THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 25, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.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: Good morning, colleagues. My name is Leo Housakos and I’m Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I’d like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Richards: I’m David Richards from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good morning. Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko from Ontario.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin from the province of Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We are meeting to continue our examination on the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
This morning on our first panel, we are joined by David Coletto, Chief Executive Officer of Abacus Data.
[Translation]
We also have Martin Lavallée, Senior Legal Counsel with the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, joining us by video conference.
[English]
Before going forward, colleagues, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to try and refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpieces when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room and our translation staff. Please be cognizant of that because we’ve had an unfortunate incident because of it.
I will ask our panellists to begin with a five-minute introduction. After that, we will go to a question and answer. We will start with Mr. David Coletto from Abacus Data. Sir, you have the floor.
David Coletto, Chief Executive Officer, Abacus Data: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am the founder and CEO of Abacus Data, a full-service market and public opinion firm with offices in Ottawa and Toronto. I’m appearing today as an individual and an expert on public opinion research, not on behalf of any client or organization.
For over 16 years, I’ve been studying Canadian opinions, consumer and employee behaviour and Canadian public policy through the eyes of Canadians. Like Senator Dasko, I’ve had the privilege of asking thousands of Canadians questions and listening to what they care about, what they worry about and observing how they behave.
Over my career, I’ve been keenly focused on understanding the impact of two forces in our world: generational and technological change. Both of them have a major impact on the consumer, labour and political markets in Canada around the world.
I’m what the New York Times describes as a geriatric millennial. Born in 1981 — I know I look very young — I, like millions of millennials, grew up in a world that was more structured, less hierarchical, more digital and faster changing than at any time in history. We were the most diverse, tech-savvy and educated generation in history — that is, until Generation Z appeared. Millennials are now the largest generation in the consumer and labour markets.
At the same time that Canada saw rapid generational change, technological change has fundamentally changed the way we communicate, learn, entertain ourselves, work, engage with our community and make decisions. As a researcher, I’ve been fascinated by the impacts of technological change on all aspects of our lives and have spent a great deal of time over the last 12 years learning and observing those forces.
We live in a world where consumers no longer expect to have to wait for what they want. We live in an on-demand environment where the content, goods and services we need and want are delivered sometimes instantaneously. Add to that, we live in a mobile world where all those things we want or need can be accessed or ordered anywhere, at any time of day.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity. I’d be happy to answer any questions from senators.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
Martin Lavallée, Senior Legal Counsel, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada: Thank you, honourable senators. My name is Martin Lavallée and I’m Senior Legal Counsel with the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN. I’m pleased to appear before you in support of Bill C-11.
We’re pleased that this important legislation was adopted in the House of Commons in its current form. The bill delivers on the minister’s promise to regulate online streaming services while excluding its application to individual content creators.
In its form before you, we believe the bill is a big step in the right direction for the contribution to promotion of Canadian songs and creators while avoiding unintended consequences. As such, we ask that the Senate adopt the legislation without further amendment.
As many of you know, the internet is now the dominant platform for the delivery of music. Online streaming has had exponential growth over the last number of years.
SOCAN itself has experienced considerable growth in revenues from online streaming. In 2021, SOCAN collected $416 million on behalf of Canadian and foreign rights holders, of which $100 million was from digital sources. SOCAN’s collections from digital platforms may soon overtake collections from more traditional sources, such as radio and television.
However, Canadian songwriters and composers are not benefiting from, or receiving their fair share, of that growth. This inequity is due in large part to the fact that the foreign streaming services that have benefited greatly from operating in Canada are not required to support or promote Canadian creators to Canadian audiences.
Only a fraction of SOCAN’s digital licensing revenue stays in Canada. For every dollar generated from Canadian TV and radio broadcasters, approximately 34 cents is distributed to Canadian songwriters and composers. However, of the revenues generated from online streaming services, only 10 cents is distributed to Canadians.
The situation is even more dire for francophone songwriters and composers who receive only 1.8 cents per dollar generated from online streaming services as compared to 7.4 cents from Canadian broadcasters.
It stands to reason those online platforms, who benefit from unfettered access to Canadian audiences, should be supporting our cultural community and the next generation of Canadian songwriters and composers. It is vital to the survival of our culture and cultural sovereignty.
Consumer choice is not enough. Online platforms already decide who to promote and who to demote on their services. They already play those curatorial and editorial roles and should fulfill those roles by showcasing Canadians to Canadians.
It’s not only Canadian songwriters and composers that will benefit. The audience will, too. We all benefit when our cultural policies reflect and encourage the Canadian experience, and the creation and dissemination of Canadian stories and songs.
We implore the government to require streaming services to play their part in making it easier to find Canadian songs and stories on online platforms in Canada.
SOCAN isn’t proposing any amendments to Bill C-11. The bill must remain broad so that it can adapt to future online services, whose models for delivering content aren’t yet known. A bill that is tailored to only services in operation today, or that carves out specific services as they exist today, won’t be flexible enough or have staying power for the future of online broadcasting.
We ask parliamentarians of all stripes and, indeed, of both chambers, to adopt this legislation as soon as possible and as is to provide the legislative framework for the cultural and commercial success of our amazing creators of Canadian songs.
Thank you for your attention. I’ll be happy to take any questions.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you both for your testimony. My question is for Mr. Lavallée, but it doesn’t involve your presentation, which I understood. It’s more of a technical question on the issue of these unique identifiers we’ve heard so much about.
When I was doing research on the bill, I met with industry officials who told me that unique identifiers aren’t quite there yet, that they’re still a work in progress and that some information is still missing.
If the idea is to find Canadian creators, Canadian musicians and various types of songs, from what I understand, there’s still a lot of work to do before we get to that magic number that will allow us to be able to tell different works of art apart and to have enough information on the work in question to be able to find it.
I’d like you to tell us where we’re at in all this, if my information is correct, and what you’re doing in order to ascertain where music comes from, what type of music it is, and collect all the information that make discoverability possible.
Mr. Lavallée: Thank you for that question. You’re alluding to unique identifiers, which allow us to identify individual works of art and to distinguish between them. As you can imagine, in music as in many other areas, there are bound to be different works that bear exactly the same title. Distinguishing between these different works is at the heart of what collectives such as ours endeavour to do. What you’re talking about are International Standard Recording Codes, ISRCs, and International Standard Musical Work Codes, ISWCs, or audio and audiovisual works.
When you say there’s still a lot of work to do, it mostly involves metadata, or the data associated with the work number. Do we have the name of the author and the name of the publisher? Do we have the name of the album, the year of production? Is the work in French or in English? It is essential to input these data at the source, right when the work is created.
There are many initiatives under way, in Quebec and elsewhere, to create a single repertoire and ensure that, even before a work is broadcast, all of this information would be available in a single, shareable database. Actually, collectives already engage in sharing of common databases in an effort to have all of the information in the global repertoire.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Lavallée, am I wrong to believe that these databases aren’t quite up to snuff yet and that there’s still some uncertainty around this?
Mr. Lavallée: Obviously, they’re functional enough to allow us to do data matching and to pay our rights holders. If any information is missing, we go back to the source to fill in the blanks. Once all the information is there, it’s crystallized in our database. That way, when we encounter that work again, we don’t need to start everything all over again.
It’s a never-ending job; there are a lot of works out there. To answer your question, I’d say that we will never have all the information that we’d like to have. During data entry, it would be useful to add fields that would allow us to qualify a work. Is it a Canadian piece? Is it in French?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The way things are now, could platforms offer discoverability with the available metadata?
Mr. Lavallée: In certain cases, yes. There is some data variation, depending on the repertoire. You can imagine that the more active and better-known works have fairly complete information. To your question, I’m more concerned about those works that may not be as well-known, those whose underlying data may not be as complete.
That said, I’m no specialist, but that’s been my experience.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: My question picks up where Senator Miville-Dechêne’s left off, but first, I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Lavallée, in order to determine if a social media should be subject to the act, the CRTC must assess the uploaded programs based on three criteria, the purpose of which is to determine their commercial value. I’m sure you’re familiar with these three criteria. In your opinion, are they adequate to the task of determining the commercial value of a work?
Mr. Lavallée: It’s tempting to answer yes or no, but if I need to give a simple answer, it would be yes.
I’m indeed familiar with these three criteria; I have them in front of me as I speak. The clarification I’d like to make is this: The act currently allows for a debate when appearing before the CRTC. Our message here at SOCAN and what we appreciate in the bill as it’s written is that, on the one hand, it’s broad enough to be able to adapt to future technological changes and to attempt to adapt to the business model.
Let’s not forget that the Broadcasting Act remained unchanged for 30 years. It stands to reason that this legislation won’t necessarily be revisited for a while. That’s why it’s important to keep this high degree of flexibility.
The criteria are indicators that need to be considered, but in my experience, that shouldn’t prevent the CRTC from having a fulsome debate with all the concerned parties who may want to speak. To answer your question, yes, the criteria are broad enough. They may seem vague or too broad, but that’s precisely the point. The more flexible the act, the more relevant it will be over the long term.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your answer. You were saying how your songwriter and composer members collect 34% of royalties derived from traditional media but barely 10% of those derived from digital media. These are worrisome figures. How do we restore the necessary balance to ensure the success of Canadian creators on digital platforms? I’m thinking in particular of francophone creators. What would be your answer?
