Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2022

[Pierre Karl Péladeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebecor Media Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Pierre Karl Péladeau. With me today is Peggy Tabet, vice‑president Regulatory and Environmental Affairs.

Bill C‑11, which revises outdated legislation from 1991, is an opportunity for parliamentarians to address the growing historical inequity between foreign broadcasting platforms and Canadian companies.

As you are no doubt aware, a CRTC licence was required to obtain the status of broadcaster and cable operator. That licence was legitimately attached to conditions and regulations. Technology, such as the Internet, and globalization have made it possible to skirt the licencing requirements.

Regarding this new fundamental and inescapable equation, where foreign giants with gigantic financial capabilities have swooped in, we say that we must now remove Canadian businesses from the burden of regulations and conditions that continually stifle them and threaten their survival.

Last January, proof was provided beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, the Académie de la transformation numérique at Université Laval published a study that concluded unequivocally that, for the first time in Quebec, paid online viewing services have surpassed traditional cable television services. Indeed, 71% of Quebec adults subscribe to paid online viewing services, while 66% subscribe to a cable television service.

For years, Quebecor has been reiterating and alerting the various bodies that traditional local broadcasters and cable operators, such as TVA and Vidéotron, that showcase our culture and promote our artisans and talent, must face fierce competition in an outdated and unfair regulatory environment. The unbridled competition from online platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ is unfettered, and as I said, the CRTC's overwhelming regulations threaten the sustainability of local businesses and, therefore, our cultural sovereignty and our ability to inform Canadians with rigour, while having the resources to do so.

The goal going forward is to restore fairness and reduce the regulatory burden. Indeed, over‑regulation has also contributed to the weakening of traditional local broadcasters and cable operators. This approach has been a monumental failure. Canadian broadcasters are at an all‑time disadvantage and are struggling to make a go of it.

In total, between 2010 and 2020, the combined profits before interest and taxes of the major traditional private channels fell by nearly $216 million. TVA alone has seen a drop of almost $60 million. Apart from the CBC/Radio‑Canada, no business can survive without profits.

In this context, Parliament must restore fairness between Canadian and foreign businesses, and substantially reduce the regulatory and financial burden, such as the fees referred to in Part II. As such, it is of grave concern that Bill C‑11 no longer contains the principle of fairness among the various players in the industry, which was present in the previous bill. To put an end to the current two‑tier system, Parliament should amend the bill to ensure that all broadcasting undertakings are treated fairly and equitably.

However, there is a simple solution. Instead of asking the CRTC for a new set of sprawling regulations with mind‑boggling requirements, Parliament should focus on the essentials, such as a lighter regulatory regime in which foreign online platforms contribute financially to our ecosystem and to the various industry stakeholders, to maintain a strong and robust Canadian broadcasting system.

Honourable members of Parliament, thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Péladeau.

I will now go to Sara Bannerman, who is appearing as an individual and who is a Canada research chair in communication policy, for five minutes.

Go ahead, Ms. Bannerman.

[Dr. Sara Bannerman, Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance and Associate Professor, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm a Canada research chair in communication policy and governance at McMaster University. Thanks so much for inviting me.

Today I want to focus on discoverability and algorithmic bias.

Governments around the world are working on measures to ensure that algorithms are accountable. There is a common misconception that streaming platforms recommend what the user wants to see. Platforms show us what they want to show us. They show us what will keep us watching ads, purchasing advertised products, contributing data and subscribing. Platforms are not neutral. They serve their business interests as well.

There are three types of bias I am concerned about. These biases can affect both users and content providers.

First, there could be a bias if algorithms are used to select content for carriage on streaming services by predicting how many viewers the content will attract. A poor algorithmic showing could sink a content provider's chances of being shown.

Second, there can be bias in the recommendation algorithms that users use to discover content. Recommendations often display popularity bias, recommending what's popular and concentrating users' viewing on a smaller catalogue of content. This can be unfair to artists in the long tail and to users who like non-popular content. It could be unfair to Canadian content, including user-generated content.

