THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 28, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:46 p.m. [ET] to study 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
I am Leo Housakos, a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I would like the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, New Brunswick.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. On behalf of all of my colleagues on this committee, I would like to wish all our friend and colleague, Senator Dawson, a happy birthday.
Senator Dawson: Where is the cake?
The Chair: We are meeting to continue our examination of 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 the first panel this evening, we have with us, from Digital First Canada, Scott Benzie, Managing Director; from Skyship Entertainment, Morghan Fortier, Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer; as well as individual testimony from Oorbee Roy, content creator and skateboarder, who is joining us by video conference. Welcome. Each member of our panel will have five minutes for an opening statement, and then we will turn it over to our colleagues for Q and A.
Scott Benzie, Managing Director, Digital First Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for the time and allowing me to speak on Bill C-11. I am here representing Digital First Canada, a new advocacy group for online creators. We are an independent grassroots organization that I founded, and we are grateful to receive support from industry partners that value creators, including YouTube, TikTok, and Henry’s. I would like to tackle this bill in four parts: the good, the bad, the ugly, and then address the doomsday scenario.
First, the good. This legislation forces online platforms to contribute meaningfully and financially to Canada’s culture sector, and that is a good thing. We would support efforts to address algorithmic transparency, solutions for creator burnout and driving funding from digital platforms back into the creators responsible for its success. Finally, the intentions of this bill are good.
The bad is that those intentions simply aren’t reflected in the actual bill. That creates serious problems for digital creators. Let me explain why. At a macro level, Bill C-11 looks backwards and applies yesterday’s solutions for broadcasting’s problems to today’s digital success story. In doing so, it raises a number of concerns.
First, it raises concerns of which voices get heard. The bill as it is currently written means that the CRTC would decide which content deserves to be at the front of the line, not Canadians. It creates an approach where some creators get promoted over others. Platforms are binary. The promotion of one means a demotion of another. In seeking to promote Canadian content this way, it will actually pit one kind of Canadian creator against another.
It also raises concerns about fairness. Creators would face an insane regulatory burden to qualify for official CanCon status. Keep in mind that this certification system must be met for every piece of content. It is not simply a question of a creator’s nationality. For a daily vlogger, a Twitch streamer or a TikTok trendsetter, that is practically impossible. This puts them at a huge disadvantage to Bell Media and Rogers, who have entire teams that do this every day.
It’s important to note here, senators, that today, almost every digital creator does not qualify and has not taken any funding from the public purse.
To be clear, Bill C-11 is asking digital platforms to contribute to a system that the creators that use those platforms have no access to. What does that mean in practice? Emerging voices would lose the level playing field they depend upon today, and large media companies would have a leg up at their expense.
We have heard that creators won’t succeed if they first don’t succeed at home. There is no bigger piece of misinformation out there. Creators’ livelihoods, their businesses and their futures are at risk of being stifled by applying old approaches to today’s thriving creator economy.
The ugly, because this has definitely gotten ugly: Digital creators are being thrown under the bus. I have been working with digital creators for 10 years because I’m passionate about the content they create. When Bill C-10 was changed at the last moment, we spoke up in opposition. I was told we needed to organize to have our voices heard, so I created Digital First Canada. Since that moment, DFC and individual creators have endured attacks from MPs and hit pieces in the press, and we have been told by our legacy media peers that we have no agency. They attempt to discredit and delegitimize us because we represent a different point of view.
At the government’s National Summit on the Arts, when the topic of digital creators came up, an attendee yelled, “That’s not art,” to a round of applause. Our efforts have been labelled as misinformation, despite legal experts, organizations like FPRC, the Internet Society, OpenMedia, PIAC, and, most importantly, the CRTC chair himself confirming exactly what we have been saying all along.
Digital creators are not pawns of platforms. They do not work for them. They are creative entrepreneurs, and they do not deserve to have their place on open platforms stolen by legacy cultural players who believe they are entitled to top billing. For too long, digital creators have been rejected by establishment cultural groups in Canada, and now we are being attacked for asking for a seat at the table on legislation that could destroy our businesses.
How do we move forward? This is the Senate — sober second thought. I hope that you will listen to the arguments we present. Our ask is simple: Section 4.2 needs clarity into what is in and what is out, because it currently includes the entire internet. Something this critical cannot be left to the CRTC to wade through. Section 9.1 needs to be clear that dynamic changes to algorithms are off the table, because messing with them is messing with Canadian businesses and access to their audiences.
Before I close, we have to address the worst-case, doomsday scenario. If Canada takes this approach with UGC, it cannot expect fair and equal treatment abroad. If similar legislation is enacted in other countries, Canada will be responsible for laying the groundwork that destroyed the businesses of hundreds of thousands of Canadian creators. Access to global markets is not a “nice to have”; it is an imperative. I hope you all understand the gravity of that scenario. You may not like me, you may even find me disagreeable, but the concerns I share are very real and impact Canadians across the country.
I have here a letter, which I will circulate later, signed by a group of creators who share our concerns. This small letter represents over 200 million subscribers and tens of billions of global views a year. This is a small group of 30 creators. Will you listen to them?
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benzie.
Morghan Fortier, Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer, Skyship Entertainment: Good evening. My company, Skyship Entertainment, was founded in 2015 with the goal of creating high-quality educational children’s content to help parents, teachers and caregivers in their day-to-day lives. Since 2015, we’ve built a global audience that on any given day can reach as many as 30 million families, classrooms and daycares. This includes many of the over 1 million families here in Canada that have preschoolers at home.
We provide this content primarily free of charge on the YouTube platform. I do consider YouTube a platform. They are not a broadcaster. A broadcaster takes pitches and greenlights shows, they give creative notes, and, most importantly, they pay for the costs of production. YouTube doesn’t do any of these things. That’s because they’re a platform. If you’re looking for a modern-day broadcaster, I think you’re looking at Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max and Crave. They take pitches, they give notes, and they pay for production.
Bill C-11 poses a danger not only to my company but to thousands of Canadian content creators who have been steadily building this industry with nothing more than their unique voices and their hard work. Their content is enjoyed by millions of Canadians here at home and many millions of people outside of Canada. They do it all without a government handout and without the government forcing it down people’s throats through false algorithm manipulation.
Senator Simons has correctly described section 4.2 as the problem child of this bill. I’m sure we’ll talk more about that, as well as whether the bill scopes in UGC. But regardless of all of that, the CRTC has already given us their interpretation of the bill. They’ve said quite plainly that UGC is scoped in and that they would require platforms to artificially manipulate their algorithms, so we know how the government and the CRTC intends to use the bill. If they do that, other countries will follow suit, and this will be a huge economic blunder on the part of the government.
On September 14, John Lawford was sitting right here where I am today, and he suggested that my company earns somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million to $50 million from Canadian views. In 2021, we actually only earned about $370,000 from those Canadian views. Now, what’s amazing about that is it illustrates the unique benefit that digital content has to Canada’s economy. While we only earned $370,000 here at home, we paid $3.1 million in Canadian taxes. That’s because we’re taxed on our global revenue, and like most digital content creators, the majority of our views and revenue come from outside of Canada. If you factor in the salaries we pay to our 35 full-time employees, our studio rent in Toronto and the other businesses we support here in Canada, our company put $6.5 million back into the Canadian economy in 2021. That means we’re contributing 17 times more than we’re taking. With the exception of tourism, I don’t know another industry that brings in such a high percentage of foreign capital compared to domestic. According to an Oxford Economics report, digital content creators contributed $1.1 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2021 based on YouTube revenue alone.
More importantly, and maybe most importantly, we’re exporting Canadian content and culture to the rest of the world. I wish we did a lot more of that. I wish the traditional broadcasters did that. I wish the CBC was as widely watched around the world as the BBC. That’s maybe the most disheartening thing about Bill C-11. It’s willing to sacrifice the worldwide reach of all these unique Canadian voices for the sake of more regulation and more government intervention. On top of that, it could end up sacrificing all that global revenue at a time when our economy is already struggling.
We have an opportunity to fix this bill, and I think it’s really important that we do. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Oorbee Roy, content creator and skateboarder, as an individual: Hi, everyone. My name is Oorbee Roy, but I am also known as Aunty Skates. I found some fame on TikTok for sharing my skateboarding journey. Cut to one year later, I’m making a living as a 40-something-year-old South Asian skateboarding mom here in Canada. How rad is that? Last month, my kids, my mom and I were driving down the Gardiner Expressway, and my daughter yelled, “Look, Mama. You’re on a billboard.” Sure enough, a picture of me skateboarding in a sari was up on the BMO Field sign. Thank you, TikTok.
Recently, I did an interview with a major media outlet in India, and my interviewer said, “I don’t think you realize the movement you’ve started here, Oorbee. Watching a woman skateboard in a sari is empowering people all over this country.” I’ve had some pretty amazing brand deals with global companies, one of which I actually got through Scott Benzie, a huge supporter of digital creators like me. I even got called by a major talk show in the U.S., but don’t get too excited. I messed up the pre-interview. You won’t see me on the talk show.
