Ottawa, Wednesday, September 21, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.


The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Leo Housakos. I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.

Senator Dawson: Senator Dennis Dawson from Quebec, sponsor of the bill.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.

Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.


Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator Klyne: Good evening. Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan.

Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, senator for Alberta.

Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, senator for New Brunswick.


Senator Clement: Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario.


Senator Wallin: Senator Pamela Wallin from Saskatchewan.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.

The Chair: We are continuing our deliberations on the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us for this evening’s first panel, we have with us from YouTube, Jeanette Patell, Head of Canada Government Affairs and Public Policy. We have from TikTok, Steve de Eyre, Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Canada. And from Music Canada, we have Patrick Rogers, Chief Executive Officer.

As usual, our panel will have five minutes each for presentations, after which we will go to a question-and-answer session.

We will begin with the representative from YouTube. You have the floor.

Jeanette Patell, Head of Canada Government Affairs and Public Policy, YouTube: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

YouTube’s mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world, and we are proud to have been connecting Canadians to the content they love for over 15 years.

What’s on your YouTube playlist?


Every Canadian has a unique answer to that question. Viewer habits in Canada are as diverse as the population.


Canadians come to YouTube to find everything from Bollywood dance tutorials to highlights of last night’s hockey game. Respecting the individuality of every Canadian who comes to our platform and meeting their unique needs in that moment is a big part of what makes YouTube so special.

We believe that the diversity of our content, the diversity of creators and the diversity of users is our strength, and we know that it is part of the secret sauce that has catapulted Canadian creators to be top exporters to international audiences.

Over 90% of watch time on Canadian YouTube channels comes from audiences outside of this country, and in 2021, this success led to YouTube’s creative ecosystem contributing $1.1 billion to Canada’s GDP.

But we are concerned that Bill C-11 puts all of this at risk. Legal experts and civil society agree that in its current form, Bill C-11 would require YouTube to surface content according to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s, or CRTC’s, priorities rather than those of Canadians, and that hurts everyone who uses our platform. This spring, tens of thousands of creators called on the government to fix Bill C-11, but their efforts were ignored. What’s more, millions of Canadians have not been invited to be part of this conversation, and most aren’t even aware that their online experience is about to change.


I want to express our concerns about this bill, because there is considerable debate on what the legal text says and how it’s characterized.


The chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, has testified that Bill C-11 gives them the authority to regulate user-generated content, or UGC. Proposed sections 4.2(1) and 4.2(2) leave the question of what content is in entirely to the discretion of the CRTC. Only very broad criteria are provided to consider in advance, such as whether anyone has directly or indirectly generated revenue from that content.

Honourable senators, that is effectively everything on YouTube. Mr. Scott has further testified that the text would allow the CRTC to ask platforms to manipulate their algorithms to produce required outcomes. Proposed section 9.1(1)(e) explicitly gives a government regulator authority over what content is prioritized and how and where content is presented to Canadians, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.

We believe that this would actually backfire for the very creators that it attempts to support. Building and growing an audience today is about connecting with the most fans who will love your content, whether they are in Canada or around the world.

Have you ever changed the channel on TV when a show comes on that you don’t want to watch? On YouTube, that’s an important signal. Overpromoting content to audiences because of where they live rather than because of what they’re interested in leads to audiences tuning out, and those signals train our systems to demote that content for global users. Doing so would strike at the heart of Canadian creators’ success and their bottom lines.

These unintended consequences are not what the government had in mind with Bill C-11. The minister has said that the content of online creators should not be subject to the act, and the algorithms are not in play. However, it’s clear that the regulator, who will interpret and apply this act, sees considerably more authority granted in the legal text than the minister intends.

The Senate has an important role to play in rectifying this discrepancy. Surgical amendments that create greater precision in the legal text can ensure that what the minister says aligns with what the CRTC does. We have a responsibility to our Canadian viewers to protect their experience on the platform, and we want to ensure that the next generation of Canadian creators or the next artist like The Weeknd can break through.

With two simple modifications that reflect the minister’s intent, it is possible to support Canadian musicians and storytellers without interfering with Canadians’ experience on YouTube or putting thousands of creators at risk. First, by narrowing the language of proposed section 4.2 to only capture full-length commercial music and by strengthening proposed section 9.1(8) to prevent regulatory impacts to recommendation algorithms.


We hope the Senate will recognize that open platforms like YouTube have a unique character and that a universal approach could have unexpected consequences for many people.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today, and I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.


The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. de Eyre, you have the floor.

Steve de Eyre, Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Canada, TikTok: Thank you, Senator Housakos and committee members, for inviting me to appear today on behalf of TikTok, where in addition to posting the occasional dad joke or drumming video, I also serve as the Director of Government Affairs for Canada.

TikTok is an entertainment platform that has levelled the playing field for Canadian digital creators by democratizing discoverability. On TikTok, anyone can find and reach an audience, not just in Canada but around the world, regardless of what they look or sound like, where in the country they live, or what type of content they create.

We’re incredibly proud, for example, of how Indigenous communities have used TikTok to share their cultures, music and histories with hundreds of millions of fans around the world. Creators like Notorious Cree, Sherry Mckay, Shina Novalinga and countless others are leading the way for a new generation of content creators.

We’re concerned, though, that Bill C-11 will hurt rather than help these very creators and countless others who are just getting started. As written, this bill could subject them to burdensome regulation and give an unfair advantage to established media voices over independent creators.

Everyone wants creators and artists to thrive, whether legacy or digital. But Bill C-11 was not written to benefit digital creators.

Since the exemption for user-generated content was removed from the original Bill C-10 almost a year and a half ago, the entirety of the debate as it relates to digital creators has been about whether they are sufficiently excluded from and protected against regulation. But as it currently stands, Bill C-11 doesn’t just fail to protect digital creators from regulation; it makes them collateral damage. This is why it’s so important that the Senate take a sober second look at this bill and carefully consider the impact it will have on digital-first creators.

I’d like to spend my time today discussing how limited, technical amendments, especially to proposed sections 4.2 and 9.1, can help meet the government’s stated goal of excluding digital creators.

First, the Senate should clarify that short clips of music or video or amateur performances do not constitute professional content under proposed section 4.2. As written, any video on TikTok that includes music, which is the majority of content posted on our platform, would meet all three criteria to be considered professional. The language does not distinguish between streaming a full-length song versus using a 15- or 30-second clip in the background of a video. We’ve proposed a narrow, clarifying amendment to section 4.2, which we’ve shared with your offices.

Second, proposed section 9.1 will require TikTok to prioritize recommending Canadian content, or CanCon, but we have serious concerns about whether much of the content being made by Canadians on TikTok will qualify as CanCon. TikTok allows anyone to create content and to find an audience, particularly those creating untraditional or niche content. While CanCon rules are largely meant to support artists in the performing arts like music, dance and acting, some of the most popular and successful Canadian TikTok creators are vloggers, e-gamers or do-it-yourselfers.

Will these Canadians, many of whom are young and unestablished or come from groups historically under-represented in Canadian media, be subordinated behind traditional legacy players that can check the right boxes with the CRTC?

The original version of this bill, Bill C-10, passed the House with two provisions that expressly excluded content uploaded by individual users to social media platforms. These provisions protected user-generated content from being subject to most of sections 9 and 10 of the act. However, these protections were removed in Bill C-11. We’ve shared the detail of these critical omissions with your offices, and we urge the Senate to reinsert them into this bill.

On TikTok, where there are no gatekeepers or tastemakers deciding which shows to green-light or what music gets played, a new generation of Canadian creators is being discovered who reflect what Canada looks and sounds like today.

A recent public opinion poll of Canadians found that among those who use TikTok, 44% discover more Canadian creators and artists on TikTok versus just 32% through traditional media, like TV and radio. And when it comes to discovering Indigenous content creators, 41% said they discover more on TikTok versus the 27% who said traditional media.

So what is Bill C-11 trying to solve? If it’s as we’ve been told — to ensure the discoverability of Canadian creators and their content — then we support this goal. But applying the Broadcasting Act to user-generated content will not achieve this goal. In a world where people can choose to watch or listen to content from anywhere in the world, Bill C-11 only stands to hurt, and not help, Canadian digital-first creators.

I look forward to answering your questions about how the Senate can fix Bill C-11. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Rogers, you have the floor.

Patrick Rogers, Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada: It’s a pleasure to be here tonight to discuss Bill C-11 with you. Music Canada is the trade association for Canada’s major labels, Sony Music Entertainment Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada.

Canada’s majors, with offices in Toronto and Montreal, sign and partner with French and English Canadian artists, helping them achieve commercial success in Canada and export that music abroad.

Overwhelmingly, it is Canadian and international artists partnered with major labels that Canadians listen to on the radio, stream or hear synced to their favourite TV show. And Canada’s majors distribute many of the top indie labels, providing the opportunity for their artists’ careers to reach the global tier around the world.

Canadian content rules for radio, developed five decades ago, were integral to today’s successful Canadian music industry. Those rules opened new opportunities for careers and professional development for not just artists but labels, studios, managers, venues and an entire emerging Canadian music industry. That commercial success, in turn, enabled business to reinvest in the next generation of talent.