Third, users' own biases can be amplified. Beyond users' biases for or against Canadian content, if users have a gender bias, for example, this could be amplified in the recommendations that respond to past viewing habits. Such biases can form a feedback loop that can spread throughout the system.

The research in this area has only been developing recently. CRTC intervention in the algorithms raises many difficult problems. The CRTC may not be the first, most likely or best answer to those problems. The CRTC said today it doesn't want to play that role, but the commission could play a role in bringing such problems to light.

There are concerns that requiring discoverability could infringe upon freedom of expression. Streaming service user interfaces and recommendations may be forms of expression. If so, regulatory interventions could contribute a limit on that expression. There are legitimate concerns that promoting some content could mean demoting other content, among other concerns. Sometimes, limits on expression are justified, but they must be justified. To understand whether any justification exists, or even just to understand, we need data.

It may be that the best role for the CRTC will be to monitor and call attention to problems, not just with the discoverability of Canadian content but also with recommender biases relating to other Canadian values, so that civil society and others can intervene. The CRTC can only do that if it has data.

The provisions on information provision and information disclosure in the bill are important to the study and examination of discoverability algorithms and data, and to the CRTC's potential work with outside organizations on this. It may be necessary to require platforms to collect certain data to permit these examinations to happen. The general powers information provision section of the bill could include the phrase “collection and provision”. That section could also name information on discoverability as information that the commission can demand.

I disagree with proposals that would allow a company to prevent the disclosure of information in proposed section 25.3.

The Canadian broadcasting system has often served dominant groups. It has also been open to change and improvement based on the work of civil society and others. We need to ensure that the discoverability mechanisms of online streaming platforms are also open to critique and change through public transparency, debate and data.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have five minutes, please, Mr. Sinclair.

Thank you very much.

[Gordon Sinclair, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Gord Sinclair, and I am a member of the Tragically Hip. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey took us around the world and lasted over 30 years. It concluded where it began, back in Kingston, when our final concert was broadcast nationwide and viewed by a third of the population of Canada.

How did we wind up there?

Over the years, we wrote some good songs, we worked hard and we had great fans, but in the beginning we were beneficiaries of CanCon, the partnership between private broadcasters and government. This was not a handout. For us, it was a leg-up. With the help of our managers, we recorded an EP and got signed to a label and, with their help, we were able to get some airplay on radio. That gave us enough exposure across the country to take the show on the road, as so many great Canadian entertainers have done.

Canadians excel at live performance. The sheer size of the country is our greatest asset. The road is long and hard, with vast distances between gigs. You can't have a day job and aspire to be a performer in Canada. You either learn to love the life and your travelling companions or you break up. The late great Ronnie Hawkins always said that Canadians have to work 10 times as hard to get a tenth as far.

The artists who do endure have honed their talent to a very high standard. Canadian musicians are seasoned travellers. They've learned to play live and to live on the road, and that's what sets us apart. Somehow, during the years and hours of staring out the van window at granite and black spruce, you discover what it means to be a Canadian. You realize that despite its size, distinct regions and communities, there is more that binds us together in this country than separates us. The Hip wrote songs from that perspective. Many of them resonated with our fellow Canadians and enjoy enduring popularity.

Through the travel, the space, the time and the weather, the songwriter searches for meaning and what gives us a common identity. Nations create and preserve themselves through the stories they tell. Words set to rhythm and melodies are our stories. They allowed us to enjoy a long fruitful career until Gord Downie's untimely death.

Walt Whitman wrote, “The proof of a poet is that his country absorbs him as affectionately as he has absorbed it.” In 2022, five years after the loss of Leonard Cohen and Gord, we must ask ourselves where our next generation of poets will come from. How can we help them discover themselves?

