Yes.
Evidence of meeting #43 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 programming.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #43 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 programming.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Unless you're referring to Quebec television.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
9:50 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The CRTC's role with respect to the Société Radio-Canada is similar to the role it plays with respect to the CBC. Although we are close to these organizations, their mandate is clear and it is also included in the Canadian Broadcasting Act. We are therefore required to apply slightly different regulations. We must be very conscious of their specific mandates and of the fact that in terms of financial resources, when it come to modernization, they probably do not have the same flexibility nor, at the very least, the same access to capital as would private broadcasters. This is certainly a factor we have to bear in mind when we are looking at renewing their licences. Under the act we must consult Radio-Canada. There is also a specific right of appeal for the minister. The process used in the case of the Société Radio-Canada is quite different from what we use for private broadcasters.
In a general sense, we believe that broadcasting for the francophone market in Canada, specifically in Quebec, is very successful, especially when compared with the English Canadian market. Quebeckers and French Canadians seek out a product which is in their image far more so than English-speaking Canadians do. Their market may be smaller, which in and of itself involves challenges, but this same market supports francophone television and broadcasters.
It is a great success story, and it is probably less necessary to intervene in this market than it is to intervene in the English Canadian market in order to meet the objectives under the act. Being cognizant of the results and of the differences observed in the market, we make distinctions in applying the regulations.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Do you, from time to time, receive public complaints regarding Radio-Canada's programming? If so, could you tell us what they are mainly about?
9:50 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Yes, we do receive complaints. We could provide you with that information. We do have some details with us here today.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
9:50 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I'll defer to Mr. Foster.
9:50 a.m.
Peter Foster Manager, Conventional Television Services for English Markets, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
We put together some numbers over the past seven years. There were about 3,500 complaints for both the CBC and SRC. The vast majority of those are to do with programming. About 85% are to do with the nature of the content of the programming. That could be violence, adult programming, scheduling, the lack of advisories or warnings as to the content that's being provided, but it's a very broad range of complaints. This is for TV.
In terms of other aspects, only about 8% of complaints over the past seven years had to do with advertising; only 2% were about the quality of the service, the technical quality; and only 2% were about the provision of service, the availability of service to viewers.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What about service in both official languages throughout Canada?
9:50 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It would seem that we have not received a large number of complaints regarding the availability of French-language services outside Quebec and English-language services in Quebec and the Maritime provinces. People wanting to send in their comments may send them to us or to the CBC. The complaints we receive are about us and there haven't been many problems in this regard.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you for that.
Mr. Fast, we'll try to hold to five minutes, because I have one question I would like to ask at the end.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again going to new media, we have so many new technologies available to us, especially in the wireless world, where people want to receive a lot of this content on their iPods or their PDAs. In fact, just recently there was the announcement of the Slingbox, which will allow people to view what they could normally watch on television on any portable device that has the capabilities.
The challenge, of course, for not only the CBC but the broadcasting industry in general in Canada is how you capture that content. How do you “monetize” it, as Mr. Angus referred to it?
That brings me to the question that relates to the new media exemption. At present, almost all new media is exempted from regulation by the CRTC. I refer you to sections 392 through to 398 of the report.
There appear to be two minds within the industry. Some of the players, of course, believe very strongly that the new media exemption should stay in place, that it contributes to allowing this technology to develop within Canada. Other players, such as the CBC, the official languages commissioner, some of the cultural and production stakeholders, have questioned the value of the new media exemption.
What I'd like to do is quote some of the comments made in the report, first of all from section 396:
The Commission notes the comments from many parties that the new media exemption order has helped foster innovation and entrepreneurship by Canadian companies on the Internet.
Then we move to section 397:
It is certainly the case that the presence of the new media exemption order does not in any way preclude Canadian entities from undertaking self-initiated activities consistent with the objectives of the Act. Nor does the presence of the new media exemption order prevent government or the Commission from creating incentives to encourage broadcasting undertakings to launch Canadian content-rich Internet or mobile based services....
And then finally, section 398 says:
Traditional regulatory approaches are not the only means by which public policy can enhance a Canadian presence on new media platforms. Incentive-based regulatory measures may ultimately be more likely to succeed in the emerging “open” broadcasting system.
Now, those comments, which I believe may reflect the Commission's bias—maybe I'm using the wrong term—certainly reflect an indicator that an incentive-based approach to regulating new media may be more desirable than the traditional model.
My question to you is, first, have you already taken a position on that? The other question is, is there any intention of lifting the new media exemption in the near future?
9:55 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I'll answer the last part. In our report, we actually go out of our way to indicate that it is not the time to lift the exemption just yet. Some of the words you've indicated, and certainly an open question in our report that I repeat in my opening statement is, should the new media be contributing to the Canadian objectives? I think that's probably a rhetorical question.
