Canadian Heritage Committee on March 27th, 2014

[Scott Hutton]

Most cases where copyright is concerned involve the Copyright Act, government policies or the way the Copyright Board implements them.

Your question gives me a chance to clarify something about our mandate. Earlier witnesses talked about copyright and the way that artists are paid for the use of their products. The CRTC, however, does not have a hand in that. We ask private broadcasters to make larger financial contributions to content development, meaning at the beginning of the process. We encourage new artists to create new products, but that's where our role ends. As you have heard, the matter of royalties is very serious, but it doesn't come under our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Great. Thank you.

We're going to move to Mr. Dykstra, for seven minutes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Chair, through you, one of the issues that seems to keep rising up is the complexity of the fund, the complexity of the industry in Canada.

From a CRTC perspective, we look at the Canadian content development contributions for Canadian music organized through four organizations: FACTOR, Musicaction, Radio Starmaker Fund, and Fonds RadioStar.

We've heard that the structure is complex. Has the CRTC ever considered moving from a four organization perspective to flowing funds through, let's say, two organizations so it becomes much less complex for those involved in it? Obviously, from your perspective, from a governing perspective, it would allow you more transparency in terms of whom you're dealing with and the fact that the number is lower.

[Scott Hutton]

I'll let Madam Laflamme provide you with the details, but we do have the English and French side, and I think you're suggesting two as the English and French; that is what I understand.

Within those two particular organizations, they each have a very different role. If we're talking about FACTOR and Musicaction, certainly the role is to be more on the R and D side, if we can call it that, to develop the new...to help grow people from zero to something, whereas the second organization concentrates on something significantly different. It's more the graduate school. It's once you have achieved a certain amount of success, you've demonstrated certain things, then we would through that fund seek to take you to the world stage.

There are different objectives on that front, but Madam Laflamme can indicate what we've done in the past in that domain.

[Annie Laflamme, Director, Radio Policy and Applications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

I think you've provided a pretty clear and complete response.

I think the one thing we should mention is that those funds were created originally by the broadcasters. FACTOR and Musicaction were the first ones to be created. It was during the commercial radio review that happened in 1997 and when we issued the new policy in 1998 the CAB, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, proposed to create this new fund, the Starmaker, and Fonds RadioStar, that would bring the established artists to another level and reach the international market, for instance.

We have a few processes going on, so there's not very much more we could say about those things.

I'll just mention that based on our discussions with the music representatives a couple of years ago when we were trying to establish what the issues were that the industry was facing, we asked them the question about the relevance of those funds still, and they said that they each have their role. They play a different role, but they each have their role and they're both relevant. They seem to be wanting to continue with the current structure.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I listened with interest to your comments, Scott, regarding the review that started in October and is now coming to a conclusion. You don't have any reporting mechanism, at least at this point, to bring forward. I ask this question both from a creator's perspective and from a carrier's perspective.

One of the complaints I've received from both is that the CRTC's role has changed from the time of its inception to today. The reason for that change is the speed at which the industry is now moving, and it's difficult for the CRTC to respond to that change. When someone comes up with or invents a new method to circumvent the rules we have in place and then we try to see whether they've done something illegal, it's difficult to determine whether or not that grey area matches the concept the person or the company thought up to either take creators' work for nothing or become a carrier without actually going through the approval process.

Maybe my question is one you've heard many times before. How do we assist the CRTC to be able, in this day and age, to respond to the concerns and some of the obvious wrong acts that are taking place within the industry—I don't mean from the industry—generally speaking through the Internet and through technology? How has the CRTC been able to set itself up, or how can the government help it to put itself in a position to respond to those types of concerns in a much quicker way than it's able to now?

[Scott Hutton]

Regulation of government policy is always a little bit behind. It's a fact we try to combat every day, but it is a fact of life.

I think there were two parts to your question. One is that the wonderful thing about the industry we regulate is that it is in constant evolution. The key thing with the CRTC is being able to stay close to what is happening and being able to do proper research. The key thing for us, however, is consulting and having the public proceedings, because everyone, like you in this committee, comes and provides us with information on that front. We're doing well on that front.