Times change. In the 30 years that the Hip were performing, we went from producing vinyl records and cassettes to CDs, videos and DATs through Napster, and to iTunes and YouTube, and now to streaming and its dominant platform, Spotify. Through it all, until recently, there have been live shows to make ends meet, but people no longer buy the physical products our industry produces. In the digital age, people haven't given up on music—just the idea of paying for it. That business model is unsustainable.

We are all stakeholders of the arts, and the future has never been more dire. For years, traditional broadcasters, in partnership with the federal government, have helped develop and sustain Canadian recording artists. The Canada Music Fund provides critical support for music in this country. What will happen if that funding disappears?

Gord Downie wrote in our song Morning Moon that if “something's too cheap, somebody's paying something”. Every song ever recorded can now be streamed for less than $10 a month. The somebodies in this case will be the future you and me when we realize that we've undervalued the contribution of Canadian musicians and songwriters.

There is no better art form to preserve, promote and export our culture than music, but after two years of pandemic-induced venue closures and cancelled performances, our domestic industry is in peril. Artists must see a glimmer of hope for a career in music or they will simply give up. Where will our next Joni Mitchell come from if we abandon our young artists? Artistic development takes time. If we don't actually value something at a level necessary to sustain it, it will surely disappear.

Streaming is here to stay, but the platforms and ISPs must contribute to the long-term health of the arts in some way. They must look on it as an investment. Streaming is a great way for artists to have their material heard, to discover new music and to be discovered, but in an industry that has seen the majority of its revenue streams disappear, how can an artist earn a living? Streaming can help, but regulations must adapt to allow Canadian culture to flourish in the digital age. It has to begin at home.

My worry is that many will give up before they get the chance to find their voice. As much as the global market is important, Canadian artists must also reach their fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In today's environment, there is a place for everyone, just as there is a place for streaming alongside traditional broadcasters and live performance.

Our potential as a creative nation is as vast as the country itself. Songwriters are our best cultural ambassadors. We are compelled to create, to express what we know and what we feel. We need partners in government and industry, including streaming.

Right now, somewhere in Canada, a young artist is searching for their voice, the right bit of melody to go with the perfect words. We need your help to hear those voices.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I didn't mean to stop you in your tracks, Mr. Sinclair. Thank you very much.

I'd now like to go to the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

Mr. Lewis, you have five minutes, please.

[John Lewis, International Vice-President and Director of Canadian Affairs, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees]

Thank you.

IATSE is the largest union in the entertainment industry, representing 32,000 Canadian creatives and technicians across film, television and live performance, with another 10,000 creatives working under our agreements as they learn and acquire the skills and certifications necessary for membership. IATSE members are highly skilled cinematographers, costume designers, aerial riggers, makeup artists, hairstylists, set decorators, scenic artists and more, all working behind the scenes. In a word, we are the crew.

I first want to state that the IATSE supports the federal government's efforts to modernize the Broadcasting Act through BillC-11. We are also pleased that Minister Rodriguez wants to re-examine what should qualify as a Canadian production.

What does make a film or TV production Canadian? Despite what you regularly hear, CanCon is not necessarily about telling Canadian stories. What's happening is that due to dwindling revenues, Canadian media companies are receiving less money from domestic broadcasters. They'd therefore like to create more funding by having government require global studios and streamers to stop the “free ride” and kick in to fund CanCon productions.

The thing is, they already do. Global studios and streamers are the second-largest source of financing for Canadian-owned content production, with foreign pre-sales and advances accounting for 15% of total financing. By comparison, the Canada Media Fund accounts for 10%, and Telefilm accounts for 1%.

Minister Rodriguez referenced creating good, middle-class jobs as a Bill C-11 objective. Global studios and streamers are now also the largest employers of Canadians working in film. They account for over half, 58%, of total production investment in Canada and provide the majority of jobs—60%. Highly skilled Canadians are able to stay in Canada. New infrastructure like studios and equipment provide opportunities that weren't possible without foreign investment.

