Canadian Heritage Committee on May 15th, 2014

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

Allow me to cite another example.

We conducted an in-depth study on Digital Canada 150, which ended in February 2011. All the industry's evidence and recommendations came to nothing, except for certain things on the NFB and a little on the archives.

I hand the floor back to you.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Let us start with Library and Archives Canada.

I'll switch to English for Ms. Mathyssen.

Guy Berthiaume has just been put in place as the head of LAC. He begins in June, and I would encourage you to speak with this very talented and qualified new appointee. LAC, of course, determines their own programs, etc., so that is where I would refer you with regard to the first question. We all know how important Library of Archives is to Canada.

Going back to APTN—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Okay, thank you, minister.

We're going to move to Mr. Falk now for five minutes. Maybe he'll want to continue with that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Chair. No, I don't want to continue that.

Thank you, Minister, for coming here this morning.

I do want to ask you a few questions, but first I want to respond a little bit to what I've been hearing about the CBC. Here I do understand what you're saying. I understand that CBC needs to present a business model that is attractive to maintaining its listenership and to maintaining advertising, and they haven't been able to do that.

With over a billion dollars of subsidy on an annual basis, I don't understand why they're not competitive in the marketplace to keep Hockey Night in Canada. I don't understand that, because other networks are and the other networks seem to be making a copious amount of money. I don't know why their business model isn't working, but I think it's a management issue that needs to be addressed by CBC. I think we provide very generous funding.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

But they are a crown corporation, so to be very clear, we believe that the CBC plays a very important role, of course, in Canadian society, and that is why we provide them with that over a billion dollars worth of funding. I compare it to some of the communities that really do see the importance of the CBC. They're dependent on it, right? The official language minority communities, and some of our remote communities and aboriginal communities, they depend on the CBC. So this is why they are important. They're a public broadcaster.

Here I have to say that the Olympics were amazing, simply amazing. The CBC did a phenomenal job. In fact, other countries were tuning in at a time when their own television broadcasts were not being viewed.

As I say, they've had some challenges, but we do provide them with significant funds and they have enough money to provide under their mandate under the Broadcasting Act.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Good, thank you. And I certainly do appreciate the programming that CBC provides.

Along that line of thinking, I would like to talk a little bit about a commitment that our government made in the Speech from the Throne. I'll repeat it:

Our Government believes that Canadian families should be able to choose the combination of television channels they want. It will require channels to be unbundled, while protecting Canadian jobs.

I live close to your riding. I live in a rural riding in southeastern Manitoba. And simply to qualify my comments, I don't have a cable subscription. I have a TV subscription that is commonly referred to as “farmer vision”, which is the free to air stuff. Shaw was kind enough to send me a satellite dish and provide me with the four essential channels for my area, which I get.

Now that I've been privileged by my constituents to serve in this capacity here in the Government of Canada, I stay in a hotel and I actually have access to cable network TV and I'm amazed how much I have to surf through the channels, when I do actually have time to look at the TV, to find a channel with good programming. The frustration of many Canadians has been that they have to pay for all these channels that they really don't like. A lot of times they are channels they don't want in their homes and, unfortunately, more and more Canadian parents are allowing the television to be the babysitter. I think that's sad because there's stuff coming in that they don't want in their homes and they don't always have the parental control that they need.

Can you give this committee an update on where our government is in fulfilling this commitment?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Sure.

Thank you very much for the question. We obviously look forward to living up to that promise made in the Speech from the Throne. We know that Canadians want choice and we're intending to unbundle channels.

The first thing we did, of course, was to ask the CRTC to look at this issue and to give us some advice basically on how we might provide choice in television while maintaining Canadian jobs, among other things. So the CRTC has come back with a clear road map for us that will allow us to provide greater choice to Canadians across the country.

I might just touch on a couple of those things that were in the CRTC's report. They touch on four things that they believe ought to be considered. The first is that the basic television service that has been provided has grown substantially. They believe we should return to the basics and provide what they call a “skinny” basic service in television.

They also talk about pick-and-pay, which is somewhat like à la carte. That, of course, is where viewers get to choose the channels they want to subscribe to. They also talk about making our own bundles.

I live in Gatineau while I'm here working in Ottawa, and Vidéotron already allows me, in Gatineau, to pick some of the channels that I want to watch, which is much appreciated.

Then, of course, CRTC also touched on the pre-made bundles that are the ones that exist right now.

They saw that these four elements really ought to be considered. But they are continuing their discussions and we will look forward to further instruction and advice from the CRTC. This is a tremendous move forward for our consumers. This is something they've been asking of all of us for some time, and I'm pleased to be part of a government that intends to provide them with that choice.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

All right, thank you very much.

Mr. Nantel, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I cannot help but feel that the question from my colleague opposite is very relevant.

As a result of signal variations, CBC/Radio-Canada is sometimes unavailable on a new generation digital television set. That causes major problems even in my colleague's region, the Gaspé Peninsula. The Radio-Canada people clearly have to make some tough choices.

