Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #39 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I will ask very short questions and I expect to also get short answers. My questions are in the same vein.
Do you care about Quebec and Canadian cultural sovereignty?
9:35 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Absolutely.
It makes up a significant portion of your mandate.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
As my colleague Mr. Crête reminded us, we have noted that the Minister of Industry wished to significantly deregulate the telecommunications sector. We have met with industry and broadcasting players who are also calling for a similar deregulation.
Do you acknowledge that the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors are increasingly interrelated? Do you believe that we should consider this aspect when it comes to regulating these two sectors?
March 1st, 2007 / 9:40 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
You are right: they are the products of the regulatory structure currently in place. If the system becomes different for signal transmission and broadcasting, I am certain that the industry will undergo restructuring to adapt to the new structure.
The trend we are currently observing is the opposite. As you are saying, content and signals are converging. In these conditions, there has to be a uniform regulatory system, and priority will be placed on protecting Canadian culture and content.
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Firstly, you have to tell me what you mean by neutrality. This term is used by people often, but its meaning varies widely.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
As far as we are concerned, it is a matter of determining whether or not we should regulate, or allow for free market forces to reign, as though in a jungle. And in this jungle, we are but small players.
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
That is too categorical. I do not question whether or not this is a good thing, but rather if this order fits in with our mandate. This is a statutory responsibility. I must make sure that it is fulfilled. If that is how I decide to deal with the issue, I must do so from the perspective of my mandate. With respect to Internet neutrality, we have to determine if such measures are needed, and if this is the case, decide how to proceed.
I cannot answer your question in a general way. Give me a specific example as it relates to my mandate and I'll be able to answer you. It is useless to give you an answer now, because I do not know what all this will involve.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Yes, I know.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to look forward a little bit and anticipate what this committee might be working on in the future. As you know, this committee hasn't dealt with any legislation over the past year and a little bit. However, we expect that in the near future we'll be receiving some copyright legislation. Now it will be both the Minister of Canadian Heritage as well as the Minister of Industry who will be involved in that process. I was intrigued by the comments you made in your introduction that in your role as a federal judge you had actually addressed the issue of copyright and patent on a regular basis. Ms. Keeper had already referred to new media as being a huge challenge in the future. Obviously, new media has an impact also on the whole issue of copyright, new ways of marketing content, new ways of monetizing content.
Do you expect that the CRTC, and you in particular, will play a significant role in addressing many of the issues that are raised by what we anticipate will be copyright legislation?
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
No, I think we will have a subsidiary role, but clearly the key role is with the Department of Heritage and the Department of Industry.
It's a fascinating issue. I was involved in copyright in various stages of my career. As you know, when we did the Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement I was actually the person who was in charge of drafting and implementing it, and that required amendments to the Copyright Act. So did NAFTA. So did the WTO. There were some very painful and difficult choices to make, because always, when you change something you have a direct impact on the rights between creators and users of the content.
But our copyright system is based really on national territory. You get your copyright in Canada and then you can apply for it in other.... Our whole intellectual property regime is based on that. When the Internet.... We certainly talk about a boundary-less world. How do you change those rights? What is an Internet right? How do you monitor all of this? There is an awful lot of more nominative work that has to be done, and I would imagine we will do some of it here in this committee and in this Parliament, but a lot of it will also start on the international basis. In the same way as we have international treaties for patents, for copyright, etc., we will deal with the whole issue of the Internet and its impact on intellectual rights.
Sooner or later, I think, on an international level, you will have to deal with the principles that apply to this new world, and then you will have national legislation in each country to enact it. It's going to be a long process, but it's fascinating--intellectually, just trying to focus on it. What is the issue, and then what are the solutions, and then how do you implement them?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you. I thank you very much for being so candid here this morning.
We will recess for five minutes before our next witnesses.
Thank you.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'll call the meeting back to order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our next item of business is a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.
This morning we have with us, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, our witnesses. Welcome to you this morning.
Once we start the presentation, if you see me leave, Mr. Scott will take the chair, and I will be back. I do have something to do in the House for a few minutes. It's not that I don't want to hear what's going on; I do have to be there for the proceedings.
Jean-Pierre Blais.
9:50 a.m.
Jean-Pierre Blais Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I will be making my presentation from the deck that you have before you.
We've interpreted your request here as that of setting the stage for further study of the public broadcaster and helping you embark on that review. The deck will set out some context pieces. I wasn't proposing to give you the answers, because those would be premature at this stage, but I will help structure and feed your own reflection. Of course, as the chairman knows, it would be difficult for me to speculate on future government policy on this, but I'll help you as much as I can with the information we have.
Firstly, on page 2 of the presentation, I provide an explanation on the public broadcaster's position within the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Department of Canadian Heritage and CBC/SRC make up the Canadian Heritage portfolio, but neither is a subordinate of the other. The two form a single entity. Here we are representing the department. Obviously, we support the Deputy Minister when she takes a position, but we do not represent la Société Radio-Canada nor do we have a direct link to it. I wanted to point this out.
