Evidence of meeting #37 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you for coming here this morning.
When I heard that there was going to be a CRTC task force, I thought it seemed to be a possible way of resolving this conflict. But I'm looking at the tradition in the CRTC in terms of task forces. In 1979 we had one on northern and remote communities and we had over 400 public representations. We had one on the role of sexual stereotypes and women. We had regional hearings right across the country.
What part of the Broadcasting Act gives you the authority to hold private, closed-door task force hearings?
9:15 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The Broadcasting Act, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, and the Telecommunications Act give me a task to do, and essentially as an independent regulator we discharge our mandate in the way we see best, most efficient, and hopefully most successful. We hold public hearings, and we made it clear here that we will make the report public, and if necessary, if the matter is not resolved, then indeed we will hold public hearings. If it is resolved, then the solution will be public and we may very well have to amend the regulations, and we will do that.
The reason we are holding the first part in confidence is very simple. We are talking here about commercial reality, a big dispute between producers, the fund, and the contributors to the fund. We want to get at the root of it. We want to know what's going on. We want people to be able to talk to us freely without it in any way imperiling their commercial relations or making their negotiating position--because after all these people are all negotiators, each of them at one point in time--in any way more difficult by tilting the balance for somebody.
That's why we're doing it.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
If the CRTC thinks someone has failed to comply with a regulation, licence decision, or order, which I think is the case, it can hold an inquiry under subsection 12(3), but the inquiry panel must have three CRTC commissioners. In this case we have only one. If you want to undertake research about any matter in your jurisdiction, you can do so under subsection 14(1), but I don't see where it gives you the authority to hold closed-door meetings to settle this.
February 22nd, 2007 / 9:20 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I disagree with your initial argument that there has been a breach of the law. As I explained to Mr. Scott, there has been no breach of the law here. What there has been is there have been no monthly payments. The monthly payments are traditional, but they're not mandated by law. So that section doesn't apply.
What we have here is a concern by people that the fund does not relate to its stated objective, namely to foster Canadian content, and it's not operated in an efficient way. Whether those allegations, assertions, whatever you want to call them, are correct or not is why we are making the inquiry or task force. It's really an evidence gathering. We will make our results public. I explained to you why we do it in confidence--so that we get to the root of issues.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
You say there was no breach of law, that this circular is just, as I think you referred to it, an industry custom. “Custom” to me sounds somewhat quaint. Yet the CRTC issues circulars all the time for election obligations, for making sure there's equitable, fair election coverage, fair election advertising. Is that just a custom? Does the television station get to ignore that, like Shaw and Vidéotron did? What steps would you take in the case of a television station ignoring the election circulars?
9:20 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
First of all, I don't know the specific issue that you're referring to. My colleague will answer on it.
I just want you to understand that the CRTC is a regulator. We regulate. We lay down the regulations on those things that absolutely have to be done. We also issue directives, which basically we expect people to live up to. We don't need to elevate them to the level of a regulation because there is voluntary compliance, as everybody's interested. It also allows us to change them should the circumstances change.
9:20 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I'm sorry, I'm here to talk about the CTF, not elections. I will ask my colleague to answer that.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Well, I'm here to understand why a circular...as you tell me, a circular is custom and can be ignored. Can other areas of CRTC circulars be ignored as well because it's just a custom? That's what I want to know.
9:20 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I don't know what's so difficult to understand. There's a difference between something that's law and something that's convention. It's usually to the interest of both sides of convention to live up to it.
Michel will tell you about the election circulars.
9:20 a.m.
Vice-Chair, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The circular regarding the election refers to the Elections Act and to the various regulations. It's only a handout for the broadcasters reminding them what the rules are and where they can find the information. It's very useful for people working in the newsroom and public affairs, as they do change from time to time and new people come in. That's why the commission puts out these types of circulars every time there is a federal or provincial election.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
So it's not any real obligation of the broadcaster. It's just a reminder.
9:20 a.m.
Vice-Chair, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It's a reminder that there is a federal Elections Act or a provincial election act and there are some specific regulations pertaining to radio, television, and the BDUs. It's a reference to an existing piece of legislation.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to focus back on the CTF rather than on elections regulations. There was some suggestion initially that the minister was slow off the mark, and yet virtually all of the witnesses that have appeared before us commended the minister for acting as quickly as she did to address this problem. Obviously through her and your efforts, Mr. von Finckenstein, the parties did come back to the table and we have the funding restored to the CTF.
My question first of all is this. How long have these problems between the BDUs and the CTF been percolating? How long has that problem existed? How long has there been inaction on this particular file?