That’s why my members support Bill C-11’s core principles of accessing and showcasing Canadian content in the digital marketplace.

In a global digital marketplace, success in Canada is a stepping stone to international success. As you know, Canada is home to some of the world’s most recognizable names in music. But there are many names who are finding success in streaming on some of these platforms whom you may not have heard of yet. That next generation includes Ali Gatie, Savannah Ré, Tate McRae, Forest Blakk, Eli Rose, Charlotte Cardin, Soran, Rêve and others.

Their success is from their talent and hard work and also the investments made by their labels and the reach of streaming platforms that license their music and deliver it to fans around the world.

These artists are finding success in streaming that may not be realized in radio alone. Regulations affecting how their music is shared needs to reflect the differences in the digital marketplace compared to radio.

This bill needs to ensure that those opportunities for Canadian artists continue and grow, and that the listening experience that Canadians have come to enjoy on streaming platforms is maintained. Because if that experience is unduly interrupted, the music industry knows that listeners will go elsewhere. Those places will likely be unlicensed and unregulated. That flies in the face of everything this bill aims to achieve.

Ultimately, we hope that the work of the committee will help bridge the gap between how the minister describes the bill and the text itself.

The bill needs some minor amendments to ensure that its outcomes match what is intended. The government has said that the CRTC should not regulate the algorithms of streaming services. We agree. But there’s wiggle room in the actual text of the bill. Minor changes to the wording of proposed subsection 9.1(8) of the bill would make that clear. We’ve put those forward to you.

We agree with the minister when he says that user-generated content shouldn’t be regulated. We recommend that the concerns and recommendations of the platforms be heard on that point.

And while this is not necessarily the direct work of the committee, we would also support a policy directive that included the following: confirmation that algorithms should not be interfered with by the CRTC; that user choice on platforms should not be interfered with; that the scope of the bill should regulate only professional content, and not UGC; and lastly, that the CRTC regulation should take into account the unique qualities and differences between platforms.

All of this is because we know that when music fans around the world are given the best of Canadian music, they want to hear more. This is an important bill with real-world goals and very real consequences if the regulations don’t get it right. Your review today can help ensure a bill that aims and shines a spotlight on Canada’s incredible talent for generations to come. Thank you for your close study. I welcome any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you to our panellists and for respecting the time allocated. As chair, I will take the liberty to start the questioning. My question is for Ms. Patell.

In your brief to the House committee, you argue that Bill C-11 as it is now will put the livelihood of tens of thousands of Canadian YouTube creators at risk, will negatively impact the Canadian consumer experience by actively influencing algorithms and will contribute to a move toward global cultural protectionism.

You have actually put forward specific language to amend section 4.2 to clearly carve out digital creators for these regulations. Can you explain what you’re proposing and how it will protect against what you’re warning about? Also, can you talk about what happens if the bill is adopted without such language and without the amendments to section 4.2? What would be the impact?

Ms. Patell: Thank you for the question, senator. In speaking first to the solutions that we are proposing to the Senate, really what the language we would propose would do is to codify the minister’s statements and have them more clearly reflected in the legal text. That would result in clearly incorporating full-length commercial music in the scope of the act while excluding other sorts, other types of user-generated content and the content of online creators.

We believe that in the current text, there is not a clear legal threshold of what content can be subject to the act. By having some precision in the language and establishing a clear legal threshold that provides some parameters to the CRTC to ensure that they are regulating the type of content that the minister has said he is intending to have regulated, we would have clarity for regulators, policy-makers and stakeholders whose livelihoods would be subject to regulation.

The example I would use is what the minister has said: If a song by The Weeknd is uploaded to YouTube and also found on Spotify, they should be regulated in a similar fashion. We agree. That is exactly what the language we are proposing would accomplish.

What it would also do, however, is to ensure that if any senators were to do a dance challenge, which I would encourage you to do, or a cover song of that same music, that that would not be subject to the act. It would not be swept up into a regulatory regime that is not designed for it. So that is what our amendments would accomplish.

In terms of what it would mean if this text is passed in its current form, fundamentally, we believe that it would be harder for creators to break through, and it would be harder for them to grow audiences at scale by accessing a global audience on YouTube of over 2 billion monthly logged-in users. It would be such a shame if the most vibrant, thriving sector of creativity and cultural exports in Canada were to become collateral damage in this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Patell. There are some unanswered questions about how the CRTC would administer this legislation once it is enacted. We haven’t seen the directives from Canadian Heritage. Actually, if I can go further, how will they apply Canadian content, for example? You have 500 hours of content uploading on YouTube every few hours, right?

The question I have is this: How would your system identify what’s Canadian content? What would be some of the problems in terms of privacy concerns and how the CRTC and the government will treat some of those issues as we see the legislation right now?

Ms. Patell: Yes, thank you for the question. YouTube does not ask users when they come to our platform or the creators who upload their content to our platform about their nationality or their residency. We currently do not ask for that information. Fundamentally, in order to operationalize a system such as is envisioned, we would have to construct such a mechanism to gather that personal information off individuals.

And I think it goes further because, in fact, the burden of that would fall to creators because only they know the information about the people involved in the production of the content that they are uploading, and that fundamentally tilts the playing field in favour of companies that have entire teams who know how to navigate this quite complex Canadian certification program that we have for CanCon.

The Chair: Thank you. My time is up. I hate to cut you off, but thank you for your fulsome answers.

Senator Klyne: Maybe I could get to the further answer to that. My question is for Ms. Patell of YouTube Canada. It seems that the deliberation around algorithms and the concept of discoverability remains topical.

Just to oversimplify your business model, you take user-generated content and create audiences. Then, I would assume, you rent the eyeballs and ears of those audiences and generate revenue. That might be an oversimplification of what your business is. With that oversimplification of your business model, I’m interested your further thoughts around discoverability, particularly when you refer to “discretion,” CRTC, and when we refer to section 9.1(1)(e).

Also, my second question would be around user-generated content — and I’ve had some experience with that in another world — you have to ask for them to agree to post that, so you start getting personal information. I think you’re going to have to also collect a declaration from them that they’re Canadian in order to show that this is Canadian-generated content. So that comes to the issue of privacy. Maybe you can answer my first question and then maybe finish up with Senator Housakos’ question.

Ms. Patell: Sure. I’ll speak to section 9.1(1)(e) first. To recall — unfortunately, I have memorized this bill — that clause says the CRTC can impose conditions of operation on the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public, including, but not limited to, Canadian programs and French-language programs.

Really, what that tells us is that how content is surfaced to Canadians, what choices Canadians are offered, what goes where and how would be an experience directed by the CRTC, as opposed to what happens today, where really the users are training our systems on how to best serve them. Every signal that users provide to the system is ultimately feeding into our systems being able to better recommend them content that meets their needs in any given moment.

When we look at the discretion of the CRTC in regard to this vast corpus of content, which is 500 hours of content uploaded every minute, we are concerned not only about the vast expanse of content subject to the act but also about the powers that section 9.1(1)(e) provides to the CRTC.

Quickly on privacy, we have systems in place to ensure user privacy is protected. The question we would also have is this burden being placed on Canadians to gather this sensitive information about the individuals involved in the production of their content, and how that would actually flow down to them because they would ultimately be the source of how we would have to find out that information.

Senator Klyne: Could I get on second round?

The Chair: You still have a minute.

Senator Klyne: How would you eliminate what could be discretion and latitude and get more specifics around that?

Ms. Patell: The first thing we would do is really to look at this section 4.2 and establish a legal threshold.

So this word “consider,” for example, which I think you may have heard from former commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, is a source of flexibility and discretion for the CRTC. Looking at that language and having language that establishes a clear legal test of the kind of content that is subject to the act — and we will be happy to put forward some language to the Senate on how to accomplish that — that’s really the first area that we would focus in on.

Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses. I have a question that any one of you may answer. My understanding is that all the organizations have provided language in amending section 9.1, but the government has thus far refused to release a planned policy directive to the CRTC on implementation of the bill before the bill receives Royal Assent.

I heard in your comments this evening your concern about what the minister stated and what the CRTC may be able to do. Do any of the witnesses here today believe it will be useful or important to have the policy directive released prior to Royal Assent? And does the failure to release the policy contribute to uncertainty around how the government proposes to proceed with regulations?

Mr. de Eyre: That would be helpful, senator, to have the policy directive released in advance. We’ve heard from our creators that there’s a lot of concern about the ability for that policy directive to be interpreted differently over time. There could be a change in leadership at the CRTC, a different minister, a different government. This is their livelihood. They use TikTok or other platforms to distribute their content. They maintain the IP; they use TikTok and can reach a global audience of a billion people. They need certainty and, if there is a change, that could be at risk.

Again, it would be helpful to see it, but we really are hoping to see more guardrails — and there seems to be a lot of potential leads on this panel for what that could look like — put into the bill to give them that security.

Mr. Rogers: I’d agree with much of what Steve has said. In terms of the timing, nobody else has asked my opinion on that, senator. I don’t expect that will be happening any time soon. But, as I said in my opening statement, when it does arrive, there are those four points I mentioned in my opening statement: confirmation about algorithms, protecting the user’s choice, professional content versus UGC and that the CRTC regulation should take into account differences between platforms.

