Broadcasting Act, we should acknowledge that the existing act has both served us well and has been remarkably technology neutral. Therefore, we believe that any changes being contemplated to the act should only be made if they will help better support and uphold the fundamental purpose of the Canadian broadcasting system, which is to ensure that Canadians have access to original Canadian programming and music, as well as entertainment, information and news programs.

With that said, we must take the opportunity today to sound the alarm about a proposal in the bill that could significantly reduce the requirement to use Canadian creative resources and other resources. It would put Canadian stories and creators at great risk.

While production activity in Canada is booming, even in the face of varying public health restrictions over the past two years, there is growing concern, because opportunities to tell Canadian stories are decreasing and Canadian content production in both English and French is lagging further behind. We're seeing a downward trend in the production of Canadian content, owned by Canadians and made by Canadian writers, producers, directors and performers.

“Profile 2021”, released this past April by the Canadian Media Producers Association, captures the economic activity in the screen-based media sector between April 2020 and March 2021. The report highlights that Canadian content production declined by 12% in that period, while foreign service production saw a marginal increase of 1% over the same time period.

We welcome foreign production investment over the long term, but we're concerned that there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to tell Canadian stories. If we don't create an environment in which Canadian stories, storytellers and creators can continue to thrive, our culture and identity may be lost. We must maximize the use of Canadian talent.

To address the emergence of global online streaming services now providing programming to Canadians, Bill C-11 creates two classes of broadcaster: Canadian broadcasting undertakings, including domestic online undertakings; and foreign online undertakings. This approach becomes problematic when a lesser standard is introduced for foreign services. Specifically, proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1), which we speak about a lot, establishes a lesser standard for foreign services, instead of adopting the stronger language found in proposed paragraph 3(1)(f), which governs Canadian broadcasting undertakings.

Creating this two-tier approach would significantly reduce the requirement for foreign online undertakings to use Canadian creative talent and would devastate our screen-based media production sector. This is an industry that contributes more than $11 billion to our country's GDP and generates over 216,000 jobs for hard-working Canadians. For me and for my fellow ACTRA members, who are already precarious workers, this could lead to a loss of work opportunities for Canadian performers.

The purpose of the online streaming act is to equalize obligations between broadcasting undertakings to “level the playing field”, in the words of Canadian broadcasters. There is no rationale for establishing a lesser commitment for foreign online undertakings operating in Canada, given their financial strength and market clout. The goal must remain to create a level playing field between domestic and foreign undertakings.

ACTRA, along with other industry peers like the Directors Guild here today, agree that Bill C-11 must be amended to remove any reference to a lesser standard for foreign services. We have included a proposal to amend paragraph 3(1)(f).

We also support the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and Racial Equity Media Collective. They've also put in proposals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Noble.

Now I go to the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations for five minutes, with either Ms. Edwards or Ms. Hinse.

[Catherine Edwards, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations]

Thank you for inviting us.

As the director of the Canadian Association of Community TV Users and Stations, and with my colleague from the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, our comments chiefly concern community TV, but we have consulted closely with our community radio colleagues. Our requested amendments to Bill C‐11 are in sync.

As described in our brief, the key challenges for the “community element” are the lack of a clear definition on the one hand and a description of its role on the other. The definition of the public and private elements are self-evident: Theyʹre based on ownership. In CRTC policy, community radio is defined as not-for-profit and community owned.

The number of community radio stations has stayed steady at about 200 licensed stations and an estimated 60 indigenous ones, but community TV was traditionally managed by the private sector and has suffered as the cable industry underwent massive ownership consolidation and technical interconnection of formerly separate cable systems over the last few decades. While there were once more than 200 distinct cable community channels, there are now no more than 10% of that number. The vast majority in smaller communities have been shuttered. Those that remain in more populous parts of the country have become regional specialty channels, such as the single, province-wide Rogers TV in New Brunswick.

Amélie.

[Amélie Hinse, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations]

The cable companies made a business case to the CRTC to close their stations, but the communities were never consulted, and that's the problem. True community media, as it is internationally recognized, is owned and operated by non-profit organizations, rooted in their communities and present for the long term. Our goal is to fill this gap. The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, or CACTUS, currently has 25 non-profit community television stations outside of Quebec. The Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec has 41 in Quebec, and these television stations are supported by the Quebec ministère de la Culture et des Communications.

The CRTC asked us whether community television was still necessary in an age when you can watch videos on a phone and download them from YouTube. This thinking led the CRTC to divert the vast majority of Canada's community television budget, over $150 million, to support private news networks. This happened in 2016.

