THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to consider 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.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I’m Senator Leo Housakos from Quebec, chair of the committee. I would like to start by having my colleagues introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I’m Senator Paula Simons. I’m an independent senator from Alberta, [another language spoken], on Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: I am Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I am Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you.
Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Joining us for the first panel via video conference, I am pleased to welcome, from the Indigenous Screen Office, Jesse Wente, Co-Executive Director; as an individual, we have Shannon Avison, Assistant Professor, Indigenous Communication Arts, First Nations University of Canada; and from the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society of Alberta, we have Bert Crowfoot, Chief Executive Officer. Welcome to our committee, and thank you for joining us this morning.
Each witness with us today will have five minutes for their opening statements, and then we will turn it over for Q and A. We will be starting with Jesse Wente. You have the floor, sir, for five minutes.
Jesse Wente, Co-Executive Director, Indigenous Screen Office: Thank you so much, senators. I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of the Indigenous Screen Office and the First Nations, Métis and Inuit storytellers we serve.
As I’m sure you all know, the Indigenous Screen Office was announced by the government in 2017, after years of advocacy for such an agency to exist. We serve First Nations, Inuit and Métis storytellers within the Canadian screen sector, and we seek greater opportunity and greater measures of self-determination for our communities within the screen-based storytelling industry.
The previous iteration of this bill was our young organization’s first opportunity to advocate for legislative change that could affect our communities and storytellers. We are pleased that much of that work remains in Bill C-11.
The changes in language and the elimination of qualifiers around the need for First Nations, Métis and Inuit programming and broadcasting to be represented within the Canadian broadcast sector are welcome and long overdue. We believe that stories of First Nations, Métis and Inuit are as central to the Canadian story as those of French and English people, and as such, they should be treated the same way within this legislation. We would encourage equal placement throughout the bill, as recognition of First Nations, Inuit and Métis status is essential to the fabric of this place. As this bill ensures the creation of Canadian broadcasting and the dissemination of Canadian content, it should do so also for First Nations, Métis and Inuit content and broadcast initiatives.
We would ask that the language within the law be specific. “Indigenous” is a catch-all term, and while it is one we use to describe the totality of our communities, we feel this law should specifically define “Indigenous” to mean First Nations, Inuit and Métis. This bill should also ensure that the definition of “news” contains Indigenous forms of storytelling and that an “Indigenous news outlet” be defined as being controlled by Indigenous peoples and produces content by Indigenous peoples.
We also want to ensure that this bill provides the space not just for First Nations, Métis and Inuit content but also for broadcast undertakings. This bill should, as much as possible, protect itself from future technological advancements and allow for the possibility of new broadcasting technologies to emerge and for those to be potentially exploited by Indigenous storytellers and broadcasters. It must ensure not just the opportunity for Indigenous storytelling but that there are supports to ensure its creation and dissemination. It must not curtail innovation. Indigenous presence within the Canadian broadcast sector has been woefully inadequate for generations. Many storytellers have sought out new platforms and have found audiences and careers there. We should ensure that that is supported and not limited by this legislation.
We also ask that this bill ensure Indigenous representation within regulatory bodies and associated committees so that we may be involved in how this bill is ultimately acted upon.
However, what I would really ask of you today is to consider the true nature of this legislation. I am confident you have heard much about the need to modernize this law to better reflect the broadcasting and telecommunications environment of today. I’m confident that you’ve heard much about the evolution of broadcasting and transmission technologies and how this legislation must capture the modern state of broadcasting, inclusive of technologies that have emerged since the last time this legislation was amended. I’m confident you’ve heard about the importance of onboarding massive foreign media networks into this legislation to better reflect the modes of consumption and creation that Canadian audiences and storytellers are currently engaged in. I’m confident you’ve heard of the need to have these networks meaningfully contribute to our sector here. I’m confident you’ve heard about the need for better data collection and aggregation so that our sector may more easily and rapidly adapt to the evolving broadcasting and telecommunications environment. I’m confident that you’ve heard about the need to protect user-generated content to allow the next generation of Canadian storytellers to develop their careers where their audiences are and to engage in innovations and future-facing technologies. Those are all important things, and I’m confident you will be considering all of them. The ISO supports the way this bill approaches the defining of broadcasting and its meaning today.
The last time I spoke about changes to this legislation, I spoke about the central purpose being storytelling, and that is still true. At that time, I described how the true revolution in storytelling isn’t the “how,” “what,” “where” or “when” but the “who.” That is also still true. This bill must ensure the “who” of the storytelling is also revolutionized as much as it faces the technology.
I still believe that this bill must ensure that the stories that are broadcast and the stories it means to ensure don’t just take place in a modern broadcasting and telecommunications regulatory framework but that these stories come from what has always been the modern Canada: a multinational place with a deep history still largely unexplored and a rich and diverse future that will be created through right relations and between communities and a sharing of our stories. I also believe that it is well past time that this legislation be modernized to reflect the present and, ideally, the future as much as possible.
To us, the central focus should be the modernization of the definitions associated with broadcasting and broadcast undertakings, ensuring that there is equitable access and support for marginalized communities and that there be specific supports for Indigenous storytelling and Indigenous languages broadcasting. We believe new platforms, even those based outside Canada, should contribute financially to support Canadian storytelling and that there should be dedicated supports for Indigenous storytelling within that. We believe that significant financial support will help fuel Canadian storytelling innovation and growth.
There is an enormous resource extraction process under way in Canada and the globe undertaken by multinational communication companies. We don’t wish to see Canadian access to these platforms limited, but, rather, that Canadians be compensated for the resources they are providing these platforms in the form of our data. In social media companies, we are often the product itself, as they only exist when we, the user, use them, but also for platforms such as Netflix and Amazon, the collection of our user data, through how we use these platforms or consumption patterns or behaviours, provides untold resources to these companies.
The Chair: Mr. Wente, can I ask you to wrap up? You’re well over the five minutes allotted to you.
Mr. Wente: Sorry. We have little window on how these resources are then monetized. I suspect these companies haven’t even fully figured that out themselves. We must ensure that Canadians see some benefit for this extraction, and that should come in contribution to the creation of our own stories and broadcast platforms.
I ask that you pass this bill so that our stories may flourish and dance together. Meegwetch for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shannon Avison, Assistant Professor, Indigenous Communication Arts, First Nations University of Canada, as an individual: Honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, I’m honoured to be with you. I hope I can persuade you that Bill C-11 should support Indigenous language radio broadcasting.
The First Nations University of Canada is located on atim kâ‑mihkosit urban reserve in Treaty 4 territory in Saskatchewan, the homeland of the Honourable Senator Marty Klyne.
For over 30 years, I have worked with Indigenous organizations, recruiting and training Indigenous journalists. I have two related projects: Pîkiskwêwin, funded by Canadian Heritage, which assists speakers to produce radio podcasts in our Saskatchewan languages; and CFNU, our new student radio station, where we stream our pîkiskwêwin podcasts and English programs for our university community.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission documented the brutal ways that residential schools prevented children from learning and speaking their languages. Communication technologies have also undermined Indigenous languages and cultures.
In 1972, Canada launched Anik, the world’s first communications satellite, which brought radio and television into homes in the North. Indigenous children learned English and French instead of Inuktitut or Gwich’in. Instead of learning to be a great hunter, children wanted to be The Fonz or a kung fu master. Instead of traditional values, they learned from American game shows and soap operas.
However, Indigenous people found opportunities to use broadcasting for their own purposes. There’s a great story in Lorna Roth’s book, Something New in the Air: The Story of First Peoples Television Broadcasting in Canada. In 1960, some Inuit in Pond Inlet found a discarded radio transmitter. They fixed it up and used it to set up a local radio station. They’d never heard of the Broadcasting Act or the CRTC.
Since 1973, Canada has supported Indigenous language broadcasting. Canadian Heritage provides up to two years of funding to eligible stations and networks. It’s impossible to provide stable employment or sign a long-term lease, small stations don’t have the expertise to apply, and there’s no additional support when technologies change.
In spite of these challenges, there are hundreds of Indigenous radio stations and over a dozen regional radio networks. Some stations are tiny, run by volunteers who are on the air for just a few hours a week. Others have full-time language announcers on air for eight hours every day. Many of these broadcasters, like Robert Merasty, of Ile-a-la-Crosse, are hoping to retire. Since Pauline Clarke retired this summer, the station she started 20 years ago at Southend, Reindeer Lake, is not broadcasting locally.