Cultural policy should support investment in Canadian creative workers and not exclusively benefit Canadian production companies. It is important to celebrate, protect and promote our culture, but the current system wrongly relies on a few mandatory conditions like IP ownership or control, plus a 10-point system in which films must score at least six to be considered Canadian.

Under the current system, The Handmaid's Tale doesn't qualify as Canadian. It's based on a novel by Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who served as a consulting producer. It features Canada-centric plot lines, was filmed in Canada—employing hundreds of Canadians—and garnered 75 Emmy nominations. Canadians were recognized internationally for their skills in art direction, production design, hairstyling, makeup artistry, costume design, visual effects and editing.

The story is similar for Jusqu'au déclin. It's a French-language Canadian storyline featuring Canadian actors, written by Canadians and filmed by Canadians. Like The Handmaid's Tale, the workers on this production also garnered awards. Also like The Handmaid's Tale, it also doesn't qualify as Canadian. The only thing not Canadian about this production is that Netflix funded it.

We need a fair system to determine which productions should be considered Canadian. The Canadian 10-point system is not only flawed; it's exclusionary. The point system prioritizes the hiring of Canadians, as it should. Having a Canadian director gets you two points. A Canadian screenwriter is worth two points. A costume designer is worth zero points. The head of makeup or hairstyling is worth zero points. We're talking about creative positions that are recognized with awards like Oscars, Emmys, BAFTAs and Canadian Screen Awards. The Canadians performing them, however, don't count for a single point, not to mention the hundreds of Canadian crew members.

What should a new system look like? First, the four conditions that are currently mandatory, such as IP ownership, should be considered but not determinative. Second, the 10-point system must be expanded.

In the U.K., the British Film Institute uses a 35-point cultural test, and productions must score at least 18 to qualify as British. The higher point system means more factors can be considered, such as whether the film is based on British subject matter, whether it's a majority British cast, whether it's a majority British crew and where the story is set. The Netherlands' 210-point cultural system considers all of this and more.

These countries, and many others, demonstrate that a stronger, fairer system is possible. We are confident that's the intention behind Bill C-11. The IATSE supports its passage. We must modernize our system so that it best serves and promotes Canada, our workers and our stories.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

We'll now go for five minutes to Wendy Noss from the Motion Picture Association-Canada.

[Wendy Noss, President, Motion Picture Association-Canada]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to offer you the perspective of the members of the Motion Picture Association-Canada. These include Disney, Netflix, NBCUniversal, Paramount Global, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery.

Global studios train and provide well-paid opportunities for 200,000 of Canada's talented creative workers. Our investment here has grown to $5 billion a year, more than half of all production in Canada. We help finance new infrastructure, stages, VFX and animation studios across the country. Our work is economic fuel for more than 47,000 Canadian businesses a year. We invest in cleaner production and are leaders in environmental sustainability. We're proud supporters of Canadian cultural organizations and are committed to advancing equity and diversity, representation in front of and behind the camera and amplifying under-represented voices and untold stories.

Global studios are crucial partners of Canadian producers. We account for 15% of the financing of all Canadian-owned content last year. That's more than Telefilm and CMF combined. Thanks to the opportunities presented by global streaming services, the films and shows made here are seen by more people and in more places around the world than ever before. This is a story of extraordinary mutual opportunity and plenty of room to grow.

Let me turn to Bill C-11. To put our interest in perspective, our studios and streamers offer a wide variety of content in both free-to-consumer and subscriber streaming services from the global entertainment of Netflix, Disney+ or Paramount+, to Hayu's all reality show format or Sony's Japanese anime service, which is so popular across the Francophonie. When Bill C-10 was introduced, we supported the important thought at the heart of the bill: a flexible framework to determine how online undertakings can best contribute to Canada. With Bill C-11, we continue to support the government's drive to modernize policy and create a flexible, world-class broadcasting system.