Mr. Lavallée: For francophone creators, the ratio is even more —
Senator Cormier: It is even more catastrophic.
Mr. Lavallée: It’s interesting, because the simple answer to your question is to pass the bill as quickly as possible without amendment. More specifically, it’s interesting to see that online platforms have been around for about 20 years in Canada and that we’re already seeing the impact of non-discoverability and non-promotion of Canadian content, namely, a huge decline in revenue.
Without forcing anyone, we need to ensure the visibility of the Canadian repertoire. It’s there, but it simply isn’t visible. It gets drowned out, and we believe Bill C-11 will enable this discoverability.
In Quebec, I believe the ADISQ and the APEM appeared before you; their message is very similar to ours. When local, francophone artists are promoted, Quebec tends to appreciate and listen to them more, which brings some balance to revenue distribution.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, Mr. Coletto, and thank you for being with us. My question is for you, and obviously you have the privilege of working with an organization that collects data. Can you share with us any data you have about what Canadians feel in regard to Bill C-11 and this legislation in general and, more specifically, what millennials think of this legislation?
As well, do you have any data you can share with us about the expectations and preferences of millennials in terms of how they consume cultural content?
Finally, do you have any data you can share with us in regard to what we need to do as a society to get millennials to consume more Canadian content?
I think those are three succinct questions. I don’t know if there is data available to share with us.
Mr. Coletto: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First, let me say I don’t have any publicly available data on this bill in question, but I have permission to confirm that I have done work. I’ve done a study on this legislation for YouTube Canada. However, those results have not been made public, so you would have to ask YouTube to see those results and whether they’d be willing to share them with the committee.
I’m here to talk a lot about millennials, but we do research among all Canadians. The technological gap in how Canadians consume information and content is strong over the last two and a half years. During the pandemic, we’re all stuck at home, have run out of content, we’re waiting and trying to find what it is we want to listen to, watch or read. So that gap has changed.
But from the research, we know, for example, that large majorities of younger Canadians, in particular, rely upon and use different platforms to access content on a daily basis.
I’ll give you one example. We do what we call the Canadian Millennials Report. Every six months, we survey 2,000 Canadian millennials. We’ve been doing it for over four years, so we have really interesting trend data. Let’s take podcasts, for example. Back in 2018, when we did our first survey, about 17% of millennials say they listen to a podcast every single day. Today, in our most recent survey, that’s up to 33%, almost double the number of people who rely on that kind of content to entertain and inform them. That’s just one example of the growth in this area.
When you ask what you should consider, as somebody who puts the user, the consumer or the citizen at the centre of the work that we do, I would always say to start with what that user wants and has come to expect. When you look at the generational or age divides, my generation, millennials, is often described as digital natives; they grew up with access to information in ways that we could only imagine in previous generations. We’ve come to expect, as I said in my opening remarks, the ability to get that content when we want it, in a way that’s easy to access. We’ve also come to expect it to be affordable.
Name the platform — there are premium versions and free versions — but being able to access that content affordably is at the top of the list. That is especially true in the context of the economic environment we’re now finding ourselves in, where households of all generations are feeling the squeeze. That’s something to consider.
But at the end of the day, my advice is to look at the user experience and how that might be impacted by this piece of legislation and by future regulations.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses. I have a question for our witness from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, this morning.
A theme we have often heard repeated is that Bill C-11 is important in order to ensure that online streaming platforms contribute their fair share to our Canadian culture ecosystem. However, the Motion Picture Association told our committee that companies such as Disney, NBC, Universal, Netflix, Paramount, Sony and others spent more than $5 billion across Canada in 2021. That accounts for more than half of all production in Canada and 90% of the growth in the sector over the last decade.
Why do you believe they’re not paying their fair share? How much do you think they should be paying? How should we do that?
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: Thank you very much for the question.
It’s fantastic to see support for Canadian culture no matter what form it takes, but that doesn’t change the fact that a decade of exemption has allowed digital broadcasters to profit from the Canadian market, without any of the obligations that our national broadcasters are subject to.
We know that, despite the financial contributions you mention, regulation remains necessary, which answers the last part of your question, because that money doesn’t go to Canadian creators, who represent the vast majority of our members. Despite these production contributions, Canadian creators still seem to get only between 30% and 17% or 7% and 1% of revenues. We believe Canadian creators need our support to continue developing music in the digital world, which will soon completely overtake, from a revenue standpoint, the more traditional mediums.
With regard to what my colleague just said, we commissioned a study from the polling firm Léger in January 2022. Two-thirds of the 400,000 participants said that it was important for foreign companies and social media to promote Canadian entertainment content and support it. That’s my answer.
[English]
Senator Manning: Thank you.
Mr. Coletto, we’re receiving a lot of feedback here from interested parties regarding this bill. The ordinary Canadians out there who tune in to all the different platforms are the people who are going to be affected in many ways by this piece of legislation. I’m not sure of how many are even aware of what we’re doing here in a lot of cases. Just to give you a clear example, last week, we had a truck parked across the street here with “Pass Bill C-11” with a few reasons why flashing. I happened to walk by and asked the driver what Bill C-11 was about. He didn’t know.
I’m wondering about Canadians. Is any data being collected that you’re aware of by your company that can give us insights about how Canadians feel about this legislation?
Mr. Coletto: Thank you for the question, senator. As I mentioned to the chair, YouTube Canada has done a study. I can’t share those results, but I would encourage you to reach out to them.
Maybe I’ll speak more broadly as somebody who studies how Canadians feel and whether they’re following what goes on here in Ottawa. My hypothesis would be that many people aren’t following these proceedings or what happened in the House of Commons that closely, but that doesn’t mean they won’t care about the consequences of any piece of legislation that’s passed.
That’s why I come back what I said earlier: Consider the impact on the user as well as the other stakeholders involved.
When I work with any consumer-facing organization and they’re going to make a significant change, perhaps, to how a service is delivered or how a product is designed, if it’s unexpected, that often created some friction with their own customers.
That would be my only advice, but I can’t speak to any specifics on Bill C-11 in terms of how closely Canadians are following it.
Senator Manning: Are there any plans to do so from your own company?
Mr. Coletto: I have no plans to do so.
Senator Manning: Okay, thank you.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Coletto, you do the Canadian Millennials Report, so I want to run a message past you that we heard loud and clear last week from some of our witnesses. Amongst all the technical problems that they have with Bill C-11, the conflicting messages and all of that, they are concerned — one of them talked specifically — about the psychological impact. They don’t want to be lumped in with “Canadian content” that’s going to be force-fed to an audience, because they want to be chosen and selected by listeners and viewers because they’re good, not because their content is being pushed up because it meets some Canadian content requirement.
They don’t want government regulation. They don’t want government help. They don’t want government handouts. They’re entrepreneurs, and they think they can make it on their own.
Is that unique to millennials or “geriatric millennials” who work in this field — they’re YouTubers or TikTokers — or is that a more general state of mind for millennials?
Mr. Coletto: Senator, thank you for the question. I can’t speak to any research I’ve done that might confirm or counter that particular claim, but I can say that content is king or queen. We all lived through this pandemic. Our insatiable appetite for any good content was very clear.
I can say personally, as someone who has a podcast and creates content every day with Abacus, whether it’s the polls we do or interviews with senators about their careers, I want as many people as possible to view that. Again, I can’t speak to whether all creators share my view, but I think consumers are looking for content that they want and that they will get value from and, in some cases, be entertained by.
Senator Wallin: Thank you. I will put the same question to Mr. Lavallée, then. Hearing this message over and over again, I know you have made the case that if more Canadian content is played, the creators will make more money. Aside from that, this is a whole industry that is built on consumer choice. The reason I’m watching certain movies or hearing certain music is because my behaviour and my likes and dislikes have been recorded by the streamers. If you want to change that, do you not risk people saying, “I didn’t ask for that; I don’t like that; I’ve already given you my preferences”? And then can you talk a bit about the psychological impact that the content creators themselves talked about?
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: Thank you very much, senator.
What strikes me when I hear your question and the comments you’ve relayed is that online platforms, music streaming services and social media already choose the criteria that determines which content is promoted. They already undertake content curation activities that go beyond consumer choices and about which we have no idea, no real transparency around the editorial choices that are made by foreign aggregators here, in Canada.
In our view, the new regulations would allow the CRTC, in consultation, to guide these recommendations you mention, that are already prerecorded, by requiring that platforms factor Canadian cultural considerations into their equation.
Let’s not forget that the bill, from our understanding of it, would give platforms full discretion to determine the way in which Canadian content is promoted. They could also use playlists, banners, advertising or hashtags to influence editorial decisions.
In short, the difference is that currently, we have no real way of knowing how those choices are made and how the recommendations are brought to the consumers. Our understanding is that 80% of people choose what the machine recommends them. We would like these recommendations to consider the promotion of Canadian content, as the bill provides for.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests on our panel. YouTube and this bill aside — I do agree content is king. This question is for Mr. Coletto. In terms of psychographics or likes, dislikes, values and behaviours, does any the opinion research that you have done reveal any preference by Canadians for Canadian content? If so, do you know how they proactively seek out content? Is there anything proactive about that or, as Mr. Lavallée suggests, is it through promotions and so on? Is there any proactive nature of Canadian audiences?