The value of community programming is now being rediscovered through programs like the Local Journalism Initiative, as we realize that essential democratic and civic coverage is not happening on social media, as we become increasingly concerned about fake news, and as we grapple with the need to make our society more inclusive.

Community media meet broadcasting licence requirements and are accountable to their boards. They are safe spaces where minorities who fear being attacked on social media can go for production support and visibility. They are the antidote to fractured communities and the silos created by social media. They are a common platform for the whole community.

[Catherine Edwards]

For Bill C‐10, we asked that the “community element” be defined firstly by not-for-profit ownership and secondly by participation by the community in the production process. The second part was adopted, but “not-for-profit” was not. We were told that an exclusively not-for-profit definition put into question the status of the few remaining cable community channels.

We propose a compromise, which is a definition of the “community element” that includes but is not limited to not-for-profit community media organizations. Whatʹs important is that community-owned TV and radio stations be recognized in the act as a viable, democratic and sustainable model of broadcasting.

Second, the community element is often overlooked in policy‐making. We believe this is because there's a lack of specificity in the Broadcasting Act regarding its role. Therefore, in C‐10, we proposed a slight rewording to paragraph 3(1)(r) of the 1991 act, which describes the role of alternative programming services. The section closely described what the community element does, yet had never been used in CRTC policy-making, to our knowledge. We were told this amendment did not pass for three reasons.

First, we repeated the term “not-for-profit”. We have now taken that out, since it will already have been mentioned in the definition of “community element” if our first amendment is adopted. Second, we used the term “platform”, which we were told isnʹt defined elsewhere in the act. We have taken it out. We mentioned the importance of archiving community-generated content. We were told that it was outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act, so we have taken it out.

We hope you can support this revised description of the role of the “community element”, which will guide the CRTC in its work.

In closing, we rely on your understanding as parliamentarians of the importance of a local accountable media for smaller communities and minorities, whose voices sometimes do not fare well when lobbying at the CRTC. For this reason, we seek these amendments in law. Community media must be recognized as an essential part of the democratic infrastructure of Canada to ensure vibrant, inclusive, democratic and civic coverage throughout our country.

Thanks so much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada, you have five minutes, please.

[Scott Benzie, Executive Director, Digital First Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for having me back. My name is Scott Benzie. I'm the executive director of Digital First Canada, an organization that advocates on behalf of creators in Canada that choose free user-generated content platforms as their main distribution method.

I'd like to spend a minute to directly address the structure of Digital First Canada. Digital First Canada is a new organization that has been bootstrapped from the team at Buffer Festival. Yes, we have received some funding from our industry partners, including platforms and private industry involved in the success of digital creators. No, we do not have a formal membership structure where we receive fees from creators, nor do we receive any funding from the government, unlike some of our colleagues who will appear and who have appeared before you.

Now to the task at hand, which is Bill C-11. It is a shame that we and a handful of people like us had to spend the last year or so arguing a now true and confirmed fact—namely, that user-generated content is in this bill. In fact, over the last year, I was publicly attacked and accused of being a purveyor of misinformation from officials for stating it. Even today, about two hours ago, the minister stated that people who say it's in are conspiracy theorists. UGC is in this bill. Saying otherwise is misleading or you are being misled.

Now that it is on the table and in the open, let's have some constructive observations. I've had many conversations with our peers in legacy media about our support for the bulk of the bill that includes curated platforms in the broadcast act. In addition, we have been having the fight about UGC platforms contributing more to Canadian creators for far longer than most of you have been on this file.

With that being said, let's get a little technical. The exemption to the exclusion in proposed section 4.2 is not a sandbox; it is the Sahara Desert. As crafted, it includes almost the entire Internet. I welcome being challenged on that, but it is a fact. Mr. Scott confirmed that while creators themselves are not written into the bill, their content can be treated as “programs”. With that clause, all audiovisual content online is in the bill. With UGC platforms, you cannot separate the platform from the content or that content from its creator. If the mandate of the regulator is only restricted by a policy directive, it is your duty to see this power wrestled away because we might not like the next government so much.

Now, I don't believe the UGC platform should be exempt from all regulations. I believe they should have to contribute to the cultural sector. I believe they should be contributing to the creators that use those platforms primarily. If we just roll the cash into the system, we will literally be subsidizing lobby groups on the backs of independent digital creators. We will not be addressing the needs and supports that digital creators could use to grow faster. We believe in a higher level of transparency in the industry across the board. There are a lot of questions about where the money that the platforms already contribute is going today.