On page 3 of the presentation, there's a brief, and obviously incomplete, history of the public broadcaster, but I'll leave you to read that at your leisure.
There are perhaps three points worth remembering in this context. The first is that right from the origins of the public broadcaster at the time of the Aird commission and the first legislation, it was always understood in Canada that we would go toward a mixed system. There were other models available, but we have a mixed broadcasting system today that has private, public, and community elements within it.
The second point is that we're currently operating under the 1991 act, which itself is based in large part on the Sauvageau-Caplan report of 1986. You can imagine that the context then, or the technology existing in 1986, has moved considerably since then.
The third observation that hit me this morning while preparing for this is that you'll notice the 1957 report ended up in legislation in 1958; the 1964 report took four years to implement, or until 1968; and 1986 recommendations took form only in 1991. So every time we do this it seems to take a little longer, because I think it gets a little bit more complex every time we tackle this issue.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Yes, the entire century.
On page 4 there is an important pillar of the current system that is worth reminding ourselves of. The Broadcasting Act quite clearly sets out the importance of all broadcasters exercising freedom of expression and journalistic independence. Of course that definition includes all broadcasters, but it's actually repeated for good measure elsewhere in the act to give you more independence. And there is always this healthy tension between independence on the one hand and accountability to Canadians on the other hand, and I'll get to that in more detail in a moment.
The CBC's accountability framework is spread out. On page 5, the framework is described in detail. Obviously, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the CBC before Parliament.
Even though the CBC's business plan is tabled with the minister and the Treasury Board, it is not approved by the minister. The minister receives the business plan, but does not make any comments. This also applies to the annual and pluriannual report.
Similarly, along with a lot of other crown corporations and crown agencies, such as the National Arts Centre and Telefilm, they are exempt from part X of the Financial Administration Act. That part includes powers, including the power to give direction. So that regime does not exist in this particular case.
The Auditor General is responsible for auditing the CBC/SRC. She carries out audits on a regular basis, and the most recent one dates back to 2005. I am sure that this committee's research analyst can provide you each with a copy of the audit.
Continuing on the governance structure, you know that there are 12 board members. They are GIC appointments. It may be surprising--it's constant in other boards, but there is an issue there--that both the board members and the president of the corporation are named. It's not the normal model that one would see in the private sector, where the board would name their own president. I'm aware of only one crown--it's the NAC--who names their own president and CEO. On top of that, when there is no chair of the board, it's not another board member who sits in. The regime in place is that the CEO of the corporation sits in on this. Ultimately, though, it is the board of directors that has the power of approval over corporate plans, budgets, strategies, and so forth.
There's also accountability vis-à-vis the CRTC. Every seven or eight years or so, depending on the length of the licence terms, there are reviews and renewals of the various licences of the corporation. The next round will be in 2008, and that will involve a public hearing throughout the process.
There's an odd thing in the Broadcasting Act that says the CRTC can't suspend or revoke the licence of the CBC as a special regime. On the other hand, to my knowledge, I don't recall the CRTC in recent history having revoked anybody's licence except at the request of the licensee. So that's a bit of a peculiarity in there.
Also, the whole process of imposing conditions of licence on the CBC requires a consultation with the licensee. That regime is a bit different from that for other licensees. Certainly for the commission, a key competency has always been its public hearings and consultations. At the time of renewal, the CBC always runs rather large processes across the country.
The 1991 act sets out the current mandate of the SRC. As is indicated on page 7 of the deck, our mandate encompasses general as well as specific goals of the broadcasting system.
For instance, contrary to private sector broadcasters, you'll see that we talk a lot about predominantly and distinctly Canadian. So it's more than 50%. It has to be much higher in content. There's special mention of the realities of both language markets, majority and minority, at subparagraph 3(1)(m)(iv). The specificity of language in there makes it quite clear.
Interestingly, you'll see in subparagraph 3(1)(m)(ii) that there is a clear mandate with respect to “regional” voices. The word “local” doesn't appear there. So this is both creating a window of regional voices to the nation and presenting a mirror to the region so that the region sees itself. The mandate is thus twofold. This reflects also the diversity of the Canadian social fabric.
On page 8 we give you just a snapshot--you'll probably want to delve more deeply into this--of the reach of the CBC, of its audiences. This focuses on prime time. It's an incomplete picture, of course, but most people view during prime time. You'll also see that we've set out on page 8 some of the availability. That's over-the-air availability; it doesn't factor in the reality that sometimes these services are rebroadcast through broadcast distribution undertakings or through cable companies.
New distribution platforms, the Internet, and other mediums whose advent we had predicted to a certain degree in 1986 and in 1991 now make up the daily reality for our public broadcaster. For example, the SRC/CBC is now a world leader in public podcasting, and is particularly successful with younger audiences.
