Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think the point Mr. Nater is making is that the sentences are contradictory. I don't know that it is really relevant to send it to Mr. Ripley since it is your motion.

Martin, would you like to explain it to Mr. Nater? Then, if necessary, we will go to Mr. Ripley.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, the way Bill C‑11 proposes to amend the text of the act represents a significant change from what was decided with Bill C‑10. We're talking about non-Canadians not being eligible for a broadcasting license, a requirement that would be maintained in the instructions given to the CRTC. However, another government could decide to remove this requirement through an order in council. As a result, what the lawmaker intended would be weakened in the act.

In my opinion, we don't want Canadian online businesses to be easily acquired and controlled by foreign interests. That is the thrust of the motion I'm putting forward. Instead, we encourage the CRTC to play a role in promoting the Canadian nature of the system. This does not in any way restrict foreign ownership and foreign activity in the Canadian broadcasting system, but we do further encourage the CRTC to put in place measures that provide incentives to consolidate Canadian ownership of businesses and Canadian control of the system.

I hope that answers Mr. Nater's question. If not, I'm sure Mr. Méla and Mr. Ripley can provide greater depth on the issue.

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

If Mr. Ripley has something to add, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Nater.

I agree with the assessment that the bill, as currently drafted, is trying to do two things. There is a current policy objective in the Broadcasting Act about the system being effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. As Mr. Champoux made allusion to, that has historically been done by issuing licences to only Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled companies.

That said, part of Bill C-11 recognizes that many Canadians now subscribe to essentially non-Canadian services. One core objective of the bill is to bring those services into the system and have them contribute.

The current drafting of the bill speaks to the importance of the system continuing to be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians—in other words, Canadian over-the-air broadcasters, cable and satellite companies would need to be Canadian owned and controlled—but it recognizes that there's an exception for foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians.

Having listened to Monsieur Champoux, I would not say that it is open to a future government to dismantle the Canadian ownership and control requirements that are currently in place. Paragraph 3(1)(a) of the bill says “with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings”. It makes that distinction, from the government's perspective, between Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon, which are not Canadian owned and controlled, and Rogers, Bell and Quebecor, which are Canadian owned and controlled.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley.

Is there any further discussion on this motion? Is it very clear to Mr. Nater?

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

Madam Chair, Mr. Waugh has his hand raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Kevin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

TSN is owned by Bell, yet ESPN owns a portion. ESPN United States owns a portion of TSN Canada. How would that play out?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.

There is indeed a regulatory instrument that specifies the amount of foreign investment and ownership that can currently take place in Canadian broadcasting undertakings. That is set out in regulation. There are thresholds there, so you are right that there is some foreign investment, for example, in TSN, but it does respect those CRTC regulatory instruments that prescribe a maximum amount of foreign investment so that the broadcasting undertaking remains Canadian owned and controlled, to be consistent with the current policy objective of the act.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

Is there any further discussion? If not, I should also like to make it very clear that if this amendment BQ-3 is adopted, then NDP-1.2 on page 17 cannot be moved as they are identical. If BQ-3 is defeated, then NDP-1.2 is defeated, for the same reason.

If the BQ amendment by Mr. Champoux is adopted, then Liberal amendment 1.1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Shall I go more slowly with that, or is that clear? Seeing no hands up and having informed everyone what the consequences are, I will then call the question on BQ-3.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm looking for the next one, and that is from Mr. Nater, which is CPC-1.1.

Mr. Nater, go ahead for the record.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is CPC-1.1. This amendment reads that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (i):

(i.1) reflect and be responsive to the preferences and interests of its audiences,

(i.2) to the extent possible, rely on market forces to ensure that Canadians obtain the programming of their choice,

The effect of this amendment...and this gets to the broadcasting policy for Canada. The part of the Broadcasting Act that's being amended is the actual broadcasting policy for Canada and some of the broad principles, for lack of a better word, that guide broadcasting policy in Canada. It's twofold.

The importance of this, I think, is actually the Canadian public: the consumers, the individuals who seek entertainment, who seek content being responsive to what they want, the interests they have, the shows, the creations they're interested in. It includes that as part of the broadcasting policy.

Of course, the element of market forces ensures that we are not arbitrarily putting our fingers on the scales and picking winners and losers among Canadian creators. The principle of this is including it in the broadcasting policy for Canada and really looking at the rights of consumers, the rights of individuals to be able to seek out and find and be responsive to the content they're searching for online and within Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Yes, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We heard testimony...and just one example is OUTtv, which on market forces basically was excluded from a number of streaming distributors. The market forces do exclude programming. The idea that Canadians obtain the programming of their choice when market forces, the big web giants, basically set the conditions, I think is somewhat misguided. That's why we have the uneven playing field that really calls for Bill C-11.

I'm reminded of that famous quip by Tommy Douglas that it's every man for himself, said the elephant, as he danced among the chickens. This is the kind of situation that develops when market forces are the only thing that are put into place, which is why Bill C-11 helps to level the playing field. Yes, there is a provision of market forces, no doubt, but there's also a bit of a counterbalance so we have a level playing field.

I'll be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to clarify as well that it says “to the extent possible” when it comes to market forces. I think the example of OUTtv is a good one. Let's look at that with the traditional Canadian broadcasters as well and their failing to deliver on some of their public policy and broadcasting policy commitments as well. This is nothing new. This is nothing new when we have traditional broadcasters playing reruns of Coronation Street rather than other more appropriate Canadian creations, whether it's OUTtv or other entities as well.