What's the problem? It's discovery. The minister has repeatedly assured digital creators that their videos would be exempt from the bill. The discovery clause does not reflect that promise. While there is no call for the CRTC to impose specific algorithms, there is a very problematic word, that being “outcomes”. Most platforms are binary, and the promotion of one piece of content results in the demotion of others.

You might ask, “Who cares? If it's Canadian, everybody should be happy.” That's just it. Digital creators do not qualify as Canadian, and even if they did, the process to have every piece of content certified is not just problematic; it's impossible. The bill has the intent of promoting Canadian content to creators. While that's admirable, most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery and niche content globally, and are participatory, not passive. Forcing something unnatural on them, such as local discovery, is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance on TikTok, Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.

There seems to be an impression that regulating the Internet and forcing certain content into the algorithm is a panacea for all that ails. Spoiler alert—it's not. Success online is hard work. It takes consistency, technical knowledge and knowing how to engage and grow your community. It is hustle, not handouts.

Imagine with me, if you will, legislation that actually helps not just digital creators but those groups we have heard from that are struggling on the platforms—a convergence of Canadian talent as opposed to ripping one out in favour of another. This bill favours a failed legislative solution instead of education, co-operation and acceleration. Imagine legislation where resources are put in place to join the Canadian cultural sectors and amplify our strengths.

We are not asking for anything in this bill except for the protection that the minister has promised. Please fix this bill so that we do not need to have the same conversations in the Senate, or even in the courts, for years to come.

Finally, the world is watching our activities here. No country has ever taken the step to regulate content this way. I would conclude with a very real warning. Canada cannot take this action and expect fair and equal treatment abroad. If the U.S., France or other jurisdictions take the same approach, you will effectively kill a group of creators that have global success and global contracts with brands, and that spread Canadian voices and values to a world that I believe benefits from them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Benzie.

Now I go to the Directors Guild of Canada, Mr. Sonoda or Mr. Forget.

Go ahead, whichever one of you wants to begin, for five minutes.

[Warren Sonoda, President, Directors Guild of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

My name is Warren Sonoda. I'm the national president of the Directors Guild of Canada. With me today is Dave Forget, the DGC's national executive director. We appreciate the committee's invitation to present DGC's comments on Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

The DGC is a national labour organization representing key creative and logistical professionals in the film, television and digital media industries. Today we have over 6,000 members covering all areas of direction, design, production, logistics and editing. Bill C-11 represents the realization of a very historic opportunity to modernize Canada's broadcasting system, ultimately serving the interests of all Canadians by supporting the creative community and Canadian audiences alike.

Growing from 132,000 jobs in 2011 to 216,000 jobs in 2021, Canada's film, television and digital media sector is thriving, but it is primarily driven by the foreign service production side of our industry. As audiences and revenues migrate to online broadcasting platforms, funding contributions to Canadian programming have steadily diminished. The new act will level the playing field for all broadcasters, whether the program delivery is mostly to Canadian homes via online, cable or over the air.

Historically, Canadian broadcasting public policy shared both economic and cultural goals, building a robust domestic production industry while ensuring the future of our artists and creators. This is the fine equilibrium that Bill C-11 proposes to restore.

The economic growth of an industry can be defined by various metrics, but too often the intangible, long-term impact of cultural policy is not fully valued. It contributes to the development of a national identity, shared consciousness and successful careers. More precisely, we know that there is no better tool than scripted content and documentary filmmaking to illustrate what cultural policy does.

Shows like Schitt's Creek and Transplant, films like Scarborough and Beans and documentaries like Our People Will Be Healed and Anthropocene share the uniquely personal point of view of their Canadian creators.

The decision to safeguard the future and livelihood of Canadian creatives and storytellers rests in your hands, committee. Getting this right ensures diverse, original, high-quality Canadian programming for Canadian and international audiences for decades to come. In the absence of a rapid intervention to create an environment where Canadian artists and creators can flourish, the current ecosystem will remain unsustainable, leading over time to fewer opportunities and eventually the loss of our culture and identity.

The DGC is aligned with Canadian broadcasters as well as the production and creative communities to urge the adoption of this legislation without delay, with one caveat. Please amend the bill to strengthen requirements for the use of Canadian talent.

Going back to first principles, Canadian content is not just about who commissions it, who owns it or on what platform the program is exhibited. It's about who makes it. We mean, of course, the director, writers, performers, artists, technicians and professionals who create the programming, the entire creative team and the many colleagues I work with every day who contribute to the creative process.

It's over to you, Dave.

[Dave Forget, National Executive Director, Directors Guild of Canada]

Thank you, Warren.

