Comité sénatorial permanent des transports et communications (TRCM) – 28 septembre  2022, 18 h 45 à 20 h 45

Les commentaires des participants sont fournis dans la langue d’origine.

Rapport préparé par

Équipe des Affaires parlementaires, Direction des Affaires parlementaires et du Cabinet
Patrimoine canadien

Sujet de la réunion

La teneur du projet C-11, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d’autres lois

Témoins :

18 h 45 - 19 h 45

Digital First Canada

• Scott Benzie, directeur général

Skyship Entertainment

• Morghan Fortier, copropriétaire et présidente-directrice générale

À titre personnel

• Oorbee Roy, créatrice de contenu et skateboard

19 h 45 - 20 h 45

Conseil québécois de la production de langue anglaise

• Michael Prupas, membre du conseil d’administration et président-directeur général de Muse Entertainment
• Michael Solomon, président et président, Les Films Band With Pictures Inc.

Dadan Sivunivut

• Jean LaRose, président et chef de la direction

Accessible Media Inc.

• Kevin J. Goldstein, conseiller externe en matière de réglementation
• David Errington, président et chef de la direction

Sommaire

Digital First Canada: Scott Benzie

• The bill as it is currently written means that the CRTC would decide which content deserves to be at the front of the line, not Canadian
• Creates an approach where some creators get promoted over others
• Creators would face an insane regulatory burden to qualify for official CanCon status
• Emerging voices would lose the level playing field they depend upon today, and large media companies would have a leg up at their expense
• Section 4.2 needs clarity into what is in and what is out, because it currently includes the entire internet. Something this critical cannot be left to the CRTC to wade through
• Section 9.1 needs to be clear that dynamic changes to algorithms are off the table

Skyship Entertainment: Morghan Fortier

• Section 4.2 as the problem child of this bill
• Bill C-11 poses a danger not only to my company but to thousands of Canadian content creators who have been steadily building this industry with nothing more than their unique voices and their hard work

À titre personnel : Oorbee Roy

• The purpose of Bill C-11 is to ensure web giants pay their fair share for showcasing Canadian talent
• Does not fall under CanCon
• Clear up section 4.2 and move forward together. Make it easier to qualify as CanCon or create a new category for digital content creators

Questions

Leo Housakos (C)

• From the allegations today that came out, it seems that the attacks on you came from a Member of Parliament who was associated directly with the government, the parliamentary secretary, none other than the Minister of Heritage. Can you elaborate, please, on some of the details of what that is all about? That is very disturbing to me as a parliamentarian.
  • Benzie: This specific piece in The Globe and Mail said that I wasn’t lobby compliant. I had reached out to the lobby group the first time it came up. I reached out again and again. They have confirmed to me in an email that, for the purposes of the act, I am compliant with the registry, so I don’t understand. The timing of that article was suspect, to say the least. But I would prefer we turn our time to focusing on the task at hand here.
• You said that you had reached out to officials that have validated that the accusations levied against you were not founded. Whom did you apply to?
  • Benzie: Yes. So the specific levy and the specific question is about financial disclosure of private industry, which I’ve never hid, by the way. It has now appeared in four different publications and has been syndicated globally. This is not news. We receive funding from our platform partners.
• Did you feel in any way, shape, or form throughout the House of Commons process that you were intimidated, silenced or bullied by anybody?
  • Benzie: Oh, it’s on the tape. You can watch my appearance in the House committee meeting. I was attacked, and not just me. Digital creators were attacked in a way that we’ve never seen before, to the point where, I’ll tell you, a lot of digital creators have refused to come forward and speak because they’ve seen the treatment that we’ve received. I was lied about in committee meeting.