The 1991 Broadcasting Act barely mentioned Aboriginal people. It did not reference Indigenous language. I’m encouraged that Bill C-11 references Indigenous languages and says that the CRTC should take into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasters that provide Indigenous language programming operate.
I want to emphasize that Indigenous language radio stations are very different. Many Indigenous homes don’t have a fluent speaker. However, with Indigenous radio, there’s a voice in the home that provides local news, birthday greetings, weather and conversations in their languages. During COVID, community broadcasters were a lifeline for elders. Many stations stream on the internet, so during COVID lockdowns, people who couldn’t come home could stay connected.
Yes, community, commercial and public broadcasters should include Indigenous perspectives. They should produce Indigenous language programs, but Indigenous language radio broadcasters have been serving their own communities for 50 years. I hope that Bill C-11 will reflect the fact that Indigenous radio stations and networks are uniquely positioned and uniquely qualified to support Indigenous languages.
In 2021, First Nations University launched a program to train broadcasters working or volunteering in radio. Our students were in five provinces and one state. These students are the next generation of Indigenous language radio broadcasters, but we need more.
The other big challenge is technology. Yesterday, the CEO of our Missinipi network shared with me that, this summer, Telus notified them that by the end of December they have to realign or replace their satellite receivers in 60 communities, at a cost of $130,000. Radio Bingo is slow in spring and summer, so the money has to come from other areas, like training and staffing.
In New Zealand and in the U.S., Indigenous people have claimed ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum as a renewable natural resource that is being sold by their governments without compensating them. The auction of the 3500 megahertz spectrum in Canada in 2021 generated almost $9 billion. Indigenous people hold title to a lot of Canada, especially north of 60, so this is an argument that could support the argument for additional funding.
With respect, I suggest that Bill C-11 should include strong language about the need to provide reliable and adequate financial support for recruiting and training, regional and local operations, keeping up with new technologies and ensuring the survival of Indigenous language radio across Canada.
Thank you so much for letting me share my thoughts with you. Ekosi.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Bert Crowfoot, Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Multi-Media Society of Alberta: Oki — Blackfoot; Tansi — Cree; Aba wathtech — Stoney Nakoda Sioux; Aaniin — Saulteaux; Danit’ada – Tsuut’ina; Taanishi — Métis; and Edlánet’é — Dene. These are the greetings in the Indigenous languages of Treaty 6, 7 and 8 as well as the Métis people of Alberta.
I would like to thank the committee for listening to us. I agree with most of the comments presented by my two colleagues earlier. We’re in a different situation in Alberta in that we run a pretty successful radio operation. Before I start, I’d like to thank the Algonquin and Anishinaabeg people for allowing me to speak on their traditional, unceded territory.
I am a Siksika/Saulteaux from the Blackfoot Confederacy in southern Alberta. My mother is Saulteaux from the Key First Nation in northern Saskatchewan. I’m also the great, great‑grandson of Chief Crowfoot, who signed Treaty 7. I have two Indian names. My Siksika name is “Kiyo Sta’ ah” or “Bear Ghost,” and my Kwakwaka ‘wakw name is “Gayutalas” or “Always Giving.” I was adopted by Chief Adam Dick at a Kwakwaka ‘wakw potlatch in 2008.
I am the CEO of the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society of Alberta, or Windspeaker Media. We have four radio stations in Alberta: CFWE, a country station covering northern Alberta; CJWE, a country station in southern Alberta; CIWE, the Raven, which is everything but country, in Edmonton; and CUZIN radio, a 100% Indigenous internet radio station. We also have an online Indigenous news service called Windspeaker.com
I have been involved in Indigenous media for 45 years. I started in 1977 as a sports writer for a Native people newspaper. In January of 1983, we incorporated the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society of Alberta. We published Windspeaker News, a newspaper which went national in 1990 after federal government cuts.
In 1985, we started radio under the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program. We started out with a one-hour program on CBC TV from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. in the morning. We were known as the radio on TV. We eventually set up 10 small 10-watt transmitters in northeast Alberta. Over the years, we grew this network to include eight 100,000-watt transmitters and several smaller ones ranging from 20,000 watts to 10 watts.
We begin each programming day with a prayer in an Indigenous language at 6 a.m. We broadcast in five Indigenous languages: Cree, Blackfoot, Nakoda Sioux, Michif and three dialects of Dene. We started out doing 100% Indigenous programming but found out that we were starting to lose listeners who didn’t understand the language. We have since switched to bilingual programming, which has been very successful. We start in language and, after a few sentences, we switch to English, then back to language and then back to English. We do language vignettes in language and English, conversational Cree, conversational Nakoda and conversational Dene, Cree Chatter Hour and Voices of our People.
We made history this past summer by broadcasting the first ever CFL game between the Edmonton Elks and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers in Cree. Next summer we want to broadcast a game between the Calgary Stampeders and the Edmonton Elks in Cree and Blackfoot.
Indigenous people are storytellers, and we tell stories in our lodges. We like to compare our studios to our lodges, and our announcers/operators are storytellers. Our studios have sound panels with Indigenous people and Indigenous scenes on them to remind our operators who they are talking to.
Most mainstream stations have strict programming formats. We used to adhere to these strict formats for breaks and commercials. Indigenous languages are very descriptive, and we relaxed that part of our programming. If it takes 45 to 90 seconds to tell a story, then so be it. We have bilingual advertising, and we often do 30 seconds in English and then the language part can be as long as 45 to 60 seconds.
As with most Indigenous radio stations, we wanted to sound as professional as possible. We hired mainstream producers, most of whom were non-Indigenous. We wanted them to train our Indigenous staff to become better sounding. We found that we had to change that when one of our producers told one of our Indigenous on-air staff, “The word is fish, not fiss, and it is bush, not buss.” We had lost our Indigenous sound and had to get it back. When listening to mainstream radio, I can tell when an Indigenous person comes on the air. I can even tell what part of Alberta he or she is from. Most of our communities have their own accent.
In conclusion, I’m proud of our radio stations and our organization for what we have accomplished. All of our stations are in the black financially, and traditional Indigenous Radio Bingo pays for most of our distribution expansion. It makes my heart happy when I hear listeners say, “It feels like coming home.”
As far as Bill C-11, I agree that there needs to be more Indigenous content, but I also believe that we need to look after our own needs as much as we have done. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for being with us today.
I will launch the Q and A part of the committee work. This question is open to all of you. In accepting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the current government committed to considering through consultation the impacts of all federal legislation on our Indigenous people in Canada. When the legislation was adopted, Minister Lametti stated that it “provides the foundation for transformational change in Canada’s relationships with Indigenous Peoples.” When it comes to Bill C-11, do you feel that the government adequately consulted with the Indigenous voices in this country in regard to Bill C-11 under their commitment to UNDRIP?
As well, in your opinion, does this legislation reflect the rights, voices and cultural content that you so much want to promote? What amendments would you suggest are required in order to strengthen those principles?
Mr. Wente: Mr. Chair, thank you so much for the question.
In terms of the consultation process, if my memory serves, there was significant consultation around the previous bill, less so around this one, although much of the language or substantive changes have been retained from one version to the next so perhaps that ameliorated the need for further consultation.
I think it would be valuable in the summary for there to be a statement that this legislation recognizes that requirement and that commitment to adhere to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I think it would also be useful to recognize that Indigenous storytelling encompasses things that might be constituted as journalism and that there’s some blurring of the lines in terms of how we might approach those definitions around storytelling, to ensure that is reflected.
I’d ensure in the definitions section again that “Indigenous peoples” is defined appropriately so that we have an understanding of what that means, particularly First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and that an Indigenous news outlet is defined as being controlled and operated by Indigenous people.
In 11(1)(a), I think there should be a separate call-out line that says they should involve a significant portion of Indigenous news outlets and meaningfully support the stability of those outlets. I also think that there should be specific mention of Indigenous peoples under 27(1) and 31(2), just to reinforce the need for Indigenous presence in the broadcast sector. The previous bill, in 1991, as my colleague mentioned, barely mentioned us. It would be nice to see this bill go very far in terms of being specific about what it is looking to achieve. Likewise, in 33(1) around the qualifications for arbiters, we would ask that include Indigenous people on any roster of arbiters that is to be settled.