If I may add, just briefly on that point, piggybacking on the chair’s question, Jeanette’s platform is different than Steve’s platform, which is different from Spotify, which is different from a platform that doesn’t exist yet. We’ve been told that the CRTC will look at these things case by case. But our artists and the army of people who help make them the best musicians in the world will depend on the uniqueness of those platforms. We hope that will be covered going forward.

Senator Manning: Under the act, broadcasters will be subject to penalties for violating the law. The fines could be significant. From the platform point of view, would you impose paperwork requirements on creators to avoid potential penalties? Can you explain how that might work and the impact that would have on creators?

Ms. Patell: Yes. There are quite substantial fines for getting it wrong. YouTube will have an incentive to have a high confidence in the fidelity of the information and our ability to comply. As I said earlier, the only way we would have that information is by requesting it and requiring it from the creators who are uploading it. So, yes, I imagine that there would be quite a substantial impact for those creators.

Mr. Rogers: One of the things people worry about is the pointy pyramid of popular music. You get to this point where only a certain number of people are in the upper echelon of fame. There is a risk that if platforms need to be 100% sure, then they will start playing the same Canadian artists, the same song that they know is right. Then we end up in a situation that we are familiar with, with broadcast radio. That doesn’t exist online in streaming right now, and there is a risk that this could introduce it.

Senator Manning: Ms. Patell, on my first question on positive directions, did you have a comment on that?

Ms. Patell: Obviously, more information is helpful, although it’s important to say that the best opportunity to ensure that the parameters are clear and that this isn’t a source of concern and anxiety is simply to rectify the legal text. It is eminently achievable, and I’m quite confident in this chamber’s ability to do that.


Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Ms. Patell. I’m a bit surprised to hear you say that you can’t identify Canadian content and artists on YouTube. You told us that you’ve been promoting several Canadian artists for months. You said that you are fulfilling your obligations even before the act comes into effect. If you’re able to have Canadian content discovered, even without the law, why are you worried that the word “algorithm” isn’t in the bill? I understand that it can be interpreted, but the word “algorithm” is not there.

If I understand correctly, your obligation is to obtain results. However, According to Mr. Eyre, you’re already promoting Canadian content. It’s simply a matter of providing numbers in support of that statement without touching your algorithms. You have other ways to promote content. I have a hard time understanding why you object so strongly because you’ve told us that you do everything to promote Canadian content. Can you explain that obvious paradox?


Ms. Patell: I think it’s very important, as we consider this legislation, that we ground ourselves in the legal text. What we heard from the chair of the CRTC was a confirmation of the legal text in which proposed section 9.1(8) says that the CRTC cannot impose a specific algorithm or source code.

What we heard is that, yes, so we do not expect that the CRTC would write or hand us over a new algorithm or source code, but that there is sufficient wiggle room in that language that the CRTC could require or ask platforms to manipulate their algorithms to achieve certain outcomes. We’re asking simply to have greater precision in the text to ensure that that is not —

Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s not written. Obviously, I know that Mr. Scott said that — that they would like you to manipulate your algorithm — but nothing in the law says that you have to do that. You have to choose the means to make Canadian content discoverable. You can choose those means. So why are you afraid? Do you have means, other than algorithms, to promote Canadian content?

Ms. Patell: Our focus is on supporting the success of Canadian creators and artists all over the world. We’re really proud of how we’ve been able to build this incredible ecosystem of Canadian creators of every background to reach global audiences and build businesses on our platform. That’s what we’re focused on.

When we look at the legal text, we see an opportunity for it to be strengthened and to ensure that the CRTC not only cannot order the use of a specific algorithm but could not make orders that would result in changes to the algorithm. In that way, we can ensure that the user experience, the listening experience when people come to our platform, is protected, and we are respecting the user experience. That’s our focus.


Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m stunned by how important algorithms have become, as though they were absolutely untouchable. You talked about your secret sauce, but that remains a business tool, like any other, that allows you to make profits. You also have the power to change your algorithms. Why is it so sacred that we cannot, as a society, decide that we want Canadian content, francophone music or Indigenous content? It’s very hard to understand.


Ms. Patell: It’s all in the name. YouTube is about you. So the users train our systems, and our systems rely on that information from users to serve their needs. When Canadians come to our platform and they look for Indigenous or Canadian content, we absolutely want to serve that to them. But the way our systems work is that if we are solving for something that is not the user interest and we’re solving for something else, like a CRTC-imposed priority, then fundamentally the system breaks, and you start to have the corruption of the signals that I spoke about earlier, where it ultimately backfires for those creators.

We believe there are lots of ways of supporting Canadian artists and Canadian creators. We believe we’re doing that today by including having a revenue-sharing model with them, so that our success is contingent on the success of our creators.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Patell. I have to be the party-pooper, unfortunately, in keeping discipline.

Senator Simons: Let us turn to the text. Page 10, 11 in French, section 4.2(2), the exception to the exemption.

Mr. de Eyre, I’m looking at your amendments, and they are very finely detailed to deal with the issue of the unique identifier number. I appreciate what you’re attempting to do here, but it seems to me the real crux of the debate is section 4.2(2)(a):

the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenue;

The problem is the words “the extent to which.” It seems to me that if we could define the extent, what that phrase means, we would have greater clarity about what’s considered professional, and what isn’t.

I’m just wondering; TikTok is not proposing an amendment to the top of this. I have not seen, I don’t think, Ms. Patell, the text of your proposed amendments. What can we do to section 4.2(2)(a) that might get us out of this quagmire, given that the government persists in saying that your platforms are not captured anywhere?

Mr. de Eyre: Thank you for the question. We agree that 4.2(2)(a) is troublesome as well, particularly the inclusion of “indirectly” monetized. TikTok makes money by selling ads that are interspersed with user videos on the platform, so we are indirectly monetizing. We pay royalties when a song is used in a video. It’s been monetized in that way. Oftentimes, our creators will do brand partnerships where they will be selling merchandise or their own line of makeup, so they’re monetizing their videos. I agree that needs to be narrowed. We would be happy to provide some suggested language. I know there’s been language coming from a number of interested groups on this.

For TikTok, with the centrality of music to our platform, we wanted to focus in what we were putting forward on those narrow amendments to clarify that a partial song — so if you are making a dance video or you’re just making a cooking video or talking in your camera and you have 30 or 15 seconds of a popular song in the background, which is very easy to do — that it would not qualify by saying, hey, that’s the same as streaming a full-length song. As written right now, there’s no distinction between a full-length song streamed on Spotify or even YouTube as opposed to a short clip being included.

Ms. Patell: I actually would look just above the proposed subsection 4.2(2)(a) and solve first for the word “consider.” I think that is a source of considerable discretion and flexibility for the CRTC.

When it comes to point (a), I’ll be happy to talk to your office about proposed amendments. We’ll be submitting to the Senate a submission shortly. We actually don’t believe that it’s very helpful language because if what the government is trying to do is ensure that commercial music is captured in the bill, then the revenue element of that is not actually the most material way to go about doing that.

We have a different formula that really looks at how you identify a commercial music uploader. I’ll be happy to get into the details with you.

Senator Simons: The government has told us — Canadian Heritage has told me — that they reckon that 50% of the content on YouTube would fall into that category. Is that a fair assessment?

Ms. Patell: Currently, our assessment is that all of the content on YouTube could be subject to this act.

Senator Simons: No, no. They’re saying 50% is that commercial music — Mr. Rogers’ clients, that kind of clearly commercial content.

Ms. Patell: Music is one portion of our platform. I don’t believe it’s 50% of our platform. I think it would be a much smaller amount than that when we look at YouTube music. But really what we were trying to do through the amendments we had proposed in the House and that we’ll bring forward here was to be crystal clear about how to ensure that commercial music was in scope, while ensuring that all other forms of user-generated content could not be captured.


Senator Cormier: I’d like to ask my question in French to Ms. Patell, who’s from the same province as I am, although she’s free to answer in English.

My question builds on those from Senator Miville-Dechêne. Mr. Cohen, the Global Head of Music at YouTube, says that 80% of viewing time on YouTube is based on recommendations made by the platform.

In Canada, what’s the percentage of viewing time based on your recommendations?

Finally, I’ve browsed YouTube, and I’d like to know what prevents you, when you recommend lists, from recommending Canadian music, even French-Canadian music. I’m trying to understand the logic that, if I listen to Ariane Moffatt, a list of recommendations appears. There are Canadian artists with the same style of music as Ariane Moffatt who are excellent. Why are these artists not given priority? Explain that to me.

Ms. Patell: Thank you very much for the question, senator.

Regarding your first question on recommendations and content consumption, I don’t have any figures for Canada. I’m sorry.

Senator Cormier: I would be grateful if you could get them.

Ms. Patell: We don’t have them by country, unfortunately. We just have a total figure.


When we look at our systems, we’re proud of our Canadian francophone creators and artists on our platform and how the platform has been able to give them exposure to global audiences. The way that has functioned is to ensure that users are getting the content they will love and find value in.

To your point, in fact, Michael Geist did an experiment on this. When users input data into our system or they watch videos or listen to music in French, they are training our systems about their language, about what languages they might enjoy content in. So our systems have to learn that from the user, and they respond to the user. It’s a responsive system rather than a directive system. What that means is that if you listen to a lot of Québécois music like Cœur de pirate, then our system will recommend more content like that because it will learn over time your preferences.