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Scott can probably tell you better how long it has been percolating.
9:25 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Essentially, the CTF has grown through the years from various sources of funding and has reinvented itself many times. Often enough there have been changes to its structure, changes to its board. There was a recent change dating back to about 1995, the first full year of which, I believe, was undertaken last year. So there were discussions and an evolution at that point in time.
I believe some of the current difficulties relate to the fund in its most recent year of operations. It came to a head at the end of this year. Secondly, there are other factors in the industry and other changes in the industry, certainly with regard to technology, that are having an impact on the fund and on production and our broadcasting industry. New business rules and new ways of doing business are having an impact—a very current impact—on the operation of the fund and the operations of broadcasters.
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
You will recall that one of the criticisms by Quebecor was that the fund did not finance projects on different platforms in the new media, etc. Clearly this is one of the drivers behind the discontent with the fund at this point in time.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This brings me to a follow-up question.
When Shaw and Quebecor were in front of us, obviously they highlighted their concerns with the CTF in very broad strokes, but when we asked them about the solutions they were offering, both of those entities actually had quite different perspectives.
Shaw seemed to suggest—and I hope I'm properly characterizing Mr. Shaw's remarks—that the system was broken and needed to be fixed. I believe he was referring to the CTF being fixed; in other words, he was accepting the fact that the CTF perhaps still had a future, but perhaps required a renewed mandate.
When we spoke to Vidéotron, they had a different perspective: Hey, we don't want government money at all. What we're looking for is to be able to focus on Canadian programming ourselves. Let us do the job. We're prepared to set aside some $100 million over the next three years to do that kind of programming in-house.
Those are two different perspectives on or two different approaches to the solutions that might be offered.
I'm wondering if you have any preconceived notions about where this would go. Or are you going to be looking at all the different options?
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
No, first off, we have no preconceived notions.
Secondly, as you pointed out, everybody talked in broad strokes. If you're going to understand what's really going on here, you have to go down to the details and what the funding and distribution mechanisms are that people really want to focus on.
Michel has a big task, first of all, to actually find out what everybody wants and where. Never mind the public pronouncements, what are the real business interests, or whatever they happen to be, that the parties feel need to be addressed here? And secondly, he has to find a consensus or, as we said in our press release, if a consensus can't be found, set out the options that could be used to....
As long as everybody talks at the 10,000-foot level in broad strokes, it's very difficult to put it all together and figure out whether or not there's consensus; therefore, there is the task force.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Through witnesses, we heard also that the minister has actually met with these various groups.
I'm just curious, have any of the three of you met directly with Shaw or Vidéotron to get a preliminary analysis of what their problems are?
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Yes and no. As part of my job, it is absolutely vital that I understand what the industry thinks, or what the players in the industry think, and hear their views unfiltered either by briefing notes from my staff or intermediaries. So I have been taking off every Friday since being appointed to visit a different city to meet with the key players in the industry. I will probably do this for the rest of the year. Of course, I start with the large players and the small players, and I will talk to some of the umbrella organizations.
So I started off in Montreal my very first week in office, and I met four people. One of them was Pierre Karl-Péladeau. With me was Michel. We talked in general about the industry, where it was going, and about the challenges and the new media, etc. Of course, we also talked about the CTF, but in a very cursory way or at a very general level, with my point being: look, you have to resume funding. If you don't resume funding, there'll be disarray in the industry, and that won't be helpful to a resolution. That was about the extent of our discussions.
Last week—again with Michel—I met with Mr. Shaw and his vice-president, Mr. Stein, because this issue was obviously burning. It was actually the night before they came to appear before you. I said exactly the same thing: this is an issue that the minister wants resolved and she has asked you to pay, and I have asked you to pay. As I said this morning, I told them I preferred cooperation to confrontation and thought we could work it out, but the first step was that they had to resume payments. If they resumed payments, then we would will strike a task force and deal with it.
Again, it was in very broad strokes, without details, and with me just saying, I realize this is a problem; I didn't choose it; it landed on my desk. It is an enforcement issue, or will become one; I've got to deal with it and I intend to deal with it quickly, but first of all, I need something from you, namely, a resumption of the payments, because without them, I'm driven to do it in a confrontational mode, etc.
Obviously, whatever I said and Michel said was enough for Mr. Shaw to do it and come here and suggest to you.... Maybe he had already decided, I don't know, but he mentioned to you that he was resuming payments
Then in order to make it clear that I meant business, that this issue had to be resolved and couldn't gather dust, the same day we issued our report, appointing Michel, and pointing out the mandate and the timetable for the task force.