Those would be the main amendments we would be looking for. Thank you so much for the question.
Mr. Crowfoot: The thing that we struggle with is that, when it comes to language, the spectrum of people speaking language ranges from non-existent to fully fluent. When a lot of the government legislation talks about language, they just assume that it’s either English or French and everybody understands it. There is a difference. There should be some effort made to understand more about the state of Indigenous language in Canada today.
Senator Simons: Tanisi, everybody.
I have to say, Mr. Crowfoot, it’s a pleasure to have you here. I’m a long-time fan of Windspeaker. Recently I’ve been driving a lot around Alberta, and I keep hitting the Raven and then staying because it’s such an eclectic range of music and enjoyable companionship as I’m driving about.
You raise an interesting point in your testimony. I think sometimes when we are looking at this bill, we’re using “Indigenous” to be a proxy for Indigenous language. I know that’s what Professor Avison is primarily interested in. It seems to me, Mr. Crowfoot, from your testimony, that you’re telling us that something can be Indigenous and culturally Indigenous even if it’s spoken in English or French if it’s the English and French that is used in Indigenous communities. Do we need to be careful when we’re looking at the bill that we’re not limiting Indigenous broadcasting to mean Indigenous in Cree or Dene or Anishinaabe or whatever the language of the region is?
Mr. Crowfoot: When it comes to Indigenous language, the further you go north and the more isolated you are, the language is spoken in most homes. The further you go south, when it comes to individuals like me, my mother was Saulteaux and my father was Blackfoot, and they had to speak to each other so they spoke English. As a result, the 10 kids in my family all spoke English. My older sister spoke Blackfoot because she spent a lot of time with my grandparents. When it comes to language, the spectrum of people and what they speak goes right across the board.
I spoke with one of my employees this morning. She is not Indigenous but she feels she has absorbed a lot through working and being with us. I said to her, “Indigenous is not only the colour of your skin; it’s what is in your heart and head.” We have a lot of non-Indigenous people who are learning the language. We have a lot of our listeners. I had one gentleman who is a neighbour to Tsuut’ina and he said that they are learning our language from a lot of programming that we do. I’m quite proud of that.
I’m also very much a business type of person, and I don’t like relying on government funding because it’s not stable. In 1990, they cut funding to native newspapers and 9 out of 11 newspapers shut their doors. Through advertising, we were able to stay alive. Today, as I mentioned earlier, we have four radio stations. We have eight 100,000-watt transmitters around Alberta.
The Raven has been very successful. It plays a wide range of music, as you said. It’s also the language. Most of our listeners, when they comment about listening to our programming, they say, “I love the language because I’m learning.” When we talk about truth and reconciliation and people learning language, a good way of reconciling with non-Indigenous people is to teach them more about ourselves.
Senator Simons: Mr. Wente, I have a question which is not specifically related to Indigenous issues but to an interesting point that you have raised because we’re watching the Twitter meltdown happening in real time. There is a danger. When a lot of these bills were drafted, Bills C-10 and C-18, it was with the presumption that these dominant platforms were going to exist for a good, long time. We’re seeing right before us the ephemeral nature of some of these platforms on which thousands and thousands of people have built their models. What do you think we need to do to insulate Bill C-11 to make sure that we are not basing the entire edifice on a paradigm that could shift at any minute?
Mr. Wente: Thank you, Senator Simons. I appreciate the question.
I will answer the other question quickly. I think Indigenous content and Indigenous broadcasting is defined by being created by Indigenous people, regardless of language. Since the state is actually the chief culprit in the challenges our languages face, it would be incorrect to penalize people who have lost their language due to state interference in terms of their ability to access this sort of legislation.
Yes, you are quite right. We have to be careful of building legislation that is designed specifically around current technological innovation. The last time this law was opened was 30 years ago. If we were to open it again 30 years from now, you and I can almost guarantee that some of these large multinationals will not exist and there will likely be other ones who do in forms that we can’t even necessarily imagine.
This is why, for me, the big thing is more about ensuring that there are resources coming back into the country as opposed to worrying too much about algorithmic or other changes, because those are going to shift depending on the platform. They are not consistent across the existing platforms because they use their algorithms quite differently. They surface content quite differently. I would try to ensure that the policy or the legislation is able to capture emerging technologies, onboard them in terms of a commitment to support the creation and dissemination of Canadian and of Indigenous content, and that’s it. Try to get a bucket that can catch those current and future folks while not attaching us to business models that may not prove to be viable in the long term.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Wente first, and I will see if I have time for any others. You have expressed general support for Bill C-11. However, like many witnesses who are supportive of the bill in broad strokes, you have still raised some concerns, in particular about the authority of the government to direct the CRTC. Other witnesses have similarly expressed concerns about accountability and independence of the CRTC being undermined by Bill C-11, particularly in relation to 7(7). Is this the section that also concerns you? If so, can you articulate specific challenges you see when it comes to policy direction that the government may provide to the CRTC?
Mr. Wente: Thank you, senator, for the question.
There is always a challenge when interpretation of legislation is left up to policy directions from the government in terms of how communities are meant to interpret how the law will then be applied. That still exists within this. There have been assurances made by the government in terms of what those directions to the CRTC might be. We also value the CRTC’s independence and its ability to be at arm’s length and to make decisions. We value the idea that there should be Indigenous representation within the commissioners at the CRTC to ensure that our communities are represented there.
In terms of section 7, I wouldn’t say that that is of particular concern. I would be more concerned about section 4.2 and 9. The concern is Indigenous people, having been locked out of the traditional broadcast sector in Canada, have found new audiences and new business models in these emerging technologies. Some of them do make money and have careers based off of them. I’m not sure those sorts of content creators should be treated in the same way a large multinational corporation or a large broadcast entity is, like a cable channel or a broadcast network. I would be cautious around any of that. I also think it is going to be a challenge to do anything around algorithmic changes. Section 7 itself didn’t give us any great pause for concern.
Senator Manning: Do you believe that it would be more productive to see the policy directives from the government as we consider this bill to have some idea of where they plan on going? Do you think that would be more productive?
Mr. Wente: Yes, senator. Again, I’m afraid my expertise in terms of how this works is going to fall short. Ideally, we would see all sorts of things before legislation is passed in terms of how it would be interpreted. Yes, I think that would be useful for sure.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you to the witnesses. My question is for Mr. Wente. I learned that your organization has an agreement with Netflix to provide financial support to Indigenous content creators for training, professional development and culturally appropriate approaches to storytelling. You have two types of programs: a training program for production activities and a cultural mentorship program.
I’d like to hear more about your collaboration with Netflix. What impact is it having on the development of Indigenous creators, whether they belong to Métis, Inuit or First Nations communities? How does it lead to human resources from those communities being hired by Netflix?
Mr. Wente: Thank you for your question, senator.
[English]
You are quite right. We do have a partnership. We have had a partnership for four years with Netflix. You are quite right that it funds two streams of supports that we offer.
One stream is for mentorship, which is really a career development or professional development opportunity. This places Indigenous storytellers who are seeking to be on a bigger budget set switch from documentary to narrative storytelling. We have placed those storytellers, and they don’t have to be on Netflix productions. They will provide this mentorship on productions that they don’t oversee so they can learn new skills and advance their careers that way.
The second one is perhaps my favourite part of the partnership, which is the cultural mentorship. This was a direct response to what we heard from our community in that, when telling Indigenous stories, there are often steps that need to be taken that aren’t usual for other stories. There might be protocols, elders might need to be consulted, there might need to be knowledge keepers or story keepers, you might need to access the land — all sorts of things that require additional development time and additional resources to undertake.
Until we had these supports, those were not supported by existing funders; Indigenous storytellers would have to pay for that out of their own pockets. This fund allows them to not only extend their development time — that early-stage development to seek all the necessary protocols and permissions and to do all of the cultural work they need to do to tell that story — but it also allows them to compensate those elders, knowledge keepers and story keepers from whom they are seeking expertise.
This has been a hugely valuable resource for us. It’s a way for us to put into practice the On-Screen Protocols & Pathways document, which we created very early, which gives a guide for how Indigenous storytelling should be undertaken. This allows us to actually put that into practice by giving Indigenous storytellers the space to do whatever they need to do culturally to get to a place to tell their story appropriately, in a right way and in a good way. They have been hugely supportive.