These are opportunities on a global scale. It’s really exciting. I’m carving out a full-time living for myself as a relatively small creator. I don’t have millions of followers. I don’t make millions of dollars. This is truly a journey of ups and downs. My daughter is my filmer, and sometimes she sleeps in on Saturday mornings and doesn’t film, so I don’t have content to post. If I do post videos and they don’t do well in Canada or around the globe, then prospective brands or talk shows don’t see them. I won’t get the exposure I need and, as a result, I won’t get those deals. I am really hustling to make a living in this space and, frankly, I could use the help.
Now, my understanding is that the purpose of Bill C-11 is to ensure web giants pay their fair share for showcasing Canadian talent. I’m really, really struggling to understand how Bill C-11, as it stands, will help me as Canadian talent in the user-generated content space. In a June parliamentary session, M.P. Champoux asked Minister Rodriguez if digital creators like myself — actually, like me specifically — will qualify for Canadian content. The minister responded by saying some very kind words, followed by, “It is worthwhile to discover more about these people in the future.” What? That’s concerning to me. Why is this bill pushing off Canadian digital content creators into the future, but then including user-generated content platforms now? Aren’t we the very people this bill is supposed to be helping?
Will the money TikTok pays creators like me for billboard campaigns be funnelled into a system where I’ll never see that money and it will, instead, go to the big media giants and big teams of CRTC-approved CanCon? And if I do qualify as CanCon, what? Do I have to hire my ten-year-old son to help me register each piece of skateboarding content for CanCon approval? Because I hear that stuff is tedious and bureaucratic. Will I lose airtime to people and organizations who are able to qualify for CanCon and Canadians will be forced to watch that content even if they just want to learn how to do a kickturn from me? And speaking of airtime, essentially CanCon-approved government-funded content will ultimately get that primetime 8 p.m. Thursday slot, and me, and the thousands of digital content creators like me scraping out a living, will be pushed to the nine o’clock Friday death slot. I’ve been a Heritage witness several times, trying to get them to understand how the bill will affect creators like me. I’ve been told countless times it won’t affect me, only the outcomes. But that’s the outcome in reality. Someone has to get bumped. If we’re pushed off into the future, then that someone is us.
Making a living as a digital content creator is a growing space, and we are all fumbling our way through it, some more successfully than others. But if I, as a small creator, can make a living through this, then isn’t this something to embrace, nurture and be proud of? Don’t suppress us in order to boost others you see fit to qualify. Let’s clear up section 4.2 and move forward together. Make it easier to qualify as CanCon or create a new category for digital content creators. Have digital content creators represented at the CRTC and/or work with the platforms to decide what qualifies as CanCon without having to deal with any tedious bureaucracy or government regulations. Ensure some of the money the platforms pay into those funds goes back to the digital content creators so more people that look like me will have their face on a billboard.
Thank you. I welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I will, as chair, start off the Q & A before I go to my colleagues. Mr. Benzie, I have heard your testimony here with a great degree of interest. It’s not the first time we’ve heard, of course, digital creators talking about a bill that is designed to determine who is viewed and who is not viewed. We understand the holes in this bill as we continue to study it week after week. There are a number of things appearing.
But something has disturbed me. I read in The Globe and Mail today — and I followed the exchange on social media, and you alluded to it a bit — about attacks and hit pieces. I’m going to ask a pointed question, because I am very concerned. It’s one thing when the government is trying to pass a bill that determines what we see, what we post and what we hear. It is another thing when I hear a witness before a Senate committee pointing out that somehow his voice was intimidated or attacked by a parliamentary process. From the allegations today that came out, it seems that the attacks on you came from a Member of Parliament who was associated directly with the government, the parliamentary secretary, none other than the Minister of Heritage. Can you elaborate, please, on some of the details of what that is all about? That is very disturbing to me as a parliamentarian.
Mr. Benzie: Thank you, chair. I am happy to elaborate briefly. I really don’t want to take up a lot of time on this. I’m inspired by Oorbee and Morghan, and I want to hear more from them.
This is the second time I have appeared before committees, once in the House and now in the Senate. Before both appearances, I had to wrestle with hit pieces in the media, and digital creators have had to wrestle with organizations questioning our agency all the time. This specific piece in The Globe and Mail said that I wasn’t lobby compliant. I had reached out to the lobby group the first time it came up. I reached out again and again. They have confirmed to me in an email that, for the purposes of the act, I am compliant with the registry. So I don’t understand. The timing of that article was suspect, to say the least. But I would prefer we turn our time to focusing on the task at hand here.
The Chair: I appreciate that. But again, as a parliamentarian, the process of transparency and accountability is very important to us. You said that you had reached out to officials that have validated that the accusations levied against you were not founded. Who did you apply to?
Mr. Benzie: Yes. The specific levy and the specific question is about financial disclosure of private industry, which I’ve never hid, by the way. It has now appeared in four different publications and has been syndicated globally. This is not news. We receive funding from our platform partners.
The lobbying group responded to me today, because I asked for it in writing after a couple of phone calls.
Hello, Mr. Benzie. Thank you for your follow-up email. As stated in my previous response, the act requires for the purposes of the registry disclosing government funding only. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any other questions.
I have not received a dime of government funding.
The Chair: Is that letter that you are referring to from the Commissioner of Lobbying?
Mr. Benzie: It’s from info@lobbycanada.gc.ca
The Chair: Would you be willing to table that before this committee?
Mr. Benzie: Sure, certainly. Certainly, I can.
The Chair: I would appreciate that.
One last question before I turn it over to my colleagues: Did you feel in any way, shape, or form throughout the House of Commons process that you were intimidated, silenced or bullied by anybody?
Mr. Benzie: Oh, it’s on the tape. You can watch my appearance in the House committee meeting. I was attacked, and not just me. Digital creators were attacked in a way that we’ve never seen before, to the point where, I’ll tell you, a lot of digital creators have refused to come forward and speak because they’ve seen the treatment that we’ve received. I was lied about in committee meeting.
The Chair: Are there other digital creators that would feel bullied or attempted by any parliamentarian to censor them or to silence them, other than yourself?
Mr. Benzie: Yes. I don’t want to speak for them, but you can look back at Darcy Michael’s testimony on the Status of the Artist Act where he had to stop and say, “I feel like I am being bullied” in the middle of that testimony, questions that none of our peers get.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benzie.
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Benzie. I’m interested to better understand the relationship between the creators and the tech platforms. Is it fair to say that the creators you represent are reliant on the tech platforms to host their content? I would like to know what is the negotiating power of the creators towards those platforms. More importantly, what should these platforms be doing to better support Canada’s digital-first creators, not what they are actually doing but what they could do better?
Mr. Benzie: That is an excellent question. Thank you, senator. Oorbee and Morghan are here and can answer about the relationship even better than I can.
I can say that there is a big misconception out there that the creators work for a specific platform. They don’t. The platforms are providing a service. They provide a distribution method, and they share their revenues with the creators. So there’s nothing. There is no obligation for us to use them. We’re not in the old broadcast world where one platform, or three or four companies, has control. No successful creator is beholden to any one platform. All creators use different platforms in different ways and build communities. The platforms are a distribution method.
Senator Cormier: I don’t want to interrupt you. I understand that, but they make a lot of money. I want to understand what there is in that for the creators. What is the relationship? What can they do better? Because they make a lot of money.
Mr. Benzie: Sure.
Senator Cormier: I’m worried for creators. I want to hear you on that and, of course, Ms. Roy could also give us her point of view on this.
Mr. Benzie: They can be doing a lot more. I think you should take all the money you’re asking for from the digital platforms and quadruple it. They should be investing more in the creator economy here in Canada, but it should be focused on the supply side. Create more creators, more funding programs and more programs to enrich creators. Create training on how to use lights, cameras and microphones, how to build a better business and how to make merch sales. Invest that way in helping creators build a business. That’s what makes a successful creator.
Ms. Roy: I was going to say something very similar to what Scott just said. I’m mainly on the TikTok platform, and as an example, TikTok paid for that really big billboard that I was on. TikTok provides me and other creators in Canada with a lot of opportunities to get out there. I spoke at the Buffer Festival about content creation, and I have a lot of opportunities. I’m not the only one.
Sure, they could help me more. Sometimes I ask them, “Can you help me more?” I ask them questions. I do think they listen. I think it’s a continuous conversation that we have. I would like more training as I continue to go through the space — maybe about managing deals with brands and making sure I understand what I’m worth. One big thing I talk about is being able to work with other content creators. Digital content creation is a very lonely place, and I think that’s something a lot of digital content creators feel. So yes, they are helping, and they could help more.
Senator Cormier: From my understanding, TikTok announced it was expanding its creative fund to Canadian creators in January 2022. Do Canadian digital creators have access to the TikTok creator fund today? If not, why? What is the delay? Can you speak to us about this?
Ms. Roy: I don’t work for TikTok, so I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t have access to the creator fund. I’m not really sure what the answer is. To be honest, I think it’s coming, but I’m not sure when. I can’t speak for TikTok.
Mr. Benzie: If I can speak for one second, TikTok creators should absolutely have access to a TikTok creator fund here in Canada. It can’t come soon enough. If that was written in this legislation, we would happily support it.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Ms. Roy: We ask them all the time for it, so yes, agreed. I would love to be a part of that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to continue on this issue of Canadian content, more specifically French Canadian minority content. I heard you speak very energetically about your respective content and I’m in awe of you all.