Mr. Coletto: Unfortunately, I have no clear data to answer that question. I am somebody who doesn’t like to speculate without good data to back it up.
Senator Klyne: So you have not done any psychographic or opinion research on this?
Mr. Coletto: No.
Senator Klyne: Mr. Lavallée, we’ve heard from many groups in the music industry and digital platforms and there seems to be a divide between the perspective of digital platforms and artists. The platforms are generally not in favour of this legislation while many artists support it. Your organization believes that artists will benefit from this legislation. Can you explain to this committee what you expect the benefit to be? Are you measuring that benefit in terms of increased exposure, more money in an artist’s pocket, enhanced opportunity to build a bigger audience or some combination of all of these things?
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: Thank you very much for the question. I would tend to say yes to all of the above. Fundamentally, our contention rests on the royalties we collect and on the conclusions we can draw from that. In a world where a certain threshold of Canadian content promotion must be met by regulation, our members — authors, composers and publishers — would see greatly increased royalty payments.
I’d say that the most obvious benefit that we’re expecting to see would be in the form of more money going from the platforms to our Canadian members, which also explains artists’ support for this bill.
Senator Simons: I’ll attempt to ask Mr. Lavallée my questions in French even though I’m note entirely bilingual.
I understand there’s a lot of anxiety in Quebec and French-speaking Canada about the future of the French language, French culture and French music. I know that that’s the reason for this bill we have before us.
I asked my colleague, Senator Miville-Dechêne, a question on a podcast last week: Wouldn’t it be easier to simply put more money toward marketing and promotion in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Alberta, who also have francophone communities? This bill is so very complicated. Wouldn’t it be simpler to only invest money to reach certain objectives and to improve the discoverability of French music in Quebec?
Mr. Lavallée: First, let me say that your French is excellent.
Senator Simons: It’s not easy, but I thank you.
Mr. Lavallée: I’m always floored when I hear people who speak perfect French say that they’re not entirely bilingual, so I thank you and congratulate you.
To answer your question, I think we’re talking about two different things. I agree with you: Why wouldn’t it suffice to use that money to increase promotion? What I disagree on somewhat is about the bill being super complicated. Fundamentally, I think that these are two separate activities. There are a lot of programs in place in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada. There are promotion and business development programs and all kinds of federal and provincial programs aimed at promoting music, in particular local music and other things like that.
I think that, fundamentally, today’s debate is on the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. As I said earlier, this act hasn’t evolved in 30 years. I completely agree with Mr. Coletto’s comments about the major change in consumer behaviour and about technology’s impact on our lives. This trend accelerated during the pandemic, when we had to stay home and find entertainment through digital platforms. This modernization would only bring about a more equitable world. Currently, we live in a two-tiered world.
There’s the more traditional world, with its own set of rules, and the digital world, in which our Canadian rights holders do not benefit from the generated revenues. That is the conclusion I always keep coming back to. It has therefore been our hope, as we’ve asked repeatedly, for this legislation to be introduced so that we might hold a real debate.
Interestingly, while we may be talking about the consequences of the bill today, let’s not forget that the real debate will occur in front of the CRTC when the policies will be announced. What we’re asking the government, independent of political affiliation, is to simply allow us to have this debate, which we haven’t been able to do, with the financial consequences that I’ve outlined.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you both.
[English]
I have a question for Mr. Coletto and then a question for Mr. Lavallée.
I was doing commentary last night for the municipal election in Cornwall, and I was on the local cable television network, quite aware that there were very few millennials watching me give all this commentary. How different generations take in information even in terms of our democratic process is important. I worry about cozy listening experiences where we’re listening to people who look like us, sound like us and do exactly what we are all doing.
I know you told us a few times that you don’t have data. I’m sure you don’t speak for your entire generation. I am a geriatric Gen Xer, and I don’t speak for all of us.
Could you comment on this sort of feeling that we presume that Canadian content will disrupt our cozy listening experience? I would prefer to assume that young Canadians might want to hear Canadian content and might want to figure out how to find it. That’s a question for you, Mr. Coletto.
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée, I well understood your point about the platforms’ lack of transparency. Could you comment on — I happen to like hip-hop, it’s true, so that’s what I’m offered in my spaces because that’s my preferred genre. Isn’t it already possible to give me Canadian hip-hop suggestions? It would seem to me that the algorithms and platforms are already sophisticated enough to give me all that. Could you comment on that? We’re being told it’s too complicated and that managing Canadian content would be too onerous. That’s my question to you.
[English]
Mr. Coletto: Great question. Let me give you a quick personal anecdote, because I always like it when anecdotes align with data. A number of years ago, some tornadoes hit Ottawa, and a life was lost out in the west part of the city. I was here, and, thankfully, nothing happened to my family. My sister, who is five years younger, lives in the Toronto area. I think the tornadoes happened on a Friday, and on Monday, she sends me a text saying: “Hey, David, how are you doing? I just heard about the tornadoes. Are you okay?” And I said, “Thanks, Stephanie. Everything is fine. Lucky, very lucky, and we only lost power for a few hours.” Putting my researcher hat on for a moment, I asked, “Why did it take you four days to reach out to me? We’re pretty close.” She’s 30, married and has kids — an adult, by all accounts. She said, “I don’t subscribe to any newspapers. I have no apps on my device that would have notified me. I don’t listen to the radio. I didn’t talk to Mom this weekend, and you didn’t post anything on social media. So how would I have found out?”
So your point is important. Despite how connected we are, all of us have the potential to be isolated from the world and from things that we may or may not like, so I think that’s something to consider. But I also believe we have to think about the way in which a user will seek out certain content, the process by which they do that. Just because it’s forced upon them or it is shown to them, I don’t think it necessarily means they are going to consume it.
On the other hand, if you don’t show it to them, they may never know, so it is important to find the balance between ensuring that you are exposing people to things that they may not even know exist and making that user experience something that they want, is convenient for them and gets them the content that they seek.
Senator Clement: Thank you for that. Mr. Lavallée?
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: Thank you very much. There are several things. To follow up on what Mr. Coletto just said, transparency and the difficulty platforms have enabling the discovery of new products can be summed up in one magic word: discoverability. When you speak of the risk of disrupting our cozy listening experience and our current behaviours — take for example a certain Quebec platform that will remain nameless. Personally, I like jazz as a musical style. There’s this one page devoted entirely to jazz, with a list of all the jazz artists from Quebec and Canada. I knew barely three-quarters of them, since Spotify and Apple Music almost exclusively point me toward American artists. That allowed me to make some great discoveries, which was very enjoyable, because when we like a style of music, although we may have some preferences when it comes to artists, the music itself is what holds our attention.
All this to say that discoverability, in my view, wouldn’t disturb consumer experience. Quite the opposite, it would enrich it by allowing consumers to be exposed to things that they’re not currently exposed to and they don’t know they’re not being exposed to. That’s a very important aspect. The lack of transparency cannot be overstated.
I’d now like to quickly address the second part of your question about whether platforms already have the means to do that. I’ll answer indirectly. In the mid 2000s, I was part of a team that appeared before a specialized tribunal, the Copyright Board, to claim the right to impose tariffs on online music services; we were the first to take such action. In those early days, Apple was the one offering music downloads. As a collective, we demanded reports on royalties be paid. Our opponents, the online music services, argued that it was impossible, that they didn’t have that information, that it would stifle their innovation, that we should ask someone else or even do it ourselves, that we couldn’t require that of their systems, that they’d never be able to do it. We demonstrated the importance of this information to be able to equitably distribute royalties among our members.
Fast forward 10 years and it’s become the norm. Today, all online music services submit these reports to us. We even agreed on electronic formats so that our systems can exchange information and do some data matching. To the very first question that was posed, this expands our databases, which are increasingly being populated by this information exchange between systems. How interesting to hear them say, to this day, that the machine will break even though it hasn’t. In my opinion, this illustrates the failure of self-regulation and the necessity of regulation.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: I am following up on the comments of the chair and Senator Manning about research on Bill C-11, but I will lift it now to research generally. I was a previous mayor, so rather than content being king, I think data is king. For human beings, their perception is their reality. In the work you do, how do you measure truly and frankly — and I don’t mean to diss the industry; I’m just really curious — the accuracy and maybe the effectiveness of the data you collect based on the questions you ask, when the answers will often be based on an individual’s perception and not on reality?
Mr. Coletto: That’s a great question, senator.
I say to everyone that I actually don’t live in the world of reality when I do work. I live in the world of perception, because your perception dictates your behaviours, to a great degree. I always use the example that if I turn on the radio and the weather forecaster says that it’s cold out, I will dress accordingly, but if I step outside and it’s 40 degrees, I will be upset that my perception did not match reality.
As researchers, we implicitly understand that, depending upon the question and what we want to explore, trying to understand the difference between what people think is happening versus what really is happening is really critical. That is more so today than probably in a long time. That gap is widening — we’ve seen that throughout the pandemic — between what people believed was the truth and what was actually the truth.