We have also had partnerships with Amazon around creators pitching to the service. We have found these new streamers to be very receptive in a way that we have often struggled with traditional broadcast entities based in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I have a follow-up question about human resources and hiring. The bill distinguishes between what Canadian broadcasting undertakings are required to do and what foreign online undertakings are required to do as far as hiring Canadian human resources is concerned. Canadian broadcasting undertakings must make maximum use of Canadian human resources, whereas foreign online undertakings are to make practicable use of Canadian human resources. Some witnesses have said that both types of undertakings should be subject to the same requirements. Given the role those platforms can have in the production and broadcasting of Inuit, Métis and First Nations productions, what’s your view?
[English]
Mr. Wente: Thank you, again, senator, for the question.
The On-Screen Protocols & Pathways document, which you can find on the Indigenous Screen Office website, talks about the need for reciprocity in arrangements and that there needs to be something left behind for the community. Storytelling can become an extraction industry, just like anything else, so there needs to be some reciprocity left behind. In terms of how that is applied, it can be quite open.
Again, we have looked at Netflix and Amazon in terms of their contributions to the Canadian sector. They are different than broadcasters that exist here, but they are contributing nonetheless. As long as we see some equal measures, that would be appropriate.
We have seen before in the theatrical movie industry where foreign studios have offices here and may shoot here, but those productions would be guided under things like tax credits and other legislation that guides the accessing of Canadian supports for those productions. It might be a similar approach to these multinationals. Maybe they have a distribution office, sales team or some representative in Canada.
Of course, when they are producing here, Netflix has a large production slate in Canada. To access any resources for that production slate, they would be required to employ Canadians. We think any time those productions take place on Indigenous land, Indigenous people should be involved in that way as well.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to ask Mr. Wente something as well, since he just paved the way for a question I had. You said that working with online platforms like Netflix tended to be easier or better than working with traditional broadcasting media. I used to be a journalist with Radio-Canada, so this issue really resonates with me. What barriers have you — or do you — run into when working with traditional broadcasters? Do they give you enough creative space? I’d like you to explain what the barriers are, and if you have any specific examples, now would be the time to share them. Thank you.
Mr. Wente: Thank you for your question, senator.
[English]
I think the largest challenge is one of relationships. If you are a First Nations, Métis or Inuit storyteller in the screen sector in Canada or in the broadcast sector writ large in Canada, you have probably had the traditional broadcast sectors say “no” to you many, many times. You have probably heard “no” so many times, senator, that you probably stop asking at some point and turn to create your own thing. The relationship with these new streaming or new technology platforms is that they have not said “no” to our communities for generations and generations, so there is an opportunity that our community sees there. That vision of opportunity has been met with actual opportunity. Those entities have been more open to including our storytelling than we have traditionally seen in the Canadian broadcast sector, which has been, if we’re very honest, very slow to include First Nations, Métis and Inuit people. We are still mostly not present in the Canadian screen sector, and that is despite our office being here for almost six years and all of the progress in recent years. I would suggest that part of that is that those organizations — that sector — has such a damaged relationship with our communities that they are going to continue to have a struggle to recruit from us because our communities are seeking their opportunities in other venues. So the largest barrier is just the history of for so long being told “no” that our communities have sought refuge elsewhere.
I just point out that, at one point — I don’t know if this is still true, but at one point — Netflix was globally the largest distributor of Indigenous content in the world. There is no Canadian broadcaster, other than maybe APTN and the Indigenous radio entities, that could make that claim.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You talked about social media and the fact that Indigenous content creators were present in that space. During our second panel, we will be hearing from Vanessa Brousseau. Do you have a general sense as to how present Canadian Indigenous people are on TikTok, YouTube and other such platforms? Is it quite significant? Are there many of them on the platforms? Do they have a large enough presence to make a difference in communities? What would you like to see in new section 4.2?
[English]
Mr. Wente: Yes. Thank you so much.
There is a significant Indigenous presence on all social media platforms — on any one you could name. In many ways, it’s quite inspiring to see what Indigenous storytellers do when they gain access to these new platforms. For example, we have seen YouTube and venues like that be instrumental in language learning, especially during the pandemic. There is a huge opportunity there for Indigenous people outside of the traditional Canadian broadcast sector to disseminate their stories and connect, yes, with the broader public but also, as Bert said, with ourselves.
I’ll use Facebook as an example. So many of my relatives — and I mean relatives in the broadest sense — are on Facebook. It’s where the community shares its stories and a lot of information. I’m a believer that storytellers who are able to use those platforms to reach an audience may graduate to other forms of media in the future, and we should be trying to capture and encourage that transition.
We should also be totally satisfied if they just want to remain a YouTube or TikTok creator and find a way to support that. The Indigenous Screen Office does not discriminate on the basis of platform. We will happily fund a TikTok creator if their story is good and valuable —
The Chair: Mr. Wente, I hate to cut you off, but we will move on to Senator Clement.
Senator Clement: Bonjour, hello and sekoh to all three witnesses. Sekoh is Mohawk, and I use Mohawk because my home community is Cornwall, Ontario, which is on the traditional territory of the Mohawk people.
[Mohawk spoken]
My question is for Mr. Wente. I have been reading all things C-11, of course, in the last few months. You wrote a piece for The Globe and Mail a few weeks ago on C-11. You used some interesting words. You say there:
For decades, our existing broadcasting rules have given us farms, which have provided a predictable, reliable, homogeneous harvest of content … presided over, managed, endlessly repetitious. Bill C-11 holds the potential to turn these farms into forests, where unpredictability reigns, old things are allowed to crumble, and new things are able to take root …
That really struck me. Could you elaborate on the issue of unpredictability? You talked about algorithms, but you set it aside as being complicated. Your response to Senator Miville-Dechêne was interesting to me in terms of relationships with newer entities are better than with the old broadcasting system. Could you speak to that piece that you wrote and lean into the unpredictability part?
Mr. Wente: Sure. Thank you so much, senator, for the question and for reading what must be just incredible writing.
I use the metaphor of the farm and the forest all the time because I think that colonialism has turned forests into farms. Part of that process means that you cultivate a farm — you decide what gets plucked to allow other things to grow — whereas a forest aligns itself in a manner of right relations with each creature and each kin within that system. When we think of that around a broadcaster or the telecommunications sector, I think the examples are obvious. You have Vanessa on the call, as an example. So many other Canadians, and not just from Indigenous, First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, have found voice on these platforms in a way that they wouldn’t have been able to on this. I say this as someone who worked at CBC and who had an opportunity to have that voice. That democratization of access is the most valuable thing that social media platforms have done.
As I said earlier, I think the challenge has been that when we were outside of the sector in Canada for so long, we were looking for any beam of light, and the beam of light where we could find a forest is in social media. Across Canada, whether it’s Lilly Singh or someone else, we have seen people make that transition from being an influencer — I would call them all storytellers — in one platform to another platform. I think some of that is okay. We need some disruption. I would warn against rewarding business models that are antiquated and shifting away. We should be encouraging of business innovation and communications innovation, which isn’t to say that I love everything that occurs on social media. It’s just that I think the traction points for the government or for us should really be in ensuring contributions back into our system for a variety of things, including storytelling.
Yes, I think it’s the best way to get us back to a forest. That sort of unpredictability is predictable in that I think it will surface talent that we haven’t otherwise heard and stories we haven’t otherwise heard. Those, as you know, senator, can be utterly transformative.
Senator Clement: Merci, nia:wen.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests, and thank you for your presentations and your answers.
I hope to get a question to each quickly here, beginning with Ms. Avison. I have a quick question for you followed by a couple other complementary questions. As the professor at the First Nations University of Canada which focuses on teaching Indigenous media, what is the range of age of your students?
Ms. Avison: The youngest students are coming out of high school, so they are 16 or 17. I think the oldest student I have had in the last few years is Robert Merasty, from Ile-a-la-Crosse, who had been a broadcaster for decades. He had a stroke and was returning to the industry now, trying to relearn what he knew before but also wanting to learn new storytelling methods, and also just to be around young people, so 72 is the eldest.
Senator Klyne: Do you have a sense of whether your students are following Bill C-11? Have any of them expressed an opinion on the bill to you or indicated to you what this legislation might mean for their community or for them personally should they choose to pursue a career in social media and other mediums?