However, the issue is broader. How can we ensure that French-language content, on a rather English-speaking continent, is heard and listened to with market forces alone? Have you thought about this question in particular? Yes for the majority culture, yes for Canadian content in general, but when we try to bring Quebec and francophone culture to life, Quebecers and francophone Canadians still need to hear this culture and this music. I’d like to hear from you on that.
[English]
Mr. Benzie: Is that question for me, senator?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why not?
Mr. Benzie: Great. When it comes to Quebec and our Quebec creators — understanding that Quebec has unique challenges that a lot of Canada doesn’t have — I would like to direct your attention to a few things. Emma Verde, marty Ba, Lysandre Nadeau, Jessie Poo, Rosalie Lessard, Pierre-Luc Cloutier, Emma Bass, Émile Roy, Polo and Fred Bastien are excellent digital creators that have created businesses and careers online. They are not small. Those are full-time jobs for them. The issue at hand here is whether we want to displace them with approved legacy media. I welcome you to have conversations with them. I will happily make introductions to them. I know Fred Bastien will be here next week. I look forward to you having those conversations with him. There is a subset of Quebec digital creators that is doing really well. The issue and the challenge — and what we’re trying to guard against — is protecting those creators so that we’re not favouring legacy media over them.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: More than that, are they heard in Quebec? Are they listened to in Quebec? Is francophone music listened to in Quebec when it’s streamed? This is the difficult part. Yes, you are creators and you create content and it’s viewed globally, but it must also be viewed here in Canada to participate in the French culture.
Mr. Benzie: Every name I named is primarily a francophone Quebec creator. Their main audiences are all in Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Would you have anything to add?
Ms. Fortier: I do a little consulting on the side every once in a while. In most of the cases when I do any consulting work, I’m working with production companies who are probably producing digital content for broadcasters, and they are entering into the digital space for the first time. This will be a bit of an anecdote, but I’ll get around to my point. The number-one question that literally every one of them has asked me is, “Who do I phone at YouTube to let them know I’m uploading my content?” It’s a completely reasonable question when you have an industry that is so focused on a broadcaster-centred distribution model. My experience has been that there is an education gap. Content creators, especially in Canada, would benefit tremendously from an education campaign. I believe it was Senator Clement who was mentioning education a couple of weeks ago. I think there is something to the idea of educating the Canadian population.
Does anyone else remember the “I am Canadian” campaign? Was that for beer? I can’t remember. All I remember is the campaign. We have a tremendous amount of national pride in Canada. We are spread out quite a distance. This is a relatively emerging industry in Canada. We do have an education gap in supporting and growing content creators of every language and every purview in the industry here. We’re not an abnormality or an oddity. We’re an example of where this can go when there is support in those endeavours.
I love the idea of an actual advertising campaign running across Canada that the platforms are supporting with Heritage. It’s very romantic, but I love the notion — an “I am Canadian” campaign of creators. When we bump into parents of preschoolers and let them know that we’re Super Simple Songs, the fact that we’re Canadian is like the cherry on top of that sundae. The pride is there. Audiences will listen. It’s just a matter of finding the content. But you can’t force it.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fortier. I am the gatekeeper of time, and Senator Miville-Dechêne’s time has run out.
Senator Manning: Welcome to our witnesses here this evening.
My question is for Ms. Fortier, but any of the other witnesses can feel free to answer if time allows. Proponents of this bill keep talking about removing barriers for artists, especially for Indigenous, BIPOC and francophone Canadians. However, we heard from two other witnesses earlier that regulating user‑generated content, as Bill C-11 will do, will have the opposite effect and will place barriers where there are currently none. Can you elaborate for us about the unintended barriers of Bill C-11 for potentially vulnerable communities and perhaps compare the low-barrier opportunities the internet presents for creators now versus those that were available prior to the internet through legacy broadcasting?
Ms. Fortier: Let’s start from the legacy broadcast side. There are only so many broadcasters. There are only so many hours in the broadcast day. There are only so many opportunities for Canadian content to appear on a terrestrial broadcaster — legacy broadcast.
When it comes to digital media, there has been no time like the current time. As long as you have a decent camera and a microphone, you’re making content. The barrier of entry into digital content creating today is near non-existent as long as there is inspiration, commitment, dedication and hustle, because unfortunately it’s not 12 episodes. Oorbee will probably be able to comment. Ours is a little different; it’s preschoolers. They don’t have a high rotation view that way where we are uploading seven videos a day, seven days a week, every day of the year. But Oorbee is in that space. It takes a ton of commitment and resources. However, it’s 100% of the risk for 100% of the reward if you can actually get into the system, start manoeuvering, start learning, start growing, learn how your content is behaving, learn who your community is and who your other content creators are and expand in that community. To Oorbee’s point, it’s a lonely industry. We don’t get to see each other because we’re all so busy making the work.
There is no green light. There is no pitching. There is no need to phone anyone at YouTube to let them know your content is coming up. The only gateway, as romantic as this sounds, is the inspiration to do it and the courage to step forward with it. Getting into the cost of it, the scope of it, is definitely the challenge. There is never a situation where content creators entering into the sphere are quitting their day job and are just full on becoming a content creator. It takes years. We find it’s probably three to four years before a channel will launch for us and get into the system. But we’re constantly iterating. We’re constantly learning and understanding what our community needs. That growth and the information we collect, whether it’s from comments, from parents and teachers or what we learn looking at our back analytics, is all part of the process of working through.
From just sort of a global standpoint as far as the access, Canada is 0.5% of the global population. For us in our numbers, it is about 2.5% of our global audience. That, I think, is relatively common for a lot of content creators, where your number one audience is probably the United States, followed by the U.K. There are some go-tos. It’s mainly based on population size and who is active and utilizing the platform. In some countries, there aren’t as many people who are watching YouTube. It definitely changes for us throughout the year. Summer break is pretty quiet, but there is a reason. They are not in front of a monitor.
Oorbee, you can jump in as well because you have a different perspective.
Ms. Roy: Sure. My main platform is TikTok, and I think that the way to make sure that BIPOC and francophone content is preserved and still seen is an opportunity to educate these creators in how to make good content. You can’t just go into something and become an expert and get centre stage right away. You have to work at it. You have to get better at it. I think, to Morghan’s point earlier, education is really the key. I do believe that platforms like TikTok have accelerated programs to help BIPOC and perhaps francophones as well to make sure that those communities are educated and helped.
Senator Wallin: I will first say that all three of you have been inspiring. Thank you for explaining so directly the difference between a broadcaster and a platform. They are not the same thing.
I want to come back to Mr. Benzie just on the question of transparency of algorithms, because it has been one of my hobby horses, too. I do think that’s important and I do think it would solve some issues. Can you talk briefly about how that might actually happen? What would a platform have to say that would make it transparent to me?
Mr. Benzie: There is a big misconception around algorithms, for one. They are not really a sacred unicorn that can’t be broken where some guy behind a curtain is magically picking things that we all see. Everybody gets kind of an identity, and they cater content to you.
I think transparency in how that happens would be a good thing. The challenge is that’s not in this bill anywhere. It doesn’t exist. Creator clarity is something we’re always advocating for. It’s challenging when the rules change quickly or when something happens without knowledge, but I think for YouTube, most creators know that shareability, quality of content and watch time are the three biggest things that will help you within the algorithm.
Steve was here last week, I think, from TikTok, and mentioned that TikTok is opening up their algorithms to some study. I think all platforms should follow suit. We spend a lot of time talking about YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Spotify, but there are so many out there that we haven’t even cracked the surface of exactly what we’re talking about.
I want to caution everybody that algorithms are not some panacea that will solve everybody’s problem once we figure this thing out, but to your point about transparency in how they operate, and however we can get there and legislation to make that happen, I’m all for it.
Senator Wallin: I raise the question because the chair of the CRTC did make that very point to us. He said, “We’re not going to censor content or control content; we’re going to make the platforms do it by altering their algorithms.” Is that a simple process, because even defining how they would alter them to achieve these goals is beyond —
Mr. Benzie: No. Thank you, senator. It’s actually bonkers trying to even think about how to do it.
Senator Wallin: Is that a technical term?
Mr. Benzie: Yes. Write that down. I actually said early in my testimony and early in this process on this bill that the only way to achieve the outcomes they are talking about is through algorithmic manipulation. It really is. They say, “Well, we’ll just have a Canada tab somewhere or we’ll just do this or we’ll just do that.” All platforms are different. That doesn’t work on TikTok. That doesn’t work on Instagram. There is no screen real estate to do that. The only way to do it is through algorithmic manipulation. Once you start picking winners and losers in that, people like Oorbee suffer. People like Morghan suffer. People like the creators we work with every day suffer. The CRTC is literally picking the winners and losers here, and it’s not going to work. That’s the truth of the matter.
Senator Wallin: That is a very old model, because we saw it attempt to work in the broadcast structure. It didn’t work there either, in terms of picking winners and losers.
Morghan, I want to thank you for some of your clarification on this model. I worked my life in this business, where you phone a broadcaster and say, “Here is a great idea,” and you go through the whole process. That’s just not what is at stake here. You just really have to have the courage and the inspiration to create it.
