Canadian Heritage Committee on June 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Moses.

I'll go to the Liberal Party and Michael Coteau for six minutes, please.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much to all the witnesses for joining us. This has been a very fascinating conversation.

For me, C-11 is about fairness, equality, inclusiveness, openness and respect. I think maintaining our Canadian culture through film and television is something that we as Canadians, as lawmakers and as citizens should be striving to do.

Ms. Boltman from Friends, I think the best line I've heard this evening was “crashing on our cultural couch”. Thank you for sharing that, and I'll keep that in the back of my mind as we proceed.

I wanted to ask a few questions of Ms. Jenkinson from BSO.

We had a meeting earlier this week and heard from some witnesses that government should not be involved in the regulation of any type of broadcasting. In particular, we heard from one witness that some online streaming giants not wanting to carry such unique voices as OUTtv was capitalism at work, that it was fine and that the government should not be ensuring diversity in those voices.

I am completely opposite to that. I think that, in a democratic process, we should use democracy and the ability for government, through law, regulation and directives, to ensure that we have good Canadian content that reflects Canada today.

I want to get your opinion on that statement from a witness earlier this week.

[Joan Jenkinson]

We completely agree that there should be room in the spectrum of content to allow for content from channels like OUTtv. We think that traditionally under-represented creators are finding audiences on YouTube. The argument is that it doesn't need to be regulated because it's satisfying the diversity that we need in the industry.

What we've seen, first of all, is that a small percentage of creators are able to generate enough of an audience to make even $10,000 a year from YouTube. The kind of programming we see is music, comedy, DIY shows and short snippets, but that should not be the only source for diverse content. People want to see shows that are scripted storytelling. They want to lean back on the couch and watch crime dramas and love stories and see themselves in it.

I think this is what all audiences want: They want choice. There certainly are great choices on the digital first platforms, but that doesn't negate the fact that we need these other platforms that are regulated. We think they all should be regulated, so that we can have the kind of content that our Canadian audiences are looking for.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Some of my colleagues on this committee—particularly the Conservatives—have suggested that we leave it up to the algorithm. We've heard from witnesses saying capitalism will ensure diversity of voices.

What's been the experience for Black Canadians when it comes to film and television and working with these online giants? What has the relationship historically been like? What is the impact on Black Canadians?

[Joan Jenkinson]

The content we see of Black people comes from the United States, generally.

In the history of Canadian television, prior to 2020, there have only been four TV drama series made by and about Black communities. When it comes to feature films, it takes between nine and 13 years to make a feature film—from a first to a second feature film. There has been very little on traditional platforms.

With the emergence of the new platforms, we're seeing user-generated content, which is great. It's providing opportunities for under-represented groups to have a voice and for emerging talent to have an opportunity to grow their talent, but again, we want to see choice. We want to be able to ensure that Black content creators have access to the bigger budgets to make the dramas, comedies and documentaries that a large percentage of the population wants to see.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Do you really believe that this bill will help ensure that, going forward, if we put in the right type of legislation...? I did hear you say that you have some suggestions on some amendments. But the overall spirit of C-11, from your perspective, would it be a good thing for Canadians in general?

[Joan Jenkinson]

I think it would be great for Canadians and particularly for under-represented groups, because equity and inclusion are at the core of the bill.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I go to the Bloc Québécois with Martin Champoux for six minutes, please, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I will start with you, Ms. Messier. I know you have been carefully following our discussions on Bill C‑11, and even on Bill C‑10, since the beginning. This is an issue that is important to you. I would like to hear your thoughts on the situation.

[Hélène Messier]

That is a pretty general question, but what struck me the most may be some people's lack of understanding of the bill's scope, especially when it comes to social media. Yesterday's meeting with the CRTC shifted a lot of notions. That said, I must say that, in all the discussions on Canadian content, what struck me the most is the lack of consideration for independent producers' intellectual property.

What the big studios and platforms said to us is that they want the status quo. They want what they are already spending in Canada to produce American content here to be considered Canadian spending, simply because it is on Canadian soil. But that would have a devastating impact on our system. It would destroy everything we have been trying to do for 40 years.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You are talking about American companies' investments in film production in particular. That is a good point. We talked about that with Disney, among others, this week. We also spoke with Ms. Noss and Mr. Lewis, who deem those contributions sufficient, as you just said.

What tools could be implemented to ensure that those big companies' investments in content production in Quebec and in Canada would be profitable for the industry and not only for them?

[Hélène Messier]

They are trying to tell us that, since X‑Men is being filmed in Montreal, it counts as Canadian content. That's like saying that a Hyundai vehicle is a Canadian vehicle because it was manufactured in Bromont by Quebec workers using components manufactured in Quebec. That's ridiculous. The notion of maximizing the use of Canadian creative resources and the notion of intellectual property must be kept at the heart of the definition of Canadian content.

