Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2022

[Jeanette Patell]

I think the most amazing thing is the niche content that never would have had an opportunity and wouldn't have had a large enough audience in conventional media, which is constrained by programming time and geographic reach. Someone like Simply Nailogical, who has seven million subscribers for nail art, is absolutely amazing. That kind of content isn't going to break through in mass media, but there is a global audience for it. Putting it in front of that international world stage really gives those creators a chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Patell, thank you very much. You may expand on that in any of the questions you get.

I'll now go to the Liberals and Tim Louis.

You're next for five minutes, please.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the panellists for being here. It's a tremendous panel. I really appreciate your time.

I would direct my questions right now to Mr. Gordon Sinclair.

I would say that The Tragically Hip certainly qualifies as a source of pride for Canadian talent. I can tell you, as a musician who has toured Canada for years myself, you'll be happy to hear that there wasn't a night that I was on stage when someone didn't come up to me and ask me to play the Hip. That's part of your legacy, and I appreciate your being here advocating for songwriters, lyricists, concert composers, music publishers and the whole ecosystem. One of the reasons that I worked so hard to get here was to ensure fair compensation for the use of artists' work.

Not many years ago, artists could make a living from album sales. Even as an independent musician myself, it was possible to make enough from sales in music to at least make your next album. As you mentioned, since streaming, that situation has certainly changed. Can you comment on how much more challenging it is to have a career as a songwriter without getting the return on investment of the expense and the costs to record?

[Gordon Sinclair]

The entire system breaks down as you're attempting to.... It's not as simple as just going down into your basement and recording into GarageBand. It costs money to produce a song, and it costs money to distribute a song. Without any kind of potential for remuneration, it's just unsustainable. It's now difficult even at the label level for established artists to define budgets to produce what they need to produce with very little opportunity at all of album sales. It's difficult to see how we're going to be able to be compensated without some assistance from this bill.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate that. It's not only about the revenues too. It's about getting our songs out there. To make a living, you have to be heard, and right now foreign streaming services have zero obligation to promote our Canadian creators, even to Canadian artists. We talk about streaming and we're hearing, like you said, that the platforms are doing well. Even the major labels are readjusting and getting there.

A small number of certain artists at the highest level that were mentioned are doing well, but it's those emerging and mid-level artists that we can't ignore. What's the importance of supporting an ecosystem that can showcase Canadian artists at all levels so that they can become the next international artists?

[Gordon Sinclair]

To my mind, the most important thing is allowing younger artists the opportunity that I had in the older system. Again, without a great stroke of luck, it's very difficult to launch a career. It's really important from a cultural and a heritage standpoint that those voices are able to be heard from coast to coast to coast. It's important that someone from Victoria can hear someone from St. John's, and that someone from Iqaluit can hear someone from Toronto and vice versa. That's the foundation of a national heritage.

To me, the ecosystem really needs to revolve around distribution, whether it's streaming or traditional radio, but also in creating an environment and investing in the ability for young artists and established artists to go out on the road and to take their shows to places where, traditionally, people don't play. That's how we were able to do it. That was the system. We used to call it “the circuit”, and I'm sure you remember it well.

I'm from a small town in Ontario, and when an established artist came to town, that was a big night. It was a community night. When it was a Canadian artist, you saw them in the context of an international artist and that music meant something. When you looked around, you saw people from your community and realized that you shared a musical taste and you shared a foundation. That, to me, is what heritage really is. If we lose that, it's going to be very difficult to get it back.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate your saying that. Coming from you, that certainly means a lot. I want to thank you for being here.

I'm almost out of time, but I think you've earned the right to be here and to share your story with us so that we can find the next artists from Kingston, Kitchener, where I'm from, Yukon or anywhere in Canada. I appreciate your time.

[Gordon Sinclair]

I agree.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to Mr. Champoux for five minutes for the Bloc Québécois, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To begin, I have a comment for you, Mr. Sinclair.

This is my little groupie moment. I wasn't a big fan of The Tragically Hip, but my late brother‑in‑law, Richard, was one of your biggest fans. By playing your songs and turning up the volume when they were on CHOM, he inevitably led me to start liking it. Today, I may be the person in North America who listens to the song Bobcaygeon most often and at the loudest volume. So I want to thank you for that and also for your testimony today. It was very important to hear your comments on this.

My first question is for Ms. Patell.

Ms. Patell, earlier today, the CRTC chairperson made it clear that the CRTC would not impose ways of programming algorithms or influence the way programming is done by digital platforms. Instead, he said that they would set goals and look for ways to improve programming, in collaboration with platforms like YouTube and others. This means that your suggestions for improving discoverability would be taken into account.

What do you think of that statement?

Do you still find that this might jeopardize the programming of your algorithms?

[Jeanette Patell]

Thank you for the opportunity to address that.

I welcomed the comments from the chair of the commission earlier today, and I think our request here is to ensure that is adequately reflected in the text of the bill. I think there's every opportunity to do that.

The first way to do that is to clarify three things. One is the scope of content to which it applies and ensuring that there isn't room for either misunderstanding, misinterpretation or future expansion of the regulatory action.

Second, with regard to the language around the algorithmic protections, I think there's an opportunity there to strengthen that language further just to ensure that there's absolute clarity that this is not going to be a vehicle to secure certain outcomes.

