Canadian Heritage Committee on April 20th, 2015

[The Chair (Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC)), Conservative, Gord Brown]

Good afternoon, everyone. We will call to order meeting number 40 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We have appearing today the Honourable Shelly Glover, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, along with a couple of her officials: Graham Flack, the deputy minister, and Andrew Francis, the chief financial officer.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), today we will be studying the main estimates 2015-16, and we will vote on those. As well, we will study the subject matter of the supplementary estimates pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

To start the meeting, Minister, you have 10 minutes.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment to express how much I've appreciated coming to your committee, and I want to thank the committee members.

This may in fact be one of my last committee appearances, so I did want to wish you all the best and thank you again for being so great at looking at these studies with a full view and trying to do your very best to maintain support, as we have as the Government of Canada, for arts, culture, and heritage.

I'm pleased to be here today with our deputy minister and of course our department's chief financial officer. I'm going to discuss a number of things, including what the committee has asked me to discuss with regard to the main estimates.

The committee has asked me to speak about the main estimates for the Department of Canadian Heritage and portfolio organizations in 2015-2016.

Let me begin by giving you some of the highlights of the department's main estimates.

For the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the department's budget is $1.25 billion.

The department's budget includes $173.7 million in operating expenses and $1.06 billion in grants and contributions. In total, this year's main estimates represent a reduction of $135.4 million from last year. This is mainly due to the fact that we have contributed most of the $500 million we committed to the Toronto 2015 Pan Am and Parapan Am Games.

We will continue to provide funding for our cultural strategy for the Toronto 2015 Pan Am and Parapan Am Games. And we have allotted $16 million to various commemorative projects to celebrate our history and our heritage as part of the lead-up to the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017.

The road to 2017 presents a great opportunity to help Canadians learn more about their history and the events that helped shape our country. And our museums play a major role in that regard.

Let me mention two exhibitions. At the Canadian Museum of History, we have “1867—Rebellion and Confederation”, and at the Canadian War Museum, we have the “Royal Canadian Legion Hall of Honour”, presented until December 2017.

Since 2012 our government has encouraged Canadians to get to know and celebrate the many milestones on the road to the 150th anniversary of Confederation. This anniversary will be a time to celebrate all that makes Canada a remarkable country, including our rich history. It will also be the ideal time to think about the ways in which we can give back to our communities and make our country even stronger and more united.

We consulted Canadians on how they wanted to celebrate, and we listened to them. Our citizens' spirit of initiative and the ability of our communities to build connections with one another will play a significant role in the 2017 celebrations. Canada's 150th anniversary belongs to all of us, and, together, we will make it a momentous occasion.

Canadian Heritage will work with all government departments to get Canadians involved in the preparations of our country's anniversary. We will help bring people with great ideas and initiatives together with funding partners, so that everyone benefits. We will facilitate and support the efforts of Canadians to organize celebrations in their communities.

To increase awareness as we approach 2017, we have launched a number of projects, celebrations and commemorations.

And over the next two years, we want all Canadians to learn even more about this country's history and be proud of our shared heritage. Next year, we will support commemorative activities for several historical events.

We're also helping raise awareness of important milestones. For example, in 2014 we created media messages to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences. These were the conferences that led to Confederation. These messages were presented on television, on the web, and on social media. In fact, the Fathers of Confederation campaign had a reach of 48 million through social media counts, and videos for the campaign were viewed more than 480,000 times.

We have also highlighted other important events in our history. For example, in 2013 we marked the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 and the battle for Canada with the erection of a commemorative monument.

In 2014, we marked the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War.

And this year, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald, the very first prime minister of Canada, and the 150th anniversary of our national flag.

We are committed to our youth as well. With a budget of $17.7 million, the Exchanges Canada program is providing almost 12,500 young people with opportunities to learn more about Canada, connect with one another, and appreciate the diversity and shared aspects of the Canadian experience.

Also, on the road to 2017, we are celebrating our identity as a leading sport nation. As you know, 2015 has been declared the “Year of Sport” here in Canada. As you will note, we will be hosting a number of very important international sport competitions across the country. I hope you'll all take part.

The Year of Sport in Canada got off to an exciting start as Canada hosted the World Junior Hockey Championships. Other important moments in the Year of Sport are coming, such as the FIFA Women's World Cup from June 6 to July 5, the Pan American Games from July 10 to July 26 and the Parapan Am Games from August 7 to 15 in Toronto.

The Toronto 2015 Games will showcase our country's excellence in sport and leave a lasting legacy. They will also create economic, cultural and community development opportunities for southern Ontario and beyond.

