Evidence of meeting #58 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.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That's fine. It's still a number that to me, an old-timer.... I'm somewhat shocked that we have in Canada a culture within our student bodies, and within our youth, that sees nothing wrong with taking content that belongs to someone else and downloading it without paying for it.
Mr. Savage, you just put your finger on it. Technology is developing so rapidly we're finding it almost impossible to capture the value of all of that content. That's going to be our struggle in trying to address the issues of new media and even copyright legislation in the future.
I would like to get to Mr. Bélanger very briefly.
You had also mentioned that you believe the CBC mandate needs to be modernized. I just want to be clear here. Are you saying that the mandate should be changed to become more modern and reflect modern realities, or are you suggesting that the implementation of the current mandate should be modernized? There's a difference between the two. I'm looking at the mandate here. It's not that long, but it does say in one part of it that CBC/Radio-Canada shall:
“be made available [...] by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, [...]
So that's quite general. It certainly would encompass new media, but you're suggesting the actual mandate needs to be modernized. Can we be specific?
Professor, Institute of Canadian Studies, University of Ottawa
In the written submission that I delivered last night--and you will be getting it, I guess, later on today or this week--I'm quoting section 3, in French:
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ... should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming...
I didn't see in that specific section of the mandate any specific reference to the integration or inclusion of emerging technologies. So to answer your question, my answer would be “the former”. When you say it's to modernize the mandate or the way the mandate is being implemented, I would personally love to see a specific reference to the inclusion of “...and other emerging technology platforms as part of its delivery mechanisms”.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's amazing how much we all love the chair, who has the gavel and cuts us off and all those things--with reference to Mr. Angus.
As a starting point in this exercise--and I was quite happy to hear Mr. Savage speak of the historical raison d'être of the CBC--I think that Canada's identity, for a whole bunch of reasons we all understand, is, at best, fragile. As we globalize and as these new technologies become available, it becomes more and more fragile as there are more and more inputs in terms of our consciousness in terms of who we are, the values, and so on.
So with that as a starting point, I have a number of questions, but they're very specific. I think it actually works out that there's one for everybody.
In the context of Industry Canada, the reference to the infrastructure that's necessary for Canada to be a player in this, you identified the problem. I hadn't heard the solution, and I'd like you to do that.
I'd like to go through the list first, and then I'll stop.
Secondly, Mr. Bélanger, this shows how rapidly this whole area is moving, because I changed my mind about this twice in the course of the discussions today. I thought 20 years ago that the new feature of media was going to be interactivity with computers. My kids are 22 and 20, and 15 months. At 22 and 20, they've had no patience for television because it wasn't interactive, as against my generation.
Then I decided it wasn't about interactivity, but rather it was about consumer-directed. You were speaking of that and the fact that the new feature would be that we could pull it out of the air, as against having it fed to us in a linear way.
Then I changed my mind again when someone talked about citizen input and Rodney King. I think about the education system and all the students sitting there with their cameras and telephones, taking pictures of teachers. It speaks also to the fact that a lot of that is coming from schools and students who are ahead of the wave on all of this.
So I'd like that question to go to Mr. Bélanger. Simply, am I on the right track in terms of the trending?
Mr. Savage, the public service part fascinates me, but my fear is that we're not focused enough. All of a sudden I'm starting to think about how we could use the public broadcaster to engage Canadians as a polity. They want to be engaged. I think at the beginning people saw the opportunities, but that means an entirely new dimension of citizen engagement in public administration and so on, and I worry that I might be promoting a loss of focus.
Then, finally, on the question of the relationship of the CBC and the mandate review, and other institutions in the country that would be complementary, can it not be that? Can we not, in the context of the mandate review, mandate the CBC to simply do a better job of being a part of a whole team of institutions dealing with this preoccupation, and not the only institution?
President, Communications Research Centre Canada, Department of Industry
Mr. Caron would like to speak.
Vice-President, Broadcast Technology Research Branch / Communications Research Centre Canada, Department of Industry
If I understand, your question is that the infrastructure of the CBC as it is now--
Vice-President, Broadcast Technology Research Branch / Communications Research Centre Canada, Department of Industry
I think both radio and television have something like 600 transmitters right now just for TV and a few hundred more for radio. To replace all of that would be a very expensive process, so they have to look at new technologies, and the distributed transmitter, for example, is a way of doing it; multiplexing the programs is another way. You can think of serving smaller areas or areas where there are low populations with one transmitter that will offer them more choice of channels. So that's another way of doing it.
Radio is the same. One transmitter can transmit French and English programs, for example. I don't know if you--
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
We don't have a lot of time, and I want to hear from everybody on the other questions.
Professor, Institute of Canadian Studies, University of Ottawa
I'll probably try to get you to change your mind for a third time this morning by suggesting to you that I think one of the ways for the public broadcaster to remain pertinent and relevant, as Phil was saying, is to increase and design as many different opportunities as possible for people to personalize the content the CBC has to offer.