Ms. Fortier: If it helps, I have an anecdote. We are in the kids and family space. What we have available to us as tools on YouTube is different because of COPPA compliance, which rolled out at the beginning of 2020, but this anecdote goes back to 2019. Something happened on the algorithm side with YouTube in 2019 where they reportedly changed the algorithm, and I believe the goal or the attempt was to get quality kids and family content out on to the platform so that parents could easily find it. Well, what happened is everyone who was watching anything on YouTube started getting recommended kids and family content, and the majority of it was actually non-English language. It was coming from other countries. On Reddit forums, Twitter and Facebook, people were reaching out trying to figure out why they were being forced kids and family content, especially if they did not have a child in their universe. It was brutal to be a part of it because the popular opinion or the perception was that YouTube was forcing content on to people, so there was a distrust of the platform. There was a sentiment that kids and family content were trying to do a money grab, which is not a good look when you’re trying to have trustworthy quality content. There was definitely a sense that people’s personal viewing habits were violated because regardless of what they were doing on the platform, what they were watching, suddenly content was forced to them. It ended within a day or two. The algorithm got adjusted. It stopped, and everything went back to normal.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fortier. The time for Senator Wallin has elapsed.
Senator Simons: Ms. Fortier, I have had the pleasure of speaking with you online. Since you’re here in front of this whole group, I wonder if you could explain a bit about your business model for people who are unfamiliar with it. We have heard from a lot of sort of single producers, people who are making content. I don’t want to use the phrase “cottage industry” pejoratively, but you know what I mean; they are a small business. You are not a small business. You are a multimillion-dollar international business, and you’re giving your content away for free. For people who are unfamiliar with your company, can you explain what exactly it is you produce and how exactly you monetize it and just how big your operation is?
Ms. Fortier: First, I’ll start by saying — and genuinely — I invite you all to come to our studio in Toronto. There are puppets, and everyone loves playing with the puppets. There are also fantastic animators, and it’s always fun to see somebody animate.
As YouTube content creators start to grow on the platform, it is very common that they start to branch out into other endeavours and operations. I’m not an economist, but much like you probably don’t want to invest in one stock, you also don’t want to pick just one platform to operate on. The goal, eventually, is to use the success from one platform — in our case, it’s YouTube — to expand our operations into other areas. You see this with content creators all the time. There are a lot of lifestyle-brand content creators that go to book publishing. It’s not uncommon for artists who are starting in music videos to really grow their music streaming. The success and the reach of audience from one platform helps to build those other aggregates.
We operate on a couple of different avenues. We really are an animation studio when you walk in the doors to look at us, and that’s truly what we are. We just happen to self-distribute. We self-finance. It’s all cash-driven. We do AdSense revenue exclusively. We don’t do brand deals because with preschoolers, it’s a little different. We reinvest that back into the animated content. We produce music videos. We produce animated series.
As recently as this year, we’ve started to expand those opportunities. As an example, Scholastic is going to be our global book publisher, and we will be a part of the Scholastic Book Clubs, which was one of the happiest moments of my childhood when I was a kid, and I’m thrilled to be a part of that. We also work with Warner Chappell Music, who help us distribute our music online. The success of that music is definitely correlated to our community on YouTube.
We’re slowly getting into consumer products and trying to figure out what that means. Every step of the way, we’re kind of learning and trying to figure out what this will mean for us and how it will resonate for our community. It all goes back to that core sensibility. It is step by step and baby steps. It doesn’t happen overnight.
Senator Simons: When you look at proposed subsection 4.2(2) which exempts user-generated content unless, unless, unless, it seems pretty clear to me that Ms. Roy would be exempted. It’s pretty clear that Wyatt Sharpe, who came to speak to us yesterday, would be exempted. You are in an exponentially different class. What are your concerns about 4.2(2) for a company like yours?
Ms. Fortier: I know it’s been tossed around that we look an awful lot like a broadcaster, but we don’t control the operations of the platform that we distribute to. We don’t negotiate the advertising revenue that runs against our content. We don’t license other people’s IP. We don’t distribute other people’s content. The activities that we do are very different. We are a production studio that distributes. That model exists in the legacy side of the industry.
I have a couple of concerns about 4.2. The first one in particular is that I’m not quite sure why a Broadcast Act that scopes in broadcasters is now going down that level, going to the production level of things. That concerns me because, to be honest, pretty much every production studio in Canada is doing something digital. If they are not, they will be soon because the broadcasters are participating there. You had witnesses earlier this week and last week speaking of representing production studios for broadcasters. It’s all going in the same place. Well, they’re not participating in the Broadcast Act now. Why that’s being scoped in at this point seems very strange to me. I know because I’ve been watching all of you for several weeks. Very dedicated.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fortier.
Senator Dasko: I love this topic of algorithms so I want to get back to it, especially with Mr. Benzie. For me, the issue is not the transparency of algorithms, as interesting as that is, and it is always interesting to know what factors in and how they change and so on, and it would be very nice to know these things. But for me, the issue is how they’re used with audiences.
I’m trying to understand the concern. The language in the bill says that the CRTC cannot direct platforms to use an algorithm. The bill exempts platforms from being forced to change their algorithms. Are you looking for better language in the bill with respect to algorithms, or are you fine with the language that’s there now? Except, of course, when the CRTC chair came, he muddied the waters. Is the language okay or not okay in the bill, in your point of view?
Mr. Benzie: Thank you, senator.
Just quickly on Senator Simons’s question, 4.2(2) absolutely scopes in Oorbee and Wyatt. I am happy to have that conversation the next time around. It does not exclude them.
To the point of algorithms in 9.1, no, the language is not okay. It takes YouTube on a platform and says, “We’re going to extrapolate this across all digital platforms,” and that’s not accurate. What the legislation actually says is, “We’re not going to impose any specific algorithm.” So the CRTC is not going to say, “Here, YouTube and TikTok, use this algorithm.” What they are going to say is, “This is what we want you to do.” In a lot of cases, the only way to achieve that outcome is algorithmically. TikTok, for example, doesn’t have the screen real estate. Instagram doesn’t have the screen real estate. For anyone watching YouTube on mobile, there is no screen real estate to do it any other way. The only way to achieve those goals is through algorithmic manipulation. The chair pretty much confirmed it when he sat in front of us. This is not a secret. I’ve had conversations with Heritage Canada. I’ve had conversations with the committees. I have expressed this ad nauseam. Everybody knows this to be true. [Technical difficulties]
Senator Dasko: You said the language on algorithms in the bill is not okay, but you don’t have any actual suggestion — oh, you do? — for language about excluding the possibility of touching the algorithms. You have something that would do that? That would solve the problem, right?
Mr. Benzie: Theoretically, but it creates another problem. In the spirit of compromise, I think the idea raised about static versus dynamic discovery is interesting. If we have to come up with one, static discovery is definitely a better route, but it raises another question about CanCon, because there is still screen real estate, and we’re still preferring somebody over Oorbee for that screen real estate, and that is not okay. So it leads to a question of CanCon right after that.
Senator Dasko: Right. So we do have non-algorithmic solutions that we can apply to this. Whatever language you want to put onto it, static or dynamic or whatever, it is there. The platforms can have “Display Lists,” or, “Display Pieces,” or “Display Artists,” and so on. I’ve seen it on Apple Music. There are all kinds of things. They can curate these lists and present them, and it is possible to do that outside the algorithms that they use to direct at audiences.
Mr. Benzie: Sure. But who are they promoting now? Which Canadians are they choosing?
Senator Dasko: Well, they’re promoting it, presumably, the same sort of way they promote artists in the main algorithm, only they have a Canadian subset or display list or whatever, something along those lines.
Mr. Benzie: The challenge, senator, is the definition of “Canadian.” Right now, Oorbee doesn’t qualify.
Senator Dasko: The thing is this: After the bill is implemented, these companies will be able to present their proposals to the CRTC to say, “Here is a way that I’m going to propose that Canadian content be discoverable or be exhibited.” And the CRTC will say, “That sounds good,” or “What about this,” or “What about that?”
Mr. Benzie: With all due respect, senator, we’re talking about tens of thousands of creators, all with competing needs and competing wants, a lot of them individuals. If you think Oorbee can take time out of her day to come talk to the CRTC, it’s not going to happen. Then when we try to organize, well, I don’t know if the CRTC is going to listen to me. It’s a real challenge, and it is really something we have to address. We’re talking about individuals here without representation, without lawyers.
Senator Dasko: I take your point, but I do think it’s possible — and I tend to be on the optimistic side — that we can find a way to do it without touching the algorithms. Those algorithms can still continue to operate the way they are, and yet there is another process that can be put into place that will deal with the discoverability.
Mr. Benzie: I will say it is a better starting point than we have today, but it is not without challenges.
Senator Dasko: For sure. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Let me be completely transparent here, chair. I am not a regular on this committee, although I am an ex officio member. I came tonight because of what I read and heard this morning, and Mr. Benzie has done a good job of explaining that. I won’t belabour that other than to just simply voice my absolute frustration and, quite frankly, disgust that the minister’s parliamentary secretary would do what Chris Bittle has done and that these witnesses would be bullied at committee over in the other place. I certainly am sorry to all of the witnesses that have been bullied in any way. This is, again, an indication of what this NDP-Liberal government does when they want their way and when they want things moved through without anybody asking any questions.
I have one very brief question, and then I’ll yield what time I have to regular senators around the table. Mr. Benzie, right now it doesn’t look like 4.2 will be removed. It doesn’t look like this government has any intention of accepting any real amendments to this bill. Now, if 4.2 isn’t removed from this bill, would this confirm for you that they, in fact, do intend that the CRTC regulate user-generated content, and what do you think will be the consequences of that? How will creators respond?