Fundamentally, what we’re trying to ensure is that our systems continue to serve the user first, and that it is the user who is in the driver’s seat of their experience and they’re coming first in that content equation. Ultimately, if users are interested in content from Canada or anywhere else in the world, whether they be in Canada or anywhere else in the world, we want to ensure that those creators and audiences are reaching the largest possible audience.


Senator Cormier: Explain this to me, and I’ll come back to my example. I’m listening to Ariane Moffatt and I have recommendations. I’ll have recommendations that may be francophone but, very quickly, the recommendations that come up are no longer francophone or even in the same style as Ariane Moffatt. I end up with recommendations for English-language music from who knows where. It’s you, then, who decides, at some point, to make that type of recommendation.

I’m trying to understand why you don’t stay with the same thing that I like, which is to listen to music similar to Ariane Moffatt’s, and why I’m suddenly directed elsewhere in the recommendations.

The Chair: Please answer briefly, because time is short.

Senator Cormier: What I’m saying is that it’s not neutral.


Ms. Patell: The most important thing to understand is that we follow the audience. That is probably a reflection of what your viewing or consumption habits have looked like, as well as those of all the viewers like you. Fundamentally, our system is trying to learn from all of the 80 billion signals a day about how to service content you would enjoy. It sounds like there is a desire to have more of a certain type of content, and by continuing to train our system through your choices, that is the best way to ensure that you’re getting those types of recommendations.

Senator Sorensen: I’m going to start my question with Mr. Rogers, but I’m hoping that each of you can give a brief answer, and then I have a second question that might have an even briefer answer.

Do you think this bill will impact the ability of Canadian artists to find global audiences? If so, with all of the discussion we’ve had, what is the most important language to amend to prevent that?

Mr. Rogers: Thank you for the question and thank you for starting with me. I think this is an interesting spot for us. We have two platforms here with us. Ultimately, my members’ music is the content.

I’m only worried about artists’ ability to reach global audiences because they’re saying we should be worried about it. Our commitment to this, being in the position that we’re in, is that we ask the Senate to listen to that carefully, and I think you’ve heard that.

On the algorithm, I would urge senators in the most important way that I can to not lose sense of the magic of it all. When you listen to a song that you know you love and you’ve looked it up, that what follows is another song that you love. That’s what they’re selling. That’s what they do. That sort of thing is what’s helping our artists every day. I would encourage senators to keep that in mind. If we all had our way and the engineering skills to do it, we would fiddle with it, each in our own way. I would ask that you take them at face value on that.

Mr. de Eyre: Yes, definitely there is. In our brief, which I think we shared with you, there is an impact on the ability to find a global audience, particularly in section 9.1, where we would be required to promote Canadian content. We don’t know who will qualify as Canadian or not. Right now, it goes to the question asked before. How do we know? We have an IP address, which provides a rough, high-level location — country, province, maybe city level. We don’t know citizenship. We don’t know what type of content will apply. I think there are a lot of questions there. If they don’t meet that criteria, then they’re essentially being put at the back of the line to those who do meet those criteria. We’re very concerned that more established media and cultural voices will have the resources to meet that and will be at the front of the line.

Ms. Patell: This is a global precedent. No other country in the world imposes requirements like this on open platforms. The EU has the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which applies to closed, curated platforms like Netflix and other types of streamers. But there’s nothing like this in the world for open platforms. For us, what it means is that it puts the international audiences of creators at risk. If France were to do something like this or India, where they required prominence for their local artists, Canadians would be going to the back of the line. That’s hugely damaging to creators who depend on these audiences for 90% of their watch time, and that is directly related to their revenues. I think that’s the most incredible source of cultural exports that we want to continue to help grow.

Senator Sorensen: Thanks. My second question to each of you — maybe it’s a yes or no: Do you believe online platforms should make financial contributions to Canada’s cultural industries?

Ms. Patell: Yes, we do, and we’re happy to continue to do more.

Mr. de Eyre: Yes, we do. We have an amazing Indigenous creator accelerator that we do with National Screen Institute, and there are all types of ways that we contribute and want to keep contributing.

Senator Sorensen: What do you think, Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers: Absolutely. That was the first question that was asked when we got into the creation of this bill in the first place. How do we maintain in this modern age the successful programs that have existed in the terrestrial age? All the other stuff follows, but yes.

Senator Sorensen: Thank you.

Senator Wallin: I have just a couple of points of clarification. The three tests that exist that would mean you’re subject to regulation and penalty if you don’t do it correctly are to generate revenue directly or indirectly, and you’ve talked about that, Ms. Patell.

How granular can that get? I mean, honestly, if a 12-year-old is putting up a dance video, and somebody thinks it’s cute and they retweet it or repost it, and someone who has their own YouTube channel or a podcast wants to use it, then you’re generating revenue. It might be five cents.

Ms. Patell: Thank you for the question. I have to be honest, I actually don’t think it’s a helpful provision at all. Actually, all it does is create different classes of creators. The best part about platforms that are open is that everyone has a shot when they come to the platform to share their stories and to have their voices heard. Their content is treated equally. My suggestion, in fact, is to not use that language and instead find other ways that would identify if this is full-length commercial music.

Mr. de Eyre: We’re concerned about it creating the wrong incentive as well — to tell creators that if they start making money, then it’s a regulated activity, and they’re going to be subject to these conditions. We want our creators to be able to thrive, to get brand partnerships, to make money on our platform and to make money off our platform with their notoriety. We are concerned about the precedent that would set and the incentive.

Senator Wallin: The question has been established because it was the chair of the CRTC who said he will not regulate the internet but he’s going to make people like you sitting there do it for us.

So without a clear definition of what CanCon is, as you say, you might have an American who’s been living in Canada for 30 years creating music videos — I don’t care what. This is going to be a very difficult definition to come to, because it’s not just being born and raised.

Mr. de Eyre: I’d love to give you an example, actually, of the difficulty in this decision. There’s a TikTok creator in Regina, I believe, definitely in Saskatchewan, whose name is Andrian Makhnachov. He is a 19-year-old Ukrainian who came to Canada in May and creates amazing content. He has had over 1.2 million views of his videos, over 170,000 followers, and what he does is explore Canada. And what are these new things? He had one video of him trying Nanaimo bars that had millions of views. It’s great content. Is he considered Canadian, even though he’s in Canada? We don’t know, and I think it’s going to be hard to determine.

Senator Wallin: And if CTV or CBC national news decides to do a story and play that, then that is now being exposed on a broadcaster, a traditional platform, which is another one of the rules that says you are subject.

I have so many questions, but I just want to go very briefly to the appeal process. As we’ve all discussed, we don’t know what the regulatory framework is going to be, and the legislative language is not clear at this point on things like Canadian content.

If you are to be regulated or in the particular case of a penalty because you didn’t capture the correct definition of Canadian content that has not yet been spelled out, the appeal process is to the CRTC about the CRTC. And the CRTC will decide whether or not you have contravened the CRTC’s rules.

Is that reasonable?

Mr. de Eyre: We’re concerned, in the first place, about being able to apply for Canadian content. The idea of having to appeal to a tribunal if you don’t get the decision in your way — as I mentioned in my opening remarks, a lot of TikTok creators are young people, people from equity-seeking groups, people who may not have the resources, knowledge or the time to know how to approach this, let alone applying for it — but then having to appeal, we’re really worried about the equity there.

Mr. Rogers: There are completely separate rules for Canadian content on music. Canadian content on music is not a foolproof system in and of itself.

Senator Dasko: Thank you. I want to approach the concept of discoverability in a slightly different way.

Let’s assume that the bill is passed as it is, without the changes that you are looking for. A year from now you are sitting in front of the CRTC commissioner, and he is asking you, “What is your proposal for discoverability?” They have said that they’re going to be listening to companies and the industry about what you can offer them, what you can do. It’s not as if it’s going to be fixed requirements and so on.

And this question is for Mr. de Eyre and Ms. Patell: What is your proposal? You’ve got the bill as it is. What is your proposal for discoverability? How are you going to identify Canadian content, as per Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question? You may have already done that.

And how are you going to identify target audiences for the Canadian content? What are you proposing to the CRTC when you’re asked? And you don’t have the ability to say no. You have to say something, right? You can’t say, “No, no. I’m sorry. We don’t like it.” No, no. You have to say what you’re going to do.

Mr. de Eyre: That is a fantastic question. It really gets at the heart of what we are thinking about this bill.

For years — Mr. Rogers mentioned this — for decades, we had this system on radio. You hear 30% of Canadian content, a lot of Kim Mitchell and David Wilcox, great musicians, but there’s some repetitiveness to it.

In this world where we have unlimited choice, where on demand you can listen to or watch whatever you want around the world, I don’t think we can still focus on achieving success and helping our creators by forcing demand because, as we have all said, people will go elsewhere if it is not what they want to watch or listen to.

So I think we need to turn it on its head and, instead of focusing on that demand, focus on the supply. Let’s invest in creators and make sure they have the resources, training, skills, equipment and everything that they need so they can create the best content that will succeed in a global content marketplace.