We offer a few key amendments to help the bill deliver on these ambitions, described more fully in our submission.

First, new powers were intended to extend the concept of mandatory carriage in the cable system to online services like Apple TV or Roku, which offer third party channels. The current drafting language, however, goes far beyond that intention. It must only be limited to online undertakings that offer the programming services of others.

Second, we applaud Minister Rodriguez for confirming that he will direct the CRTC to modernize how a Canadian program is defined. Our simple amendment would make it explicit that the CRTC must consider the full range of policy objectives in establishing this new approach, with no one single factor being determinative.

Third, we recommend changes to clarify inconsistencies in the broadcasting policy objectives, ensuring that the CRTC considers the different nature of various streaming services and the fact that global, not just Canadian, undertakings will now be included in the regulatory system.

In addition to these amendments, we have raised policy approaches relating to discoverability and the importance of encouraging competition, innovation, consumer choice and affordability. We hope these will be advanced in the policy direction and CRTC proceedings that follow.

In this rapidly evolving market fuelled by new technology, Canadians will be best served if you reject the calls to look backward and impose the same obligations on global online undertakings as Canadian broadcasting groups, or enshrine rigid, old approaches to defining Canadian content in legislation. Our members contribute to Canada in so many ways, but the business models of global streaming services are fundamentally different from those of Canadian broadcasters and certainly different from broadcasters in the 1970s, when these rules on Canadian content were developed.

While many are asking you to make amendments to reduce flexibility, it's time for policy that leans into a more modern definition of creativity and offers global players the flexibility to contribute to all Canadian goals—cultural, social, environmental and economic. A fresh look and a wider lens will mean incredible opportunities for a lot more talented Canadians in the future.

Global productions allow Canadians to work at the top of their craft and achieve worldwide success. Talented Canadians who want to stay in Canada, develop their skills and help create stories that resonate with audiences around the world need this policy to be flexible and adaptive.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Noss.

I will now go to Stéphane Cardin from Netflix.

You have five minutes, please, Monsieur Cardin.

[Stéphane Cardin, Director, Public Policy, Netflix]

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Since we appeared before this committee in February 2021, we've continued to invest and grow our footprint in Canada. Last fall, we opened our corporate office in Toronto and hired our first local content executives. They've since travelled across the country and engaged with creators to find the next great Canadian stories that we'll share with the world.

Over the same period, we kept the cameras rolling in studios and on locations across the country while keeping our cast and crews safe during COVID-19. We continued to collaborate with top animation studios in Canada on titles such as The Last Kids on Earth, and several leading VFX companies here worked their magic on shows such as The Adam Project, starring our own Ryan Reynolds. Last November, we launched our first selection of mobile games, including several titles from Canadian game developers.

All of these investments add up to Canada remaining one of our top production countries globally. In fact, since 2017 we've invested more than $3.5 billion in Canada for films and series that have launched on Netflix. This includes our own titles, co-licensing agreements with Canadian independent producers and broadcasters, and acquisitions of both classic and new series and films in English and in French. Each of these models contributes to the system.

In addition, we've provided substantial support and opportunities to Canadian creators. We've enabled emerging and diverse Canadian talent like Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, star of the hit series Never Have I Ever, to secure their breakout roles and achieve global recognition. And we've partnered with over 20 organizations across Canada to advance the careers of over 1,000 creators from every province and territory, with a focus on creators from underrepresented communities.

All of this demonstrates that Netflix is committed to Canada.

To the extent that Bill C‑11 aims to create a flexible framework that will enable the CRTC to recognize the different ways that individual online services contribute, to tailor conditions of service applied to online undertakings, and to modernize the definition of Canadian content, we believe that is the right approach.

We remain concerned about a rigid approach that would simply transpose the current regulatory requirements of Canadian broadcasting groups onto online streaming services. This would not create a level playing field, nor would it be fair or equitable.