René Cormier (GSI)

• I’m interested to better understand the relationship between the creators and the tech platforms. Is it fair to say that creators whom you represent are reliant on the tech platforms to host their content? I would like to know what is the negotiating power of the creators towards those platforms. More importantly, what should these platforms be doing to better support Canada’s digital-first creators, not what they are actually doing but what they could do better?
  • Benzie: I can say that there is a big misconception out there that the creators work for a specific platform. They don’t. The platforms are providing a service; they provide a distribution method, and they share their revenues with the creators. So there’s nothing. There is no obligation for us to use them.
• I’m worried for creators. I want to hear you on that and, of course, Ms. Roy, if you would please also give us your point of view on this.
  • Benzie: I think you should take all the money you’re asking for from the digital platforms and quadruple it. They should be investing more in the creator economy here in Canada. But it should be focused on the supply side. Create more creators, funding programs and programs to enrich creators. Create training on how to use lights, cameras and microphones, how to build a better business and how to make merch sales. Invest that way in helping creators build a business. That’s what makes a successful creator.
• From my understanding, TikTok announced it was expanding its creative fund to Canadian creators in January 2022. Do Canadian digital creators have access to the TikTok creator fund today? If not, why? What is the delay? Can you speak to us about this?
  • Roy: I don’t work for TikTok. I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t have access to the creator fund. I’m not really sure what the answer is. To be honest, I think it’s coming, but I’m not sure when. So I can’t speak for TikTok.
  • Benzie: If I can speak for one second, TikTok creators should absolutely have access to a TikTok creator fund here in Canada. It can’t come soon enough. If that was written in this legislation, we would happily support it.

Julie Miville-Deschêne (GSI)

• Comment peut-on s’assurer que le contenu francophone, sur un continent plutôt anglophone, soit écouté et entendu seulement avec les forces du marché ? Avez-vous réfléchi à cette question spécifique ? Oui pour la culture majoritaire, oui pour le contenu canadien en général, mais quand on essaie de faire vivre la culture québécoise et francophone, encore faut-il que les Québécois et les francophones canadiens entendent cette culture et cette musique. J’aimerais vous entendre à ce sujet.
  • Benzie: The issue at hand here is whether we want to displace them with approved legacy media. I welcome you to have conversations with them. I will happily make introductions to them. I know Fred Bastien will be here next week. I look forward to you having those conversations with him. There is a subset of Quebec digital creators that are doing really well. The issue and the challenge—and what we’re trying to guard against—is protecting those creators so that we’re not favouring legacy media over them.
  • Fortier: I love the idea of an actual advertising campaign running across Canada that the platforms support with heritage. It’s very romantic, but I love the notion—an “I am Canadian” campaign of creators. When we bump into parents of preschoolers, and we let them know that we’re Super Simple Songs, the fact that we’re Canadian is like the cherry on top of that sundae. The pride is there. Audiences will listen. It’s just a matter of finding the content. But you can’t force it.

Fabian Manning (C)

• Can you elaborate for us about the unintended barriers of Bill C-11 for potentially vulnerable communities and perhaps compare the low-barrier opportunities the internet presents for creators now versus those that were available prior to the internet through legacy broadcasting?
  • Roy: My main platform is TikTok, and I think that the way to make sure that BIPOC and francophone content is preserved and still seen is an opportunity to educate these creators in how to make good content. You can’t just go into something and become an expert and get centre stage right away. You have to work at it. You have to get better at it. I think, to Morghan’s point earlier, education is really the key. I do believe that platforms like TikTok have accelerated programs to help BIOPC and perhaps francophones as well to make sure that those communities are educated and helped.

Paula Simons (GSI)

• For people who are unfamiliar with your company, can you explain what exactly it is you produce and how exactly you monetize it, and just how big your operation is?
  • Fortier: We operate on a couple of different avenues. We really are an animation studio when you walk in the doors to look at us, and that’s truly what we are. We just happen to self-distribute. We self finance; it’s all cash-driven. We do AdSense revenue exclusively. We don’t do brand revenues because it’s preschoolers; it’s a little different. And we reinvest that back into the animated content. We produce music videos. We produce animated series.
• When you look at proposed subsection 4.2(2) which exempts user-generated content and less and less, it seems pretty clear to me that Ms. Roy would be exempted. It’s pretty clear that Wyatt Sharpe, who came to speak to us yesterday, would be exempted. You are in an exponentially different class. What are your concerns about proposed subsection 4.2(2) for a company like yours?
  • Fortier: I have a couple of concerns about proposed subsection 4.2. The first one in particular is that I’m not quite sure why a Broadcast Act that scopes in broadcasters is now going down that level, like going to the production level of things. That concerns me because, to be honest, I don’t know any production studio and pretty much every production studio in Canada is doing something digital. If they are not, they will be soon because the broadcasters are participating there.