Canadians have this huge opportunity. We punch way above our weight making cultural content. We know that. We have this huge opportunity with a seven-billion-people global audience, or at least globally a billion of them are on TikTok; let’s help them make that great content that can compete with anyone from anywhere.

Ms. Patell: Thank you. It’s such an important question. We’re very focused on, first, preserving the listener experience and respecting the individual needs of every user who comes to our platform.

Once we preserve that, when we look at how we support Canadian artists on our platform, I think we are very focused on growing the pipeline and on growing the pie. We want to ensure that there is more to go around for everyone in terms of how creators and artists are succeeding on a platform.

I would also say looking at how we use marketing tools and tools that are non-algorithmic to work with the music industry. That’s something that we’re going to have a conversation about. This is something that we need to work in collaboration with the music industry on: What are the tools that do strike the right balance of helping Canadian artists to succeed in the digital world while also respecting individual listeners and individual Canadians when they come to our platform?

Senator Dasko: How do you think that proposal would look? Would you say, “We have non-algorithmic methods to propose”? “We have ways to propose to identify Canadian content”?

Mr. de Eyre, what is your proposal? I’m the commissioner.

Mr. de Eyre: Yes.

Senator Dasko: What are you going to do?

Mr. de Eyre: I would explain to the commissioner, and we have talked about it a lot today, why we don’t think it’s the right approach to force content.

Senator Dasko: But it is too late to say it’s the wrong approach. It’s the one that’s taken.

Mr. de Eyre: You can make Canadians discovered by helping them make great content; that is the way that it is going to work. I mentioned before our Indigenous content creator accelerator.

We take dozens of amazing Indigenous content creators and put them through this session of classes on using the equipment, writing stories, engaging with users, how to monetize, giving them those skills. That will result in the policy outcome that I think everybody wants, which is for these creators to be thriving and to be discovered in Canada and globally.

The Chair: It’s a very interesting question and a great answer, but well over our time. I want to give Senator Clement an opportunity to get in on the debate.

Senator Clement: Full disclosure, a 57-year-old TikTok content creator. So we’re not all young.

I love the future conversation; I think we need to live in that place. Mr. Rogers, it is great to hear you talk about the platforms we haven’t even heard of yet.

I want to say this: The old legislation that we’re going to update has not been a disaster. We have beautiful Canadian content that has helped to speak to our identity as Canadians, repetitive as it might have seemed at times. And the CRTC, while not perfect, has managed to keep things going. So I think some stakeholders have told us it’s not been a total disaster.

My question is — I’m going back to the algorithms — why should we trust that YouTube’s algorithm will be fair to Canadian content, and that there won’t be this disproportionate flooding of other content?

And to TikTok, what proportion of your content is user-generated? If it’s all user-generated, then how are we ever going to — other than have you pay into a fund — how are we ever going to get you online, is my question?

And the last one is around transparency of algorithms. It’s not democratic if people don’t know how algorithms work. Canadians need to know that. Are your organizations thinking about that?

Ms. Patell: Maybe I can answer both together.

I think trust is so fundamental to our success. But when we think about how we can trust YouTube to ensure that Canadian content is supported and what have you, I think we have to trust Canadians.

We trust Canadians when it comes to the content that they want to engage with and respect that everyone, whether it’s my grandmother who came here from India or her next-door neighbour in Montreal who has been here with their family for five generations, each of them is going to have a different content set of needs when they come to YouTube. And we want to respect those needs for every individual at the same high level, no matter where they come from or what they need. That’s really how we are designing our systems.

I think that when it comes to transparency, you’re absolutely correct. We’re very committed to transparency. One of the things I’d be happy to share more information with you on is that this summer, YouTube announced our YouTube Researcher Program where we can invite researchers to engage with our raw data and to do more research on the YouTube API and truly learn how our systems work so they can derive insights from that. That is something that we have launched this summer and will be looking to grow.

Mr. Rogers: If I can jump in on the radio point, as I said in my opening statement, we are supporters of the bill because the radio system worked in many ways to build a Canadian music industry.

But that being said, the solutions for terrestrial radio are not necessarily the solutions for an infinite ability to play. That is why we are so interested in having the platforms explain how their systems work and how best to go about it.

My two-year-old is the best example of how this works.

My daughter Grace, when she listens to Splash’N Boots on Spotify, if Spotify recommends another Splash’N Boots song, that’s her world. That’s what she wants to listen to. So she says, “Yeah, keep that on,” and it keeps playing.

When it recommends Sharon, Lois & Bram, and “Skinnamarink” starts playing, she discovers “Skinnamarink.” She discovers Canadian content.

That’s the discoverability. That’s her world suddenly expanding. I encourage senators to think of it that way.

Mr. de Eyre: Thank you for the question. Thank you for being an amazing TikTok creator.

Senator Clement: Thank you for verifying me.

Mr. de Eyre: It’s the least we can do. We always want to have authenticated and verified information.

I also want to point out that Sharon, Lois & Bram — unfortunately, just two of them are on TikTok — are amazing Canadian content creators. You should check out that account.

In terms of your question as to what portion of content is user-generated content on TikTok, it is almost all. I would say “all” with an asterisk. We are a user-generated content platform. At times, we will do editorial work. We will pay an artist to do a livestream concert. We will pay an artist to do some sort of video. If we’re acting like a broadcaster, as everyone else has said, then sure, we should be treated like a broadcaster.

What I will point out is all of those activities that we do in Canada are CanCon. We have an entire team of people at our office in Liberty Village in Toronto, and their job is to work with Canadian creators and artists and to help them succeed and find opportunities to promote them on our platform and elsewhere.

In terms of the transparency of algorithms, we have a blog post out that I can share with you that explains how our algorithm works, but we are continually working to be more and more transparent and answer those questions. We’re about to open what we call a Transparency and Accountability Center. The first one will be in Los Angeles; they are opening one in D.C. We’ll see if we can get one in Canada. It’s a place where lawmakers, regulators, researchers and civil society can come in and see the source code, watch a live content moderation session and speak to our security professionals.

If the committee would like to take a field trip to Los Angeles, we can definitely host you there. I recommend it.

We’re also going to be opening up our API for eligible researchers so that they can access data about content and activity on our platform, as well as our content moderation systems.

The Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses for coming before us. We have gone well over our allocated time, and that’s because of the robust questions asked by all committee members. Thank you for your in-depth and fulsome answers. We appreciate your time.

For our second panel, we are pleased to have before us Andrew Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Independent Music Association, via video conference.


We have with us by videoconference Jérôme Payette, Executive Director of the Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale. We also welcome by videoconference Eve Paré, Executive Director, and Simon Claus, Analyst, Regulatory Affairs, from the Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo.


Welcome and thank you for joining us.

Mr. Cash, the floor is yours.

Andrew Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association: Thank you. I am the president and CEO of CIMA, the Canadian Independent Music Association. Our members include Canadian-owned music companies, artists, entrepreneurs, managers, publishers, promoters, consultants and many other self-employed entrepreneurs in Canada’s English-language music ecosystem.

CIMA supports the principles behind Bill C-11. It has always been and continues to be very difficult to earn a decent living in the music sector in Canada. The federal government is looking for ways to enhance and ensure increased opportunities for success for a much greater diversity of Canadian artists and voices in this new global era. That’s a good thing. I doubt there’s a parliamentarian, no matter what one’s political stripe is, who would disagree with this intent.

Today, I’d like to talk to you about the importance of investing in our artists and Canadian-owned music companies so they have the best chance to succeed in Canada and in the global marketplace, and how Bill C-11 can play an important role in that endeavour.

For over 25 years, I was a singer, songwriter, producer and performer. Rarely a day passed when I didn’t think of how I could build an audience both inside and outside of Canada.

Canada is a huge country, and it is difficult to tour here, although that doesn’t stop Canadian artists, including this one, from doing it and doing it often. Canada has a relatively small music market, especially compared to the one just one-and-a-half hours south of us.

It’s pretty clear that in order for me to survive, make a living and raise a family — in other words, to have a middle-class income — I had to find that audience here and outside of Canada. That was incredibly difficult back then. Today, it still is incredibly difficult, but because of a number of factors, including the opportunities created by streaming and social media platforms, more and more of our artists and companies are building that global audience.

This is a good-news story — a Canadian cultural success story, by the way. Not only have Canadian artists consistently produced excellent award-winning music but, importantly, that music has found audiences both here in Canada and around the world. In other words, people like this stuff, and this isn’t an accident. It’s because much of the investments in independent Canadian-owned music companies and Canadian artists, especially the early investments, have been made both by those Canadian-owned labels and also through FACTOR and Musicaction, the private non-profit organization which administers funds from Canada’s private radio broadcasters and the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Canada Music Fund.

Since its inception in 1982, FACTOR has invested in thousands of Canadian artists and companies and been an instrumental early investor in such acts as The Weeknd, Charlotte Cardin, Tanya Tagaq, Daniel Caesar, Feist, George Canyon, Haviah Mighty, Iskwē and many more.

Here’s what last year’s Polaris prizewinner and Edmonton’s former poet laureate Cadence Weapon has to say:

FACTOR’s support of my music and the work of other unconventional artists in our country has helped to make the Canadian music landscape a more diverse place.