The FIFA Women's World Cup also will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for our athletes, as well as for the host city. As a former women's soccer player and soccer coach, and of course as a proud Winnipegger, I'm looking forward to this event especially because some of it is going to be played in my home city of Winnipeg, but Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal, and Moncton will also be enjoying this wonderful sport.

I encourage all Canadians to take part in the games and all sport events and to cheer on our athletes.

During the Year of Sport, we want to encourage people of all ages and abilities and communities across the country to get involved in sport at all levels, because sport and physical activity keep us healthy, as individuals and as members of communities. We want to celebrate all aspects of our great country as we approach our 150th anniversary—our history, our heritage, and also our thriving arts and culture scene.

Arts, culture, and heritage represent close to $50 billion every year in the Canadian economy and over 647,000 jobs across the country.

Our artists, creators, and performers are our pride. Their talent enriches our daily lives and enhances our country's reputation abroad.

Manitoba alone has produced such well-known artists as Daniel Lavoie—who Quebec adopted—and of course Chic Gamine, who come from my own riding. My province and my city are also home to a world-class symphony orchestra, which was invited to perform an all-Canadian program at Carnegie Hall in New York City last year.

Our commitment to arts and culture remain strong. Last year, we made funding permanent for programs supporting arts and culture. In the 2015-2016 main estimates, aside from Canadian Heritage, the portfolio organizations are receiving $1.8 billion in appropriations. The Canada Council for the Arts, for instance, receives $182 million. This includes the permanent renewal of an investment of $5 million per year.

We support Canada's creative sectors and we recognize the significant cultural and economic contributions they make. For example, in the audiovisual industry, we provide approximately $95 million to Telefilm Canada and close to $60 million to the National Film Board.

We're also proud of our musical sector. Canada is the third-largest exporter of musical talents in the world and the seventh-largest market in the world for recorded music. The Canada music fund gives Canadians and the rest of the world better access to Canadian music. In an average year, the fund helps support over 400 album production projects and 1,100 marketing, touring, and showcasing initiatives.

I am also delighted with the success of our audiovisual sector. Every year, we invest more than $660 million through Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board, Canada Media Fund and through tax credit programs. In 2013-2014, we disbursed $134.1 million through the Canada Media Fund, which has been renewed permanently.

Our support has resulted in some impressive successes. I have had the pleasure of participating in the presentation of the Juno Awards this year, as well as the Canadian Screen Awards, the ADISQ Gala and the Jutra Gala. I saw how much talent this country has, not only in music, but in theatre, visual art and film and video production.

In the fields of arts and culture, Canadians have a lot of choices. And I believe that it should also be true of their access to television.

Of course, we all know that in October of 2013 the Speech from the Throne reiterated our government's belief that “Canadian families should be able to choose the combination of television channels they want.” We said that we would “require channels to be unbundled”. Our commitment to providing Canadians with greater channel choice is just part of our government's plan to take action to ensure greater choice and competition that benefits consumers.

Canadians know that a consumers-first approach is good for everyone. Following the Speech from the Throne, the CRTC launched its Let's Talk TV review of the Canadian television system, a conversation with Canadians so as to examine the televison system in Canada. Our government wants to ensure that the television system fosters choice and flexibility in channel selection, encourages the creation of compelling and diverse programs, and empowers Canadians to make informed choices and have recourse in the case of disputes with their television service providers.

At our request, the CRTC produced a report last April on how to improve Canadian consumers' access to pay and specialty television services on a pick-and-pay basis. After a public process, the CRTC has now put forward the framework to require the industry to provide Canadians with more choice, including an affordable entry-level basic service and the ability to design their own television packages. Our government is pleased that the CRTC has taken into account the views of Canadian consumers in their recent decisions of March 19.

This decision is an important step toward ensuring Canadian consumers enjoy choice and flexibility in their television services. Our government will monitor the implementation of these measures, and we call on all industry players to deliver the choice Canadians deserve as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, our government has accomplished a great deal in recent years to strengthen our arts and cultural sector, ensure an effective sport system and encourage Canadians to appreciate their history and heritage by learning more about it. We have many initiatives planned between now and 2017, and I am delighted about that.

I would now be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll now go to questions. We'll go to Mr. Young for seven minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for appearing before the committee today to discuss the budget measures for Canadian Heritage.

I want to talk a bit about unbundling. For years I have discussed this with my constituents, who have come to me and asked why they have to pay for all these channels that they don't want. I have constituents who are interested in sports and news, and other constituents who are interested in watching old movies and arts and entertainment. I've never had a good answer for them. I'm thinking of the channels that I don't watch, of course, because sometimes it's a little annoying when you switch the channels and end up with something you don't want. For instance, I never watch the Shopping Channel, although I do respect people who watch the Shopping Channel.