Unlike Canada's large private sector broadcasters, Netflix would not have the ability to meet its obligations through categories such as news or sports programming, which represent the majority of their Canadian content spending, and titles that are produced or solely financed by Netflix still would not qualify, even when the majority or totality of creative roles are held by Canadians.

We believe a new framework should also recognize that streaming services provide an unparalleled opportunity to promote Canadian stories to global audiences. The phenomenal success of titles like Lupin, Schitt's Creek and Jusqu'au Déclin demonstrates that quality stories no longer have borders.

Accordingly, we and other members of the Motion Picture Association Canada, or MPA‑Canada, have proposed amendments to the bill, as outlined in our written submission.

When the government set out to modernize the Broadcasting Act, it stated its ambition to create a world-class communications sector and highlighted the importance of enabling and promoting Canadian culture, contributing to economic growth and safeguarding the interests of Canadian consumers, including affordability and choice. To achieve this, Canada must build a balanced and forward-looking model that acknowledges the unique contributions of each participant in the system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin.

I will now go to the final witness, and that is Jeanette Patell from YouTube.

Ms. Patell, you have five minutes, please.

[Jeanette Patell, Head of Canada Government Affairs and Public Policy, YouTube]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

For well over a decade, content on YouTube has been reflecting Canada's cultural mosaic, raising diverse voices and sharing Canadian stories around the globe.

Thanks to YouTube, creators like the Hacksmith are building businesses, artists like Shawn Mendes are breaking through and Canadians from all walks of life can share their voices with the world. Canadian YouTuber Lilly Singh explained it best when she said, “For Canadian creators who don't fit the mainstream mould, the openness of YouTube provides the opportunity to find their niche among billions of people.”

We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.

In many ways, YouTube serves as a digital video library of Canadian culture, past, present and future. It has allowed our Canadian heritage moments to cross borders with over 28 million views.

And Encore+, our partnership with the Canada media fund, has brought CanCon favourites to viewers around the world.

We support the objectives of Bill C‑11, and we want to work together to achieve these shared goals.

I want to be very clear about YouTube's position on Bill C-11, because it is often misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented.

Some believe that we want to avoid all regulation. This is not true. In fact, when the minister says that an official song by The Weeknd on YouTube should be subject to the act, we have no objection to that, and we certainly have no objection to further financially contributing to Canadian content.

Our concern is that Bill C-11 gives the government control over every aspect of Canadians' experience on YouTube. It does not include effective guardrails on either the powers given to the CRTC or the content to which those powers apply.

And when I say “content”, I mean all content—whether that's a dance challenge, a cat video, or an official music video by Charlotte Cardin.

If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations and how Canadian creators advertise against their content. This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.

Bill C-11 could deeply hurt Canadian creators and viewers. For viewers who rely on us to serve them content that is relevant to their interests, artificially forcing an open platform like YouTube to recommend content based on government priorities would backfire. It imposes supply-side measures onto a demand-based technology and ignores two critical features of today's digital reality.

First, Canadians have infinite choice. If the government mandates that they be recommended content that is not personally relevant, they will simply abandon the video or even give it a thumbs-down.

Second, these behaviours train our systems, and that's where the risk to creators comes in. The system learns that this content is not relevant or engaging for viewers, and then it applies those lessons on a global scale. It means that, ultimately, creators boosted in Canada as CanCon could be demoted in search results around the world. That is a terrifying prospect for Canadian creators, who depend on international audiences for over 90% of their watch time, and it would directly hurt their revenue.

It is possible to support Canadian musicians, artists and storytellers without putting thousands of creators at risk, and we have some ideas how. The first is to protect the livelihood of Canada's digital creators by narrowing the language of proposed section 4.2 to only capture full-length commercial music. The second is to strengthen proposed section 9.1 to prevent regulatory impacts to the recommendation algorithms. Finally, it is to narrowly apply broadcasting regulations and better reflect differing technology and business models.