And in the current era, where the market for music is a truly global one, these investments are evermore crucial. This brings me to the matter at hand, Bill C-11.

For CIMA members, the best way for Canadian artists to be discovered globally and here at home is for us to continue to invest and develop incredible Canadian artists supported by smart, well-resourced and highly competitive Canadian-owned companies with IP ownership remaining in Canada. The potential impact, through Bill C-11, of investments by our digital platform partners into this proven successful system would help us all build toward a more stable middle class of artists in Canada.

We applaud anything in this bill that successfully helps facilitate these goals. That said, there are real opportunities here for our artists if we get this right, and serious ramifications if we get it wrong.

An outcome that results in Canadian artists locked into Canadian-only playlists and a Canadian-only digital ecosystem would be unacceptable. How music is promoted and shared by music fans on social media platforms has become key to the growth of Canadian-owned independent music around the world. So we support the comments by the minister and the chair of the CRTC that so-called user-generated content should not be regulated. It’s also important that we ensure that the cost of financial contributions a platform may be required to make will not ultimately come out of creators’ pockets down the road. It’s essential that those creators who will be most affected and impacted by Bill C-11 are consulted, and our voices heard, when this bill gets to the CRTC.

We need to get this right. Getting this right, we feel everybody wins. We look forward to building stronger partnerships between artists, Canadian-owned music companies, online platforms and the cultural and economic policy objectives of the Government of Canada.

I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.


The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cash.

Mr. Payette, you have the floor.

Jérôme Payette, Executive Director, Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale: Good evening.

Thank you for the invitation to speak before your committee.

I represent the Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale, which represents Quebec and French-Canadian music publishers. Anywhere where there are publishers, there’s music.

We need continuity in the Canadian broadcasting system: Bill C-11 must be passed as soon as possible.

A lack of regulations for online undertakings has a major impact on Canadian music, particularly francophone music.

In practice, this means that platforms regulate themselves based on their financial interests, but our market is too small for that model to sustain our culture.

The absence of a regulatory framework for online undertakings has very real impacts. Unfortunately, the larger platforms become in Canada, the weaker the role of Canadian music becomes and the more it struggles to reach its audience.

Since 2016, revenues paid by SOCAN to music publishers in Quebec have fallen by 24%. Income from traditional sources such as radio and television are falling, and Canadian music is unable to garner a significant share of revenues from online undertakings, which are nonetheless growing.

Only 10% of amounts collected in Canada by SOCAN from digital broadcasters are paid to Canadian authors and composers. The rest goes abroad. The decline is dramatic when compared with the 34% that we had from traditional broadcasters, and that’s due to the lack of regulation.

Online, Quebec music struggles to reach its audience. According to the Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec, our market share is only 8% on online music services, versus 50% for the traditional record sales market.

The financial impact is significant: if our music isn’t being listened to, we don’t get paid. If our music doesn’t reach the audience, that creates a snowball effect that has an impact on the sale of concert tickets, the inclusion of our music in television programming and movies, covers of our songs by other artists, and all other sources of revenue.

Beyond the financial aspects, it’s a matter of our culture and cultural sovereignty.

Online music services, which are all foreign companies, other than QUB musique, have no financial interest in showcasing, recommending or supporting the diversity of cultural expression. Cultural uniformity is less complex and more profitable.

This isn’t new. For decades, Canada has protected the diversity of its culture with laws and regulations. The regulations of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, must be adapted to the digital environment as soon as possible.

Giving in to lobbying from the platforms cannot be an option. They spread deceptive statements and try to mislead, particularly by using third-party organizations. Digital First Canada receives funding from YouTube and TikTok. OpenMedia receives funding from Google, and, although based in Vancouver, it organizes campaigns both in Canada and in the United States. It’s reasonable to wonder whether these groups truly represent Canadian interests.

The text of Bill C-11 concerning social media broadcasting activities must not be amended any further. The current version was debated at length in the House of Commons during the study of bills C-10 and C-11.

Further changes to the text of section 4 could remove powers from the CRTC, powers that it needs to do its work. This could create a loophole that social media could take advantage of, but that would have an impact on all companies because they’re in competition. TikTok competes with YouTube, which competes with Spotify, which competes with radio. The law must apply equally to all companies. Otherwise, it could be obsolete as soon as it’s passed.

The text of the act must be read as a whole. Its objectives are clear and the safeguards are there. The CRTC can’t regulate just anything, in just any way. It must give particular consideration to the impact on the creation and production industry. No one wants non-commercial content to be regulated. No one’s asking for that.

Fear is being used to discredit this reform. According to some, recommending Canadian music would ruin the user experience, incidentally suggesting that no one is interested in our music. It’s also said that recommendations by platforms would be absolutely neutral, as though by magic, and that the CRTC will ruin everything simply by being given the authority to ask questions and obtain information about the activities of undertakings in Canada. Apparently, any protection of Canadian culture would hinder its export, and, without realizing it, digital creators would be penalized.

I’d like to point out that these criticisms, which I disagree with, have one thing in common: they’re related to regulation by the CRTC, not the bill before us.

If too many elements are specified in the text of the legislation, the Canadian broadcasting system will be frozen and will no longer have the flexibility it needs to adapt to rapid changes in our industry. The CRTC must be given the means to gather information and adequately regulate the broadcasting activities of online giants.

Our association is in favour of slight amendments to Bill C-11.

We support the proposed amendments requested by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The use of Canadian talent must be the same for Canadian and foreign undertakings in a single paragraph 3(1)(f); an appeal to the Governor-in-Council must also be possible for orders, and public hearings must be held when an order is issued.

Thank you. I’d be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Payette.

Ms. Paré, you have the floor.

Eve Paré, Executive Director, Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo: Senators, good evening.

On behalf of the Association de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or ADISQ for short, I thank you for allowing me to speak to you today about Bill C-11. I’m accompanied by my colleague Simon Claus, Acting Director of Institutional Affairs and Research.

In Canada, 95% of francophone music is produced by local and independent businesses. This is unique in the world, given that large companies dominate the market everywhere else. Our music industry has been able to grow, structure and renew itself, and reach the public over the years thanks, in particular, to the Broadcasting act.

We must remember that, in the 1970s, the implementation of francophone quotas largely contributed to the development of a strong star system, if we think of artists like Michel Rivard or Diane Dufresne.

On commercial radio in francophone markets, two out of three songs are in French. Over time, that duty to promote local music adapted to changes in technology. On satellite radio, our music has been able to carve out an important place among the hundreds of English-speaking channels, despite the protests of companies claiming they were unable to promote our music.

On television, musical shows are broadcast every week on our general channels, both private and public.

All those musical showcases can count on a rich and diverse supply for their programming, thanks to broadcasters’ contributions to Musicaction and Fonds RadioStar. Those funds do an incredible job of funding the production and marketing of French-language music in all its forms, allowing careers to be launched, to gain momentum and to stand the test of time, in Canada and internationally.

Through good years and bad, 50% of music purchases by Quebecers are spent on content produced by local artists. When they are exposed to it, people like the music from here and choose it.

I’m not telling you anything new when I say that music consumption is changing. Alongside traditional media, platforms are becoming more and more important. A Léger survey conducted in March on behalf of ADISQ clearly shows this cohabitation. On the one hand, we see that 60% of the population cites radio as a tool for discovering music and, at the same time, 61% of people now listen to music on online services. However, unlike traditional media, those services avoid any regulation. The concrete result is alarming, to say the least: barely 8% of songs listened to are in French and market share for francophone songs from Quebec is down to 5%.

This situation is a concern for creators and producers, but also for the public, who are very attached to their culture. In that same survey, we learn that 73% of Quebecers believe that the government should adopt legislation so that services such as Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube also have to contribute to funding this content. In addition, 70% of those who stream music say they would like to see recommendations of French-language music from Quebec.

The work you do will benefit the public as well as creators. Supporting the diversity of cultural expression also encourages freedom of expression, increases choice for consumers and helps strengthen our democracy.

In closing, we want to share with you some recommendations for the bill to correct the current inequality in our system. That balance that we seek to restore must not weaken the obligations of traditional media, but must instead impose a strong objective on all stakeholders in the system in relation to Canadian resources.

Paragraph 3(1)(f) must therefore treat all stakeholders equally. Like broadcasting companies, online businesses must also be required to make maximum use of Canadian resources. The proposal put forward by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which we support, offers the flexibility needed to take into account companies’ different business models.

In an extremely shifting context, it must be possible to subject new actors to the law, as was done with satellite radio. To ensure sustainability, the text must be neutral from a technology standpoint. Accordingly, it is essential for social media with online broadcasting activities to remain subject to the law.

To succeed in its mission, the CRTC must have enough human, financial and coercive means. The commission will not have too much power. It must simply be adequately equipped to offset the disproportionate power currently in the hands of foreign companies.

There are mechanisms now to ensure that the commission’s decisions are in the public’s best interests. This includes, in particular, public hearings and appeals to the Governor-in-Council. However, those mechanisms are no longer there for orders that allow the CRTC to impose operating conditions on all broadcasting undertakings. As with the licensing system, we ask that public hearings and appeals to the Governor-in-Council be reintroduced for orders.