I think one of the things that he spoke to was with regard to the powers that would be provided to the CRTC under this bill. Discoverability was one of the things he mentioned, but I think it's really important to look at the actual text of the provision of proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(e), which refers to the presentation of programs for selection by the Canadian public, including Canadian original programming.

That's why we've raised these concerns, because when you apply that to proposed section 4.2 as described to us by heritage officials, which is really just a set of considerations, the commission must consider these matters, but they're not bound by those matters when they determine what content is in scope. The combination of an expansive scope of coverage with this very broad power to determine the presentation of the content for the selection by the Canadian public, that's what poses these great concerns for us, because that is the interface of the platform between the user and the content itself.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Patell.

Mr. Péladeau, there is often talk about rebalancing the playing field in the market to make it more level. You often raise the issue of fees in part II, and you aren't the only one to do so.

Is that enough to make things a little fairer for traditional broadcasters?

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

That's a very good question, Mr. Champoux.

Indeed, I raised this point because it is the one that seems most obvious to us. However, I think that we must also consider the whole ecosystem. It is important to emphasize this more and more. We must not think that Canadian broadcasters have fallen behind.

As I'm sure you know, on our side, like our Canadian competitors, we have invested in online viewing, the so‑called streaming. For over 10 years now, Club illico has been offering extremely important series in terms of investment.

There is a lot of discussion right now about Canadian content. I can assure you that all the series that are made here are made with Canadian actors, film crews and directors, in Canadian locations, and that they are broadcast by Canadian companies whose majority of shareholders are Canadian. We will continue to do the same.

We have to look at this issue as a whole. I know that you will soon be discussing Bill C-18, because it's part of a whole. Advertising revenues are important, since they are the only source of revenue for general broadcasters. If they disappear, all those resources will no longer be available for all television production, be it series production or news programming.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Péladeau, can you tell us, in a few seconds, about CBC's mandate?

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

It should also be noted that this is missing from the bill. Parliament should ensure that there is no unfair jurisdiction in this regard either. The advertising revenues I mentioned earlier represent a significant source of revenue for CBC, and they should now be devoted entirely to private broadcasters.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Péladeau.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Péladeau.

I will now go to the New Democratic Party, Peter Julian, for five minutes, please.

Peter.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for their important testimony. I wish we had more time. The filibuster earlier tonight cut a couple of hours out and basically cut off our questioning time, and I really regret that sabotaging of what is an important part of the work that we have to do as a committee.

I will take my five minutes and start with Mr. John Morgan Lewis.

Mr. Lewis, I appreciate the work of the IATSE members. They are very important in my riding. You mentioned an important fact around Canadian content. Other countries evaluate content on a much larger scale—at 35 points you mentioned in Britain. I believe you mentioned the Netherlands at 210 points. The CRTC committed tonight to re-evaluating Canadian content. What is your best advice for how Canadian content should be redefined so that it is broader and incorporates far more content?

[John Lewis]

Thanks for the question. Yes, other countries have taken a look at this question and have tried to adapt and bring in some flexibility in terms of taking a look at it. We talk about the antiquated systems of the Broadcasting Act. Well, the definition of Canadian content is equally as antiquated. There was an overemphasis, quite frankly, of the screenwriter, the director and the actor. It didn't take into consideration the fact that it was shot in Canada, that there might have been 800 to 900 crew on a show, 95% to 98% of whom were Canadian—all of those factors. Treating IP as a determinative factor to me makes no sense whatsoever. The goal is to protect, to enhance creative Canadian voices in all facets, and not to be restricted by a sole determining factor like IP.

This isn't about protecting Canadian media companies. It's about protecting Canadian culture, voices and stories. If that's the intent, that's what we should be doing. I'm very pleased to hear the words of Minister Rodriguez, and I was able to listen to some of the comments earlier today with the CRTC and how they're willing to take on this challenge moving forward.

But I think quite frankly, Peter, it has to be flexible. I think in all of this, this industry is changing monthly. Let's not get into the situation where whatever we said is enshrined today in legislation. It's difficult to change down the road, because we're not going to recognize this industry five years from now.

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

Thank you. I'll have to cut you off on that because I want to get to a couple of other questions.

Mr. Sinclair, thank you for your presentation tonight.

You mentioned the impact of CanCon, how that helped The Tragically Hip. There were Canadian artists who emerged before there was Canadian content, but far fewer. After we put in place CanCon, a lot more Canadians were able to succeed both in Canada and internationally. Is that what you foresee with C‑11, that there are some Canadians who are succeeding now, but more Canadians will be able to succeed with the provisions of the bill?

[Gordon Sinclair]

That would be my hope. Otherwise, we risk a pattern that happened prior to the seventies where artists who achieved a certain level of success would immediately move south where they were able to be even more successful and promote to a different audience. That way, we wind up losing our cultural voices, people who actually sing and write about this country, which, to me, is a very important part of the continuing heritage of Canada.

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

Thank you very much.

Finally, I'll go to Sara Bannerman. You mentioned the bias around algorithms. Do you find that the algorithms tend not to be transparent, which adds to the complexity around these issues? We have in the United States, of course, Senator Ed Markey, who has presented a bill on algorithm transparency. Do you believe this transparency is important?

[Dr. Sara Bannerman]

Absolutely. I think they're not transparent, and there are multiple ways of approaching that. An alternative would be an algorithmic transparency act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Ms. Bannerman. You cut out.

[Dr. Sara Bannerman]

No, that was my answer. Thank you. I thought time was limited.