Bill C-11, as currently drafted, establishes two standards for the requirement to use Canadian talent with different rules for Canadian and foreign online broadcasters. Specifically, proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) maintains the historic requirement that a “broadcasting undertaking shall employ and make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources” but only for Canadian broadcasters, while proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) creates a significantly weaker obligation to “make the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources” for foreign online undertakings.

This objective can be achieved by using a common definition of “Canadian program” and applying similar requirements for both domestic and foreign online broadcasters. Proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) remains the lifeblood of the broadcasting policy. While we understand that the current definition of a Canadian program may need to be revised, we think it is imperative not to lower the standard for requirements to use Canadian talent and creative resources. Without making this amendment a priority, we are concerned that the positive impact of the new act on the domestic production sector would be limited.

The opportunities to tell Canadian stories would continue to decrease by the alarming rate of on average 10% per year to the point where both the English- and French-language markets would be unable to compete globally.

Members of the committee, we thank you for your time and will be pleased to respond to any of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You must have timed yourselves; you're right on. Thank you very much.

I will then go to Music Publishers Canada and Margaret McGuffin, chief executive officer.

Ms. McGuffin, you have five minutes, please.

[Margaret McGuffin, Chief Executive Officer, Music Publishers Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

It is my pleasure to appear this afternoon to discuss the importance of the online streaming act.

My name is Margaret McGuffin. I am CEO of Music Publishers Canada, which is a membership-based organization largely made up of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises representing all regions of the country, as well as large international companies with offices in Canada.

Music publishers invest in thousands of Canadian songwriters and make significant investments into the songs and scores that are heard every day on the radio, on television, on streaming services, in video games, in film and television productions and on new emerging platforms around the world. Seventy-nine per cent of the revenues of my members flow to Canada from foreign sources. We know the importance of the global market.

Bill C-11 is a long-awaited and much-needed update to the Broadcasting Act. We welcome the legislation's goal of bringing online broadcasting under the act, particularly for ensuring that streaming services help Canadians find Canadian songs and stories on platforms operating in Canada.

As technology has evolved, so has the way Canadians consume content. Our members and the songwriters they work with have embraced these changes and are actively engaged on these new platforms, both in licensing the content and in creating new digital content. Music publishers and songwriters are digital creators.

However, digital streaming services have been in Canada for almost a decade without fully supporting Canadian music. These platforms are keen to capitalize on Canadian talent without fully supporting the environment that helps the industry grow. It is critical that this uneven playing field changes now.

Over the last few years, we have challenged the digital platforms to work with us to find ways to harness their technology to help Canadians promote Canadian songs and stories and we will continue to do so. Most of the time these days, though, I hear about what the tech platforms can't do, not what they can do.

Clearly, the CRTC needs the ability to regulate when necessary to further Canada's broadcasting policy. Bill C-11 does just that. It provides an important balance by giving the commission the tools it needs to regulate when market forces fail. Modernizing the Broadcasting Act will ensure that, as technology evolves and online platforms continue to grow, Canadian creative industries, including music publishers, songwriters and composers, will also continue to thrive.

Without this modernization of the Broadcasting Act, Canada will see parts of our creative industry suffer. We risk an entire generation of new young storytellers and emerging businesses losing opportunities to develop, grow and benefit from their talents. Their songs may never be discovered or promoted in their own country.

As you've heard earlier in these meetings, this is especially dangerous for songwriters, composers and music publishers whose work represents and gives voice to our indigenous and French-language cultures. The online streaming act will undoubtedly support Canadian creators and the businesses that invest in them by creating jobs and ensuring that our stories can be found and heard in English, French and indigenous languages.

Let me close by saying that, contrary to what you've heard earlier, the proposed amendments will not disadvantage digital creators from exploring new opportunities on new digital platforms or limit freedom of expression, nor will Bill C-11 break the Internet or ruin the user experience. Those working in the creative industry ecosystem are some of the biggest proponents of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Bill C-11 addresses a distribution issue. It does not create a freedom of expression issue.

Why are we seeing these scare tactics from globally dominated tech companies? The bottom line is that they have made a healthy fortune by benefiting from the Canadian system and not contributing to it. It is time for that to end.

I would encourage you all to think critically about the arguments made by the tech companies that extract revenue without the corresponding investment. It is our opinion that Bill C-11 will be a much-needed modernization of the Broadcasting Act to address the very real inequalities that have resulted from an increasingly digitized world.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. McGuffin.

Now we're going to go to the question and answer part of this. We're starting with a round of questions. The first round is six minutes for each political party. That means questions and answers, so everyone try to be as succinct as you possibly can.