The second one you go to is, should public policy intervention be required? That is still an open question. As we've noted, certainly for user-generated content or short content provided by our broadcasters, there is no need for regulatory intervention at this point in time. Canadian stories are getting out, and Canadians can see themselves on these new media.
What we want to be mindful of is more the high-end situation. That is a concern. It's certainly been very difficult to produce high-end Canadian content in the broadcasting system. We only suspect—it's not a formal finding—that it will be the same in the new media.
The reason the words “incentive mechanism” were chosen is, as I responded to Mr. Scott a little bit earlier, that in our current tool kit, certainly exhibition requirements—such as, primarily, Cancon percentages—likely may be difficult to implement in a world of high, on-demand-type services. Potentially finding another element, or relying more on a different part of the tool kit, which would be some form of different incentive to produce Canadian content, is the suggestion that is made here to policy-makers to at least consider.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Then I'm not going to get to ask a very short one. I would like to have just the last question here, if I could, please.
Just last week, as a committee, some of us travelled to Yellowknife and to Vancouver. We had hearings in both places.
A significant number of Canadians still depend on over-the-air reception. I know Mr. Angus has asked this, but last week the committee heard from several witnesses who no longer receive over-the-air signals from the CBC. What is the CRTC's position on this? As a public broadcaster, is it the mandate of the CBC to make sure that these signals get to people, maybe in a new way?
The one big thing in Yellowknife was that not only is it in English and French, but I think there are 11 Innu and aboriginal tongues spoken, to get the message that those people also deserve some of these things.
What is the CRTC's position on over-the-air reception, especially in some of the remote areas? Some of them aren't quite so remote, such as Kamloops. We heard a presentation from them too.
10 a.m.
Acting Associate Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I'm a bit uncomfortable in answering, because as I indicated earlier, that is a key consideration of our current over-the-air hearings with respect to broadcasters, which will set out a policy.
Currently the CRTC's policy and the government's policy is trusting the market to replace transmitters. Bringing folks, whether in urban Canada or in rural Canada, into the new world has been left to the market. We're currently being asked to reconsider that, and certainly it's a key consideration for us to, on one side, promote the assurance that Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC, move towards new digital and HD programming, and at the same time try to make sure that Canadians are not left out.
It's going to be a very serious challenge, in particular with respect to the CBC, because they have and they have built a far more expansive network as a result of government intervention or incentives at a certain point in time or the sense of obligation because it is a public broadcaster to get that out there. They have a far larger network than most other private broadcasters and they have a significantly greater challenge in that regard to modernize the faraway transmitters.
We're on the case, and certainly we will be issuing our policy. We will be addressing these issues and the renewal of the private broadcasters' licences and the CBC's following that.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much for your answers, and thank you to the committee for the questions. We will now recess for five minutes to await our next witnesses.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I now call the meeting back to order.
Our next presenters are from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Mr. Commissioner, I welcome you and your colleagues to our meeting this morning, as we study the role of the public broadcaster in the 21st century.
Mr. Fraser, if you would, please introduce your colleagues and make your presentation. Thank you.
March 20th, 2007 / 10:10 a.m.
Graham Fraser Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm here with assistant commissioners Gérard Finn and Renald Dussault, who will be able to answer some of the more detailed questions that I'm sure you will have.
I am grateful to the committee for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you today, which by a happy coincidence is the International Day of La Francophonie.
I am deeply interested in the subject you are discussing. Being a federal institution fully subject to the Official Languages Act, the CBC has obligations to take positive measures to promote Canada’s linguistic duality and enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities. Our national broadcaster must also protect our common heritage, strengthen our identity, and reaffirm our values. This is particularly true in an era of globalization marked by increasing diversity and developing tensions that sometimes threaten our linguistic partnership.
Today, I'd like to discuss the universality of access to the CBC’s radio and television stations and the important role the CBC has to undertake to create cross-cultural bridges. The CBC is at the heart of Canada’s broadcasting system. I believe it is vital to reaffirm its importance as an essential instrument for promoting, preserving, and sustaining Canadian culture. We need a CBC that's not only on the technology frontier, but also has a vision about Canada and its future.
The CBC has demonstrated success at providing radio and television programming that tells the story of linguistic realities across the solitudes. It should be celebrated and further encouraged for its distinctive contribution to Canadian programming, especially on new media platforms. The CBC should continue to play a leadership role within the Canadian broadcasting system, especially in an increasingly fragmented media environment. New media services, for example, can and do complement the CBC’s overall programming strategy.
In order to ensure CBC's services to all Canadians in both official languages, it's important not to diminish the full range of obligations that the CBC already carries under the Broadcasting Act to develop regional programming.
The CBC has long been a lifeline for information and cultural connection within regions and across the country. In several regions of the country, the CBC remains the only relevant media channel in the official minority language. This is particularly true for minority francophone communities but also for the English minority in Quebec.
I strongly support the efforts of the CBC to serve these threatened communities, and in particular, the CBC's Quebec Community Network for English radio, the maintenance of a strong French TV and radio journalistic and cultural presence in communities outside Quebec, and French-language TV projects based outside Quebec.