Ms. Avison: Truthfully, no, they are not following it very closely. When I teach, I try to share with them the importance of legislation and the impact of federal policies on the evolution of Indigenous media, both good and bad. I would say they are not following it closely. It’s mostly exams, and they sort of focus in on whatever is right in front of them. I hope I give them a strong sense of the importance of broadcasting policy over the years and the programming that comes out of it. They certainly are aware of Canadian Heritage and the role that it has in supporting Indigenous languages and the broadcasters in the North too.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Mr. Wente, you referred to social media as the beam of light for Indigenous creators. Yet, we have heard many times in our study of this bill from our other social media creators that they don’t see this as a beam of light in a positive sense; they see it more as a death ray. It’s going to curtail their future in terms of building audiences and their reach. What’s the difference here other than that Indigenous storytellers have found a medium that is quite accepting?
Mr. Wente: I was speaking beyond the legislation. We certainly heard some concerns around the legislation in terms of social media creators, and I would not want to curtail them in any way. It’s been really valuable. We would want to see those contributions and increased transparency from those organizations around the use of our data and our activities on the sites. Beyond that, I want to make sure that that pathway for career development and success is still open for Indigenous creators.
Senator Klyne: Mr. Crowfoot, can you tell this committee if Bill C-11, from your perspective, will have a meaningful and positive impact? If this bill becomes law, do you think it becomes easier or more difficult for you to reach and grow Indigenous audiences?
Mr. Crowfoot: Yes, I think it will. As I mentioned earlier, personally, I don’t rely on it. I make things happen myself. In order to reach more people, we use our bingo revenue to build our distribution system. The CRTC has been supportive of any applications that we have put forth in giving us licences for these new transmitters. I apologize for that, but I’m kind of a different animal when it comes to this.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses.
During our hearings, we have heard different people talk about the fact that they have not seen the policy directions. We have heard some concerns about the CRTC and how they may or may not interpret those policy directives and general concern in that regard. Would it be helpful if there were checks and balances introduced through an amendment that would allow the regulations, before promulgation, to be reviewed by this committee and by the House committee, with the ability to call witnesses briefly, just to confirm that the policy directions and intentions of the government are, in fact, being adhered to by the CRTC? This is for Mr. Wente and then the others if there’s time.
Mr. Wente: Thank you so much, senator.
It’s rare that you would find me arguing for more bureaucracy, so I guess I’m not quite sure. There needs to be some assurances or some way to understand how those directives are actually fulfilled. Whether that’s an oversight body or something else, I’m not sure I have the answers for you. Certainly, it would be nice to know that there are measurables in terms of those directions and how they’re actually interpreted by the CRTC.
Mr. Crowfoot: I agree that it would be nice to have those checks and balances for us to be able to address any issues that we might have.
Ms. Avison: The last Indigenous broadcasting policy is from 1990, and that predates the Broadcasting Act. I know there have been meetings and I’ve been hearing about consultations, but it hasn’t evolved or developed into anything concrete.
Really engaging Indigenous broadcasters especially — and they’re so different. Bert is magnificent. Alberta is extraordinary. I think it has the biggest radio reach in Canada of any broadcaster. On the other end of the spectrum, there are people like Maureen in Sandy Bay, who just wandered into the radio station after getting her grandkids off to school and who goes on the radio and speaks Cree. There is a huge range. We tend to ignore the little people on the ground, especially for local radio broadcasting.
It’s important to empower those people who have the language. Language is my focus. It’s not the only thing that Indigenous broadcasting does. It also creates community. Through COVID, it was extraordinarily important. But for me especially, my focus with this presentation today is language, so it’s making sure that people who want to speak the languages and share the languages, such as in conversation, with birthday greetings, just giving the weather, doing moose calls and bringing in elders, have the support they need. They’re not businesspeople. Bert is extraordinary, combining that business savvy with a vision for broadcasting, but there are lots of people at the very local level, and even at the regional level, who don’t have that business sense. I don’t mean that we should say they could never have it. And there are some regions where it won’t make a difference, because you don’t have the market. Even for bingo, you wouldn’t have the numbers you would need to be self-sufficient the way Bert is.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all three of our witnesses for appearing before us today and for their thoughtful participation. You have created a lot of interest. I can tell you by the list of second-round senators who had questions that we could have taken up another hour with this group of panellists. Thank you so much.
Ms. Avison: Thank you very much.
Mr. Wente: Thank you very much. It’s been a privilege to share time with Bert Crowfoot. He’s a legend.
Mr. Crowfoot: Thank you very much.
The Chair: For our second panel, I’m pleased to introduce, as an individual, Vanessa Brousseau, known as the Resilient Inuk, Digital Content Creator; and from Music Publishers Canada, we have Margaret McGuffin, Chief Executive Officer. Both join us via video conference. Welcome to both of you. Each of you will have a five-minute period for opening remarks, and then we will turn the floor over to Q and A for my colleagues. We’ll start with Vanessa Brousseau.
Vanessa Brousseau, Resilient Inuk, Digital Content Creator, as an individual: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I’m known as Resilient Inuk on TikTok. I am Inuit and Ojibwe, as my mother comes from Sanikiluaq Nunavut and my father comes from Mattagami First Nation, Ontario. My grandfather was in a sanitorium for over seven years, my father is a residential school survivor and my mother is an Indian day‑school survivor. The hardest trauma I’ve had to face is having my sister go missing almost 19 years ago, at the young age of 22.
I started using the platform TikTok two years ago, as I noticed there was a lack of Indigenous content creators specifically speaking on missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. I wanted to not only use my voice but also heal as a result of direct personal experience. As MMIWG2S is a sensitive subject, I also share my traditional arts, such as jewelry-making or crafts out of natural products, and a little bit of storytelling on sharing my truths.
In 2021, I participated in and graduated from the TikTok Accelerator for Indigenous Creators. That program drastically changed how I create content. Having the tools and expertise provided to me truly boosted the quality of my videos and gave me the confidence I needed. Before the program, I had 43,000 followers, and since graduating, I’ve increased that to 118,000 followers, and I have 2.6 million likes on my videos. It’s not just Canadians who I’m reaching either: 44% of my followers are from the United States and 41% are from Canada. I also have followers in the United Kingdom, Australia and the Philippines. The TikTok accelerator program is currently running their second program with 40 new Indigenous participants.
I have had some amazing experiences and opportunities because of TikTok that I am forever grateful for. I’ve been able to create awareness and make some extra income while doing what I’m passionate about.
My concerns about Bill C-11 are that it will create more barriers for Indigenous peoples who create user-generated content and make it harder for other Indigenous creators to achieve the success that I’ve been lucky to have. With seldom barriers, I’ve been able to be verified on TikTok, create partnerships with big brands and, most importantly, feel that I’m being heard in my own voice, my own way. With Bill C-11, I’m particularly concerned that if platforms like TikTok are required to promote content that has been approved as Canadian, will Indigenous UGC creators be able to obtain qualifications to be considered a Canadian content creator? What will the application process look like for Indigenous peoples to prove that they’re Canadian enough? Will there be paperwork and fees with the CRTC or requirements which may lead to possible financial barriers? What about language barriers? What will the effects be for Indigenous youth?
We shouldn’t have to apply to prove that we are Canadian enough, and I’m worried that many Indigenous people either won’t qualify, won’t want to prove again that they’re Canadian enough or will face barriers that will prevent them from even trying. What then will happen to Indigenous UGC creators? How will they be seen or found on platforms compared to someone who has been deemed an approved Canadian content creator?
I’m not an expert on the broadcasting system, and I don’t have all the answers on how to fix this bill. Rather, I’m here today as an Indigenous TikTok creator to offer my perspective on how I create and share content, the opportunities I’ve had to reach an audience in and outside of Canada and what the impact could be of what’s being proposed.
Finally, I’d like to thank this committee for inviting me to be heard. Indigenous creators like me — digital first creators who use UGC platforms like TikTok and YouTube — until now have not been consulted or asked for our views on Bill C-11. While I was glad to see the previous panel of experts, and I understand that Indigenous cultural organizations representing traditional artists may have been consulted, independent digital creators like me are not represented by these organizations, and we have needs and goals unique from their members.