Understanding those perceptions, in terms of a broad public policy debate, my experience over the years has been that the general public, regardless of their political, regional or demographic divides, care a lot about what they think the motive is for decisions that are made here in Ottawa, in provincial capitals or in municipalities. That affects their perception. One of the risks in any public policy is that if consumers and citizens, generally, believe that a particular piece of legislation or a decision made by government is being done for the wrong reasons, that might affect how they react to it.
Ultimately, as we talk about consumer behaviour in the context of streaming and the online world, the gap between perception and reality is not as wide. People have a good understanding of what they want, and if you are using this technology on a regular basis, I think you become very comfortable with it.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
The Chair: I know from my question at the beginning, Mr. Coletto, that you brought up YouTube as a client — that you had done some data research on their behalf. They have come before the committee. I am going to ask the clerk to reach out to YouTube, and maybe they can share that data with this committee. That would be helpful.
Senator Dasko: In the interests of full disclosure, I was a guest on Mr. Coletto’s podcast. We did not talk about Bill C-11.
I want to put in a good word for the baby boomers, because we’re still here. The oldest is around 75 and the youngest is around the mid-50s. We are the big generation — a generation with huge numbers in Canada and Canadian society. Anyway, that’s just my editorial comment.
I have a general question for you. I will preface it with some polling data from our mutual competitor from my old days. Nanos Research did a survey for The Globe and Mail, and they reported that two in three Canadians support streaming services financially supporting the creation of Canadian content in the same way that Canadian broadcasters support Canadian content. That’s one small piece of Bill C-11; there are many other pieces to Bill C-11, of course, but that’s a prelude to the question I have.
This is a general high-level question for you. We have had a lot of witnesses come and talk about Canadian content, sometimes in a kind of disparaging way, especially with respect to Canadian content regulations. Of course, the country has lived with regulations for decades and is also putting a form of content into Bill C-11 as we go forward through discoverability.
As somebody who has observed Canadian consumers over the years — and tackle this whichever way you wish — how have consumers responded to all of the Canadian content — regulations, Canadian content — that we’ve had? It is a big question. It is very high level. Approach this whatever way you wish.
Mr. Coletto: Thank you for the question.
Again, without having the benefit of clear and recent data that I can speak to, my answer would be twofold. One is that Canadians are deeply proud of the content that gets created and when we hear great stories about it going global. Think of the amazing comedians that Canada has produced. There’s a great pride in that. On the other hand, they probably don’t know very much Canadian content.
I am hesitating to answer, because I always like to be able to say that I have a number for you, Senator Dasko, and I don’t in this case.
One of the things I am fascinated by is the generational divide. I think about my mother, who is a baby boomer, as you described, who grew up in a world where that content was regularly available. Now, she spends far more time on her mobile device, streaming endless hours of crocheting and knitting videos and watching vlogs. I went to visit a few weeks ago. I was sitting in their family room, and my dad was watching TV and my mom was on her iPad. I asked her what she was watching. She said she was watching a vlog. I couldn’t imagine my mother using the word “vlog.” Then she described how she found it and how she found the next one.
I don’t know if it was Canadian content, frankly; I didn’t ask. But for her, I don’t know if it would matter as long it was content that she wanted and was serving a need. Would it be better if that was Canadian content? I will leave that for you to decide, but consumers, at the end of the day, want the best version of whatever they are getting at an affordable rate. To me, that is what guides the research that I’ve seen in other sectors as well.
Senator Richards: Mr. Lavallée, thank you for being here.
I heard that Spotify pays roughly two thirds of the music revenue to rights-holders, which is 8.5 times as much as radio and 30 times as much as broadcasters of music videos. So that’s over $8.9 billion. They are doing a bit more than might have been suggested here earlier this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: Would you like me to comment on that?
[English]
Senator Richards: I would like you to comment on that, please, yes. Then I will have a short follow-up question.
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: Thank you for your question. It is understandable that digital revenues are increasing overall, including those of Spotify. As stated, digital revenues are becoming the main source of consumption. These revenues will soon exceed conventional revenue sources. So it is understandable that revenues are increasing. The concern is not that they are increasing, but rather the portion going to Canadians.
Among the revenues you mentioned, a huge portion goes to foreign entities, a much greater proportion as compared to conventional media. With conventional media, 34 cents went into the pockets of Canadian rights holders. With digital media, on the other hand, not only are revenues higher and increasing exponentially, but just 10 cents goes to Canadian rights holders.
So Bill C-11 will help restore the balance in order to give a greater share to Canadian rights holders.
[English]
Senator Richards: I don’t know if my follow-up question can be answered, but I will ask it anyway. What would you consider Anne Murray, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Gordon Lightfoot, Leonard Cohen, Drake, The Band, Robert Goulet or Paul Anka? Would they be considered Canadian artists? They certainly are Canadian artists. In one way or another, they all had to travel to the United States in order to get recognized the way they are today. Would you consider these people Canadian artists or American? How does that work with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, and the new revamping of our policy?
[Translation]
Mr. Lavallée: I cannot answer that question, unfortunately. What we need is to open the door by passing this bill without amendments, and as quickly as possible, so the CRTC and the parties concerned can answer this question in detail, in a fully transparent and democratic process.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Richards. Great panel.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
[English]
Unfortunately, our time is up.
Honourable colleagues, for our second panel, we are very pleased to have with us, as an individual, David Bussières, singer and producer, who is joining us by video conference and from the Documentary Organization of Canada, Sarah Spring, Executive Director, also joining by video conference. From the Canada Media Fund, we have Valerie Creighton, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mathieu Chantelois, Executive Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs. Welcome and thank you for joining us. Each of you, Mr. Bussières, Ms. Spring and Ms. Creighton, will have five minutes for introduction. We will then turn it over to Q and A.
[Translation]
Mr. Bussières, you have the floor.
David Bussières, singer and producer, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for inviting me to appear today and for your interest in artists in the music sector.
I am a singer-songwriter-composer as well as an artist/producer with Alfa Rococo, a francophone pop-rock musical duo from Montreal. We have been active since 2007, have released four albums, and will soon release a fifth. We have sold more than 75,000 copies and generated more than 5 million streams, including a number of tracks that have been radio hits, four of them topping the charts in Quebec.
Alongside my artistic activities, I also sit on the board of directors of the Union des Artistes, SOCAN and Artisti. I am also a spokesperson for RAM, the Regroupement des artisans de la musique, an organization with more than 900 members that I founded in 2016 to help musicians to speak with a single voice in order to create a more equitable economic model for artists.
As we all know, digital music platforms owned by large foreign companies are a major source of innovation and have seen explosive growth in recent years. They use an incredibly powerful disruptive technology and have undeniable advantages over earlier technologies. Who would not want a catalogue of all the music in the world at their fingertips for about $15 per month, or for free in some cases?
Unfortunately, the explosion of this dissemination system does not benefit Canadian artists, and benefits Quebec artists and francophone artists across the country even less. Here are three statistics to illustrate how little artists benefit from these platforms.
First, as Mr. Lavallée said earlier, just 10% of the digital revenues collected in Canada by SOCAN are passed on to Canadian songwriters and composers, while the rest goes to foreign entities.
Secondly, Quebec artists have always garnered about 50% of record sales in recent decades, whereas their share of digital music platforms is now just 8%, an 84% drop.
Third, for every dollar of revenue from conventional television and radio broadcasters, about 7.4 cents goes to francophone songwriters and composers. In the case of online music, those same songwriters and composers receive 1.8 cents per dollar generated, a 75% drop.
In light of these rather shocking figures, we have to wonder how we got to this point. Music associations across the country agree that Canadians, and francophones in particular, do not have enough exposure to local music. So they cannot discover and appreciate its real merit, and the internet giants that manage digital music platforms, in keeping with their own interests, see no benefit in recommending and showcasing our music. They rely on recommendation algorithms for internationally successful music, thereby creating an echo chamber for listeners that local artists have difficulty penetrating.
To address this situation, Bill C-11 must be passed so the CRTC can impose its regulatory framework to establish the following two aspects.
First, digital music services, like conventional broadcasters, must contribute to the creation of local music by participating in financial support programs that encourage creation, through Musicaction for francophone music and Factor for anglophone music. Supporting local creators will give those creators the means to continue producing quality content and to commercialize their music in order to reach and expand their audience.
Secondly, like conventional broadcasters, digital music services must participate in the promotion of local music on their platforms. Canadian and Quebec content must continue to occupy a prominent place for local audiences on streaming platforms. When those platforms push or recommend content to users, part of that content must be Canadian, from Quebec, and francophone, to ensure that our artists can be discovered.
In short, I am here to say that Canadian and Quebec audiences like their local music, but they cannot like something they are not exposed to. Content disseminators who have unfettered access to our audiences must ensure that Canadian citizens can hear their own music on digital platforms.
We have to act now to get this bill passed, because the longer it takes, the greater the hegemonic effect of the Big Tech oligopoly in distancing audiences from local content. Our cultural identity is ultimately at stake, with all its diversity, specific characteristics, and the fact that it is home to the only francophone communities in America.
Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bussières.
You have the floor, Ms. Spring.
[English]
Sarah Spring, Executive Director, Documentary Organization of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to appear today as part of the pre-study of Bill C-11.
The Documentary Organization of Canada, or DOC, has been the collective voice of our independent documentary creators since 1983, and we represent 1,000 members across six chapters from coast to coast.
