Evidence of meeting #15 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We did go over the time a little bit last time.
Yes, Mr. Simms and Mr. Rodriguez can share time, but in total it will be seven minutes.
Mr. Simms.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Just very quickly, Ms. Edwards, in my hometown...and I'll keep this as local as I can; I want to scope this out. I appreciate your comments about CAP sites, multimedia, OTA, fundamental reasons. But let me just ask you this.
In my community, in my riding, we have community access, and it's through one of the major companies that are out there. They play bingo for raising money. They do news shows that pretty much reflect the community. They recently changed format. There was a huge uproar. They went back; they changed their decision.
I guess what I'm saying to you is that I don't know a lot of people in my area who would complain about this company that provides community cable, branded under their own. So what would be your intention to enhance or to create even more access to my community?
That's not a policy pronouncement in any way. I'm just saying, how do you envision this? Or what's wrong with this?
12:30 p.m.
Spokesperson, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS)
First of all, we're not in any way against the channels that cable offer if they want to continue to offer them and people value the service offered by them. We just feel that maybe it would be more transparent for them to go back to the CRTC and apply for the kind of licence they want, which is more similar to a local private broadcaster, to be honest.
In the example you just gave, when you said your local cable provider reflects the community with the news program and that they changed format and there was an outcry, what you're talking about is a top-down model of programming where it's the cable company that's deciding what to produce. Again, there's nothing wrong with that; that's what private broadcasters do. They try to produce programming that people want to watch.
But that wasn't the original purpose of those channels. The Broadcasting Act is quite clear that there are supposed to be public, private, and community sectors. The money--the 2% of cable revenues that are currently collected--was meant to enable communities to make their own productions. That was the only window in the broadcasting system that was supposed to be open to the ordinary person.
So there's no reason that a completely open access channel, which is what those funds were originally for, couldn't coexist with a cable channel. We have no issue with that. If people in your community like that service, there's no reason they couldn't continue to enjoy it.
Most people in Canada now don't know that they have that right, because it's been about a dozen years since we've seen really active and robust community access television in Canada. For most of them it wouldn't even occur to them to go down to the cable operator and say, “Hey, I'd like to do a program”, because they just haven't seen that on the airwaves for so long, except in little pockets in Canada, as I mentioned. So we think there's enough space in the system for all these models.
The other problem with the cable model, though, is this. As the person who's currently spending dollars collected from cable subscribers to give them local reflection, as you say..., As I mentioned, because they've gone to an all-professional model, they've tended to pay for that. They've consolidated their resources in big centres, where all their staff do the production, which as we know is much more expensive than doing it with volunteers, and then they pipe that programming back out to the regions.
I don't know what the percentage is in your community particularly, but there used to be 30 independent different services in New Brunswick alone. Because of zone-based licensing--that is, the CRTC has allowed cable companies to consolidate what used to be quite small licence areas where there used to be one studio in each small area--they've allowed them to consolidate. So there now are only six studios in all of New Brunswick instead of thirty, and those studios contribute to one province-wide service.
Aside from the issue of whether it's professionally produced or really volunteer produced, it's just been consolidated. So we're seeing the same kind of loss of real local reflection in the cable community channel sector as we have in the public and private sectors, where studios have been shut in small communities.
Aside from addressing people's needs for access and skills training in digital and new media, our proposal also addresses the huge reduction in local programming we've had across the country.
You know, when I used to work, I was the volunteer coordinator at Shaw Cable in Calgary—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I think I'm cutting into his time, so perhaps you could sum up.
12:35 p.m.
Spokesperson, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS)
Sure.
With eight staff we used to produce forty hours of new production per week. You can't do that with a professional model.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Pineau, I have two minutes left. I'm going to ask you three questions very quickly, and I'll ask you to answer me as quickly as possible.
You're telling us that the development of a Canadian digital strategy must be based on the new Copyright Act. That's fine, but how do we do that? How do we determine the priorities of that new act? These are very broad questions, I know. How do we go about having more Canadian content in the new media, not less?
Third, some say that it isn't serious if we hand over what's called the container to foreign interests, provided we protect the content. My opinion is that that isn't true because, when you control the container, you partly control the content. Can you discuss that point briefly? These are three easy questions.
12:35 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
Indeed, these are three very easy questions. For the first one, I'm going to suggest some kind of amendment to the Constitution of Canada stating that I can't answer that question for you in the 30 seconds you're allowing me. The question is very complex, and we can come back to it.
I'll simply address the third question, concerning control of our cultural and digital infrastructure, and I believe that subject is very important. In a previous meeting, we talked about gatekeepers. I think that notion is very important as well. If we concern ourselves with the gatekeepers for content within Canada, we are even more right to concern ourselves with it when the decision-making centres are outside the country. That's why we say that, given the converging universe, we don't see how we can raise walls between the pipe and what passes through it. Currently, these are the same owners, the same infrastructure, and we really believe that the threat of international treaties is very significant. We don't believe the cultural exemption, as valid as it is, is enough to ensure that Canadian and provincial governments will have the freedom to legislate in the area of arts and culture in all kinds of ways.