We are already doing well based on our own hard work, and I don’t see how Bill C-11 is going to help us. Rather, I’m concerned about the barriers it would create for Indigenous peoples. I hope you can understand the perspective I bring and the concerns that will directly impact user-generated Canadian creators like myself.
I appreciate your time listening to me and my concerns on Bill C-11. Meegwetch, nakurmiik.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Margaret McGuffin, Chief Executive Officer, Music Publishers Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. It is my pleasure to appear this morning to discuss the importance of the online streaming act.
Music Publishers Canada is a membership-based organization made up of a large number of Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises, as well as international companies with offices in Canada.
Music publishers work with thousands of Canadian songwriters from coast to coast and make significant investments in the songs and scores that are heard every day on the radio, on streaming services, in video games, in film and television production and on new emerging digital platforms around the world. And 79% of our members’ revenues flow to Canada from foreign sources. We know the importance of the global market.
Let me start today by saying I know we all want to ensure that Canada’s creative industries thrive, both here and around the world. To do this, it is imperative that we modernize the Broadcasting Act to respond to the realities of how content is consumed today while also making sure the law is ready for the next generation of digital media platforms. Bill C-11 is this long‑awaited and much-needed update. We welcome its goal of bringing online broadcasting under the act, and in particular, ensuring that online services help Canadians find Canadian songs and stories on platforms that operate in Canada. As technology has evolved, so too has the way Canadians consume content. Our members and the songwriters they work with have embraced these changes and are actively engaged in platforms, both in licensing their content for use in third-party content and in creating new digital content of their own.
Music publishers and songwriters are digital creators, and in many ways, online platforms are their valued partners. But these platforms are also keen to capitalize on the Canadian market without always supporting the environment that helps Canadian creative industries grow. That stands in contrast to traditional broadcasters who have supported the creation and promotion of Canadian music, both financially and through their programming for decades.
We must also remember that digital platforms are constantly evolving and new services are launching all the time, so Bill C-11 must be passed with wording that looks to the future and places strong and technologically neutral objectives at the heart of the updated act. It must give the CRTC flexible regulatory tools to ensure these objectives are achieved.
Without this modernization of the Broadcasting Act, Canada will see parts of our creative industry suffer. As you’ve heard earlier in these meetings, this is especially dangerous for the songwriters, composers and music publishers who work, represent and give voice to our French-language culture. We risk disadvantaging an entire generation of new young storytellers and emerging businesses who will lose the opportunities to develop and grow and whose songs may never be discovered or promoted in their own country. The online streaming act undoubtedly will support Canadian creators and businesses that invest in them by creating jobs and ensuring our stories can be found and heard in English, French and Indigenous languages. We are hopeful that you will prioritize the passage of Bill C-11 before the spring sitting concludes so that Canadians and our creative industries can continue to thrive in the digital world.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Ms. Brousseau, I heard in your testimony that you felt a little betrayed by this government’s lack of commitment to UNDRIP and having enough of a broad consultation on this bill with Indigenous voices. What I got from your testimony is that, at the end of the day, it seems they did consult with Indigenous voices as long as they agreed with their perspective in the Broadcasting Act, which in itself is disappointing.
My question has been initiated by the testimony of Mr. Jesse Wente from the Indigenous Screen Office who testified earlier. He mentioned how Netflix is one of the platforms that has set historic records on carrying Indigenous voices, documentaries, shows and so forth to a degree that we’ve never seen before, which is, of course, impressive. We’ve heard for a long time that the government is doing Bill C-11 to protect minority voices, such as Indigenous voices and communities, but to protect them from what? We have platforms like TikTok, YouTube and Netflix that are giving us an opportunity to promote Indigenous voices, and I think we need to find platforms that will propel us to the world, not create protectionism, and you’re a testimony to that. Can you talk to us about that?
My second question is about why the government isn’t preoccupied with the biggest problem facing Indigenous communities, which is connectivity in rural and northern communities.
Ms. Brousseau: Thank you so much. I appreciate your question.
I feel the same way about specifically UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action. The Canadian government has been working so hard on ensuring that our voices are being heard, that we’re being included in these discussions, that we’re being involved and thought about through the whole process. When something like this happens, it’s detrimental to the Indigenous peoples, as we believe you and we want to work with you, and then this happens where we’re not even consulted. I think it’s just a reminder, though, and it’s something that’s not a reflex to speak with Indigenous peoples on issues, and it’s something that will take time in order for that to happen, but I’m very thankful and honoured that I’m here today in this position to be able to use my voice. To me, this is a great move forward as well.
As for connectivity in our remote communities, I agree 100%. It’s heartbreaking to know that our people don’t have the same resources or opportunities. That is something that could easily be done for our communities, and not just connectivity but stable connectivity that is reliable. For example, for someone like me who has my TikTok account, if I don’t post every couple of days, it will affect my viewers and my following. If you don’t have the connectivity, how are you supposed to build and things like that? There’s a lot of unfair resources, I like to say, and I think that also need to be addressed. I’m very glad that you pointed those out.
The Chair: Ms. Brousseau, can you share with this committee what your experiences have been with the ministry or the minister’s office as an independent content provider from the Indigenous community vis-à-vis taking your concerns to them?
Ms. Brousseau: I was able to come to Ottawa and speak with some senators, parliamentary leadership, MPs, ministries and people like that. For the majority of my visit, it was wonderful. I was very honoured to meet so many well-respected, hard-working Canadians, and I was very thankful to have the opportunity.
However, there was one ministry that we met with that did have a different perspective and felt that they needed to really intimidate me with their perspective when I was really just there to share my perspective. I don’t know all about the bill, and I understand it needs to be passed on certain levels and things like that. However, as an Indigenous woman, this one ministry basically gaslit me and told me that they did speak with Indigenous peoples and consulted. As somebody who’s connected very well to my Indigenous community, I didn’t feel that was true, and I feel that the approach they took with me was very intimidating and disrespectful.
The Chair: I’m sorry to hear about that experience. I hope you feel very comfortable here before the Senate committee. You’re very welcomed, and your thoughts are very welcomed, regardless whether they are for or against the bill. It is disappointing, though, that you had that experience.
Senator Manning: I want to follow up, if I could, because I’ve heard over the past number of weeks a fair amount of concern raised in relation to the production of Canadian content and, I guess, the definition of that content being Canadian. Ms. Brousseau, as a digital creator, Bill C-11, as you touched on, would ask you or require you to prove that your content is Canadian. We’re not exactly sure how that process is going to take place. The Privacy Commissioner has already expressed privacy concerns about this, and others have expressed concerns about the onerous nature of this requirement, whether it’s endless forms or whatever the process is. I’d like you to elaborate on — and you touched on it earlier, just briefly — proving you’re a Canadian and proving that what you’re producing is Canadian content. I just wondered how you feel about that and how you believe Bill C-11 could be changed — whether it’s by accepting an amendment or whatever the process would be — so that you wouldn’t have to go through that process when Bill C-11 is passed as it is today.
Ms. Brousseau: Thank you so much for that question.
Yes, it’s very insulting, as an Indigenous person from Canada, to continuously have to apply for Canadian status on different things, whether it’s our passports, whether it’s our birth certificates or whether it’s our status cards, things like that. As an Indigenous person, being asked again to prove that I’m Canadian repeatedly over and over is not a way toward reconciliation, in my perspective.
I also feel that putting up these kinds of barriers is another step that will block Indigenous peoples from even wanting to apply. If I got an application and saw that it said, “What kind of Canadian content do you display,” I would be very confused and think, “Okay, first of all, I’m Indigenous, so anything that I produce is Canadian.” That would cause some confusion. Also, it would make me feel that I am not authentic enough, as an original person, as a first person, that my content isn’t authentic enough for Canada.
There are a lot of questions and qualifications that are going to come into play. I’m not even sure if Indigenous peoples are going to want to even do those steps. If you told me today, “Well, Vanessa, now every year you need to fill out this form for TikTok in order to put your content up, and every video we need to ensure that it’s” — I’d probably be like, “I don’t want to do this anymore; this isn’t fun.” This isn’t something that I do just for income; this is something I’m passionate about. I believe in creating change in Canada by sharing awareness, and not just in Canada but all over the world.
I agree. Maybe there should be some sort of amendment for Indigenous peoples so that form is not required by us. I’m not sure. I don’t know all the answers to that, but I just know that it’s insulting to me to have to repeatedly prove that I’m Canadian.