DOC supports passing Bill C-11. This important legislation is urgently needed to ensure that our sector and Canadian creators, including documentary filmmakers, can continue to grow and thrive within a modern broadcasting system.
Documentary is a powerful tool to achieve our cultural, economic and social objectives, because documentary is a doorway. For so many creators, documentary is their first point of entry into filmmaking. Documentary is more accessible to a wider spectrum of creators from different socio-economic backgrounds. Filmmakers without access to personal or inherited wealth or a privileged network can finance and interim finance their productions. Documentary is more accessible to filmmakers who face historical barriers to entry rooted in systemic racism, colonialism or other forms of oppression. Almost half of DOC’s 1,000 members identify as Indigenous, Black or racialized.
Documentary filmmakers are also, by definition, independent producers who build strong small and medium businesses.
Documentary is also the champion of Canadian stories and storytellers. Canadian documentary films are consistently celebrated and sold around the world. They shine a spotlight on our country for years after a film’s initial release. That longevity is so important to the strong imprint that Canadian culture has around the world.
This year, Canada’s official submission to the Academy Awards is a documentary. Eternal Spring is not only the first documentary to be honoured in this way, but it is also the first Mandarin-language film and the first animated feature to be submitted by Canada for the Oscars. This is a good example of how documentaries are a key tool to authentically share who Canadians are in all of our diversity.
Many documentaries are about family and community that share a uniquely Canadian point of view. Together, they represent an evolving act of co-creation of Canadian identity.
I say all this because while documentaries have never been more popular, the number of documentaries financed through our mainstream funding systems is going down every year. Without regulation, the sector is at risk. This is a sector of professionals, specialized in the skills of researching, filming and editing documentary films, all rooted in the ethical and practical concerns of how to tell their own and other people’s stories.
Not only would Bill C-11 bring additional funding to Canadian content, but it is our hope that some specific amendments will ensure that Bill C-11 will be an effective tool to ensure an equitable, sustainable sector, enriched by professional storytellers.
DOC supports the amendments proposed by some of our colleagues who have already presented their briefs, specifically the Racial Equity Media Collective and the Black Screen Office’s proposal that the words “Black and racialized” be inserted throughout the act, the REMC’s proposal to gather race-based data as a cornerstone to any effective equity policy, the CMPA and the Association québécoise de la production médiatique’s proposal regarding subparagraph 3(1)(i)(v) to ensure a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector in order to ensure support for independent, autonomous media content created by a broad diversity of Canadian storytellers and the Canadian Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions’ proposal regarding paragraph 3.1(f) to ensure that foreign entities make maximum use of Canadian resources, just as Canadian broadcasters and online services are required to do within the act.
The directives for this bill will be critical. Bill C-11 will need a clear policy direction that signals documentary as a key tool for how to achieve the objectives of the bill. The new government directives should set a clear priority on supporting documentary as a standalone program of national interest and present documentary as a key genre to help achieve the equity and inclusion objectives of the act.
As we build this modern broadcasting system, we need to remember why we established the act in the first place: We’re here to celebrate and grow Canada’s commercial success while also keeping in mind that, together and over many years, all this content we’re creating fuels the next generation of storytellers and is intrinsic to a deeper, richer understanding of Canada and Canadians. This longevity is one of the central purposes of the act.
I thank you for your time and look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you so much. Ms. Creighton, you have the floor.
Valerie Creighton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Media Fund: Thank you for inviting us to appear today as you study Bill C-11. With me is our EVP of Marketing and Public Affairs, Mathieu Chantelois.
The CMF mandate is to foster, promote and finance content across all audiovisual platforms, from dramas, comedies, documentaries and kids’ shows to mobile games, apps, virtual reality, augmented reality and web series. As Canada’s largest content fund, the CMF exists to support Canadian content, and we strongly support the passage of Bill C-11.
The modernization of Canada’s broadcasting system is long overdue. There is an abundance of creativity and innovation in Canada, but our sector’s ability to tell those stories is hampered by an outdated system.
The CMF has taken significant steps to adapt. We are transitioning to a more flexible, content-centric, platform-agnostic global content fund to ensure that Canadian content and intellectual property thrive at home and on the world stage. The tools at our disposal are limited by current legislation, and our resources are diminishing. As cable revenues to the CMF decline, so does our capacity to invest in the industry we serve.
Bill C-11 is the key to unlocking new possibilities to strengthen the future of Canadian stories told on all screens in French, English, Indigenous and many diverse languages.
Having an unmatched understanding of the industry and its long-held trust, the CMF is well positioned to distribute new financial contributions resulting from the implementation of Bill C-11. Our modernized fund would support Canadian content distributed on all platforms, including foreign streaming services. CMF directly funds Canadian content and the Canadian companies that produce it, not the broadcasters, publishers or streaming services that commission it.
One of the central issues explored here is the definition of “Canadian content.” This, in addition to ensuring fair play, is the most critical aspect of modernizing the broadcasting system. In view of this, CMF recently launched a consultation that facilitates industry-wide conversations on the future definition of our national content, with all voices engaged, including those from sovereignty-seeking and underrepresented communities. These important conversations will spark ideas on how the definition of “Canadian content” will support future stories from our country. It will culminate in the publication of a “what we heard” report ahead of the CRTC’s forthcoming policy review.
Given the complexities and the need for robust dialogue in the months ahead, we believe the committee should be wary of amendments that would give the CRTC implicit direction to dilute the definition. Flexibility is required to develop a definition that meets the aspirations of a growing, dynamic and a more inclusive domestic industry.
Another hot-button issue is the place of digital-first creators. Such individuals are the next generation of Canada’s content-makers and are part of a robust content-creation system. The CMF invests in these creators through an experimental stream and supports incredibly innovative content for digital-first audiences.
Canada’s ability to define its national identity through its content creation is at stake. Foreign production is demonstrating a healthy growth of 212%, while domestic production has declined 9% over the last decade.
Foreign production is a critically important aspect of our industry. Foreign companies offer significant resources and worldwide distribution for our content. Canada’s creatives and crews who work for those productions greatly benefit, and the companies themselves access financial support through the tax-credit system.
This has been a highly beneficial model for the country, but the owners, the ultimate decision makers on how even a Canadian story unfolds, are foreign.
Canadian content production also benefits through the support of agencies like the CMF, Telefilm Canada and the tax credit system, if they can access it. The further decline in domestic production, the less benefit to domestic production.
We want productive partnerships with foreign companies in Canada through both their service production and their investment in Canadian content. What we are asking from Bill C-11 is a clearly defined intent to support our domestic content industry and a financial rebalancing to ensure that Canada’s identity, voice and innovation in storytelling continue to impact and reach audiences worldwide.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll start off on this round the Q and A. My question is directed to the representatives of the Canada Media Fund, but all members of the panel can answer.
A theme we’ve often heard repeatedly about Bill C-11 and its importance is that streaming platforms should contribute their fair share into the Canadian cultural system. But, of course, we’ve also seen that companies such as Disney, NBC, Universal, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, Warner Brothers and Discovery spent more than $5 billion across Canada in 2021. This accounted for more than half of all production in Canada and 90% of the growth over the last decade. It’s significant.
Why do you believe they’re not paying their fair share? How much more should they be paying?
I understand the argument is going to be about ownership. It always seems to come to that. Often, it’s about ownership and Canadian production, but it should also be about high-quality jobs or artists in the country and in Canada. These platforms have hired or trained over 200,000 workers, and 47,000 businesses have benefitted from their investments. Their footprint is far larger than CBC, for example.
I’d like your comments on those facts as they have been presented to this committee over the last few weeks.
Ms. Creighton: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. Yes, you’re right, all of the comments you made are valid. That’s why we believe the industry that foreign companies bring to Canada is vital. It creates jobs and keeps the industry humming.
You’re right, there is a difference between service production and ownership. Let me give you an example from a different sector, if I may. I have the fortunate privilege of living in Saskatchewan and owning and operating a horse ranch. My nephew is the trainer, but he influences the decisions around what he trains; he also competes. As you can well imagine, I’m not too successful in the professional roping industry in the country. However, when he competes with my horses, I get the money. I get the result. In this case, I do share with him 50/50, but when that horse needs an ultrasound, his teeth floated or veterinary care, I make those decisions based on his advice. When the horse needed to be put down, I made that heartbreaking decision.
So it is with content. When you make it for someone else, you serve someone else. As you have said, the crew, the talent and all of those elements that go into foreign service production are critical. They need to be celebrated and recognized. The difference is when something goes wrong, for example, if you don’t like the way a show ends —
Recently, Neal McDougall of The Writers Guild of Canada said, “If you didn’t like the way ‘Game of Thrones’ ended, you don’t blame the costume designer. You blame the writer. You blame the author. You blame the people who are directly influencing the decisions that get made on how that story gets told.”
There are two things here. If the service production is to be considered — all of that content you mentioned, the billions they’ve reported — as truly Canadian content, that is questionable, in our view. It’s critical content for the country. It’s critical content for the industry. As you say, it vastly contributes to well-paying jobs.
I believe some of the numbers that have been reported include more than just the U.S. production. It also includes European production content, all foreign service. If that is to be included as Canadian, the real issue with that is the final decision-making coming from the owners of that content, which are foreign.