Page 10 is really imperfect. One could have sliced and diced this differently. The point here is, and section 3 of the Broadcasting Act says, there's a single broadcasting system. There's no parallel universe for public broadcasters. The public broadcaster works within a system. You'll see in red there that they have a television, Internet, and radio presence right across the spectrum, which will make your task even more difficult as you do this, because inevitably when you ask questions about the public broadcaster, you have to situate it within the broader system. It will be quite difficult to deal with that whole approach.
Your mandate is a multifaceted one, and we suggest that you divide the issues as shown on page 11 and onwards.
The first issue is on the mandate that Canadians wish to give their public broadcaster. Ultimately, it is Canadians who are the shareholders of the CBC/SRC. Under the act, yourselves, myself and all other Canadians give the corporation its mandate, from which everything else stems.
There are programming issues, obviously, and everybody who watches, listens, accesses their broadband has views on what the corporation should provide in terms of programming. That, to us, is another bundle of issues, from sports rights, kids programming, standards of programming, whether it's news and other types of programming as well. Right now, the mandate in the 1991 act is extremely broad; it says a broad range of services that inform, enlighten, and entertain, which is copied in large part from the BBC legislation of the mid-twentieth century.
The services are currently defined in terms of radio and television. Since then, there's been an explosion in specialty pay services, satellite services, so there's a question that some have asked. I don't know the answer, but things have evolved as they have. What is the role of the public broadcaster with respect to those new services?
Included in the notion of service to the public is the whole notion of closed captioning and descriptive video services. Does the public broadcaster have a particular role to play with respect to that in terms of the fact that all Canadians in one way or another are paying for their public broadcaster?
The fourth question relates to platforms and distribution, not only of course when we talk about platforms. People obviously think of
new media, platforms, broadband distribution and other issues relating to Radio-Canada's distribution system. CBC/SRC is the one Canadian broadcaster that owns the highest number of off-air antenna, and maintaining this infrastructure is expensive. Since we are also on cable, and have access to satellites that makes service available, some have discussed the possibility of using other means of access. Obviously, there are associated costs. Since everyone, one way or another, finances Radio/Canada, we are questioning whether it would be fair to have to pay more in order to receive service.
The final cluster, which in our view is the key to all this, is accountability and governance. I'll be so bold to suggest that maybe focusing on this, a lot of other things flow from that. Once you have the accountability and governance structure fixed, the system becomes self-regulating. Do we have the optimal, self-contained system that corrects the course of the public broadcaster as it goes forward?
You will no doubt be very interested in looking at the models the British have adopted with respect to the BBC. In a nutshell, it is a system whereby the BBC's royal charter expires every ten years, and it provides an occasion for the British public, parliamentarians, and the government to set in a sense a new contract with their public broadcaster on a ten-year rotation basis. It is another model; it's not the Canadian model. We usually use the CRTC licence process to set that process, but many people have suggested that maybe the BBC model is one that's worth exploring, adapting it to our own particular realities.
Because at this point the CBC's corporate mandate is set integrally in the Broadcasting Act, some have asked, should there be a separate piece of legislation that deals with corporate governance at the CBC
and the SRC?
That is also an option that's been proposed to really focus on the accountability framework around the governance. In past reports, your own committee has mentioned the need for accountability on the part of the CBC. They've made efforts, and you will no doubt want to look at any improvements they've had with respect to telling Canadians the differences they've made.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I simply want to say that we at the department are here to support you in your study. If you need additional documents, please do not hesitate to ask us.
I would suggest that you have a look at the monitoring of the CRTC report, which is published annually and provides a good picture of the broadcasting system.
Some members mentioned the section 15 report that was tabled in December and looks at the entire broadcast system in the future. I think that's another basis...and if there is additional information you need, we are there to assist you.
It's a large and complex file to study. Not only are you looking at a complex corporation, you're also indirectly looking at all of broadcasting. You may want to look at how to slice and dice in terms of manageable chunks as you move forward on this. Having tackled these issues from a number of perspectives over the years, that would be practical advice on how you could look at this.
The final point is accountability and governance. It's key on how the system works. Once you have that working, other things will flow from it.
Those are my general comments.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues who work in the broadcasting policy section and the department's portfolio affairs, and myself are now ready to take your questions.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Hi. Thank you so much for your presentation.
It is apparent even from your presentation that it is going to be a very complex undertaking. Nonetheless, it's exciting. I think the work we have ahead of us is very interesting.
From your perspective, how have you seen the impact of the Internet on the CBC evolve in terms of broadening the work it does or the type of media it provides, and what impact has it had?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I won't repeat what was in the presentation specifically. I think they've had some great successes at the corporation.
I can tell you that there was the same reaction in my programs with cultural affairs, but for my team it's very important that we stop seeing the Internet as a threat and that we also see certain opportunities. Distribution costs go down and we can have a broader reach to all Canadians.
The phenomenon we're seeing, as well, is that although, for instance, television viewing is globally going up, if you look at the youth demographics, they're going down.