Mr. Benzie: I think that if 4.2 stays in unamended, we’ve passed a bill that includes the entire internet. I’m happy to go into details, but it does. There is no argument against it. I think it puts creators’ livelihoods at risk. We’ve heard time and time again that this is not about cat videos and it’s not about creators. I don’t think the government even wrote this bill with us in mind, but we exist and we’re here, and Oorbee’s and Morghan’s channels matter and their livelihoods matter. I think that to leave that up to the whim of an unelected bureaucratic body is a mistake.
Senator Plett: Ms. Roy, you threw your hands up when I asked the question. Would you like to respond?
Ms. Roy: As a digital creator, I feel that if 4.2 goes in as it stands, then I have to go look for a full-time job. It’s a depressing reality for me to see that my content is going to be pushed aside. I’ve just gotten this platform. I’m not young; I’m almost 50, and I’ve been working really hard to get to a place where I can do something like this. I haven’t done it with a lot of help. For someone else to come in, push me aside and dictate what my audience wants to see, I can’t fight that. I’m very discouraged. That’s how I feel.
Senator Plett: Thank you to all three of you for taking the time. We really appreciate your going out on a limb and standing up to a bully government. Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. I have a quick question, and then I’ll yield my time to Mr. Benzie and Ms. Roy if they want to finish up what they were going to say in answer to Senator Simons’ question.
You said we have an opportunity to fix this bill, which I assume you view to be a great disruptor to your revenue model. Have we covered the opportunity to fix this bill, or did you need a little 30-second sound bite on that?
Ms. Fortier: What keeps me up at night about this bill is the potential to gate content that is deemed not Canadian, either entering into the country or within the country. With retaliation from other countries, should this type of a law pass through, we’re done. I don’t mean my company. I mean we don’t need to talk about this bill anymore because it’s over. That will affect regionalized content creators, small content creators and larger content creators. The world is watching. Australia will follow, and the U.K. If the U.S. were to decide, well, what’s fair is fair, that’s a complete game changer that no one seems to be talking about, which scares me. There is a very real potential here. It’s the free, open internet for a reason. Attempting to put in place a bill that insists the government mandates its behaviour and intentionally gates content of a particular nature is exceptionally problematic.
To your earlier question, we would need to make sure that we were offside, whether that’s as simple as a VPN or I’m trying to figure out how to make a head office in Ireland. I don’t know what the options are, but we would need to make sure that we were somehow, in some way, out of scope from this, which is probably the least investment you could do to innovate an industry. It’s the counter-process. If Canadians want to see Canadian content, shouldn’t we be creating an environment where they’re making it instead of creating what is currently a hostile environment where content creators have been vilified? I am dumbfounded by the whole situation. Thank you for asking.
Senator Klyne: I would like Ms. Roy and Mr. Benzie to have the opportunity to finish up.
Ms. Roy: I’m deeply concerned that I’m not going to be able to compete against the big media in this space. As I said, it’s just me and my daughter, when she feels like getting up in the morning. I’m really hustling to get out there. I do feel, on a personal level, that my content is going to be suppressed and I’m not going to be able to compete in this space.
On a larger scope, I think it’s very dangerous territory to start regulating the internet in any shape or form. I think that forcing people to watch content that is not what they want to watch will be to the detriment of those platforms. I think that it’s going to spread around. As Morghan said, what’s going to happen when the U.S. retaliates? About 70% of my users, my followers, my views, are in the U.S. What if they decide to start promoting U.S. content over my content? Then I’m not only in trouble in Canada, I’m also in trouble in the U.S. I guess I’d have to go and visit my mom in New York — she’ll be happy — and build my content there.
We’re getting into these waters that are very muddy, and I think without really understanding the needs. Maybe a quick fix, we’ll deal with it later, but it’s going to come at a great cost.
Mr. Benzie: I think 4.2 is a misconception. This is not a small sandbox that doesn’t include very direct or indirect revenue and other platforms. That’s the internet. Literally, direct or indirect revenue includes the entire internet. Content is being monetized somewhere. If Oorbee uses a song in her video, she is absolutely captured, and if Wyatt shows a clip from the CBC, he’s absolutely captured, so 4.2 is a problem and we have to scope it down.
Senator Clement: Thank you so much to all the witnesses for being here. It’s thrilling to hear Ms. Roy refer to the Gardiner Expressway and to hear Ms. Fortier say that when they find out that her brand is Canadian, it’s like the cherry on top. What I’m getting at is that we should assume that Canadians want to engage with Canadian content and not assume the opposite.
We’ve heard today about the dangers of manipulating algorithms, but that danger currently exists in the hands of private companies that are manipulating algorithms. How do Canadians balance that out? Should they not trust a commission to try to balance out the fact that the private companies have that much power in terms of manipulating algorithms?
Going back to your point, Mr. Benzie, about the fact that we don’t have transparency around how those algorithms work: From a basic Canadian perspective, what’s a regular Canadian to do? They want to find Ms. Roy’s content, but they don’t understand how algorithms work because we’re not talking about the education piece around how they work. Do you know what I mean?
Mr. Benzie: Yes. I’ve heard you speak eloquently about this. I understand your wanting to get out of your bubble. I do the exact same thing. The challenge here is that we’re talking about Canadian businesses that require access to an audience that the algorithm is giving them based on a niche and based on what they have said the next person is going to like. We’re not just talking about just somebody is going to like this so let’s give it to them. We’re talking about somebody who earns a living on getting to the right audience. Yes, those platforms are making money, but they’re making money based on retention of eyeballs. That is, in turn, how creators make money. Oorbee wants to get in front of more people who like Oorbee’s content. While in principle I agree with everything you’re saying, the fact of the matter is that we can’t be willing to mess with individual Canadians’ businesses. We have to make sure that they’re getting to the right audiences so they can monetize.
Ms. Fortier: My concern when we talk about manipulating the algorithms is what happens next. So we’ve manipulated an algorithm, but what then happens to the content that’s been manipulated? Does that content creator then just continue relying on the algorithm manipulation, or is there investment incentive to help educate that content creator to stand on their own two feet and continue to create content and evolve and grow? The problem with manipulating the algorithm is they’re being cut short on receiving information on the nature of their content and how their content is naturally entering into the marketplace. It would be like preventing the broadcaster from having ratings access and not knowing if their content is resonating with the community properly. Or, if their video is doing bad, is it because of the manipulation? You need that information to accurately understand how to strategize for your content. That’s with both a single content creator who is just starting and a seasoned content creator who maybe has a larger infrastructure, as we do.
The manipulation of the algorithm isn’t even a Band-Aid solution. It has no solution process because there is no investment or growth opportunity past that point. It hobbles the information. It does a disservice to the content creator to be able to actually grow and learn themselves. That’s where I get stumped with it. What happens next? How does that grow? How do they stand on their own two feet? There are examples of content creators all over the world where they don’t have that manipulation and they are able to do it regardless of how niche their content might be. We have examples everywhere. It’s achievable. It’s doable. That’s where I get stumped, outside of just the concerns that I have with the algorithm in general. What is the purpose, in the end, if we’re not talking about investing and growing that sector? Can you imagine the success story we could have with content creators rising above, having this alternate distribution model outside of the broadcaster sector, alongside the broadcaster sector, connecting with it? I think that’s an amazing opportunity that we have the opportunity to do now.
The Chair: On that, I would like to thank our panel for being before us. Sorry for the minor technical difficulties that forced us to run behind schedule. I appreciate your patience.
[Translation]
Respected colleagues, we are resuming our pre-study of Bill C-11.
[English]
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome, from the Quebec English-Language Production Council, Michael Prupas, Member of Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Muse Entertainment; and Michael Solomon, President and President of Les Films Band With Pictures Inc. From Dadan Sivunivut, we have Mr. Jean LaRose, President and Chief Executive Officer. From Accessible Media Inc., we have David Errington, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Kevin J. Goldstein, Outside Regulatory Counsel.
We welcome all of you, and thank you for joining us this evening. Each panellist will have five minutes for a statement, and then we will go to Q & A. We will begin with opening remarks from Mr. Michael Prupas.
[Translation]
Michael Prupas, Member of Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Muse Entertainment, Quebec English-Language Production Council: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Mr. Solomon.
[English]
As the senator has indicated, I am the president of Muse Entertainment, one of Canada’s largest production companies, and a board member of the Quebec English-language Production Council. I used to be a lawyer at the law firm of Heenan Blaikie, of great renown, and have had experience in this business for many years, going back to 1978.
Michael, take it away.
Michael Solomon, President and President of Les Films Band With Pictures Inc., Quebec English-Language Production Council:
I am a feature film producer and co-chair of the QEPC, which represents approximately 3,000 creators and producers working in Quebec’s official language minority film and TV production industry.
While we, along with the CMPA, AQPM, APFC and most of the industry enthusiastically support the passage of Bill C-11, a last-minute amendment has created a threat to the very existence of the Canadian independent production industry. We are asking that clause 3.1(i)(v) of the bill be deleted and replaced with the pre-existing language. To us, the future of telling Canadian stories by Canadians hangs in the balance.