I had the privilege of sitting in on an episode of a piece of that content. It’s a Canadian story. The vast majority of the crew are Canadian. When I listened to the comments and notes, I was watching an episode that hadn’t been released. It was a rough cut. When I listened to the comments and notes of the foreign entity that owned that production, they were generous. However, if something had gone wrong with that production and an extra million dollars would have to be spent, it wouldn’t be the AD who made that decision. It would be the owner who takes the risk, and in turn, controls the IP.
So the issue is that if we continue to consider foreign service production as totally Canadian, all of the IP is owned by foreign companies and the revenue owned in the majority by that production goes outside of the country. Our producers and content creators here become a service industry to foreign companies. It’s a balance that has to be found. It’s not one or the other.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer. I only have a few seconds, but I can’t get my head around that argument. I’m going to use a sports analogy. If we tell Canadian hockey players — and we produce a fair amount in this country — that they can only play for NHL teams owned and operated by Canadians here in Canada, what would we be doing with all that Canadian talent? Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr — and, I’m using the old analogy because I’m an old guy — made millions of dollars playing for U.S. organizations. Are they any less Canadian? Did they not carry the Canadian maple leaf at the Olympic games? Should they be considered less Canadian because they generated revenue for the Los Angeles Kings, the Boston Bruins or the Pittsburgh Penguins? Unfortunately, I’m over my five minutes now. Hopefully, I can hear an answer to my question on the second round.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Bussières. You are a member of Alfa Rococo, a very popular francophone group. I understand you are working on your fifth album. You support discoverability, as set out in Bill C-11. On the other hand, Fred Bastien, a francophone YouTuber who also appeared before the committee and who creates videos rather than music, is completely opposed to forcing his videos on Quebec audiences. He said that if he becomes required reading, so to speak, and if people don’t like him, his ranking by the algorithms will drop. I am referring to YouTube algorithms, but there are others.
I am trying to understand how these two Quebec creators can have such strongly opposed views on the issue of discoverability, of its pros and cons.
Mr. Bussières: I did hear Mr. Bastien’s testimony, and it was very good. His views in this regard created a bit of a stir in the music world though because we are in favour of discoverability. Moreover, in Quebec, the CRTC sets a quota of 65% during prime time, which is not met, unfortunately. According to the latest ADISQ figures, it reached just 50%. It is a proven fact that these quotas have made Quebec audiences discover and like the music. They have led people to discover all kinds of new artists, with a whole series of consequences: people buy more tickets and go see performances; these artists are represented at major festivals. The artists are so popular at home that it becomes easier for them to export their work elsewhere.
As I said in my presentation, I believe that audiences in Quebec and in Canada like the cultural references in the music created here. Audiences can follow that music, and they want to. What we see today, unfortunately, is that audiences are not exposed to local music.
I am talking about the music sector now. I do not know much about YouTube, unfortunately. I think the bill should be passed and, if distinctions have to be made among the various sectors, the CRTC can make those decisions or hold public hearings to make the appropriate determinations.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You also appear on YouTube as part of Alfa Rococo. You have a music channel and see the result of the algorithms. The Quebec radio market you are talking about is a captive audience in a sense I am not saying I like it or dislike it, but when you listen to the radio now, it has completely changed. These are international platforms. We do not know how the algorithms work, but I gather that if listeners reject a given song — which could happen to Alfa Rococo — you drop down in the list of recommendations. So that would reduce your international presence.
So is the difference that you are a musician and Fred Bastien creates video content? Are we to understand that YouTubers are different from professional music on YouTube?
Mr. Bussières: You say I am a YouTuber, but I do not consider myself one. I don’t know the official definition of a YouTuber.
In many cases, a YouTuber is someone who creates videos on a specific subject. As musicians, we have often — in fact, what we see on YouTube is either video clips, in which works of art are matched with our music, or just a song with an image from the album cover, for instance. There is a lot of that nowadays. So I’m not sure it is the same process for creating the work in question.
Secondly, we often assume that people would not like our work and that if we present it, people would say they don’t like Quebec music. I don’t think we should assume that. As I said in my presentation, local audiences like local music and songs more than they think they do, I am sure of that.
I referred to radio quotas because, in the past, we have seen the following results: people have discovered all kinds of artists. All kinds of artists like Les Trois Accords, Les Cowboys Fringants, major artists who perform at big festivals here and elsewhere, internationally, who have been discovered through radio. Yes, it is an old approach and there are new paradigms now, but I think we can use the same strategy so that local audiences can discover our local artists, who can then grow as a result.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, your answers were very clear, Mr. Bussières.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for your presentations.
I have three questions, and they are for Ms. Creighton. The Canadian Media Fund cuts a wide swath with a mandate to foster, promote and finance content across all audiovisual platforms, from dramas, comedies, documentaries and kids shows to mobile games, apps, virtual reality, augmented reality and web series. Moreover, CMF is Canada’s largest content fund. It is stated that there is an abundance of creativity and innovation in Canada, but the sector’s ability to tell those stories is hampered by an outdated system, so we’re pleased to learn that CMF is taking steps to adapt to ensure that Canadian content and IP thrive at home and on the world stage.
I would like to know how audience metrics are measured for CanCon, or Canadian content, and while many people are familiar with the Nielsen rating system that measures the audience size for television programs in the United States, what is the equivalent system here in Canada, and what does it measure or not measure? Will this bill require an adjustment for how we measure CanCon?
Ms. Creighton: Thank you for the question, Senator Klyne. Measurement is an interesting question because, at the end of the day, it’s all about audiences. Creators, no matter who they are, all want the same thing. Whether they are doing long-form or short-form content on YouTube, they want a good story, well told, that reaches an audience.
At the CMF, we are stuck in an environment where two things are happening. First, creators and producers who come to us for support are required, in the lion’s share of the money, to still have a broadcast licence. We are no longer living in a totally broadcast world, as we know. Audiences are continually migrating to streaming platforms and other sources to get their content.
In Canada, we use Numeris, and it has been the gold standard because it is a third-party verification system to measure audiences. But we know that we are not measuring about 30% of the content we fund that is on those streaming platforms. We know that already. We’ve taken steps to address this, and we are in the first year of a three-year data strategy to bring in metrics that can help us measure the content that we support that’s already on those external digital platforms.
I think that’s one answer to your question. Was there a second part?
Senator Klyne: No, I just wondered if we need to do more to measure the CanCon.
Ms. Creighton: Yes, we do need to do more as a country. I don’t think it’s part of this bill. Once the bill is settled and the regulations are through the CRTC, measurement is a tool we will use to define if it is working and whether it is working well, how the content is migrating and how we measure it.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. You also mentioned that as cable revenues to the CMF decline, so does your capacity to invest in the industry that you serve. I think there was a reference to both of your streams being oversubscribed.
Ms. Creighton: Right.
Senator Klyne: Is this bill prescriptive of providing a remedy as is, or does it require some adjustments?
Ms. Creighton: I think the intent of the bill was simple at the beginning. It was to bring the streamers into the system and have them contribute to the making of Canadian content.
What has happened over the last couple of years is extreme polarization. We now have a situation where it is the “we” or the “them.” It’s the traditional linear or the digital; it’s the foreign companies who do service production versus Canadian. That’s unfortunate because the system is not like that. People work across the piece. We are not asking or never would suggest that our Canadian hockey players, shall we say, are restricted to working for Canadian teams. That would be ridiculous. No, it doesn’t work like that in the system. People will work wherever they can get the jobs. Sometimes it is on a service production for streamers, which is fantastic. Sometimes it is on an independent show, which is also fantastic.
I think the bill has to remember that that was its original intent, and somehow we’ve gotten into these deep and conflicting debates, and I don’t envy you listening to all the testimony you’ve heard over the last while on how complicated and dynamic this industry is.
Of course, our focus is the Canadian content makers. The crew who work on foreign streaming shows absolutely are Canadian, just like the hockey players; there is no question or doubt about that. But the issue is that once that show is made, if our Canadian companies cannot retain some portion of their intellectual property rights — and not even that; it doesn’t matter what you own if you can’t monetize it — If Canadian companies are restricted from the ability to monetize that content outside Canada’s borders, then they are just service producers for the foreign companies. That is the distinction.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have a question for Mr. Bussières and Ms. Creighton. My questions pertain to the following Broadcasting Act objective: encouraging the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view.
This is one of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. My questions relate to that. Mr. Bussières, congratulations on your creative work and your work relating to copyright. I really liked your videos during the pandemic; they were a source of joy and helped me get through the pandemic. I would like to get a better understanding of the challenges you face with your YouTube channel. How do you reach your audience and what issues do you encounter in reaching out to your audience online? I am trying to understand this. That is my question.
My question for Ms. Creighton is as follows.
[English]
Much of the debate on this bill has surrounded the potential impacts on creators that produce content primarily on digital and social media platforms. Is this something that you are following? Is the CMF doing any work in this space? We heard from some witnesses that Bill C-11 will ask creators to pay into a fund they won’t be able to benefit from. Is that your assessment of the bill?
[Translation]
Mr. Bussières: Thank you very much for your remarks, Senator Cormier. You know that here, in Canada and especially in Quebec, we are a small market, internationally speaking; we are a niche market. So the problem is twofold. First, you know that we receive very little in the way of compensation, royalties we receive as creators and performers from online music platforms. That relates to the Copyright Act, which might be modernized and adapted one day. That is one thing.