The issue is not so much the definition of Canadian content as it is the nature of contributions that must be required from those people. In France, they are asked to invest 20% of their revenue in the production of local content. The obligation for traditional broadcasters, for instance, to work with independent producers must also be maintained. That should be the centrepiece, but other types of contributions could also be recognized. For example, Netflix is investing in the development of Canadian talent. So I think it is a matter of knowing how to assess that type of contribution, instead of focusing on the notion of Canadian content, which has helped protect our content and create our industry here, in Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I will branch off toward social media, as I know you are carefully following that aspects, which is very important to you. You propose not only that social media companies be included in the legislation, but also that mobile telephone and Internet service providers be included.

You are looking for a fight!

[Hélène Messier]

I want to have the most equitable system possible. We know that the act is reviewed every 30 years, and that doing it is difficult. It is being said that anyone benefiting from this system must contribute to it. As we have seen—and the Canadian Media Producers Association, CMPA, is also talking about this—people are consuming more and more content on the Internet through those services. So it would be normal to require them to contribute to this system. Cable companies are contributing 5% of their revenue to it. I think the number of contributors should be increased. In addition, since two-thirds of Canadians subscribe to a cable television service and a smart phone or Internet service, the contribution could be reduced to 2% or 3%, while expanding its base, so as not to penalize consumers.

We know that people don't subscribe to an Internet service just to watch audiovisual content, for example. So revenue stemming from basic plans could also be exempted, as it is doubtful that people with a basic plan are going to consume a lot of audiovisual content, while those with unlimited plans are more likely to do so. I think there is a way to adapt the system to this new reality without hurting the consumer and that it would be fair to include telecommunications services.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a few seconds left to talk about paragraph 3(1)(f), which the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, CDCE, proposes to amend, so that it would be even more rigorous and ensure that everyone would make maximum use, without online companies having a possible loophole. How important do you, as producers, think that provision is?

[Hélène Messier]

We think it is extremely important, as we currently have a two-tier system: one for foreign companies and another one for Canadian companies. We think all companies that produce Canadian content, and not content produced in Canada, should be subject to the same requirements, regardless of whether they are foreign or Canadian companies. That is our proposal. We support the CDCE's proposal.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[Hélène Messier]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Martin.

I now go to the New Democratic Party and Peter Julian.

Peter, you have six minutes. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses who are sharing many important points this evening.

I will try to address as many witnesses as possible.

Let me begin with you, Ms. Messier. You proposed amendments for the creation and presentation of Canadian content, including requirements for broadcasters in this regard, as well as the requirement that they conclude and honour commercial and collective agreements.

Can you please outline the importance of your two amendments?

[Hélène Messier]

I would like to focus on commercial agreements. Independent producers have very limited negotiating power in relation to traditional broadcasters, and even less in relation to platforms. Ms. Winder spoke about this earlier. Producers are often required to give up their rights in negotiations with these parties and major broadcasters; they cannot collect revenues and make decisions on the presentation of their works.

We know that it is independent producers who develop talent and invest in the training of new directors, new screenwriters. They are the ones who work with people to develop all the creative talent in Canada. It is therefore important that they retain greater control and exercise their rights.

In France, for instance, the agreements that they conclude with platforms, whether for television or film, include an exclusivity clause that can be extended to them for a period of time, between 12 and 36 months. So producers can reclaim their rights after that, keep them in their catalogue, and exercise them.

There are different ways of dealing with this. It is difficult for an independent producer to negotiate with a broadcaster, which is why collective negotiation is important. We recommend that this be done through associations that represent producers.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm going to continue with Mr. Mastin and Ms. Winder from the Canadian Media Producers Association.

You've put a lot of accent on intellectual property. Why is intellectual property so important for independent producers? Why is it important that the CRTC has the power to have a framework around economic relations between broadcasters and independent producers?

[Catherine Winder]

Terms of trade help fairly rebalance negotiating power or level the playing field, given that streamers and broadcasters have tremendous negotiating power. It also helps Canadian companies own their own content, which drives growth, as Madame Messier has mentioned.

The terms of trade and the funding from streamers will enable producers to invest in new Canadian content, which is critical.

Let's talk about kids content for a moment. Our kids are Canada's future audience members. While Canadians used to be global leaders in the field of kid entertainment thanks to the broadcasters' obligations to Canadian content and children's programming, today there are few buyers remaining in Canada and far fewer opportunities for producers to produce this content than in the past.

The reality is that, combined with the climbing cost to produce, we as producers have no choice but to leave the country to get this type of content financed. In doing so, producers no longer have the leverage they once had when they were able to bring Canadian distributors and broadcaster financing to the table up front when doing deals. The result is that we really need terms of trade to help us ensure that we aren't forced to give away these long-term, valuable Canadian assets.

A perfect example of this is Paw Patrol. In The Globe and Mail, a Canadian Heritage stat came out a couple of weeks ago that said that, in 2019, Paw Patrol was responsible for 33% of the country's culture GDP. As you can see, it's tremendously valuable that we keep these assets.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm going to move on to Ms. Jenkinson.

Ms. Jenkinson, we heard testimony at this committee about OUTtv being excluded from a number of online streaming companies. You mentioned the issue of unregulated online platforms.

Is it your opinion that Black and racialized Canadians may be excluded from online platforms in the same way we saw with OUTtv?