Canada’s struggle to control our broadcasting system and to tell our stories against overwhelming American pressure has been nearly a century-long commitment — going back to the Aird Report in 1929, the establishment of the CBC in 1936, the National Film Board in 1939, Telefilm Canada in 1967, and both federal and provincial tax credit legislation since at least 1972. In 2021, Canadian independent production volume reached $2.75 billion, supporting over 83,000 full-time well-paid jobs.
On June 15, 2022, during the last night of debate on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, a proposed amendment to section 3.1(i)(v) was passed by a six-to-five vote in under five minutes, and it had never been discussed before.
The pre-existing language, “(v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector,” was changed and now says: “include the greatest possible contribution from the Canadian production sector, whether it is independent or affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting undertaking; …”
Mr. Prupas: This means that any broadcasting undertaking operating in Canada, whether Canadian or foreign, is included in the Canadian production sector. These few words put this industry, which has been supported by generations of Canadian law-makers and entrepreneurs, at risk of becoming a branch plant owned and controlled by American tech and studio giants. We know from speaking to members of the house committee that they had no idea of the consequences of this amendment.
This amendment will allow broadcasters and streamers to develop and own the IP, hire producers to make them and retain the profits from the sale of these shows. In addition, the CRTC now considers virtually all of the international streamers, like Netflix and Disney+, as being part of the Canadian production sector. We believe they will be able to use the Canadian content tax credit instead of the service tax credit and potentially be able to access the Canada Media Fund. This will amount to at least a 50% and perhaps substantially greater increase in the financial subsidization by Canadian taxpayers of some of the world’s largest and most profitable companies. Is that what Canadian taxpayers want?
Further, the English-language version of the amended text is mistranslated from the French and opens the door wider to a branch plant industry. The French text says “producteurs canadiens.” The English version refers to the “Canadian production sector,” which includes both Canadian producers and foreign producers working in Canada. Canadian producers can only survive in the current environment if they are able to own a share of the ownership of the intellectual property they produce. As Disney, Netflix and others have told you, their production policy is unbending. They will hire Canadians to make programming in Canada, but they will keep 100% of the ownership. In contrast, in France, the law now requires that 20 to 25% of the programming of these same giants is produced and owned by French independent producers. Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. are also strongly supporting their local independent production industries. If this amendment goes through, Canadian producers will have to work as service producers on projects developed by American companies. This means that decades of blood, sweat and tears shed to establish a Canadian-owned and -controlled production industry will be at an end.
There is a second issue that we want to bring to your attention. Along with our French minority language colleagues, we request that proposed section 5.2 of Bill C-11 requiring CRTC consultation with official language minority representatives be maintained as drafted. This will greatly improve the consultation between official language minorities and the CRTC. This section was passed by the house twice and is extremely important to the vitality of the official languages minority.
Bill C-11 gives Canada the opportunity to forge a clear and successful path for the Canadian production industry, but to ensure success, the proposed amendment to 3.1(i)(v) should be stricken from the bill. I thank you for your time and attention, senators, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
Now we have with us Jean LaRose, President and CEO of Dadan Sivunivut.
Mr. LaRose, the floor is yours.
[English]
Jean LaRose, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dadan Sivunivut: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and senators, for the opportunity to provide our views on Bill C-11. I wish to acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. I give thanks to the nation as well as their ancestors, who are welcoming us to their territory.
APTN established Dadan Sivunivut in 2019. “Dadan” means “our peoples” in Southern Tutchone and “Sivunivut” means “our future” in Inuktitut. Dadan Sivunivut oversees AnimikiSee, both a production and a distribution company for Indigenous television and digital content; First Peoples Radio, which operates stations in Ottawa and Toronto; Nagamo Music, an Indigenous music library and composer agency; as well as Red Music Rising, an Indigenous talent management agency.
Professionally, I have watched Indigenous peoples grow in television, television production and other media over the last 24 years. It has been a privilege and an incredible honour to see and be part of it.
Dadan Sivunivut supports Bill C-11 and the government’s important goals of updating the Broadcasting Act, but it’s not just today and next year that we need to think about. We need to think forward two or three decades. That’s what the drafters of the current Broadcasting Act did in 1991, and that’s what we should be doing now. About 20 or 30 years from now, where do Indigenous peoples want to be in Canada, and our own media and culture? Where should we be? Those are the questions that I think about when I look at Bill C-11.
Some parts of Bill C-11 are forward-looking and significant for Indigenous peoples. First, after many years of foot dragging, paragraph 3.1(o) of the Broadcasting Act will finally be amended to remove the “as resources becomes available” language about supporting Indigenous culture. This language is offensive and discriminatory. The House of Commons Lincoln report recognized it as such in 2001. It is finally being addressed. However, it still speaks to the special place of Indigenous peoples in Canada. We have a unique place, and this language would better reflect Parliament’s wish to recognize in legislation the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or the UNDRIP.
Second, UNDRIP recognizes that Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of media without discrimination. Proposed sections 3.1(d) and 3.1(o) of the Broadcasting Act will now recognize, for the first time, broadcasting undertakings that are owned and operated by Indigenous peoples. Until now, the act has referred to Indigenous programming, but this is not the same thing as having our own services that we ourselves own and operate. That is what UNDRIP is about.
Third, the act will recognize Indigenous languages better than it has in the past. Proposed section 3.1(d) will recognize that Indigenous people should have opportunities to produce content in Indigenous languages as well as in English and French. Proposed section 5 of the act requires the commission to take into account the different characteristics of the English, French and Indigenous language broadcasting. This is the first time that Indigenous language broadcasting has been placed on an equal footing with English and French. I’m only disappointed that this equal footing was not also reflected in proposed new sections 3.1(c) and 3.1(k).
Where does Bill C-11 fall short? Senators, I think you know the answer to this already. My colleague, Monika Ille, APTN’s current CEO, appeared before this committee last week. The CRTC needs the authority to set terms for the distribution of services online. It needs to have power to engage and dispute resolution between online broadcasters, and it needs the authority to oversee the online distribution of services and apps. Thinking 20 or 30 years ahead, it is difficult to understand why we would not include these authorities for the CRTC in the act now, while we have the chance. This legislation needs to see as far as it can to ensure that we are not faced with these issues in a few years without the legislative tools to deal with them. Without APTN and without the CRTC regulatory intervention in 1989, Indigenous peoples in Canada would still be invisible on screens. APTN made a huge difference. It is difficult to overstate. This all started with the ability of the regulator to do something. We are taking away that ability from the CRTC in the future — not only for APTN and Indigenous peoples but for all Canadians. Having the authority to act but not the tools to enforce will only make the system weaker. Our objective here is to reinforce it.
Thank you for this chance to appear before you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
David Errington, President and Chief Executive Officer, Accessible Media Inc.: Accessible Media Inc., or AMI, would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you this evening to offer its views on Bill C-11. With me today is Kevin Goldstein of Goldstein Communications Law, AMI’s outside regulatory counsel.
AMI is a not-for-profit media company that entertains, informs and empowers Canadians who are blind or partially sighted. AMI operates three broadcast services: AMI TV and AMI audio in English and AMI-télé in French. Each of these services benefits from a mandatory carriage order from the CRTC. AMI’s vision is to establish and support a voice for Canadians with disabilities, representing their interests, concerns and values through accessible media, reflection and portrayal.
AMI fully supports the provisions in Bill C-11 designed to improve how the Canadian broadcasting system serves people with disabilities. More specifically, the bill amends section 3(1)(d)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act to provide that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including those with disabilities.
It also amends paragraph 3.1(p) of the act to remove the language that specifies that programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities must only be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system when the resources are available to do so. By removing that qualifying language, the government is signalling that it expects that Canadians with disabilities will be treated like all other citizens for the purposes of broadcasting policy.
However, even though Bill C-11 includes improved language for persons with disabilities, AMI is concerned that certain other provisions in the act will severely limit the CRTC’s ability to implement policies in this area. In fact, the situation could make matters worse than they are today.
Under the current act, the CRTC is given broad discretion to regulate BDUs, cable, satellite and IPTV providers, including which programming services they are required to carry, how those services are distributed and what they are required to pay for that distribution. However, the BDU market is evolving. Increasingly, Canadians are turning to the internet delivery alternative, so-called virtual BDUs, or VBDUs, to access popular programming services. These virtual BDUs, whether foreign providers like Amazon channels or domestic services like Rogers SmartStream, offer similar services to those offered by more traditional cable and satellite providers by using the open internet to deliver service to subscribers.
The current regulated BDU ecosystem plays a central role in supporting the broader public policy objectives in the act. Through the broad distribution of Canadian programming services, BDUs help to increase diversity in the Canadian broadcasting system and ensure stable funding for Canadian programming. Unfortunately, that ecosystem has been under pressure in recent years as Canadians have been cancelling their BDU subscriptions to buy content from unregulated streaming options. It is expected that more and more VBDUs will launch in the future. There has already been a significant decline in the number of Canadians subscribed to the traditional BDU.
Under the current act, the CRTC can order BDUs to carry, on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, programming services specified by the CRTC. This power has been used sparingly but has ensured that certain programming services, specifically those that serve special interest groups and make a particular contribution to advancing Canadian broadcasting policy objectives but would otherwise not be commercially viable, like AMI, can operate and reach their target audience. While Bill C-11 is intended to address the changing media landscape by modernizing the regulatory tools available to the CRTC and to set up the Canadian broadcasting system for future success, as presently drafted, it does not address the changes happening in the BDU environment noted earlier. More specifically, if Bill C-11 is passed in its current form, the CRTC will be severely limited in its ability to regulate internet-delivered BDUs, both Canadian- and foreign-owned. If the CRTC’s powers are not extended to virtual BDUs, numerous Canadian services will go out of business.