Once the bill is passed, its implementation by the CRTC and the concrete effects from it will still take time. We therefore want to remind you that it’s urgent that this bill be passed. In the meantime, our artists and producers are paying the price.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Paré.

Some of the witnesses we have heard from said they fear that changes to the algorithms used by platforms will not only have a negative impact on consumer choices, but will also create a snowball effect and lead other countries to adopt protectionist measures. Do you not fear that having the Government of Canada control algorithms will lead other countries to do the same, which would further reduce access to those markets for our Canadian artists? Do you not fear that, if other countries do the same as we are doing with Bill C-11, it would reduce opportunities for our artists and Canadian culture, particularly francophone culture?

Ms. Paré: As I mentioned in my presentation, when consumers are exposed to Quebec music, they choose it. We can see that the data is alarming: Quebec-made francophone music represents 5% of music currently consumed by Quebecers on audio platforms. If people are not exposed to it, or only a bit, as is the case now, they can’t discover it. We are confident in the quality of music production in Quebec. If it’s presented, it will be chosen.

The Chair: I am very confident too, but is our goal only to protect and defend something that is weak here or is it to promote French-Canadian culture in all French-language markets around the world? The only way to do that is to use international and global platforms that open up the entire market, and give us the opportunity to reach millions of francophones and people who want to embrace Canadian culture and our artists.

Ms. Paré: It’s important to first reach our audience at home, to build a strong and structured industry. I have no doubt that the talent can be exported.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Simon Claus, Analyst, Regulatory Affairs, Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo: When we see Quebec artists breaking into foreign markets, they start with a solid fan base in Quebec. If they don’t have a solid fan base and an audience here to rely on, one that is already supporting their livelihood and career growth, how can they then export their material? They first need to be discovered here to build their career and mature to the point of being able to export their content.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your presentations. I’m concerned too about how little Quebec music is listened to on streaming platforms. Ms. Paré, you said that, if the music is presented, it will be chosen. This is in reference to Quebec, a survey of Quebecers. However, we’ve just heard from YouTube and TikTok representatives, who spoke about their global platforms making recommendations around the world.

I’d like to hear from you on several things, but one in particular: the infamous algorithms. They have become — how should I put it — the focal point of this bill. The importance that word has taken on is absolutely incredible. As you say, it’s about commercial revenues. If a French-language work is recommended in a more anglophone market and is not chosen, according to YouTube, that work will fall in the rankings and have even less chance of being chosen since it wasn’t chosen by the first group, because French-language works were recommended to people who may not be interested in French-language songs. How do you respond to that commercial argument? These are commercial businesses, so how do you respond to the argument that it’s even worse to modify the algorithms to add French-language music because no one will want music that they’ve not expressed an interest in?

Ms. Paré: We heard earlier about the magic of the algorithm. It could be assumed that the algorithm will propose choices that should please users. Clearly, if someone likes heavy metal and uses the French language, after proposing international artists, the algorithm may propose the same genre of music by French-speaking artists. We also heard Ms. Patell explain that the algorithm learns from users’ choices, particularly with respect to language. I like Ariane Moffatt, so it proposes music similar to hers that matches my taste. I don’t see why French-language music would fall in the rankings if it’s proposed to the right users.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Payette, I’d like to hear your response, because that’s really an argument that the platforms insist upon; in other words, you’re hurting yourselves by wanting French-language music to be recommended to people who may not want to listen to it.

What’s your view on that argument?

Mr. Payette: The argument doesn’t hold water. It should be proven before the CRTC supported by information and the appropriate process. These things should be examined. If I can go a step further, I would say that it’s impossible to have an opinion on something without being familiar with it.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Exactly.

Mr. Payette: At this time, nothing is being recommended. It’s impossible to search for something you’re not familiar with. The platforms recommend content to Canadians every day. Right now, they choose who has access to the public. They do it based solely on their interests using several tools. There aren’t just recommendations by algorithms. There are editorial teams. There are also algotorial recommendations, a mix of algorithms and editorial. They are essentially editorial playlists that use technology to recommend content.

All the companies want is to avoid going before the CRTC to have to share information. They just tell us stories using fear as an argument. However, they tell us that they’re doing wonderful things. They shouldn’t fear going before the CRTC to show the numbers and explain themselves if they are that good.


Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses.

My question is for Mr. Cash. Various witnesses have noted that clause 10 of the bill provides direction to the CRTC in the drafting of regulations, including the criteria for what counts as Canadian content.

Some have argued for this definition to remain flexible and suggested that the section be amended to indicate no one factor should be determinative. That amendment was proposed on the House side but was rejected by the government.

After hearing you this evening, I’m wondering if you would be prepared to support such an amendment. If so, can you talk about the negative consequences for investment in Canada if flexibility fails to be incorporated in Bill C-11?

Mr. Cash: There are a lot of ifs in that question, senator. I would say that the conversation around the type of CanCon requirements or the kind of updates to CanCon is a live conversation, and CIMA has been on the record saying, “Yes, we need to update our CanCon requirements.” But that is not quite the same as saying, “Therefore, all platforms will need to adhere to some form of specific minutia that the CRTC may or may not formulate.”

Do we support a renewed vision of CanCon? Yes, for sure. CanCon on the radio was largely a successful policy. It built a Canadian music industry. More importantly, it created a Canadian music market in Canada.

What we’re talking about now is that the market is a global market, and we need to think about a new vision for that global market. I think that’s really why we’re here, and I believe that’s really what we’re going to be talking about at the CRTC.

Senator Manning: Long before in the House of Commons and here again this evening, you stated that in order to survive and make a living — and I’ve heard this from many artists in Newfoundland and Labrador — you have to try to find a global audience for your songs.

Due to streaming and social media platforms, more and more artists are building that global audience, as we have had several examples given to us this evening, whereas in the past they would have had no commercial avenue to do that. How concerned are you about what other countries may pass in similar legislation to protect their own local artists? This is a concern that was raised here this evening but raised by others in relation to the fact that we’re the first country to bring in a piece of legislation of this nature. I’m wondering what your concerns would be.

Mr. Cash: As I’ve said, we support Bill C-11, and we also recognize that many across our sector have benefited from the discoverability mechanisms that have existed on radio, especially those artists who work in French, and my colleagues have underlined the import of that.

That said, we believe no one, and no one around this virtual table or there in Ottawa tonight — I don’t think anyone, including the platforms — wishes to limit the potential of Canadian musicians and businesses. I think that when this conversation gets to the CRTC, that’s going to be central.

It’s hard to know, and obviously we can’t control what other countries do. But we can build a robust Canadian music industry, and we have a robust Canadian music industry right now, and we believe that greater investments in artists, music companies and the infrastructure will lead to greater discoverability on the internet of Canadian artists.

Senator Manning: Thank you.

Senator Klyne: My question is for Mr. Cash from CIMA, but anybody else can chime in if they wish.

It seems that there are still concerns that the CRTC will suddenly require streamers such as Spotify to direct listeners to content they may not want to see or listen to. I think Canadians would like to see Canadian music promoted and enjoyed by people around the world.

But with any content, that music or artist needs to be sought out or sought after and grow an audience to be successful. Do you think streaming services can make Canadian artists or content discoverable or sought after, or can they only make it available? Is it up to the listeners or viewers to like the content and follow that artist?

Do you think that there are artists that some streaming platforms will want to position because they know that’s what their audiences want, and some of the Canadian artists will fall by the wayside?

Mr. Cash: The music business historically has been a complicated cultural sector where it’s difficult to predict who’s going to resonate with an audience and who isn’t. I don’t think that’s any different on platforms. I think that musicians and artists are putting their music up there.

But I will say that it isn’t all just happenstance. We do need strong, creative, competitive music companies that support artists to get the job done. There is an idea that you can just press a button and your music is up there, and all is fine. But the amount of data that needs to be handled, the dealing with the algorithms and trying to understand how to find the best when-to-post and all of this stuff — these are complicated questions, which is why the investments in our sector are so important as we move forward. Because this isn’t just like having someone go visit the music director at the radio station and take him out for lunch. It’s a fundamentally different business now, and we need to look at it in a fundamentally different way.

Senator Klyne: Do any others have an opinion on that?


Mr. Payette: If I can continue, I would say that one thing is for sure: without regulations, the platforms will operate based solely on their financial interests, without any consideration for local cultures. That is true for francophone culture, but also for other groups seeking equity or simply content in languages other than English.

Recommending Canadian music to Canadians would not spoil the user experience; it would improve it. It’s also important to bear in mind that many users of the platform are children and teens who are not familiar with Canadian culture and cannot search for it. They need to be exposed to it. A lot of things are being proposed to them now.

When YouTube recommends music to Canadians, we ask that the platform also recommend Canadian music once in a while. That would give Canadians more choice. Right now, our music isn’t being given a chance to reach its audience, particularly francophone and minority music. If that audience is reached, a strong industry is built. If there are fans, that will help us export our music around the world and conquer markets.

Everyone wants to export, everyone wants a strong industry, but that begins at home. It’s easier to reach the fans first.

Mr. Claus: There’s an interesting argument to bring up, and Ms. Paré noted it in her comments. In the 1970s, francophone quotas were introduced for the radio, and they helped establish a very strong star system and artists who are now the pride of Quebecers.