I wish we could have heard from APTN, for example, in this as well, because there are certain things that are mandatory carriage within Canada in the traditional sense. If there's a decision to do that elsewhere as well, that's that, but we haven't heard from APTN, for example. I just want to make that point. We're seeing traditional broadcasters here in Canada failing to live up to many of their objectives as well, so this isn't a new issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Essentially, what we're talking about here is discoverability. Mr. Julian raised the point that platforms already curate material for their audiences. That is correct. We heard that from YouTube and, I believe, from others as well.

However, the comparison he's drawing here, that if platforms do it themselves then why not put the government in control of the curation, is a terrible argument. It would be the same as or akin to saying that bookstores already determine where their books are going to be displayed, but why leave it up to them? The government should be put in control of that. Clothing stores already position their clothing within the storefront window in order to showcase certain things, to draw attention to the purchase of certain things. Let's not leave that up to the stores. Instead the government should be in control of that.

I recognize that Mr. Julian and I hold different views in terms of what government responsibilities should look like. I think what we heard from many witnesses, however, was that it is best to leave choice with Canadians rather than dictating to them what they should or should not watch or read or access online.

Scott Benzie is one individual who came forward, from Digital First Canada. With regard to discoverability, he commented that it may appear noble to want to show people Canadian content or to increase accessibility to Canadian content, but in actuality what will end up happening is that the government will be picking winners and losers. Some individuals, some content creators, will be bumped up in the queue and therefore made more discoverable, and others will be bumped down and therefore made less discoverable. When that happens, those individual artists or new media creators are no longer responsible for their own destiny, which is what they're enjoying right now and what makes the ecosystem so vibrant. Instead it will be the government determining that. The government will determine to what extent certain content is accessible within a platform such as YouTube.

That not only hurts Canadians, then, who are looking for certain content that would be of interest to them, but it also hurts the creators. It hurts those who exist within new media platforms who are making a go of it. Right now they can curate something that they know their audiences are going to love. They can use strategies in order to reach more people who love that same content.

Now, if Bill C-11 passes, the government is going to determine that it knows best and, therefore, it will force certain content in front of your eyeballs. If you don't like the content that is forced in front of your eyeballs, then you might not watch it. If you don't watch it, then that material continuously gets downgraded and pushed to the back end of the Internet. Meanwhile, that frustrates you as the viewer but it also hurts that individual or entity that came up with that content. Instead of its being shown to those who would take an interest in it, it's shown to someone who actually is going to, again, condemn it to the back pages of the Internet.

This is extremely harmful. Arguably it is censorship. It is determining what Canadians can or cannot access online. It is determining the audience that these digital creators would have access to.

I'm baffled, actually, by this. Here in Canada we have incredible digital-first creators. I'm perplexed as to why we wouldn't celebrate their success and want them to represent Canada to an even greater extent by being able to continue to reach not only a domestic audience but also a global audience. If this bill moves forward, it will build walls around these digital-first creators. Again, it will make sure that their content is shown to some Canadians, but it will actually prevent it from being able to reach beyond Canada's borders.

That's unfortunate, because, right now, for Canadian content or digital-first creators here in this country, 90% of the audience is global, on average. In essence, then, this bill hinders them. It prevents them from achieving success. It's incredibly harmful.

I'm confused as to why we would move in that direction. You might recall that Morghan Fortier from Skyship Entertainment came to the committee. With regard to discoverability, she said:

Bill C-11...is a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad....

Minister Rodriguez has insisted that [user-generated content] will not be included in Bill C-11, but this is untrue. Last week, the chair of the CRTC, Mr. Scott, confirmed that [user-generated content] is in the current draft of the bill.

She also said:

In order for these platforms to operate successfully, global discoverability is the key for a lot of these content creators. I think a lot of that understanding is lost when you look at a geographically niche broadcast enterprise, which the Canadian industry has been for a very long time.

In other words, her argument is this: Bill C-11 will capture many of these individuals who are making a go of it within unique online platforms. It will determine whether or not they get to win or lose, in other words, and whether their content is discoverable or has to be hidden. That is incredibly detrimental to those individuals working very hard to make a go of it.

I have to plead with the committee that we take into consideration our digital-first creators in this country, that we advocate for them and that we ensure their content is not forced in front of the eyeballs of Canadians or hidden from the eyeballs of Canadians based on some sort of government regime enforced through the CRTC. Rather, these individuals should be given the freedom required to succeed within the digital space.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Is there any further discussion on CPC-1.1?

If not, I'll call the question and ask that the clerk go to the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Thank you very much. I'm now going to move to CPC-1.11.

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Here is a brief explanation of this amendment. It is talking about exporting Canadian content and making sure it is promoted and can succeed globally.

I would note that it wasn't too long ago a Canadian Heritage delegation was in Europe, celebrating and spreading Canadian content and the Canadian industry over there. This is something I think we should be promoting, from a broadcasting perspective and a creator perspective.

This would be an amendment to the broadcasting policy for Canada. It reads that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view, and foster an environment that encourages the development and export of Canadian online undertakings globally,

That would be my amendment.

I think it's important we do what we can to promote and export Canadian talent and creations around the globe.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Is there discussion on this?

Is there a hand up, Clerk?

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

We have Mr. Housefather, Ms. Hepfner and Monsieur Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I thought I raised my hand before, Madam Chair, but that's all right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Anthony.