Donna Dasko (GSI)

• Are you looking for better language in the bill with respect to algorithms? Or are you fine with the language that’s there now—except, of course, when the CRTC chair came, he muddied the waters. Is the language okay or not okay in the bill, in your point of view?
  • Benzie: conversation the next time around. It does not exclude them. To the point of algorithms in proposed subsection 9.1(8), no, the language is not okay. It takes YouTube on a platform and says, “We’re going to extrapolate this across all digital platforms,” and that’s not accurate. What the legislation actually says is, “We’re not going to impose any specific algorithm.” So the CRTC is not going to say, “Here, YouTube, TikTok, use this algorithm.” What they are going to say is, “This is what we want you to do.” And in a lot of cases, the only way to achieve that outcome is algorithmically. TikTok, for example, doesn’t have the screen real estate. Instagram doesn’t have the screen real estate. Anyone watching YouTube on mobile, there is no screen real estate to do it any other way.
• After the bill is implemented, these companies will be able to present their proposals to the CRTC to say, “Here is a way that I’m going to propose that Canadian content be discoverable or be exhibited.” And the CRTC will say, “That sounds good,” or, “What about this,” or, “What about that?”
  • Benzie: With all due respect, senator, we’re talking about tens of thousands of creators, all with competing needs and competing wants, a lot of them individuals. If you think Oorbee can take time out of her day to come talk to the CRTC, it’s not going to happen. Then when we try to organize, well, I don’t know if the CRTC is going to listen to me. It’s a real challenge, and it is really something we have to address. We’re talking about individuals here without representation, without lawyers.

Donald Neil Plett (C)

• Mr. Benzie, right now it doesn’t look like section 4.2 will be removed. It doesn’t look like this government has any intention of accepting any real amendments to this bill. Now, if section 4.2 isn’t removed from this bill, would this confirm for you that they, in fact, do intend that the CRTC regulate user-generated content, and what do you think will be the consequences of that? How will creators respond?
  • Benzie: I think that if 4.2 stays in unamended, we’ve passed a bill that includes the entire internet. I’m happy to go into details, but it does; there is no argument against it. I think it puts creators’ livelihoods at risk. We’ve heard time and time again that this is not about cat videos and it’s not about creators. I don’t think the government even wrote this bill with us in mind, but we exist and we’re here, and Oorbee’s and Morghan’s channels matter and their livelihoods matter. I think that to leave that up to the whim of an unelected bureaucratic body is a mistake.
  • Roy: As a digital creator, I feel that if 4.2 goes in as it stands, then I have to look for a full-time job. It’s a depressing reality for me to see that my content is going to be pushed aside.

Bernadette Clement (GSI)

• Going back to your point, Mr. Benzie, about the fact that we don’t have transparency around how those algorithms work: From a basic Canadian perspective, what’s a regular Canadian to do? They want to find Ms. Roy’s content, but they don’t understand how algorithms work because we’re not talking about the education piece around how they work. Do you know what I mean?
  • Benzie: But the challenge is that we’re talking about Canadian businesses that require access to an audience that the algorithm is giving them based on a niche and based on what they have said the next person is going to like. We’re not just talking about that somebody is going to like this, let’s give it to them. We’re talking about somebody who earns a living on getting to the right audience. Yes, those platforms are making money, but they’re making money based on retention of eyeballs. That is, in turn, how creators make money.
  • Fortier: The problem with manipulating the algorithm is they’re being cut short on receiving information on the nature of their content and how their content is naturally entering into the marketplace. It would be like preventing the broadcaster from having ratings access and not knowing if their content is resonating with the community properly.

Sommaire

Conseil québécois de la production de langue anglaise : Michael Prupas; et Michael Solomon

• The amendement to section 3.1(i)(v) will allow broadcasters and streamers to develop and own the IP, hire producers to make them and retain the profits from the sale of these shows
• CRTC now considers virtually all of the international streamers, like Netflix and Disney+, as being part of the Canadian production sector
• The English-language version of the amended text is mistranslated from the French and opens the door wider to a branch plant industry. The French text says, “producteurs canadiens.” The English version refers to the “Canadian production sector,”
• Request that proposed section 5.2 of Bill C-11 requiring CRTC consultation with official language minority representatives be maintained as drafted
• Bill C-11 gives Canada the opportunity to forge a clear and successful path for the Canadian production industry but to ensure success, the proposed amendment to 3.1(i)(v) should be stricken from the bill