Senator Manning: Thank you.
Today, you are creating your own TikTok videos. You’re putting them up. They’re receiving a large and growing audience. Do you believe that Bill C-11 will be detrimental to your experience on the platform? What do you see as the future for your presence on the platform with the passage of Bill C-11? I hear the concern you’re voicing, but I’m wondering what you see as future opportunities for you, and not only for you, but for many other people in the Aboriginal community.
Ms. Brousseau: If Bill C-11 passed the way it is, my fear is that my content won’t be seen because it’s not either deemed Canadian content by the CRTC or I’m not an official, qualified content creator. So my concern, first of all, is I’ll lose views, because I’m not in that pool anymore. Second, I’m worried about reaching the world. I’m not worried just about Canada. I’m worried that I wouldn’t be able to reach Australia with what I’m doing. Even with the United States, 44% of my followers are from the United States, and I’m worried it’s going to affect that. I, for one, as a content creator, am not here to boost Canada or anything like that. My content is more about creating awareness, change, sharing truth and sharing stories. This isn’t something just for Canadians; this is for people all over the world that I want to share with. Those are my two biggest concerns: One, I won’t get the views, and, two, I’ll be less scoped out into the world.
Senator Klyne: My question is for Ms. Brousseau. I want to begin by saying that I’m always engaged and enlightened by Indigenous content creators sharing culture, ceremony, language, talent and experiences, be it through stories or otherwise. I am very enlightened by the user-generated content that comes out of our territories. Also, I want to congratulate you on the size and reach of your audience.
In your opening remarks, you cited a number of concerns or questions in search of answers. We just discussed two of those with my colleague here. I’m wondering if there are any other concerns that you would like to review with this committee and offer any considerations as to how those concerns might be overcome. The dialogue and your comments on that gave us something to think about with regards to the ones you just discussed.
Ms. Brousseau: Thank you so much for that question.
What I feel needs to be really looked at is user-generated content. I agree that the bigger companies, okay, Bill C-11, 100%. But I’m worried about people like me who don’t have those resources, people who are just the everyday content creator who don’t have a manager, media production or a budget for those things. These are the people that I’m concerned about.
It’s not just Indigenous; it’s also all our youth. This is where creativity starts. Whether it’s TikTok or Facebook or any platform like that, this is where it starts. I see 14- and 15 year‑olds all the time starting their platforms, looking at creators like myself and saying, “Okay, I should do this,” or “I could do this,” or “I could show my talents this way,” and things like that. It’s not just about being famous. It’s about building those leadership skills for yourself and building that self‑confidence when you speak and all those little details. I’m really concerned with user-generated content because this is where you start, flourish and learn, “Oh, I like acting. I want to be a voice‑over person.” There are a lot of opportunities that come from doing something like this.
My biggest concern would be with user-generated content, to really think about how that could affect us, not just Indigenous but non-Indigenous as well, and try to remember that there are little people involved too. It’s hard because we see all the money and the bigger companies; however, there are smaller people like me who really bring value, and I just don’t want to see us lose that.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I have a question for each witness, so I’ll try to keep them tight.
Ms. McGuffin, there was a time not all that long ago when people used to go to the store to buy sheet music. Digital disruption has affected so many issues around publishing and copyright. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what have been the challenges of digital disruption for music publishers in order to protect their copyright and the value inherent in the publication of the music.
Ms. McGuffin: I have to say that there has been a resurgence in sheet music during COVID. That’s good news.
There is opportunity and there are problems too. My members embrace these technologies. They are creating every day, finding talent on these services, and they are growing out their international strategies by talking to TikTok and YouTube. They are part of the world. We embrace that.
The problem is that some of our companies and creators are being left behind. You heard from my colleagues from ADISQ in Quebec, where their revenues are falling dramatically. There was a star system that had been built for francophone communities in music in Canada, and now they are seeing a dramatic drop in their revenues and a drop in listenership, yet they have evidence, as was presented to you, that if audiences are referred to French‑language songs, they want to listen to those Quebec and francophone songs from across Canada.
Senator Simons: Ms. Brousseau, as someone who has personally invested a lot of time and energy on Twitter, a platform that is seemingly dissolving before my eyes, I’m a little bit concerned. When I meet someone like you and some of the other witnesses who have come before us whose success is on one platform, a platform over which they have no control, I’m wondering what we need to put in place to help people like you who are finding success on one platform be able to do something that is longer than 15 or 30 seconds. You talked about wanting to act and to do voice-over. Presumably, what we are hoping is if Indigenous and other diverse creators have success on a social media platform, then they will be able to leverage that into something beyond. What do we need to put in place to make sure that people are not just sort of ghettoized, if I can use that term, on one particular platform and don’t get that career lift into something larger?
Ms. Brousseau: Thank you so much for that question.
It’s very scary, for sure, because you are absolutely right. If TikTok disappears, do I disappear? Or do I work harder on other platforms? I am guilty of that as well. TikTok is my chosen platform. I do have Instagram and Twitter, but I don’t really use them.
You are right that there needs to be something, especially for our younger generation. If there is a 19-year-old Indigenous male youth and they are taking off, doing well and have goals and inspirations, there should be somebody, whether an Indigenous media organization or I’m not sure what program, but there should be somebody there to say, “Hey, we see something in you. Let’s do this with you.” Or, “Would you like to try that?” Things like that. There should be more opportunities at that level. I agree 100%. I’m just not sure who is responsible for that.
In my case, for example, my hope is that maybe somebody will find me and be able to use me for something else. I think that’s what a lot of user-generated content people are doing. They are really trying to highlight what they are qualified for and what they are good at and then start recruiting in those directions. It needs to reciprocate from the other side as well. I agree with you 100%. There needs to be more reciprocation when it comes to that.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: First, I want to say thank you to our witnesses, and to Vanessa Brousseau in particular. We met in my office, so I had the chance of knowing a little bit more about you. Thank you for being here.
[Translation]
My question is for Margaret McGuffin. In your opening statement, you said that music publishers and songwriters were digital creators. The terminology in this field can be a bit confusing. As you know, Vanessa Brousseau calls herself a digital content creator, for example. For those on the outside and those following our proceedings, it’s easy to get mixed up. That’s a preface to my question, which is about the difference between the two.
One of the most contentious issues in the bill is new section 4.2, particularly subsection 4.2(2), pertaining to the social media exception. Since you belong to the category of digital creators, who are — quote unquote — professionals in that they create professional music, I’d like to know whether you’ve given this any thought. How might the provision be amended so that it’s clearer and so that it specifically covers professional music creators, not amateur content creators?
[English]
Ms. McGuffin: Thank you for the question, senator.
Yes, it is very clear and I did say that songwriters, composers and music publishers are also digital creators. Often our members are helping their roster of songwriters to create and get verified on these platforms, making sure they are being heard and seen as part of the overall plan for that creator. Those individual songwriters are performing and are digital creators like Ms. Brousseau. They are doing that as part of their work as a songwriter, often as an artist. They fall into both categories as a professional content creator.
I think it’s clear in the act already about individual users, and I think everything needs to be done at the CRTC to make sure that what the government has said is clear. I would like to make sure it is very clear that individual users are not targeted in this. Maybe we will even benefit from whatever services come forward with the CRTC to say that we are here to help Canadian songwriters, publishers, labels and artists. I hope that we come forward together with those services that are a partner to the CRTC to find common language about what they can do to promote Canadian songwriters and to contribute to the system.
Many of the companies we work with now in Canada are doing a lot already in terms of coming forward and supporting Canadian creators. However, we need to future-proof this so that if foreign companies come in and want to extract value without any sort of investment in Canada and in Canadian creators, that they are brought up to the same level as some of the other companies.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
My question is for Ms. McGuffin. It builds on the questions asked by Senator Simons and Senator Miville-Dechêne.
The discoverability of Canadian content is of particular concern to me, as is copyright and intellectual property protection. I’d like to hear your thoughts on those issues.
I know that some online platforms that partner with music publishers, as you mentioned in your opening statement, are more generous than other online platforms when it comes to paying royalties to musical artists.
Do you think the bill, in its current form, protects intellectual property? Also, should the CRTC play an additional role as far as those issues are concerned?
[English]
Ms. McGuffin: Thank you for your question, senator.