We are confident that, with more precision in Bill C-11, the government can accomplish its objectives. Ultimately, we all have the same goal: to preserve and celebrate Canadian stories and culture.

Thank you for the chance to speak with you today on this important piece of legislation.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Patell.

I'm afraid, colleagues, that we have to amend our agenda today. We will not have the business meeting today, and we will go with one round of five minutes each for the four political parties.

Who will the Conservatives begin with, please?

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

That would be me, John Nater.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, John. Please begin. You have five minutes.

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

I'll try to ask as many questions as I possibly can in a short amount of time, starting with Mr. Cardin and Netflix.

One of the things I've learned is that season three of The Umbrella Academy is premiering in June, starring the Stratford Festival's Colm Feore. Again, Stratford Festival's opening week is this week. Everyone come to Stratford.

The Umbrella Academy is filmed in Ontario. Would The Umbrella Academy count as Canadian content?

[Stéphane Cardin]

It also stars Canada's Elliot Page.

No, The Umbrella Academy would not count as Canadian content.

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

When you're investing $3.5 billion in Canada, employing many Canadians, including—I'm assuming—some of Mr. Lewis's members, all of that investment doesn't provide you with any benefits, if you will, from the Canadian content system. Am I right to assume that?

[Stéphane Cardin]

The definition only recognizes the subset of the productions that we make in Canada.

As I mentioned, projects that we own or fully finance are not recognized because of the copyright ownership requirements in current certification criteria. The content that we work on in collaboration with Canadian broadcasters and independent producers counts toward CanCon certification criteria.

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

Thank you very much. I may come back to you if I have time, but I want to switch to Ms. Patell and YouTube.

We've talked a bit about the policy directive from the minister. We haven't seen it. I'm assuming you haven't seen it. We heard earlier that the CRTC hasn't seen it. A lot of what will come out of Bill C-11 will be defined by what the minister puts in his policy directive. We know that policy directives can change, so that a future government can issue its own policy directive and redefine things. We've been told that the minister will go in a certain direction with the policy directive, but we have seen nothing in writing.

I want your thoughts on the aspect of this policy directive that no one seems to have seen yet. The government is taking the “just trust us” approach that it will be what they say it will be and what they hope it will be. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Jeanette Patell]

The first thing I'll say is what's amazing is that there is an alignment when it comes to the question of user-generated content and whether it should be within scope of the bill. There is alignment in the minister's intention and what we've heard from the creator community that this content should not be within scope of the bill.

What we're asking is for that to be explicitly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. Give me a second, please. There is a noise that is interrupting everyone's ability to listen.

Can people please mute their phones and microphones on the floor?

Thank you.

[Jeanette Patell]

I'll start again.

Going back to.... I think we're aligned on the intent here. When it comes to the role of how it should be reflected, whether it's in legislation or a policy directive, the creator community merits certainty of how their content, which is their livelihood, will be regulated going forward. That's why I think it's absolutely appropriate and very achievable, by the way, to reflect that in the legislative text. We don't have to put the livelihoods of creators at risk to support Canadian musicians and artists. I think we're all very collaborative and smart people, and this is something that can absolutely be done in the text.

It's not clear to me why we would give this expansive discretion to the CRTC in the text of the law, when we're in the premise that this is not going to be regulated. If the premise is that it's not to be regulated, I think it makes the most sense to have that reflected in the text, rather than handing over the authority to future governments to simply make that change going forward.

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

In my 30 seconds, which I think the chair will extend by at least a minute given that small interruption, we can talk about the global reach that YouTube has. You obviously operate in countries globally. We look at successes like that of Justin Bieber, from Stratford, Ontario, who has found success through things like YouTube.

What is it that's unique about new technology and new platforms that allows Canadian content to be viewed and to be celebrated and to find success globally and around the world?