I think this is the newfangled way people are expecting a public broadcaster to do for them. Public interest allows me to pick and choose and constitute my own programming schedule whenever I want, on whatever device...you know those classic expressions: whatever people want, whenever they want it.
So “personalization”, I think, is the operative word here.
Assistant professor, Department of Communication Studies and Multimedia, McMaster University
This is something people have been struggling with throughout the world. A study was done in the Netherlands of the way in which young people are using news, because it was seen that the traditional serious news of the public broadcaster, the BBC model or the Dutch model, for their public broadcaster was too serious, that young people weren't interested in serious information.
They found you have this thing called “snacking” 24/7. Young people want to be engaged in different levels of community, but as part of that, they expect there will be a level of credible, high-quality, independently produced, well-researched news available as one of those options, and they were turning to the public broadcaster. They liked it when it was being streamed, they liked it when it was available in bits on the website, but it was a key component of what they needed.
Again, in terms of the complementarity, where is the news journalistic resource that is at the base of what people can build as their own mediascape? It's nice to say that students will create their own communities and blogs, but they still want to know about what is happening in Amherst, they want to know what's happening in Nunavut, etc. They need that connection and they need the credible, well-produced content that is coming from a network of people around the country.
former Government Film Commissioner and former Chairperson, National Film Board of Canada, As an Individual
Let me give you information about your kids. Today, in comparison to the generation of your children, kids are spending more time in front of their media than they are in school. One has to be extremely careful of that. As they are taught to become citizens, they are spending more time in the airwaves of the world than in front of the school process.
As to your point on whether the CBC is capable of doing the job of being the gatherer and federator, to a certain extent, I have to go by the track record. So far, the CBC has been acting as a doorkeeper and not a federator.
Technology is telling us that we need to have a totally different attitude and open ourselves, so the 35 million people of this country--and I'm not seeing a flow of everybody becoming filmmakers--are participating in the dialogue through images, as we've been doing through the printing press and the local newspaper, in comparison to The Globe and Mail, La Presse, or any other newspaper.
So can the CBC act more as a federator? What I mean by “federator” is to bring together the best minds in this country on the creative process, but also on the technological side of things. I don't have the answer, but so far, by track record, I don't see that.
This is really a global war that is taking place. When you see Fox buying MySpace and what is taking place, you have to ask yourself where Canada is in all that. Are we going to inhabit the spaces of others in order to exist? Are we really transforming this country of consumers, who will from time to time have their products appear somewhere along the line in other media?
The question that was asked about the CRTC links up with your point: is there something this country can do? I think it'll be difficult to regulate the airwaves, but you could at least put your minds together to help develop search tools that will identify what is Canadian in that global environment. Amongst YouTube, MySpace, and the other forms we've spoken about, what is Canadian in all of that? If we had those tools, we would have a way to find out.
I'm back from an event that took place two weeks ago in France called the MipTV market, in which all the world gathered and discussed new products. The BBC initiated a concept called Content 360 into that mix, where the young generation of players come and pitch their products.
At least the BBC is listening globally, because they're being pitched by people from all over the world, including Canadians. They have their finger on the pulse of what is being developed in content in the world, rather than not being part of it. They accomplish this by doing it on the world stage.
I'm back again to the fact that you need to link all those things together in order to have an answer, if there is a simple answer to one thing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
A lot of these answers are very exciting and interesting. I have gone overboard again a little bit. I know how my committee members are trying to get all the questions out there, but we have to try to stay close to five minutes. That one went for almost 11 minutes, but they were very good answers.
Mr. Kotto.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a suggestion. I have prepared two questions. I would like, if possible, for you to respond in writing because these questions are both ethical and philosophical.
I feel that a strong public broadcaster is an irreplaceable tool for today and tomorrow to public service, cultural development and international growth. During a conference in Birmingham, the far left clan, led by Rupert Murdoch, claimed that the advent of the digital age marked the end of any plans to regulate the media and that in future, public broadcasters will have to give in to market forces.
What do you think?
In the perspective of content, how can a public broadcaster, namely CBC/SRC, continue to respect its current mandate and survive branching out to emerging technologies—to use Mr. Bélanger's expression—without competing with private broadcasters?
Can you explain your answer?
Conservative
former Government Film Commissioner and former Chairperson, National Film Board of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Kotto, since you want a written response, I would simply say that we need a strong public network in Canada and in the world. This also seems to be the consensus around this table. It would be an utter mistake to abdicate this universe to the free market. However, we have to come up with inventive and creative solutions.
It is all well and good to talk about technology, whether satellite, Internet or portable phone, but at the end of the day, it is content that matters. Change in content has to come from citizens taking part in discussions on public television or through a public spokesperson.
As long as we maintain the mentality that a broadcaster does not have to change paradigm, but convert to new technologies, we will lag behind, which will prevent us from entering this realm. The CBC/SRC cannot decide its future on its own and speak on behalf of the Canadian public. Our responsibilities go beyond that. To accomplish something, the existing agencies and citizens have to band together.