COMMENTARY: The new bill can’t be the same as the old bill
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,
FOR MOST OF ITS SHORT life, Bill C-10, your now-dead proposed amendment to our Broadcasting Act, trundled along, hardly noticed by those outside the content industry.
It was considered a modest attempted bill which avoided some complicated questions altogether (such as the CBC’s future mandate) but, as you know, aimed at one main thing – having the likes of Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Google and others, contribute to Canadian content.
However, the whole thing turned sour, as you and our readers may recall, on just what will be considered Canadian content for the purposes of regulation and potential taxing under the new Act. Would a video of your daughter’s first bike ride uploaded to YouTube be considered Cancon and regulated? Would a funny video you made that went viral be considered Cancon and regulated? No, and no, said your then-Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault.
But, what about our friend Brittlestar? Hilarious, Stratford, Ont.-based Cancon seen by millions. He’s making a living at this. He’s earning money from YouTube and Twitter and Instagram and even makes his own ads for brands. Would his content be regulated? What about Gurdeep Pandher of the Yukon. He has fewer views that Brittlestar but he sure is a happy, dancing, dude isn’t he. Well no, regulation is probably not for them. Or maybe…?
We never received satisfying answers to those questions during the C-10 committee debates (oh, and we’ll miss former committee chair Scott Simms, who lost his seat. He handled his job with wit and aplomb).
Look, we all knew what would definitely be regulated in some way, shape, or form. Streamed big budget movies and series which costs millions of dollars to make and are consumed by millions of customers on various platforms which are currently exempt from regulation. It seems fair to us they contribute to making Canadian stories (not just making content in Canada) and make a better effort to surface Canadian content to their Canadian customers..
But where, Mr. Prime Minister, was the line to be drawn? We still don’t really know because it was so poorly communicated by your Heritage Minister who seemed to constantly trip himself up with confusing non-answers, wrong answers, or just plain avoidance of answers.
The end plan was “we’re going to leave it up to the CRTC” to decide what gets regulated. With all due respect Mr. Prime Minister, that was fine a generation ago.
The nuts and bolts of writing regulations from the laws of the land have always been up to the Commission. However, I don’t have to tell you the world has changed. Despite the expertise of our CRTC, a good chunk of our populace (liberal or conservative in their viewpoints) no longer trust any regulator to regulate with the kind of broad powers presented to them by Bill C-10. They want details. Frankly, so do I.
On your next try you, your PMO, and the team at Heritage have to do something you don’t seem to like: Get Specific.
“Should they be regulated? Or somehow taxed for content purposes? I’d say of course not, but your Bill C-10 and the communications around it made a shambles of all of that.”
Be explicit, straightforward, and honest about what will be regulated and taxed and what won’t. Stop saying, and I’m paraphrasing here “The digital giants must pay and the CRTC will figure out the rest.” That type of thinking just doesn’t fly anymore.
While a great many of us with a long history in the industry know the CRTC does the right thing for the most part, we live in an age of mis- and disinformation and you can’t run the same bill up the flagpole when you re-introduce legislation to modernize the Broadcasting Act without being far more detailed about what you mean.
For instance, these digital giants are different. Netflix and Disney+ are like broadcasters. They are professional producers who stream content to subscribers. They are easiest to define. However, Facebook and YouTube are different. They’re hybrids. Most of their content is user-generated but some video and audio looks and sounds more like cable and broadcast TV and radio – and is sold as such (like YouTube Music).
They even use the vernacular of TV, making it more confusing for Canadian consumers and makers. Above, I linked you to Brittlestar’s and Gurdeep’s YouTube “channels” and they clearly are professional content creators with channels of original entertainment. Their stuff is as good as a lot of what’s on television. Both of them make me smile. They also have strong followings on other social channels which, I assume, is helping them monetize those views.
Should they be regulated? Or somehow taxed for content purposes? Should they and others be taxed on YouTube but not Twitter? I’d say no to those questions, but your Bill C-10 and the communications around it made a shambles of all of that. In the end, no one really knew for sure, because the proposed bill was too vague and flawed; and your messaging, weak and confused. I don’t have to tell you your political opponents took advantage of that.
Perhaps even a new messenger is a good idea. Heritage Minister Guilbeault took a lot of punches (some very much deserved) while trying to push a too-flawed bill through committee and maybe he would do well in another posting in your next cabinet.
So, Mr. Prime Minister, my advice is simple. Learn from your mistakes. Don’t run the same flag up the next pole. Say exactly what you expect to be regulated in the new bill and what must be left alone. We all want a strong content industry which produces excellent Canadian stories. Please dig in and do the work to make the next bill much better.
Sincerely,
Greg O’Brien
publisher
Cartt.ca
