Canadian Heritage Committee on June 6th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, colleagues. We will resume this meeting.

I'm assuming that we don't have opening comments from this set of witnesses, so we'll continue with our third round, the five-minute round.

I believe the first round will be with the Conservatives. I will look to my colleagues to see who is taking that round.

Mr. Waugh, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, department officials and the two add-ons from the department.

Mr. Owen Ripley, on that number you gave me of $1 billion, I need to know how that is going to be generated. I had questions at $832 million. I was blown away here. I have to be honest. When I heard it was $1 billion, like I said, I had trouble at $832 million, and now you have $200 million more coming from somewhere. Tell me where this is coming from.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

The methodology behind that number includes that a good chunk of it—just over $900 million—will come from what we would call “expenditure requirements”. That would be an obligation on online streaming services to spend a certain percentage of their revenues on producing Canadian stories. That's how it works right now for broadcasters like TVA or CTV or whatnot.

Just to give you a reference point, for example, these days Canadian broadcasters spend just below approximately $3 billion in Canadian programs. It's to give you a reference point. That figure is largely composed of what we would call expenditure requirements.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

For something like Netflix, for example, which may be the biggest online provider that people in this country watch, what are we looking at from it?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I don't have the Netflix figure in front of me. One of my colleagues might.

What I would say to you, Mr. Waugh, is that for sure Netflix is doing a huge amount of production activity already in Canada. Most of it would not currently qualify as a Canadian program, so part of the impetus behind this bill is to get them to do more on the Canadian side, to involve more Canadian creatives and to tell more Canadian stories, right? It's great that it does so much business here in Canada, but obviously we want to put a challenge to it to do more to tell Canadian stories.

The minister has been clear that the conversation has to include looking at the definition of what constitutes Canadian programming. In fact, you were on this committee with the previous bill and know that there was discussion around putting down some factors in the bill around the importance of looking beyond just Canadian creators but also at Canadian cultural expression and those kinds of factors. That will have to be a conversation that is had when the bill moves out of the legislative process and into the regulatory process.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

There are some who would say that Netflix spends more on production in this country than Bell, than other media in this country. What do you say to that? I'm sure they do.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I'm not sure, Amy, if you have that figure.

If not, Mr. Waugh, we can get you that.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes, I would like some of these figures.

What do you think, Amy?

[Amy Awad, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Netflix has revenues in Canada and the United States of approximately $3.3 billion.

You know what? I'm going to get back to you. That number is changing.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes. I want only the Canadian numbers, but I'm saying that a lot of these are spending more than traditional broadcasters for production in this country, right? Now you're telling me that they're going to actually have to pay more because of the $900 million coming from whatever it is—Disney, Netflix, Apple or whatever.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

It's not about doing more, necessarily, Mr. Waugh. Again, Netflix is a good example. They are already here. They are doing a ton of production activity in Canada, right?

So it's about actually using the market, just like we do with CTV, for example, saying that because you're in the Canadian market and earning so much from Canadian subscribers, our expectation is that a certain percentage of what you earn here is spent on Canadian production, as opposed to what we would call foreign location production, which doesn't necessarily have that high involvement of Canadian creatives or tell those Canadian stories, for example.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes. I guess where I'm coming from is that when I look at the traditional broadcasters, they use the news as Canadian content. They have produced very few documentaries in this country. They have this one area where they say they've spent a lot of money on news, but I can tell you that they don't produce what they once did in documentaries and shows.

As I said to BCE, I give them credit, because they have more news hours than anybody in this country, but it's kind of a fallacy thing. During their newscast, they have quite a bit of American news, as you know, so they throw out the “we've got more Canadian content”, but really it's just news.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Unfortunately, Mr. Waugh, that is five minutes. I apologize. Perhaps we can come back to the answer in a future round.

Mr. Bittle, you have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We do have some unfinished business before the committee. I want to apologize to the witnesses. For those who are watching, this should really only take a few minutes. As I said last time, it shouldn't take more than the six minutes I have, and I'm willing to cede those six minutes.

I move the following:

That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study on the Online Streaming Act no later than Wednesday, June 8, at 3:30 p.m.

I have copies in both official languages that I can provide to the clerk.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We'll pause momentarily while those are distributed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We will resume this meeting.

Mr. Bittle had yielded the floor.

We have a speakers list. As of right now, I have Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Perkins. If anyone wishes to speak to this, please indicate to me or the clerk and we will add you to the list.

On the motion, Ms. Thomas, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would offer an amendment to this motion. It would replace the words “no later than Wednesday, June 8, at 3:30 p.m.” with the following:

after the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage commences a study of the alleged involvement of Hockey Canada in sexual assaults committed in 2018; that the committee invite the Minister of Sport to appear for no less than one hour; and that the committee invite representatives of Hockey Canada to appear for no less than two hours.

The reason I am suggesting this amendment is that it still provides a time frame. We will commence the clause-by-clause following this study.

This study is important, because it's one that was moved with unanimous consent in the House of Commons, which means that every single political party has agreed that this study is of great importance. The governing party, the NDP, the Bloc, the Green, the Conservatives and all independent members have agreed that this motion, this study, is important and that it should be done at the heritage committee. That motion was granted unanimous consent on June 2 in the House of Commons.

The study is an important one. It is a serious one. I believe time is of the essence. It would be diligent of this committee to then move forward and take on that study.

Yes, I realize it puts—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I apologize, Ms. Thomas, but for the benefit of our clerk, could you just reread the amendment?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Can I reread it? Is that what you're asking?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Yes, please. Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'll do my best:

That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study on the Online Streaming Act after the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage commences a study on the alleged involvement of Hockey Canada in sexual assaults committed in 2018; that the committee invite the Minister of Sport to appear for no less than one hour; and that the committee invite representatives of Hockey Canada to appear for no less than two hours.

I'm just looking for confirmation from the clerk.

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

Why don't we read the whole thing over just once more? I believe we have up until the last invitation.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Then it is “and that the committee invite representatives of Hockey Canada to appear for no less than two hours.”

Perhaps just before I continue, then, out of respect for the committee and the clerk, perhaps we should read that back just so everybody has the wording we're looking at.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

I'm just going to read this really slowly for myself and for the interpreters. Please jump in at any time if I make a mistake: “That the committee commences its clause-by-clause study on the Online Streaming Act after the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage commences a study on the alleged involvement of...”—oh, dear, my handwriting—“...abuse”?

I'm sorry, Ms. Thomas, but could you clarify that one word?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sure.

First of all, I recognize why you used the word “commences”, because it is what I originally used, and then went back and retracted, so I would say “completes”.