When we open the door to court challenges as a result of action that has been taken because it harms foreign interests, I believe we're playing cultural Russian roulette.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much. So you'll have the opportunity to explain your views at greater length, Mr. Pineau. First, this morning, I sat in on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where Minister of Industry Tony Clement appeared as a witness and spoke about foreign ownership. He essentially said that it was possible to separate telecommunications from broadcasting. It's difficult, he thinks, but it's not impossible.
I believe it's impossible. Broadcasting is now everywhere, and our wireless providers, which are subject solely to the Telecommunications Act, are engaged in broadcasting and are making immensely important cultural choices. He also told us that we could deal with each sector separately. There is that difficulty.
I must say that, even if there wasn't a debate on foreign ownership in this committee, the fact remains that that debate must be conducted, perhaps even here in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, because we can no longer dissociate telecommunications from broadcasting. Consequently, the two acts must be merged. The CRTC is also talking about the Radiocommunication Act.
I'm going to let you speak on that topic, Mr. Pineau.
12:35 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
We're saying that it is important to conduct this debate in an open and comprehensive, not piecemeal, manner because we are changing longstanding cultural policies. This is being done through an amendment to the Telecommunications Act that appears in an omnibus bill on the budget. Accordingly, in the current circumstances, it will necessarily pass.
We're saying it is important to have this debate. There are people on both sides of the fence on this subject. Last week, I was speaking to someone who believes it is important to review the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act and fundamentally to evaluate them together. Other people—and some eminent people whose opinions I was reading last week at a conference that was held here in Ottawa—say that isn't necessary, that there's enough flexibility. We have to have this debate. What is happening is that we are opening the barn door and, afterwards, we'll be wondering if we've done the right thing. That's the danger.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Among the eminent people who are speaking out on the subject, didn't you note that the ones who say we can allow foreign ownership in telecommunications are the kind of people who have no interest in the matter and very little interest in cultural development?
12:40 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
If you're saying that those are the remarks of the Minister of Industry, yes, obviously. That's not his concern; it's the concern of Mr. Moore.
We were pleased to see that three ministers were involved in the announcement made on Monday, including the Minister of Heritage and the Minister of Human Resouces and Skills Development Canada, because all these sectors are extremely important in the development of a digital strategy.
What concerns us, however, is that the debate is being formulated mainly in economic terms. What we're telling you is that there are cultural terms and social terms. Ms. Edwards represents a large part of the social dimension of the digital strategy. We're here to support her and also to say that it's important from a cultural standpoint to have this debate.
The economy is important; culture is part of the economy, but culture goes beyond the economy.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Last week, representatives of the Groupe Nordicité Ltée came and testified and presented a study on the development of a comprehensive digital strategy. Unfortunately, they weren't explicit enough in their conclusions. Their conclusions suggested the creation of a panel that would consist of a number of individuals from a number of government departments and who would report directly to the Prime Minister.
In addition, on Monday morning, three ministers, led by Tony Clement, the Minister of Industry, conducted a consultation on the digital sector. Do you think a task force consisting of a number of eminent persons from a number of departments could now get to work? You know that Canada lags far behind on the digital strategy.
12:40 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
Far behind other countries, yes, it appears. I heard the previous witness say that depends. It's difficult; it's a constant race. We're on a treadmill.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
12:40 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
Yes, I think we urgently need to have a comprehensive strategy that covers all aspects.
Pardon me; I missed the start of your question.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Essentially, Groupe Nordicité Ltée suggests a panel consisting of—
12:40 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
Ah, yes, on the mechanism.
At another time, we would have established a royal commission and, as the universe wasn't evolving so quickly then, two or three years later, we could have had some common sense suggestions. The mechanism is too unwieldy under the current system.
I had occasion to speak with a number of people about this concept that the government had used, for example, in the case of the blue ribbon panel on the contribution agreements and scholarships. It produces results. There's one on telecommunications. Provided the panel is balanced with regard to points of view that are to be considered. This is a more workable mechanism; it could be a panel that has a mandate limited to a number of months and that would conduct a national consultation.
It's good to have a consultation until July 9, but that's nevertheless still a bit... Yes, it's a piece of the puzzle, but I think we need to digest all that.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Perfect.
Earlier, Ms. Edwards referred to Gutenberg—indeed, I believe that a lot of things start from there. At a number of moments in history, we've experienced this kind of technological acceleration—in the case of printing, that's perhaps a bit much—an acceleration in the means of distribution. We're going through another one right now. The fact remains that the principles are still the same.
Right now, I get the impression that we're taking advantage of the digital debate to encroach on artists' copyright. Do you have any comments to make on that point?