The other issue for us here is that, since we are a small market, there is not much rotation. Low rotation at a low price is catastrophic.
Senator Cormier: What do you mean by not much rotation?
Mr. Bussières: As my colleague, Mr. Lavallée, pointed out, more than 80% of the content on YouTube is recommended to users, and that by and large is not local music. We are aiming to increase the adoption and rotation of our local music on digital music platforms, so that our local music is recommended and more people adopt and listen to it, and we then get more streams. That is the purpose of discoverability. If people discover us, we are able to get into their echo chamber. As I said in my remarks, an echo chamber is how online music platforms work: they offer what you listen to. The more you listen to something, the more it is suggested to you. We have to get local music, our music, into that echo chamber so that people will listen to it and more of that music will be recommended to them, which leads to higher rotation on online music services, and will eventually bring in more revenue and ensure the survival of our ecosystem.
[English]
Ms. Creighton: We are not just following; we actually finance content from digital-first creators now through the web series and the experimental stream. We have a partnership with the Shaw Rocket Fund for digital-first creators in animation. A producer recently said that without the $450,000 in development from that program, she never would have been able to develop her content to the point where, not only did it get on the digital platforms but it had some sticking power there because it had a strong development process.
My understanding is — and our minister said many times — that digital-first creators are not captured by the bill. The platforms are captured by the bill in terms of who will pay in. That’s my understanding of the particular question you asked.
We are also working and have had initial discussions with both YouTube and TikTok. We have a channel on YouTube called Encore+. It is back catalogue content from creation from many years ago. It is quite successful in terms of the broader environment for that catalogue content. They have been a great partner.
So we are talking with YouTube and TikTok now to really understand what digital-first creators need. Many of them put up thousands of pieces of content, but will it stick, will it stay and will it sustain itself throughout that? My understanding is that there is a good conversation to be had there, and we are looking at ways to partner with them to support, in a greater way, those digital-first creators.
Senator Simons: I have a question on distribution that I wanted to address to Ms. Spring and Ms. Creighton.
The film you just spoke about, Eternal Spring, sounds phenomenal. I only heard about it for the first time when you mentioned it, and while you were speaking, I googled it. Now I really want to watch it.
Here is the challenge: Canadian producers are often creating great Canadian content. They find difficult to get distribution for it. Sometimes, it gets stuck on CBC Gem, which nobody watches, sad to say.
What do we have to do to make sure that Canadian content actually gets seen by Canadians?
Ms. Spring: Thank you for the question. It is about discoverability. We have to be excited about the idea of discoverability. We need to support Canadian creators to get their content out there in the country and around the world. The fear that we have, as we switch from prime time to all the content being available online, is around how we make sure incredible Canadian stories are not only discoverable but endure. That is what I was talking about in terms of longevity. We want those films to be available for years because people are interested in them for years.
We need to pass Bill C-11, and we need to have a long and robust conversation about discoverability and how to support people accessing the content in the long term. That is where the policy directives will be in place and stakeholder conversations will be really key, but the first thing is to pass Bill C-11.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Now I want to segue to Ms. Creighton, because it seems to me that it’s not just discoverability; you have to have someone who will platform your show. You were explaining it in terms of how the Canada Media Fund works now, but you can only advance the fund if a producer gets a broadcast licence, and there are only four main broadcasters, if you count APTN.
It seems to me that if we don’t work out a system that allows the big international streamers to access our content on a competitive basis, we’re going to be condemning Canadian filmmakers and television makers to have their stuff ghettoized on Canadian broadcasters who don’t provide enough opportunity to showcase their works.
Is there a way that you can see to create a system, whether it involves putting the Canada Media Fund, Telefilm, the National Film Board of Canada, et cetera — how do we maximize the funding so that people who produce content actually get it seen? To be blunt, people are not watching it on CTV and Global.
Ms. Creighton: The first thing you have to do is ensure there are resources to make that content. I’m not particularly a fan of the word “discoverability.” I know what its intent is, but if you have strong compelling development that’s not restricted by, say, a broadcast schedule, and you give the creators enough time and resources to create, they will have a better chance in the market. Whether the market is CBC, Gem, Netflix, Hulu or whatever, that piece of content will have a better chance of getting picked up, produced, financed and distributed around the world for sure.
We are in a global business. We can’t afford to stand on the 49th parallel and look up. DOC is a primary example of this. Weekly, I still have documentary producers call me and say, “Valerie, I am 10 out of 10 by the current point system. I am a Canadian producer. My topic is the Churchill River in a northern part of the country. I cannot get a Canadian broadcast licence because it is a one-off POV, point of view, documentary series — no problem. There is ZDF in Germany and RT in France. Why can’t I trigger the CMF’s money?” It is a perfectly legitimate and valid question.
What is needed is flexibility. There is not one way to do this system. We have to have a robust discussion about the definition of content and of how you get good content out there before we will come to that conclusion. There won’t be one answer; it will be different answers for different approaches.
Senator Simons: I’m really concerned. It is not so much —
The Chair: Unfortunately, we are out of time.
Senator Simons: Okay. I will keep my concerns to myself.
Senator Manning: Thank you. My question is for Ms. Creighton.
Earlier, when asked about ownership, you made great points about decision-making remaining with the owners of the content and the importance of that being the creators themselves. However, under the current system, the organization oversees a system where content creators like Darcy Michael, a comedian from whom we heard last week, doesn’t have ownership of the content he did on conventional television; Bell Media, he told us, owns it. He owns the content he posts online, however.
So why would you not be advocating for a system that actually gives the content creators full ownership, instead of having Bell Media, Rogers or someone own it? I’m trying to understand how that works.
Ms. Creighton: You are quite right. Many of the broadcasters now are behaving like streamers. They are trying to get all the rights to distribute that content, but many of them don’t distribute outside Canada.
So, again, we need a system that’s fair, shared and balanced. That doesn’t mean that any individual has to own it all or that Bell has to own it all, although we’ve fallen into that trap in many ways in this country. The important thing about the ownership of the story is the authorship piece. Who is the creator? Bell Media is not the creator. That individual is the creator of that original IP. So our view is that they need to have a secure place in this environment so that they can not only continue to create that content — It’s not that broadcasters don’t create content; they do. But independent producers, independent authors, if you like, in this system bring diverse voices and an independence from a corporate way of thinking.
If we want to continue to have really dynamic storytelling in Canada, we need it all. We need different models where sometimes the broadcasters or the streamers could own it. But, right now, as I’ve said, domestic content is sliding, and foreign service production is going up. There has to be a redress in terms of balance, I think. It’s not one way or the other; it’s a mix.
Senator Manning: Do you think this will happen with Bill C-11? In this particular case, the artist told us last week that Bell owns his content 100%. Even when he tried to access some of it, he wasn’t able to do that because Bell owned it. Is Bill C-11 going to give him the opportunity to own his content?
Ms. Creighton: Well, Bill C-11 could give the opportunity to own more of the content if the role of the independent community and the independent Canadian producer continues to be important and recognized in the part of the bill. I think that possibility is there. And let me tell you that the same thing often happens with the National Film Board. They own the rights to the content they make. Often, producers who work with the NFB can’t get their content back when they want to exploit it or if there’s interest around the country. So our system does need to be shifted in many ways, on many fronts.
Senator Manning: In regard to funds collected by your organization, how is that disbursed to artists and how much of it is disbursed to artists?
Ms. Creighton: Our fund is primarily controlled outside of our decision-making power. The lion’s share of what happens with the money is determined when broadcasters make a decision on what they want to license. We do not fund the broadcaster. If a producer has a piece of content they want to get made and aired in the Canadian system — whether it is CBC Gem or TOU.TV or any of the broadcasters — they have to come to us with that licence.
We really stay out of that subjective decision-making. It’s the market that decides, the broadcaster, ultimately. But once the producer has that licence, they can apply to us, and the money goes into the production. It doesn’t go into the hands of the broadcaster. It stays with what it costs to finance that production. And, of course, content is more expensive all the time to make, to stay competitive in the world. Prices go up. COVID had a big impact. So our role is to make sure we have enough resources to keep the Canadian system healthy and keep producing these great stories and ideas.
The market is the market. The market will always be diverse. It isn’t just Canadian; it’s not just foreign. It will be a mix of both.
Senator Manning: Does some of that fund find its way back to artists?
Ms. Creighton: Well, through the fees that they take in the show, yes. If they own it, they need to sell it outside Canada so they can actually make some real money on it beyond their fee.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I really liked your answer to Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question, Mr. Bussières.
[English]
My questions are for Ms. Spring and Ms. Creighton.
Ms. Creighton, you talked about the definition of Canadian content, and you talked about it in relation to some doubts you may have around the CRTC and their ability to deal with that. If you could lean into those comments. I would appreciate that.
And to Ms. Spring, I’m not always comfortable with these comments that I’ve heard out there that Canadians only want the best in their echo chambers. Somehow, there’s this assumption that Canadian content is not the best. I want you to speak to, if you can, the fact that there are a lot of “bests” out there, but it’s not a level playing field. Not all artists and creators face all the same barriers. So I’d really appreciate you leaning into that.