However, there are still significant shortcomings in regional programming as, over the year, production has been centralized in Montreal and Toronto. The CBC itself has expressed serious concerns about this. The plans it developed in 2005 proposed a series of measures to re-establish a strong regional and local CBC presence in the regions. One of those measures was to substantially increase cultural programming for the main networks from new and existing production centres outside Quebec.
The government should support an increased role for the CBC in regional programming. This is already reflected in the Broadcasting Act, but funding has not respected this obligation. If the act is amended, these regional obligations should be maintained and if need be, strengthened.
Over the years, the CBC has developed and produced what one could call cross-linguistic programming. Canada: A People's History and Breaking Point, a program on the Quebec referendum of 1995, are memorable examples. However, paradoxically, at a time when more and more Canadians are becoming bilingual, truly bilingual journalistic and artistic dialogues on television and radio have become more rare. This is regrettable. As Canadians, we need to talk to one another more often and to work together more closely. Fortunately, a few programs, like CBC Radio One's C'est la vie and Newsworld's Au Courant use talented and insightful hosts to provide a glimpse into the current lives of Canadians who speak French.
Nevertheless, cross-linguistic programming has never become a normal part of operations for the CBC and Radio-Canada. I believe this should change. The CBC should have as a priority the development of more cross-linguistic programs, especially on new media platforms, which are more flexible and adaptable. We're not proposing cod liver oil programming, but programs that show us how the lives of people who speak the other official language can inherently be interesting and engaging.
It's also important that the CBC create actual and virtual spaces for media professionals from both language groups within the corporation to exchange and develop ideas and common projects. One example of this cross-linguistic collaboration is the way producers and staff working for Radio Two or for Espace musique frequently collaborate on live music recording and other programming activities.
What's been lacking is not the will and imagination to work creatively together but the absence of a common space for bilingual and bicultural collaboration. It's difficult to understand how the CBC can hope to foster understanding between English- and French-speaking Canadians if it cannot create internally, from the bottom up, the conditions that allow anglophone and francophone artists and artisans to work creatively together.
Subsection 46(4) of the Broadcasting Act sets out:
(4) In planning extensions of broadcasting services, the Corporation shall have regard to the principles and purposes of the Official Languages Act.
There are particular challenges in this regard related to the current transition to digital services. Currently the CBC's hybrid digital HD strategy involves the replacement in major markets of analog transmitters with digital, high-definition, over-the-air transmitters. These transmitters would reach 80% of the Canadian population.
Elsewhere, satellite, cable, or even Internet protocol television would be used. This means that in remote and rural communities, citizens will have little choice but to subscribe to services like ExpressVu and Star Choice. However, there is a problem. These services do not transmit to all local stations. In fact, I met someone in Saskatchewan recently who had switched to a satellite service and had discovered that he could no longer get local programming from Regina. As a result, many members of minority language communities may not have access to the local Radio-Canada services that are fundamental to their development.
Universality of access must remain CBC's fundamental principle. During the transition period, the CBC signal must continue to be available over the air, especially to smaller communities.
As over-the-air transmission becomes less sustainable, obligations will have to be placed on satellite providers to carry the full complement of the CBC's programming. To that end, I want to reiterate the recommendation made by this committee in 2003: the government, by order in council, should direct the CRTC to require Canada's direct-to-home satellite providers to carry the signals of all local television stations of the CBC and Radio-Canada.
That said, I believe that the federal government should ensure that the CBC has the tools and the funding necessary to provide a distinctive and independent national voice in both official languages.
Chronic underfunding has made it more and more difficult for the CBC to continue to reflect the aspirations and achievements of Canadians on a regional and local basis. It is simply not possible for the CBC to continue much longer to strive for excellence on a shoestring budget. Appropriations granted to the CBC by Parliament should be increased at a minimum to their level prior to 1996 and should increase, at a minimum, relative to the overall growth in government expenditures and overall federal cultural spending, based in part on comparisons with spending on other public broadcasters with similar mandate obligations around the world. For example, Switzerland, a nation with more than one official language, funds public broadcasting at 2.5 times the Canadian level. The BBC is funded at the level of $122 per Briton versus about $33 per Canadian for the CBC. Out of 18 countries with public broadcasting systems, Canada ranks 15th in terms of capital funding.
The government must support the CBC's ability to carry out the full range of its obligations through the proper level of financing. I repeat the recommendation made by this committee in 2003: Parliament should provide the CBC/Radio-Canada with increased and stable multi-year funding.
In the past, the CBC has shown that it was willing to rise to the challenge of being an instrument for promoting and sustaining Canadian culture in both English and French and for enhancing the vitality of our minority language communities. I am confident that with the help and guidance of this committee, the CBC can adapt and renew itself as a truly national public broadcaster in this new century.
Thank you very much.
I shall be happy to answer any questions.