Do we need to regulate the new thing? Do we need to jump in right away? This is also a question we often ask ourselves. Sometimes people want us to do that, but sometimes we make the purposeful decision not to because it's not the right time. Right now we have a number of those debates in front of us because of the latest technological developments, but that type of idea has been with us for many years.

We had AM, and then the new-found technology was FM. We didn't regulate FM closely when it first started. We let it grow. We let it find itself a role. We let it reach Canadians, and then when it was mature enough, we found that it should itself make a contribution to the system. We have to be careful as to the right time to jump in. It may not always be because we're behind the times. It may be a purposeful decision not to do it.

When we're looking forward, we're looking forward to trying to be more efficient and more effective, and to maybe rely less on licensing and more on other forms of regulation. I think we can work with our current policies, and then we're not looking for anything on that front. There may be some minor adjustments with respect to ability to enforce. We note that recently there have been suggestions and an introduction of new areas for the CRTC to be involved with, whether it's with CASL on the spam side, or the do not call list, for which there are mechanisms related to enforcement. As we go forward, it would be helpful to have those apply to all of our areas of operation, including broadcasting. Then we would rely less on licensing and other forms of regulation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

All right. Thank you very much.

We have about three or four minutes left, so we'll go to Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking Ms. Laflamme and Mr. Hutton for meeting with us today. I think your remarks were very informative. It is clear that you are taking a detailed look at all the factors and that you're adopting a cautious approach given that there is no silver bullet. I hope the issue is addressed swiftly.

Ms. Muir and Mr. Déry, I want you to know how pleased we are to have you here.

Mr. Déry, you are the famous acting librarian and archivist. And you are probably one of the people we've talked about the most these past few months. You are no doubt aware that, in this room, our party met with members of the archiving community. They told us what they were concerned about and what they needed. They told us how desperately they hoped for changes in the LAC.

With that in mind, I'd like you to verify a few things, if you would. We heard a lot about the recent changes to the LAC's code of conduct, values and ethics, which applies to employees. The first code of conduct was put in place and then amended at the very end of 2013.

Did the previous code prevent LAC employees and experts from attending conferences in their respective fields? Did you hear about any such stories from your staff?

[Hervé Déry]

Good afternoon, Mr. Nantel.

The former code was in effect for a relatively short period of time. The decisions made within the department regarding its implementation were made collectively. I can't recall any specific cases where someone was prevented from—

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Good. We were glad to see it amended.

You manage the much talked-about musical catalogue. I noticed that, in 2012, the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres held its annual conference in Montreal. The association's Canadian branch is located at 395 Wellington Street, in Ottawa.

Do you believe LAC employees are excited about attending upcoming conferences to talk about your initiatives in greater detail, initiatives like the digitization project?

[Hervé Déry]

We are encouraging our staff more and more to take part in conferences provided that the subject relates to their work. We approve a conference plan every year. For every conference, we have to be sure to factor in the total costs and fees. We strongly encourage our staff to take part.

I can't say for sure, but I think we have people from Library and Archives Canada who will be attending the specific conference you mentioned.

[Cecilia Muir, Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Library and Archives of Canada]

I would just like to confirm that at least two people from Library and Archives Canada will be attending that conference. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but I know that at least two will be going.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you.

I have one last question for Mr. Hutton and Ms. Laflamme.

Could you please explain the rationale behind asking the various broadcasters to contribute to the emergence of new talent? Why do you ask them to do that?

[Scott Hutton]

The answer to your question takes us back to the 26 or 27 objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act. Simply put, however, we have to make sure Canadians are able to express themselves on the public airwaves and, on the flip side, to hear and see that expression of themselves. What's more, mechanisms are needed to ensure everything comes together.

That is why we regulate broadcasting, which is defined as broadcasting across the country, with those objectives in mind.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Tell me about funding for cultural products.

[Scott Hutton]

Obviously, in order to stimulate creation, it's important to have funding that is used to create that initial period with respect to broadcasting. It has to do with discovering new talent. It's necessary to make sure that we cultivate new sounds, new words, with each generation and that we shine the spotlight on them. That's why we ask for funding to support that initial development phase.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much. That's going to have to be the last word.

I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. Thank you for your contribution to our study.

We will briefly suspend and then go in camera to do some committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]