AMI has proposed targeted changes to Bill C-11 that we have appended to these remarks. Those changes will give the CRTC the authority to regulate what would normally be considered a BDU except for the fact that it uses the internet to deliver the services. We note that the independent broadcasting groups APTN and OUTtv have made similar representations to the committee, and we support their positions.
Once again, AMI would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide these comments, and we would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now turn to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your testimony. My question is for Mr. Prupas and Mr. Solomon from the Quebec English-Language Production Council. When they appeared before the committee, the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada and the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française testified about the importance of maintaining clause 5.2 on consulting official language minority communities, OLMCs. How does the CRTC currently consult you? What are the challenges or pitfalls you face in the current consultation with the CRTC and why is it important to keep clause 5.2? Finally, if this clause were to be removed, what would that do to you?
Mr. Prupas: I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. I do not take part in consultations with the CRTC on a daily basis, but I can say that, for us, the English-speaking minority in Quebec, it is important to have an ear to the ground with the CRTC on all sorts of issues, such as the protection of television and radio networks in minority districts in Quebec, for example. For us, the obligation that should be imposed on the CRTC is to consult with us and with the francophone minority outside Quebec, and clause 5.2 will impose an obligation on them to hear us on important issues regarding the availability of services in our distinct territories. Have I answered your question?
Senator Cormier: Yes, and obviously, since the CRTC has a responsibility under the Official Languages Act, we can understand. Do you agree with the content of clause 5.2, as it is currently written?
Mr. Prupas: Absolutely, but there was a remark from the chair of the CRTC and CRTC officials who wanted it removed, so that’s why we wanted to emphasize our support for that clause.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses.
I will pose the question, and any witness who would like to answer can feel free to do so. Much of the debate around Bill C-11 has concerned the definition of Canadian content. There have been numerous references to “The Handmaid’s Tale” and other productions that might be written by Canadians, star many Canadians, employ Canadians, be filmed here in Canada and yet not be Canadian content under current rules. Do you see any room for greater flexibility in how Canadian content is defined to permit productions such as those to be classified as Canadian content?
Mr. Prupas: If I may be permitted to answer that question as a producer of programming that is Canadian content and programming that is not Canadian content, the key element for Canadian producers is the ability to control the production and development process. Programs like “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which did involve Canadian writers and actors to a certain extent — not completely — is an example of a program set in Canada that does not benefit Canadian entrepreneurs at the end of the day. The funding that the Canadian government is giving to that program and to any other program that is shot in Canada that has Canadian content qualification is an important element in the financing of those shows.
If we were to allow equal treatment for programming that is not controlled by Canadians but produced in Canada to those that are controlled by Canadians, you’re going to decimate the entire independent production industry in this country. To expand that definition to allow shows, as has been requested by, for example, the Disneys of this world at your hearings last week would be to basically cut the knees out of the Canadian production industry that, as we have been mentioning, has been developing with the support of the Canadian Parliament and parliamentarians going back almost 100 years without getting any of the financial benefits for those shows staying in Canada.
More importantly, perhaps, the ability to develop programming that is of interest to Canadians and relates to the communities that we live in will disappear. At the end of the day, a program like “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is obviously one of the best things that one of the great Canadian writers ever wrote, is something that might travel internationally and work very well internationally, but the vast majority of programming that is developed independently in Canada is not going to have that kind of international reach. It’s the ability to have that independently produced programming that is going to give a distinct Canadian identity to the programming that we have in Canada.
So to answer your question, senator, I would strongly oppose any change to the regulations that establish what defines a Canadian content show, especially to the extent that it would exclude control of the IP by Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Solomon and Mr. Prupas and is about the independent Canadian producers clause.
When I read it in French, I understand that it’s not about foreign companies; it’s about Canadian producers, whether they are independent, affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting company. The way I understood it, it included channels like CTV and TVA, so it wasn’t just independent producers, but could be producers affiliated with broadcasting companies. That was my understanding.
When you read, “. . . affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting undertaking,” do you think they are talking about all foreign broadcasting companies doing business in Canada? Is that, in your opinion, the difficulty with that sentence in French? Because I actually interpret it differently.
[English]
Mr. Prupas: If I may, first of all, the biggest problem is in the English translation of that text. The English translation uses the words “production sector” as opposed to the French words “producteurs canadiens.” I don’t know who did that translation, and I believe that the text was actually drafted in French first, but if it was properly translated from French to English, then I would have partially less objection to that clause. That would certainly help the definition enormously. I don’t see why that change can’t be made to use the words “Canadian producers” as opposed to “Canadian production sector.” The words “Canadian production sector” include any enterprise that produces programming in Canada. Companies like Amazon, Netflix and Disney have all been recognized by the CRTC as companies that are producing in Canada, and their programming is accepted by CAVCO, the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, as productions that qualify programming for broadcast in Canada. They are recognized.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: This translation mistake has been flagged by another witness, and I think it’s pretty evident and it has been taken note of. On that front, I think we have a problem with translation, and I completely agree with you. But you’re saying you’re satisfied with the French version?
Mr. Prupas: Well, I’m satisfied with the words “producteurs canadiens.” Absolutely. That works for me.
The other part of our problem is with the balance of that phrase, which allows companies affiliated with broadcasting undertakings to also qualify for the benefit. What we’re saying is that those broadcasting undertakings include not only the TVAs, the Bells and the CBCs of this world. It also includes all the other companies that have the right to diffuse programming in Canada, which would include all of the major streamers. I don’t need to mention them all. I’m sure you know who they are.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. We will try to clarify that because those are good questions.
Mr. Prupas: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I have a question I wanted to address to Mr. LaRose and also to the gentleman from Accessible Media Inc.
When my understanding of Bill C-10, as it was then, started, I saw a difference between broadcasters who were Canadian and streamers who were international. I think what’s really become plain over the last 24 months is that the future for most Canadian broadcasters is that, eventually, they won’t be broadcasting at all; they will all be streaming as people stop watching conventional television stations. As you’ve pointed out, a lot of the special privileges, I guess, for APTN affiliates and for people with accessibility needs are fulfilled under those broadcast licences. Leaving aside what this means for international streamers, what protections do you need for the public interest supports that are so important to you as conventional broadcasters transition to streamers?
Mr. Errington: We want to see the same policies and regs that are in place for current BDUs to be transitioned when technology transitions to virtual BDUs, when everyone is becoming a streamer and they’re an aggregator of channels, like Rogers SmartStream is. That’s where Canadian BDUs are heading. We want the same rules to apply that we are currently receiving and must carry our rate and what tier we’re distributed on. That is the lifeblood of channels such as AMI or APTN, the security to know that you will be properly funded, the security to know you will be nationally distributed, and the fact that you know you will be on a tier that is a digital basic tier. Currently, the way the bill is written, it only applies to the current broadcasting system of BDUs. When they all morph — and they all will morph because it is better technology and where the future is heading — to become a virtual BDU, this bill doesn’t capture that, and that’s exactly what we’re asking for.
Mr. LaRose: If I could add to that, the bill speaks to negotiations being undertaken should the CRTC define that a mandatory carriage order should be provided. In other words, we should be carried. While I’m no longer the CEO of APTN, I think I can still see the writing on the wall and the playing field. The CRTC doesn’t have the authority to determine to what extent services such as ours should be compensated for.
Production costs for everybody have been skyrocketing, and there’s absolutely no way for APTN to be able to subsist if they were provided with a minimal fee that is the best they could negotiate. The power balance just isn’t there. If we are trying to negotiate something with a major distributor, we really do not have the opportunity to receive what we believe is necessary to be able to maintain the service, but especially to allow it to continue providing our communities the level of production and the quality of production that they are receiving now and that quite often ends up on other networks and other services because it is highly desirable content on other platforms too. We will not have the opportunity to be able to keep creating that, and that’s the big concern that we have.
The Chair: I’ve been listening very attentively to the debate and listening to your testimony again tonight, and I can’t wrap my head around the fact that we’re dealing with the Broadcasting Act in 2022 that was tinkered a little bit from what the act was in 1991. In 1991, the country was very different. Broadcasting was very different. We didn’t have iPads or smartphones. We were just at the introductory stage of all of that. Back then, growing up, we lived in an era where we were afraid as Canadians of being swarmed by American and European culture and that we weren’t strong enough to stand on our feet. We created this monopoly, protectionist, artistic cultural system in the country for the last 40 years. We created the broadcasting legacy fund. You’re right, Mr. Prupas. You said early on in your testimony that parliamentarians created this system, supported this system and nurtured it with budgets and resources in order to protect Canadian culture.
Platforms offer Canadian culture, in my opinion, a unique opportunity, and we’ve seen the results. Digital independent content providers and streamers have become a massive industry in Canada, and right now, legacy broadcasters are complaining because these particular platforms are succeeding, they’re making tons of money, and they’re giving exposure, from what I see in testimony and hear from my kids’ generation, to an incredible marketplace for Canadian culture. I’m excited because I think we can compete around the world. Even though I’m skeptical about making sure we protect the French reality in this country as well, which is a minority in a sea of anglicization, I see the streaming possibility opening us up to new French markets around the world and giving us markets we didn’t have before.