Let’s start with Ms. Creighton.
Ms. Creighton: Sure. I don’t have doubts about the CRTC’s ability to work through this because they’re going to have to go to the public and to the industry, widely speaking, to have this conversation on the definition. My concern was that if this committee, or through the legislative regulatory process, we try to tie up the definition at this stage, that’s something to be wary of because I think it’s a very complex, deep discussion with a lot of implications across the system.
I was advising that we retain flexibility in terms of the bill. We don’t want to come back in this room in five years because everything’s changed again. This industry changes on a dime. Every day, you wake up in the morning and something new has happened or a new business model has occurred. Legislation is a very big, broad public policy direction that cannot get into the details because it’s the details that will trip us up if we try to do it at this juncture.
I have full confidence in the CRTC. They have been in this business a long time. They have regulated a long time. Sure, some people aren’t happy. You can never get consensus in this industry on anything, but I think they are the right place to have a further debate and a deep debate on some of these very complex and difficult issues.
Senator Clement: Thank you for that, and I look forward to the consultation that you will release as well, ahead of any policy —
[Translation]
Mathieu Chantelois, Executive Vice-President, Marketing and Public Affairs, Canada Media Fund: I would like to add something about consultation. It is in the Canada Media Fund’s DNA since we talk to about 500 to 1,000 industry people every year. We ask them questions and, for a number of years, a key question has been when we will redefine Canadian content. That is something people always ask and it is very polarizing.
Because we do a lot of consultations at the Canada Media Fund, we consider it important to start thinking about this and perhaps suggest some potential solutions to the CRTC for when it begins considering the definition.
So far, we have heard Indigenous voices, producers, racialized authors, persons of African descent, who do not feel included in the current version whatsoever. In the coming months, if we can make some progress on our end and produce a report, we might be able to contribute to this reflection that is so important for everything we want to do.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Chantelois.
[English]
Ms. Spring: Thank you for your question. It’s important to say that we don’t have a level playing field right now. I think it’s really important to make that point. We need government regulation because we have 30 years of the Broadcast Act in which we have content that is majority-created by a very homogeneous and specific demographic of Canadian society that does not accurately or adequately represent who we are.
There’s been a lot of conversation about the foreign streamers who are investing money into the sector: “Let’s allow them to continue to do that without regulation.” What that means is that we’re not taking ownership and control over what we want to see, what the longevity of that content is, how we are constantly defining and redefining who we are and what we want to present to the world.
I believe that the point of this act is to take control over the situation, to say we have an unequal system. We need regulation. We want to continue to be in the driver’s seat of what we’re doing so we are not just having our voices subservient to a dominant American cultural curation, actually. It’s just really important to understand from the very heart of this conversation that we have an unequal playing field. It is our responsibility as government to step in and try to fix the situation.
Every single funding institution in the country in the last two years has come out and taken stock of the fact they’ve been unequally funding Canadian creators since their inception. Government regulation has taken steps to correct this. If it were just private corporations who were in charge of funding our system, they would have no incentive to ensure that there’s a strong diverse voice coming out of Canada. I think it’s a very dangerous road to go down, actually.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Ms. Spring.
Senator Richards: Thank you to the witnesses. This might follow Senator Clement a bit. I’d love to know who decides Canadian content and who decides what is and what is not a level playing field. Was it the CRTC that was going to do that? Or the Minister of Canadian Heritage? The Heritage Minister and I probably have very different ideas of what Canadian heritage is. I grew up in a very small town in New Brunswick. Is it the CBC?
I want to know who will decide it. Are you promoting Canadian content or prioritizing your idea of what Canadian content should be to a greater market or field?
I come at this from a bit of experience. For the first 20 years of my writing life, I was called a regional novelist. Once I got published in Britain and in the States, they dropped that term. That’s kind of the smugness of Canadian culture that I had to face coming from small-town New Brunswick. I’m sure hundreds of writers have had to do that over their lives.
Who will decide what is Canadian content? Will it be an urban-centric ideal? Or will our vast country actually have some say in the matter?
Ms. Creighton: Yes, you’re right. There’s a lot of bias in that system. In the view of the CMF — or in my view, for sure — nobody has a monopoly on a good idea. If you look at the media content created in this country, it comes from coast to coast to coast. In particular, in the circumpolar region our Indigenous content, which comes from all over Canada, has taken the world by storm. Historically, it was the content system, the 10-out-of-10-point system, that was determined by regulation through the CRTC. Ultimately, that’s where the changes can occur.
At the CMF, we keep our eye on regional issues all the time. I have a regional bias. I come from the West. Our directives internally are 60 urban, 40 regional. The numbers stick pretty well. The problem is different than writing. When you’re doing a production and there are great tax incentives in Nova Scotia, production will move there. Once that series is done and there’s a better incentive in Alberta, it will move to Alberta.
The financing system of content is totally dependent on a mix of ideas from across the country. Who decides? Ultimately, the big public policy direction should come from this bill. The public policy will come from government to the CRTC. The CRTC will listen to both the industry and the public. Then somebody has to decide at the end of the day.
That’s why we really believe the debate on the important question you ask has to involve a further deep discussion. It can’t be done quickly. It can’t be done without good foresight. It has to be done with an eye to the future on how we make sure our voice, our national identity, our Quebec identity, is realized through the content that we make. Believe me, the world loves Canadian content. Our kids’ content sells all over the world. We’ve got great traction. We have had a system in this country for 80 years. If you go back to the NFB, it built a big brick building that’s hired people and given them great jobs. It takes our national identity, our stories and ideas to the rest of the world. We have good traction now. We can’t lose that. What we need is change in the structure and the right tools because the content and the innovation are not the problem. It’s the barriers and the structure. We need the right tools in today’s environment to keep supporting those creators from all over the country.
Senator Richards: Did you have something to add, Ms. Spring, or does that say it all?
Ms. Spring: There seems to be this idea that something not designated as 100% Canadian content is no longer going to be able to be present in this system, that it’s all or nothing. We have a very robust service production industry for programs that are not fully defined as Canadian content in terms of accessing the additional taxpayer money that is there to grow Canadian companies. You either have a foreign-owned production that is not defined as 100% Canadian content and they get money to invest in Canadian crew and produce their show here — which is the majority of production in Canada, as we’ve heard already — or you have fully Canadian content, 10 out of 10 as determined by CAVCO, the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office and they get additional tax credits that are for the company to be in Canada to grow their business, to keep employing Canadians and to make their next show Canadian.
It needs to be understood that it is not that you’re not doing anything if you don’t have a full 10-out-of-10 CanCon definition. You’re just not growing a Canadian company.
The Chair: Senator Dasko, you have the final word.
Senator Dasko: I have a couple of questions for Ms. Creighton. What do you expect the impact of Bill C-11 will be on CMF’s budget? What do you expect will be the impact on multicultural, multilingual and multiracial programming with respect to the CMF?
Ms. Creighton: We’re hopeful that the impact on the budget will be positive and that as more money comes into the system, we will participate in that process.
As has been mentioned, the big convergent stream is about 50% oversubscribed now, and the experimental stream, where there is incredibly interesting and diverse work, is 80% oversubscribed.
Often, when you hear people complaining they can’t access the CMF, it’s not about being accessible. It’s about the fact that the money only goes so far. As I said, the market primarily decides on the convergent stream who gets that money. As Senator Simons mentioned, we have three strong broadcasters, big companies, in the English market and three in the French. The broadcast environment is shrinking. We hope to get more money to be able to do more.
In terms of the second part of your question, we’ve been working on a diversity strategy. We call it “growth and inclusion,” not “equity and inclusion.” For us, this is about growth of clients, stories, ideas and audiences and, ultimately, bringing revenue to those content makers. We’re in the second year of our three-year strategy.
Bill C-11 will bring in more money. Already in Bill C-11, you have direction at the outset about Indigenous and underrepresented communities being a critical component of what this bill will support. If Bill C-11 passes — and for 10 years we’ve heard of the urgency for need to change — it should achieve both of those objectives you mentioned: more money for content creators in the country and a more inclusive, growing industry with worldwide aspirations.
The Chair: How will it create more money?
Ms. Creighton: You create more money by creating good worldwide content. You can’t force-feed content. You can’t say, “Watch this content from Australia, or from Canada, or from anywhere; it’s good for you.” What we’ve done in this country that hasn’t been particularly helpful is we’ve tightened up a system to meet regulatory requirements in many ways that the broadcasters have had. Creators and developers need time and resources to develop their strong content for the market.
I’ll give you an example. We have a small international program with 12 partners around the world, agency to agency. These aren’t treaty co-productions that are administered. Canada has over 60. They’re small amounts of money, $200,000 —
The Chair: Sorry, but how does Bill C-11 create more revenue?
Ms. Creighton: Potentially, the purpose of this bill was to bring the streamers into the system to contribute more to the making of Canadian content, not only service production, which, I appreciate, they have positioned as Canadian when they say they’ve spent all this money. But how much of that actually goes to Canadian storytelling, innovation and ideas? With increased revenue, you get a better development process and stronger content that can then be presented to the market, whether it’s Canadian or foreign.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, and thank you to our panel. It was a really insightful exchange. I’d like to thank all the panellists for being before us. We will continue our study on Wednesday.
(The committee adjourned.)