I’m very clear that this bill is not about copyright, but there is a connection. If you are a creator and you do not get played or you don’t find audiences on these new platforms, then you will not receive royalties. There is a connection. For our friends in the francophone music industry, obviously this is of great concern. They are already seeing that there is not a space in these large international platforms for their community. We need to make sure that the star system is preserved and grows and can be exported. That needs to start at home. Many regional music creators are not finding the support they need from the companies who are coming into Canada to be able to grow and build. I’m most concerned about emerging creators and emerging companies and where we will be in 10 or 20 years.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have a follow-up question for you. You mentioned French music. Canada’s music industry is, to some extent, made up of two separate systems: the English-speaking side and the French-speaking side.
Considering how Canada’s French music industry takes shape and develops versus how Canada’s English music industry develops, what can you tell us about the difference that should be taken into account?
[English]
Ms. McGuffin: We have seen that before at the CRTC, where things have been put in place for the francophone community as it related to the legacy media. We may see that going forward when we go into the hearings following passage of this bill. We would be open to seeing that.
In terms of the entire industry in Canada, we have been well supported by FACTOR, Musicaction and Starmaker. That kind of support is important, especially to my francophone colleagues. We need to see that sort of investment going forward.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much, Ms. McGuffin.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
My questions are for Ms. Brousseau. In a response to an earlier question from Senator Manning, you said that you are concerned about how the CRTC is going to categorize you. That is, will they see you as Canadian, not Canadian or whatever? The way the bill works is that the CRTC will not be categorizing you in any way at all; it’s going to be the platform that you use. They’re going to be dealing with TikTok. How do you feel about how that’s going to work? Do you have a sense of how TikTok might be dealing with you? Do you have confidence that TikTok will take your views into consideration and that TikTok will find a way to deal with this issue in terms of classification of Canadian? Perhaps you may not want to be classified as a Canadian artist. Perhaps you feel that’s a better way to achieve success rather than being classified in the category of Canadian. How do you feel about that? Do you feel that you will be able to have a conversation with TikTok and that the platform will be responsive to your concerns?
Ms. Brousseau: Thank you so much for your questions. They’re great questions.
I honestly don’t know the answer about how TikTok will have to deal with it. I don’t understand the whole bill. For example, TikTok will have to identify their audience as well, and so on. I’m on every platform. I’m on Facebook; I’m on Instagram; I’m on Twitter. Nobody has developed the relationship that I have besides TikTok. That’s probably why I give so much time to TikTok. It’s a give and take for both of us. I really do believe that if this bill were to pass and there are concerns with Indigenous content creators or user-generated content creators, I’m sure TikTok would speak with the Indigenous community as well and work with us on whatever we need to do to still be able to have a voice and use their platform like they want us to use it. But I’m not an expert when it comes to that. That’s why I’m here. I’m concerned, right? That’s why I put my faith in telling you my truth, what I see and how it affects me in the hopes that you can figure out the answers for us and make it better for me and for other content creators. I’m sorry that I couldn’t give a full answer to that.
Senator Dasko: That’s great. TikTok has talked to us about these issues, obviously. After the bill is passed, if it’s passed, they will be faced with the issue of how they are going to deal with user-generated content and artists such as yourself, others in the Indigenous community and many other artists who are not from the Indigenous community. In any case, I wanted to see if you had confidence that things will work out in the end for you. Thank you.
Ms. Brousseau: Thank you so much.
The Chair: I want to follow up on Senator Dasko’s questions and comments. At the end of the day, my concern isn’t TikTok. When it’s all said and done, having listened to your testimony and the testimony of many independent content producers in this country, my concern is the CRTC and this piece of legislation. TikTok, YouTube and all these other streaming platforms have taken Vanessa Brousseau, an Indigenous woman, and given you a platform where you have built tremendous content and you have gotten tremendous following and you’ve turned it into a self-sufficient business. As a legislator, I share your concerns when the chair of the CRTC has come before this committee and has said that this bill gives them the power in order to force platforms like TikTok to manipulate what we’re watching and what you are posting. That concerns me.
The question I have for you is the following: If these platforms start going from being free platforms and not judging how Canadian you are based on some box you are ticking or some form — and the Privacy Commissioner has also come before this committee and expressed concerns — do you feel your business could be hurt? If, for example, TikTok is given guidelines, for whatever reason and as well intentioned as they may be, might they have unforeseen consequences to a content provider like you?
Ms. Brousseau: Absolutely — even just my views, for example. Not everything to me is about the monetary side, but having views is having my voice heard and being seen. This is something that many might not understand, but as an Indigenous woman, I have been silenced my whole life. I have literally been silenced my whole life. I have finally built something. I worked so hard to be able to have a voice, to have representation and to share truth. If this was all taken away from me, I would try to find another platform or something that is more free to use. I have read an article about Canadians moving to the States about this. Is that how far we’re going to go to treat our Canadians? We are going to make them move countries because we don’t support what they are doing? That doesn’t make sense. I don’t think the bill wants to affect people like me, but the bill isn’t protecting people like me either. My concern is that we need to really not just puts this on the CRTC. We actually have to be clearer in what we’re talking about and not take shortcuts or just leave it on certain organizations. So yes, you are absolutely right.
I’m just one person. There are thousands of Indigenous content creators all over, on all sorts of different platforms. To be silencing us in this form is really a step backward to reconciliation. I’m here to make sure that everyone is clear. We have been doing so well as Canadians in moving toward reconciliation and UNDRIP. To have our voices silenced is not working toward reconciliation. That’s what I feel would happen. People like me wouldn’t have a voice anymore.
The Chair: Thank you.
My last question is for Ms. McGuffin. We have had testimony before this committee. We had the Motion Picture Association — Canada come before us with stats highlighting the increase in investment over the last decade in Canadian artists. I think we all have agreed, for a variety of reasons, that artists today in Canada are busier and have more opportunities than ever before, in large part because of streaming opportunities such as Netflix, Disney+ and all the rest of them that have invested big dollars in Canada. Of course, the debate goes on in terms of who owns the content, and in my humble opinion, we’re still at an archaic definition of what “Canadian content” is.
I have a question that is different than the way we’ve been posing it to most of our witnesses. In your opinion — and you have a lot of experience in the industry — have the legacy broadcasters done enough in the last 10 years to generate income for Canadian artists? We keep talking about needing to get the streamers and the new platforms to pay their fair share in order to continue to grow our Canadian arts and culture, but my question is this: Have the traditional legacy broadcasters been generating enough into the marketplace to help Canadian artists, content producers, writers, actors, songwriters and singers?
Ms. McGuffin: Thank you for the question.
I’m just going to address the first part of your comments. We are very interested in working with production companies from around the world. My members travel around the world. We’ll be going to the European film market with composers and with music publishers to find work and new projects. But many Canadian composers are hired by members of the CMPA on Canadian productions, so a strong Canadian production industry is very important to Canadian music publishers, songwriters and composers. While the global players are also very important, and we pay a lot of attention and see them as partners, a strong production industry in Canada telling Canadian stories is more likely to hire a Canadian composer, and that composer will not need to move to L.A. to get their work. That was the first point.
As in any negotiations, there have been good and bad relations with Canadian radio, Canadian television and their legacy work, but we have seen that Canadian content has built a very strong star system in Quebec and has built up many Canadians. We’re now at the next phase. We want to work with our digital partners, and we want every company that comes into Canada to make an investment in Canada and not just extract value.
This is about going to the CRTC to find solutions that might be individual to each service. They might not be able to do things all the same, and that’s fine. We need an act that is open to incentivize future players that enter the territory to engage with the creators and businesses in my industry and the broader creative industries to make sure we’re stronger overall.
The Chair: Who pays more royalties to Canadian songwriters right now? Is it radio broadcasting platforms or streaming platforms?
Ms. McGuffin: It really depends on what kind of creator you are. As you heard from our friends from ADISQ, they are not getting a return in the same way they did from Canadian radio and television. In other cases, my companies have global platforms, and they are building out their businesses and creative projects around global plans. So it really depends on the individual company. The most important thing is to make sure our emerging creators and regional creators and companies are kept strong and are built out so that they, too, can move on to global success like many of my members have.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank both of you for being before us. We all appreciated your thoughts on Bill C-11 and you taking the time to be here. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we will continue our deliberations tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)