Excuse my cynicism, but I get a sense that we are trying to drag modern-day technological platforms into an archaic broadcasting system. With all due respect, when I look at the bottom line over the last year and a half to two years and their model, it’s dead. They themselves are slowly trying to catch up to digital and streaming. There is no such thing as cable anymore. I would like to hear your comments on that perspective. It is more of a statement, but it is a statement that has been reverberating at these hearings from a number of young Canadians who believe there is a new way of broadcasting.
Mr. Prupas: Senator, I’m very involved in the production of both Canadian content programming and programming that is produced by American-driven people in Canada, which has been a large part of the growth of the television and movie industry in Canada over the last 10 years. It has come from American money coming into Canada because of the low dollar and the subsidies that we have, and, frankly, the talent that we have in this country. There is no question, however, that control over content, which is a question that was asked of me before, is moving very quickly from the legacy broadcasters you’re referring to, who are losing money, to the streamers who, at this point, are completely controlled by non-Canadians. Not completely, but for the most part they are.
The beauty of this law as proposed, as I understand it, is that it is designed to encourage the people who are taking money out of Canadian consumers’ hands, literally billions of dollars each year, and putting it into the control of the programming that they’re developing out of the United States for the most part. It is something that needs to be balanced by an obligation on their part to put a portion of that production into the hands of Canadian independent producers. I don’t think that we’re discouraging Canadian independent production by doing that; we’re encouraging it.
You talked about the old history of what could have happened in this country had there not been a CBC. It would have certainly been possible for the NBC radio of 1929 to have inundated Canada with all of its programming and have control of the entire market in this country. We’re facing the same kind of problem today. We’re looking at a situation where non‑Canadians are going to be in a position to determine the kind of high-budget programming.
I listened to the wonderful testimony of the digital creators that you were talking to earlier in this session today, and I have great admiration for them and a great love for the kind of work that they’re doing. But when it comes to producing programming — and I live it on a day-to-day basis — the average cost per hour of a television program produced for the major American networks is in excess of $5 million U.S. an hour. The highest-budget programming that you have produced in Quebec in French is about $700,000 an hour. The highest-budget productions done by English Canadians for English Canadian audiences is about $2 million an hour. The reality is that those high-budget programs costing that much money, the “Game of Thrones” of this world and other kinds of programs, are the ones that are going to be attracting Canadian audiences, and Canadian producers are not going to be able to ever amortize the cost of their productions, given the size of our market at that level.
Don’t fool yourself into believing that Canadian content programming is going to generate huge amounts of money overseas when there is a Canadian story being told. I can tell you from personal experience, and I personally have sold Canadian programming internationally. I’ve sold it. I sell regularly in the United States. The willingness of international buyers to take on stories that are typically Canadian is extremely limited. There is the odd “The Handmaid’s Tale,” if you want to use that as an example, that is able to travel internationally.
I don’t think we should be embarrassed about trying to support the local production industry telling local stories that are of concern to Canadians at all. I think it’s important to ask those taking money out of the pockets of Canadian consumers to also be obliged to put a certain amount of that money back into the production industry in this country, which is what was required of the legacy broadcasters. I’m sorry for going on so long, but it is a subject that I feel quite passionate about.
The Chair: I appreciate the fulsome answer. Of course, the legacy broadcasters also have access to federal cash that streamers and other producers don’t have. That is also a significant advantage that they have.
Senator Quinn: I’ve been listening with great interest to the last few panels we’ve had talk about the advantage of the internet being a vehicle that is having an effect on spreading Canadian culture and Canadian content on a much wider basis. Tonight we have heard that traditional broadcasting is facing challenges and are making the transition over time to the internet world, with streaming, if you will.
At the end of the day, isn’t it the consumer, particularly the younger generation, who’s going to decide whether they watch or not watch something? It’s a click away to change to something else. Doesn’t it really come down to quality of content to draw people to our Canadian productions? I’m at a bit of a loss for why we’re missing out on that generation that’s much before me having that ability to click. If it’s not good, they’re going to click away. I would like to hear your perspective.
Mr. Prupas: I don’t mean to be monopolizing, but I think that’s an important point that you’re making, but as I said earlier, the quality of the programming depends in large part on the amount of budget available to those productions. Yes, you can create digital programming in your home that can be spread over the internet, but when it comes to producing high-quality programming that is going to attract audiences by the millions, it costs millions of dollars. If that money is not made available to Canadian talent and Canadian producers, that money will go out of Canadian pockets into the hands of those who do control that programming. As I was saying before, the budgets of the typical Canadian programming are significantly less than they are for the American programs that Canadians want to watch. If there isn’t any funding given to Canadian programming, it will disappear. I honestly believe that.
Senator Quinn: My understanding is that — I’m not an expert in this field — the streamers are going to be included in the act, and we’ve heard the big companies talk about their willingness to contribute. I would hope that the money that is contributed is used, in fact, for distribution amongst a broad range of Canadian content builders and traditional whatever. But it should be invested in Canada so that we can, in fact, get better production. I’m just at a loss with it.
Mr. Prupas: If I may, the vast majority of the programming that’s produced in Canada by the American streamers is programming using, yes, Canadian crews and Canadian actors to some extent. It’s programming that’s created and developed in the United States and is brought to this country because of the low cost of production in this country. It is not programming that is telling stories about Canadians in the vast majority of the cases, and it’s not about Canadian creation. At the end of the day, the profits from that programming are going outside of Canada.
The major streamers have all made it very clear — and it’s their business model — that if they don’t own 100% of the copyright of the shows, they won’t produce them. That is a hard reality that we have to face. If there is no imposition on them to allow independent voices from Canada to produce those shows and to give them money to do that from the revenues generated from that streaming network, you’re not going to have Canadian shows in the future, or at least Canadian-driven shows. You might have things shot in Canada, but you will not have Canadian stories told. That’s my perspective.
Mr. Errington: I would like to speak from the broadcaster’s perspective. I’ve been in the Canadian broadcasting system for 30 years, on the broadcaster’s side, and I’ve benefited from the old system greatly, and I have seen great programming and content being produced over time. I can share with you what is special about the Canadian broadcasting system, in my opinion, and that is the fact that it contributes to our culture through Canadian content, but also allows channels like mine, AMI, a channel that is dedicated to persons with disabilities, to exist, or APTN to exist. Channels like ours do not exist in any other country in the world, and that is what is unique and special about the Canadian broadcasting system.
That’s why we’re adamant about the fact that if you’re going to act like a BDU and be a virtual BDU and aggregate channels and stream those aggregated channels out on a system such as Amazon Prime or, in the future, with Roku or Pluto TV, the same conditions should be applied to these virtual channels that are being applied to current BDUs so that channels like mine that address a really unique component of our Canadian society — 22% of all Canadians represented from the disability communities is a big market — have an opportunity to have that channel. That’s what makes the Canadian broadcasting system unique and special. That’s what we’re fighting for today, to have the same rules apply to virtual BDUs as apply to current BDUs. That’s where we are.
Senator Quinn: We heard from the panel before you and others that section 4.2, as written, puts at risk the small guy — the person who does the 30-second clip that tells Canadian vignettes, if I can say that — being able to continue on in that space. Those are the little ones, and I understand there are hundreds, if not thousands, of them. How do you respond to their concern?
Mr. Errington: There’s a role for all of us to exist. I, too, take snippets from our long programming content and push them out on TikTok, YouTube and whatnot. So we’re playing in that vehicle as well, but when you’re talking about a large segment of the Canadian population, be it Indigenous programming or programming for persons with disabilities, I think it has a stronger sense of importance than that.
What I’m asking for today from my representation of AMI is really to preserve what we currently have and this great thing that we’re currently building that is envied all over the world. That’s why the Canadian broadcasting system is special. Do I want those small, independent TikTok people to go away? No. I think they’re important and viable, and I think they should participate in the system. All I’m asking is that the same rules that currently apply to broadcast and distribution undertakings apply to virtual broadcasting. That would solve the problem for us going forward and preserve things such as AMI or APTN.
Senator Quinn: Would you agree that we should consider an amendment to section 4.2 to address the concerns of those little guys so that they can stay on? They’ve expressed fears that they will be challenged to stay on. Should we entertain their suggestions around section 4.2?
Mr. Errington: I think more Canadian content is better.
Kevin J. Goldstein, Outside Regulatory Counsel, Accessible Media Inc.: This is a distinct issue from our issue. Issues relating to user-generated content and when someone does something exclusive to them or makes a living for themselves and gravitates or moves into the kind of content that Mr. Prupas is doing or professional content that a broadcaster might do are two very different things. It is really a distinct issue from what our concerns are, which is that we’re going to transition out of a model in which we gave significant support to certain types of channels and certain types of content, acknowledging that the people who distribute that content on those platforms in the new world order don’t seem to fall under the CRTC’s jurisdiction. That’s our specific issue tonight.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to thank the panel for participating and for indulging us. We went a little over our time due to some technical difficulties this evening, but we were able to make up the time in the second half. Thank you for being with us and for sharing your views.
(The committee adjourned.)