Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 30th, 2006

[Scott Hutton, Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

We received a number of applications from BDUs to distribute the satellite radio services through their own systems.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Have you any sense of when that might be dealt with? That's strictly on the timeline.

[Scott Hutton]

Strictly on a timeline, it should be before the end of the year.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The calendar year?

[Scott Hutton]

Yes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So that too is something the commission has to deal with.

Is there any news in terms of a timeline on the do-not-call list hearings and when we can expect a conclusion on that?

[Charles Dalfen]

The hearings have been held, and the policy issues that need to be resolved will be resolved in...certainly the first half of next year.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So it will be next year.

[Charles Dalfen]

Yes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for your questions.

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman, as you just pointed out to our colleague from the Liberal Party, you will be leaving your post in a few months. I believe this would be a good opportunity to ask you what you see as your legacy and what the highlights are of your term with the CRTC. And, because these are rather broad questions, I would just like to ask you one more specific one.

It has to do with a CRTC ruling with respect to Canadian content quotas for satellite radio that was rather a disappointment. I was just wondering what kind of impact industry lobby groups had on the CRTC's decision not to demand the same quotas of satellite radio as those required of conventional radio.

[Charles Dalfen]

We held public hearings. We thoroughly reviewed the issue. Interveners for all parties appeared before us, and we made a decision. As I just pointed out to your colleague, each media has its own Canadian content level, and it all depends on the circumstances. For conventional radio, it's 7 per cent. For satellite radio, that amount is equivalent to a number of radio stations. It is 85 per cent for every Canadian channel. However, if you multiply that by the number of on-air hours, you quickly realize that it's the equivalent in terms of Canadian content of 20 radio stations. Foreign content on conventional radio stations is 65 per cent, but if you add the 35 per cent, in terms of total hours, you realize that for satellite radio, that is the equivalent of a great many conventional radio stations.

Having said that, in my opinion, that is not the reason why we set that particular level. We believe this was the maximum that could be demanded under the circumstances, whether it be with respect to Canadian content or French channels. I don't know how many subscribers there are in Quebec, given that this information is confidential, but based on newspaper reports, we can assume there are about 20,000. At the same time, truckers travelling all across Canada have access to 107 satellite radio stations, although that does not include any stations in French. However, if you travel to Florida in the winter or to Maine in the summer, you can access four channels on one network and five channels on another network that do broadcast Francophone content, that is added to Canadian content overall.

Personally, I believe it would have been preferable to set a higher level, but we felt, as we did for ethnic radio, specialized radio, and specialized radio and television, that this was the most that could be demanded of them.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Am I to understand that you were not under any more pressure with respect to satellite radio than for other types of specialized radio?

[Charles Dalfen]

That's correct.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

You pointed out in your presentation that the market is increasingly divided. However, we have noted that shares of advertising revenue are dropping considerably for general broadcasters -- in other words, the major channels. And as you know, it is more expensive to produce dramas than it is to translate original material or broadcast American shows.

Is the CRTC interested in stimulating the production of Canadian dramas? Can it do so? Should it do so? Does it intend to do this?

[Charles Dalfen]

We have tried to in the past and we continue to try to do so. We have an incentive program in place which has not shown tremendous progress, even though progress is ongoing. So, there has been upward movement in terms of the production of drama series. This is very important to us, and we are trying to emphasize that. We believe that this kind of program could yield very good results. The most acute problem is in English-speaking Canada, even though we want to maintain the current level of production in Quebec. We are hoping that this program will help in that regard.

When it comes time to renew licences, we will see whether our incentive program has worked. If there is good reason to enhance services under the program, we will do so. But I can tell you that drama programming is very important to us, in every respect.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

So, in terms of your legacy...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Malo, I--

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I think it's important for the witness to answer that question, because this may the last time he appears before our Committee, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We might have another chance yet.

Mr. Abbott is next.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Dalfen, we all have tremendously high respect for you. I know it's not comfortable when you find politicians asking you, perhaps, to be an advocate for our particular point of view. I'm wondering along the lines of Mr. Bélanger's question. I want to get this kind of fine tuning from you so that we understand what's going on here.

I think we're in agreement that you take direction from the government. The CRTC takes direction from the government--from the minister and from the government overall--and your submission says that the commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That's the way that is. It says that among the main tasks the commission undertakes is “developing and implementing regulations and policies to meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act”.

That's where this mushy middle starts to happen. I'm giving you this question so that you can clarify for us. I'm not accusing; I'm asking for further clarification.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I took the position of my Liberal friend to say that if a majority of the members of the House of Commons--who, after all, are not the government--voted that there was to be some kind of continued restriction, or whatever the case may be, on foreign ownership.... From your answer. I took it that you said the CRTC then would become an advocate for that position. I ended up with this impression, and I'm not accusing you of anything; I just need some further clarification.

[Charles Dalfen]

Certainly that's not what I meant. Where I thought the question ended was that if there were to be a directive on foreign ownership that changed the rules from the current rules, then we would be consulted formally prior to its coming into effect and we would have an opportunity as a commission to express our views. Sometimes on those issues we call for public comments when we're asked to express our views. Sometimes we just express them through a meeting at which our commissioners decide what position to take or what to draw to the minister's attention in regard to the directive. The bottom line is that I don't know if any of that is advocacy.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The problem I'm having is that if I'm ever consulted--which I am from time to time, fortunately, by the PMO or by the Prime Minister himself--I go into a private room and offer him my consultation. I offer him my perspective. I'm really not interested in seeing it on the front page of The Globe and Mail. By the same token, from your answer--and I'm really not trying to thread a needle here too much--it strikes me that you would be inclined to comment, if I understand you correctly, in public about these things.

I'm wondering if the counsel of the chair of the CRTC or of representatives of the CRTC to the Minister of Canadian Heritage might not be better behind closed doors.

[Charles Dalfen]

I think that in any relationship that works between a chairman and a minister--and that goes for both ministers--the practice has varied over time. There are informal consultations, and they're taken very much on an expertise basis. Any advice I give would not bind my colleagues; it would not bind us in any kind of decision. Information gathering, particularly for new ministers, is an important role. We try to be helpful in terms of where we've been and where we're going--so yes, that goes on, and I believe should go on, but I think what we were referring to earlier was that there is a process whereby the act requires consultations, and we generally don't make those documents public. In fact, generally we don't make them public; we leave them for the person seeking the advice, namely the minister, to make public if he or she chooses.

I'm not sure whether some of them are obtainable under access to information. We certainly would draft those formal responses with a view to their being our official word, and if they were ever what we call ATIPable--if they were ever accessible under freedom of information--we would want to make sure they were appropriate and reflected our views.

The last thing we'd do is try to rush out with press releases on those consultations. We send them back to the minister, invariably, and I can think of three or four occasions over my term when we've done that. We don't stamp “Confidential” on them, because in a sense they aren't, but they are certainly advice that the minister can then choose to do with as he or she sees fit. Frankly, I haven't seen very many of them see the light of day. I don't know what the status is in that regard.

I hope that's responsive to your question. It certainly doesn't rule out informal consultations on a without-prejudice basis.