I would like to encourage everyone and all those here who are interested in Radio-Canada—whether to help it or harm it—to listen to the interview that Mr. Lacroix gave to Jacques Beauchamp on the program Pas de midi sans info. Since CBC/Radio-Canada has always been a proud user of Internet and web platforms, it is very easy to find a rebroadcast of that program.

In that interview, Mr. Lacroix explained that his mandate is not to demand more money from the front pages of newspapers so that he can better carry out his mandate. And I do mean "better carry out his mandate". He told the program's listeners that it is parliamentarians' role to squabble over how much Canadians will pay.

I understand your position, of course. However, it is not true that Mr. Lacroix said he had enough money to carry out his mandate. He said he could do much better. In the circumstances, one might simply scratch one's head and say it would be better if he got a little more.

I understand why you quoted Mr. Lacroix, but a person can always be quoted out of context. If you listen to that interview, in which neither you nor I were there to question him, you will see that he clearly said what I just mentioned about all the Canadians who listened to the program. I encourage you to listen to it.

Now I will hand the floor over to my colleague Irene Mathyssen.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

May I answer that question?

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

Of course.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I would like to add something on that subject.

It is definitely true that no government department, organization or agency would say that it does not want any more money. They will all say they would like to have more.

We allocate significant funding to the CBC, which is enough for it to carry out its mandate under the Broadcasting Act.

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

That is what you say.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Lacroix himself said he had enough money to carry out his mandate. That is what I am saying. I am not claiming that the CBC or any other agency or organization would not like to have more money. However, we have to take taxpayers into consideration. The priority for them is the economy, jobs and the economic recovery.

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

I cannot help myself, Ms. Glover; I have to tell you that those taxpayers are also citizens.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

May I finish?

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

They are attached to the CBC, madam.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes.

Do you know that the significant funding I am talking about, $1.1 billion, represents the same amount as is available to my department for all the Canada Day festivals and celebrations? It is virtually the same as the amount my entire department has to distribute to all the communities across Canada to cover what they need for those celebrations.

It is a significant amount. We recognize the CBC's important role, but it receives enough money.

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

You are the one saying it.

I believe that Canada ranks 15^th among 18 countries. I have seen the list on the subject. Public funding per capita in Canada is $29. I do not really know what country comes after Canada, but then there is the United States, where the figure is $3.

Ms. Mathyssen, I hand the floor over to you.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to come back to the issue of access to television channels. I'm mystified, because in London, Ontario, there's no free air-to-air reception anymore. Everyone has to pay, and this caused a great deal of consternation. So I'm not convinced that people have access.

Second, I'm wondering if you would be willing to talk about other aspects of heritage—for example, the grants in regard to official languages. It's come to our attention that there's been a significant delay in terms of those grants, and our official languages are a profound and important part of the heritage of this country.

So, in terms of our access to television, and in terms of the delays to organizations in need of those official grants, I wonder, can you respond to that, Minister?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Sure. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions.

Just to be very clear, I was answering a question by Mr. Falk about unbundling. When I said unbundling is something that consumers and Canadians have been requesting for some time, that is in fact also what the CRTC was seeing when it did its review. So our intention, through the Speech from the Throne, is to provide them with that choice, and that's the question I answered.

With regard to the official languages, as you know, I went through French immersion in school. I am so proud to be someone who can speak both official languages, our national languages here in Canada, and I actually learned how to pronounce French words properly by listening to Radio-Canada, which is why I know the importance of Radio-Canada.

This is a $1.1 billion commitment. This Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages is a historic document that provides funding through a number of ministries so that Canadians can have the opportunities to have both official languages prominent in the things they do. We divided this road map into pillars: education, immigration, and communities. Many of them have envelopes of money through different ministries. In my own ministry, I also have funds through my direct ministerial programs that flow to our communities to enable them to provide the important programs that they do.

There is a process, though, to get the money out the door, meaning that we have to make sure that those proposals actually meet criteria, etc. It's actually through our deputy minister and her hard-working team at Heritage that they make sure those criteria are satisfied, and then the money flows. We have to ensure value for the dollar; we have to ensure that the money meets the envelope criteria; and so we are moving as quickly as possible, and the money is flowing. In fact, just the other day I signed 200 different program proposals to flow the money out to the communities. I can only work as quickly as I can, and I know how hard the Heritage public servants work. We'll continue to provide this historic funding because it's important. It's essential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

All right, thank you very much, Minister. On behalf of the committee I'd like to thank you for joining us today. We will briefly suspend while you pack up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

All right, I'll call the meeting back to order, so that we can continue our questioning with the deputy minister, Colleen Swords, and Robert Hertzog, director general.

We're going to go now to Mr. Weston for five minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I am pleased to put questions to you and to those who are here with you.

I am interested in your government's emphasis on the Pan American Games. The budget provides for an increase in funding to Canadian Heritage, which includes $71 million for those games. How will that funding be spent?

I do not know whether you can answer the next question, but I will ask it all the same. In addition to the Pan American Games as such, will that be good for the health of Canadians?