Dadan Sivunivut: Jean LaRose

• The proposed section 3.1.0 of the Broadcasting Act will finally be amended to remove the “as resources becomes available” language about supporting Indigenous culture. This language is offensive and discriminatory
• Proposed sections 3.1(d) and 3.1(o) of the Broadcasting Act will now recognize, for the first time, broadcasting undertakings that are owned and operated by Indigenous peoples
• The CRTC needs the authority to set terms for the distribution of services online

Accessible Media Inc.: Kevin J. Goldstein; et David Errington

• Concerned that certain other provisions in the act will severely limit the CRTC’s ability to implement policies in this area.
• Does not address the changes happening in the BDU environment noted earlier. More specifically, if Bill C-11 is passed in its current form, the CRTC will be severely limited in its ability to regulate internet-delivered BDUs, both Canadian- and foreign-owned

Questions

René Cormier (GSI)

• Lorsqu’ils ont comparu devant le comité, l’Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada et la Fédération culturelle canadienne-française ont témoigné de l’importance de conserver l’article 5.2 sur la consultation des CLOSM. Comment le CRTC votre consulte-t-il à l’heure actuelle ? Quels sont les défis ou les écueils que vous rencontrez dans la consultation actuelle avec le CRTC et pourquoi le maintien de l’article 5.2 est-il important ? Enfin, si cet article était supprimé, qu’est-ce que cela provoquerait chez vous?
  • Prupas : Je vais essayer de répondre au mieux de mes connaissances, je ne prends pas part de façon quotidienne aux consultations avec le CRTC, mais je peux dire que pour nous, la minorité anglophone du Québec, il est important d’avoir une oreille auprès du CRTC concernant toutes sortes de questions, comme la protection des réseaux de télévision et de radio, dont les districts minoritaires au Québec, par exemple. Pour nous, l’obligation qui devrait être imposée au CRTC est celle de nous consulter et de consulter. De plus, la minorité francophone hors Québec leur imposera une obligation de nous entendre sur des questions importantes sur la disponibilité des services dans nos territoires distincts.

Fabian Manning (C)

• Do you see any room for greater flexibility in how “Canadian content” is defined to permit production such as those to be classified as “Canadian content”?
  • Prupas: The key element for Canadian producers is the ability to control the production and development process. Programs like the Handmaid’s Tale, which did involve Canadian writers and actors to a certain extent—not completely—is an example of a program set in Canada that does not benefit Canadian entrepreneurs at the end of the day.

Julie Miville-Deschêne (GSI)

• Quand vous lisez « […] affiliés ou la propriété d’une entreprise de radiodiffusion ; », pensez-vous qu’on parle de toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion étrangère qui font affaire au Canada ? Est-ce que c’est là selon vous la difficulté de cette phrase en français ? Parce qu’à vrai dire, je l’interprète différemment.
  • Prupas : The biggest problem is in the English translation of that text. The English translation uses the word “production sector” as opposed to the French words “producteur Canadienne.” I don’t understand who did that translation, and I believe that the text was actually drafted in French first, but if it was properly translated from French to English, then I would have partially less objection to that clause. That would certainly help the definition enormously. I don’t see why that change can’t be made, to use the word “Canadian producers” as opposed to “Canadian production sector.” The words “Canadian production sector” include any enterprise that produces programming in Canada. Companies like Amazon, Netflix and Disney have all been recognized by the CRTC as companies that are producing in Canada, and their programming is accepted by CAVCO, the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, as productions that qualify programming for broadcast in Canada.

Leo Housakos (C)

• Excuse my cynicism, but I get a sense that we are trying to drag modern-day technical platforms into an archaic broadcasting system. With all due respect, when I look at the bottom line over the last year and a half to two years and their model, it’s dead. They themselves are slowly trying to catch up to digital and streaming. There is no such thing as cable anymore. I would like to hear your comments on that perspective. It is more of a statement, but it is a statement that has been reverberating at these hearings from a number of young Canadians who believe there is a new way of broadcasting.

Prochaine réunion :

Il est prévu que le comité poursuivre l’étude du projet de loi C-11 le 4 et 5 octobre 2022.