To begin, for the Conservative Party of Canada, we have John Nater.

John, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to take this first round of questions on behalf of my colleagues today.

I want to start with Mr. Benzie from Digital First Canada with a few questions.

Before I do my questions, I want to give you 30 seconds just to highlight a few of the successes we have seen with digital first creators, some of those creators who made their start here in Canada using different platforms and are now seeing great success internationally. I want you to highlight a couple of those examples.

[Scott Benzie]

Thank you for the opportunity.

There literally are so many, we can't even count them. A lot of these people have gone on to international success, and success within a more traditional model. Everybody quotes Bieber, The Weeknd, Alessia Cara and Shawn Mendes, musically. Obviously there is Lilly Singh. Peter McKinnon might be Canada's most popular photographer right now. There is Elle Mills, who is creating short films. It's really endless.

When we see indigenous creators like Notorious Cree, thatwarriorprincess, Shina Novalinga emerge and find careers without gatekeepers, I don't think that's something we should play lightly with. I think we should take very careful consideration of the environment that has allowed that.

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

To that end, that leads into the question.... You talked about the sandbox versus the Sahara Desert when it comes to proposed subsection 4.2(2). I want to pull up on that and how it can impact the concept of discoverability. We hear the term “discoverability”. We know it's included. It's going to be part of the mandate of how CRTC implements discoverability.

How would discoverability and applying that to content that's produced by a digital first creator impact them in their success outside of Canada?

[Scott Benzie]

There are a couple of different ways. First off, I would like to state that we really have to have a conversation about what qualifies as Canadian content before having a meaningful discussion around that.

As I said, the platforms are mostly binary. They are built to push content or for users to pull content that's relevant to them. Then, most of the algorithms score that content based on how it's engaged with, whether it's shared, if it's watched the whole time. Any kind of artificial manipulation of that algorithm and putting content in front of people that they might not want or might not want to see, regardless of what that content is, will actually hurt that content. It puts us in a position where we're not just hurting the content that has been deprioritized—we have obviously hurt that one—but we're hurting the content that we're trying to prioritize as well.

There's a way to help everybody on these platforms, but discovery is not it, and there is no good reason that I have heard for it to be in this bill.

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

To that end, you have an open letter on your website to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I'll summarize it very briefly. You made the comment that the Broadcasting Act, as a piece of law in Canada, was never designed for digital first creators, for the new medium of online creative exports, for lack of a better phrase.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this? What is it about the online presence that doesn't fit well into the traditional broadcasting understanding that we have?

[Scott Benzie]

Again, the traditional Broadcasting Act was built to highlight and prioritize Canadian content to Canadians, for fear of having Big Brother from the south overriding our airways. That's not what these digital platforms are for. They are for global discovery.

Canadian discovery for Canadian content creators online is almost an afterthought. While it's nice, and I'm not lumping everybody into the same boat—everybody is a little bit different—it's the global discovery that matters. If, when we put content into the algorithm, it's pushed locally and not engaged with, that's going to affect all global discovery as well. It's going to punish it in the algorithm.

More importantly, as I said at the end of my statement, if other jurisdictions decide to follow Canada's lead and do this, that is a death knell for the Canadian digital content creator industry. The U.S. is our biggest market. Canadians are signing global contracts. It has kind of flipped it on its head. We're now invading other markets with our great content. There's no reason to be protectionist about digital content. There's no limited shelf space.

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

This might be going outside of your specific area of expertise, but are there any risks through the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, through CUSMA, with legislation such as this?

[Scott Benzie]

You're correct. I don't mind stating when things are above my head and out of my bailiwick, and that is one of them.

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

I appreciate that. I'm sure we'll find someone who can comment on that.

I have one last question on this matter, and hopefully I still have time, Madam Chair.

In the lead-up and following Bill C-10, one of your major criticisms was that digital first creators hadn't been part of the process, hadn't been involved and hadn't been consulted. I want to know what types of efforts have been made thus far to engage with digital first creators. You also mentioned that you want the legislation to say what the minister promised—that user-generated content won't be included.

Would simply removing proposed section 4.2 achieve that, or would there be other types of amendments you'd like to see to ensure the legislation reflects what the minister says on it?

[Scott Benzie]

I think proposed section 4.2 is the big one that could obviously go. The bigger issue for us is the discovery clauses, more so than the inclusion of the platforms.

I will say this, on a positive note, I've had more conversations with the department, with Canadian Heritage and with the minister's team as well since that time, so things are going better. We are being heard. I'm here, so I thank everyone for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Benzie.

I'll go to the Liberals and Mr. Tim Louis for six minutes.