According to radio for the last 50 years, playing French-language music results in lost listeners. In other words, listeners will change stations. This rhetoric is heard mostly in Montreal, in particular because there are French- and English-language radio stations. Yet, it’s never been proven that listeners are leaving French-language stations in droves for English-language stations. That means that, when francophone music is proposed, they listen to it and enjoy it. It’s old rhetoric, but it’s still heard today. In the end, it’s just a new coat of paint on this argument.

Senator Cormier: My question is for the three witnesses.

If I understand the logic of the platforms, the following comparison can be made: if my child likes strawberry ice cream, I’ll only offer him strawberry ice cream and he won’t discover any other colour or flavour of ice cream. It’s a logic of offering customers what they ask for.

You’re in contact with artists in your work. There are a lot of concerns among content creators who work on platforms like YouTube and TikTok that the bill will put them at a disadvantage. They argue that it would impose obligations to contribute to Canadian content, would limit their freedom of expression and would make them less competitive on the international market.

Can you comment on those concerns? Are you hearing them? Are they founded? I’d like to hear from you on this, Ms. Paré, Ms. Payette and Mr. Cash.

Mr. Payette: These arguments should be proven before the CRTC. There’s an attempt to scare people. The platforms’ lobbying techniques use creators. It was seen in Europe, unfortunately, in 2019, when similar techniques were used in the matter of the European directive. The argument put forth was that it would infringe on freedom of expression, that the government would control what you would see, that it would break the Internet, and the issue of royalties was raised. Here, we’re looking at a new law, in a new context, in Canada, and the same mechanisms are being used. Those are the platform’s lobbying techniques.

The bill protects freedom of expression; it’s in black and white in section 2.3. The CRTC must consider several factors before regulating, including the impact on the creation and production industry. The CRTC must be given the tools to allow it to seriously examine these aspects, excluding anecdotes from the platforms that do not provide any figures on their activities in Canada, particularly on what is included in the thousands of recommendations to Canadians each day. It’s not magic.

I’d like to come back to your example, Senator Cormier. The business owner who offered strawberry ice cream to your child, who wants more, may have better access to the public than independent businesses in minority areas. Recommendation tools include many biases, and that’s been proven. Minority music is at a fundamental disadvantage because of those recommendation tools. They’re not configured for a market share, particularly francophones in Canada. They’re set for everyone. They think for people and unfortunately do not have much interest in our culture.

Senator Cormier: Defining Canadian content seems to be a challenge. I’m surprised that Canadians have a hard time defining what constitutes Canadian content. What can you tell us on this? Is it so hard, in music, to define what constitutes Canadian content?

Mr. Payette: There is already a definition of Canadian content in terms of music, which is different from the one for the audiovisual sector, and it’s often forgotten in debates. It’s quite simple and encompasses four criteria. There’s no form to complete. Traditional radio is able to identify Canadian content. I find it hard to understand why multinationals in the technology industry can’t do the same. If the definition of Canadian content needs to be revised, that’s entirely possible. It’s up to the CRTC to do so. There are general indications in the act concerning Canadian content, but the MAPL definition in the music industry — four elements used to determine that a piece of music is Canadian, namely music, artist, performance and lyrics — is determined by the CRTC. If that should be reviewed, that’s entirely possible. Simply turn to the CRTC.

Senator Cormier: Thank you.


Senator Wallin: When I listen to music on YouTube and create a playlist, it puts forward, based on the songs I’ve already chosen or searched for, other suggestions — and then I might like that or not. That is how I create my playlist for music that I want to listen to.

If I listen to country music, and all of the selections on my playlist are country music pieces, they’re not likely going to recommend opera. That is sort of how that system works. I would have to go out and choose that on a separate day.

So I’m trying to figure out, first from Ms. Paré and Mr. Payette, if you can answer this question: Are you looking in this legislation, then, for even further subsets to Canadian content? Do you actually want content created in Quebec by French-speaking Quebecers and then content created in Quebec by people who may have another first language? Do you want only French-language music promoted, even if it’s created in Saskatchewan? I’m trying to figure out how refined you want Canadian content to be in these instructions that go to the delivery services, streamers and providers?


Ms. Paré: These discussions will take place at the CRTC later. No, there’s no granularity by province here, in the proposals. It’s about the importance of ensuring a space for francophone music, certainly, but Canadian content must be proposed. You gave the example of country music. Of all the artists you like, proposing ones that are Canadian would help you discover new ones. You might or might not like them, but you’d have the chance to discover them.


Senator Wallin: Of course, but that’s how the system works already. If I’ve chosen Canadian country artists over and over again, it will send me more of those — but maybe some different people. It already understands the genre that I like.

So I’m just trying to figure out whether you want to say to me as a consumer, “Your choices aren’t good enough. We want you to listen to some other things that the CRTC has decided you should listen to.”


Ms. Paré: You know, there’s an ocean of content on the platforms. No human being can discover it all. Based on your tastes and preferences, the ability to find Canadian content and help you discover it is what we’re looking for here.


Senator Wallin: Yes, I appreciate that. It’s just the definition of Canadian content, which others have suggested is even difficult on that very general basis. Then how do you want to guarantee that French-speaking content? Again, that has 15 different definitions: how it’s generated, where it’s generated, by whom, and who listens to it. How do you guarantee that? Are you wanting those assurances as kind of a subset of Canadian content?


Ms. Paré: Mr. Claus could say what he thinks. We do the analysis based on databases week after week. Using existing criteria, we’re able to code each song on the platforms to determine if it’s in French or English, or if it’s Canadian content and even Quebec content, because there’s also a desire to measure that. If we’re able to determine the origin of a piece, it can be done.

The Chair: Unfortunately, Senator Wallin’s time has ended.


Senator Simons: Now I’m just craving strawberry ice cream. I want to start by thanking Mr. Payette for the word “algotorial,” which I’m going to add to my dictionary.

My question is for Mr. Cash. I am old. More than 30 years ago, I was a producer with CBC Radio in Edmonton. It was part of my job on Sundays to program the music, and it was a thing that was very individualized. I went down to the enormous CBC records library and I chose the music for the afternoon show. It had to be 50% Canadian content, and it was very creative.

There were a lot of robust radio stations in Edmonton that did that kind of individualized music programming. I had worked as a summer student at a private radio station and done similar work.

Now, it seems to me that when you do turn on the radio, you’re lucky if you hear fresh music at all. And if I hear “(Everything I Do) I Do It for You” or “The Summer of ’69” one more time, no offence to Mr. Adams, that’s enough now.

I wonder Mr. Cash, if you can speak to some of the challenges that the Canadian music industry has faced with respect to conventional radio — we haven’t talked much about that — with the diminution of radio listening, with the purchasing of programming services that give radio stations the same music so that sometimes when you’re flipping up and down the dial, you hear the same song over and over again.

How much harder does that make it for a new Canadian artist to be heard on conventional radio? And what do you think the solution is, not for artists who are 19-year-old kids making indie folk song videos on YouTube and TikTok, but for that mid-level Canadian artist who has a contract, who is assigned to a label, but cannot get play?

Mr. Cash: Here I thought you were going to tell me that 30 years ago you played one of my records.

Senator Simons: Let’s say that I did. Let’s go with that presumption.

Mr. Cash: I’m speaking about the English market in Canada, and my colleagues here are speaking about largely the francophone market in Quebec. They operate in a different way, and our expectation is that the CRTC is going to see that and understand that.

But when you look over the sweep of the years of CanCon, there were times when radio in Canada was very exciting and diverse, and you could hear lots of different stuff, but really, though, senator, when I say “lots of different stuff,” it was mostly all guys. It was mostly all White guys.

Senator Simons: Not when I did the programming.

Mr. Cash: Well, good for you, but that was just one hour. Mostly White rock guys, that sort of thing.

And so the conversation around access, it’s a crushing thing for artists. It’s crushing to see that the gatekeeper — that’s the difference between whether someone’s going to hear your music or not — is that music director at the radio station, and that director doesn’t choose you; they choose someone else and, really, largely they want to play American music that the American labels are promoting. It’s absolutely crushing.

Having said that, when you did get on the radio back in the day, it was a big deal and it really helped. That story is not the same today. Most of my members report that if they have an artist who’s getting significant airplay on English radio in Canada, it does not materially do anything for that artist’s career.

Senator Simons: Wow.

Mr. Cash: It’s a huge shift. And when I look at the number of young artists today — I mean, I have some who are hopefully doing the dishes right now — I see really exciting opportunities that didn’t exist before.

And as I said in my opening statement, I think there’s a way to get this right. If we get it right, we’re all going to win. And I think part of that is ensuring that our platform partners are brought into the tent, and we sit down and we figure some of this out. By the way, some of those conversations are already happening. We do speak with the platforms. We are working on how we do this, and what do we do. And I think those are the conversations we’re going to have to have as we go forward.

Senator Simons: If your members are —

The Chair: Senator Simons, we have come to 8:45 p.m. I’d like to thank our panellists for being here with us today.


Thank you everyone for your comments. We appreciate it.


Thank you, senators, for your very interesting questions and I thank the panellists for even more interesting answers. We will pursue our study.

(The committee adjourned.)

Back to top