I've never had an answer for my constituents before now, so I was really pleased to see the CRTC's announcement that they're unbundling television channels. I wonder if you could comment on how this will affect Canadian consumers.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much for the question.

I have to agree. As this was all unfolding, that was a very common response that I received from different Canadian consumers who didn't understand why they had to pay for channels they didn't want in order to get the ones they did want. That is why we asked the CRTC to look at ways of implementing unbundled channels. That's what they've done. They've reported back to us on how they're going to do this.

How will this affect consumers? First of all, in their decision, the CRTC made sure to indicate that there is going to be a choice, but also that there is going to be a variety of choices. They insisted on focusing on a couple of different options. For example, the pick-and-pay option would basically unbundle all of the channels. They hope that will be available across the board. In fact, they're saying that it must be available across the board.

They're also cognizant of the fact that some people will want to build their own packages, so they'd like to see some form of building your own package. Also, then, there are some who are content with packages that are already available, and the CRTC was clear that for those who want that choice, it should be available as well. The very last thing is that the CRTC felt that the basic television service was so large that they wanted to offer what's now called the “skinny basic”—just the basics.

We're going back to what used to exist, frankly, and I think it's a good step. Consumers don't want to waste time looking for what they want on television. They want to pick only the things they enjoy watching. This plan will give them not only choice in television channels but choice in the amount of money they budget for television every single month. It is up to them to decide what they want to pay for. I think this is great news for consumers. Frankly, it's been a long time coming. I'm proud that the government ordered the CRTC to look at this.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Minister, could you expand a little on your comment about the cost to consumers? We don't have any numbers yet, as far as I know, on what it might cost for the skinny basic or if you buy one of the packages. Do you have any idea?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

This is something that we will have a better view of as the providers roll out their different plans, but the bottom line is that when status quo packages were offered by the provider with no exceptions allowed, there was no choice at all in cost. Even if consumers didn't want the 102 channels offered by a particular provider—maybe they only wanted 20—they didn't have the choice to pay less and they didn't have the choice to get fewer channels.

This is in fact a good thing for consumers, because they get to pick what exactly they're going to be able to watch. The skinny basic itself is going to be very reasonable. The CRTC has suggested $25 through its report to us, and I think that's pretty reasonable. I can't remember the last time that I've had a $25 bill for television access. I have five children, and I can tell you that there are a lot of options they don't agree on. Boy, would I have appreciated that $25 over the last several years.

Once again, the cost will be up to the consumer.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

In my riding of Oakville, about 60% of the people live in Oakville and work somewhere else so they don't have a lot of time to watch TV. They want to watch the news or they want to get their information, so that's very helpful.

There are also a lot of home businesses in Oakville. I operated a home business from about 2000 to 2006. I was the only employee, so my computer was my lifeline to the world. I remember getting junk emails and spam. It got very bad. It wasted a tremendous amount of my time. My accountant asked me what my time was worth, so at that point I attached to it a figure of $200 an hour. I figured out that I was wasting $800 a week dealing with spam, downloading programs to keep spam out of my computer, and then managing those programs as well as the cost of the programs. There was a considerable cost, and primarily of my own time, when I could be out finding new business or serving my clients.

In the main estimates, there's a line item for the CRTC that includes $0.1 million related to email spam reporting. Could you please comment on what that funding is for?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thanks for the question.

It's another example of some of the efforts of this government to ensure consumers have the best possible options available to them. One thing we've heard about many times, as you've just said, is that consumers have been receiving a lot of spam emails. This is email they're not asking for and email they don't want, so we as the government passed anti-spam legislation, which included some requirements to monitor. As a result, the CRTC in fact will have some responsibility. The line item in the main estimates with regard to the CRTC will go towards a reporting centre to help protect Canadians from unsolicited emails. They'll also help with spyware and malware and that kind of thing.

This is a common complaint that many of us are aware of as members of Parliament. People like to share these opinions with us, so we're delivering on this aspect of consumer choice and protecting consumers, and once again we're very proud to do so.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

We'll now go to Monsieur Nantel for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Glover, for having come to meet with us. There are a lot of topics we wish to discuss with you.

If you have no objection, we are going to set aside the matters regarding consumers in order to talk about heritage. I would of course like to discuss Radio-Canada with you.

The media often say that Radio-Canada executives would like to move into smaller premises. This is true across the country, but in Montreal more particularly, the Maison de Radio-Canada is going to reduce the space it occupies by approximately two-thirds if the forecasts are correct. We are talking about a real estate project, and its various phases will apparently cost over $4 million, an amount which must be approved by cabinet under subsection 48(2) of the Broadcasting Act.

As Minister of Canadian Heritage, you are responsible for the application of this act. Consequently, I have a few questions for you.

In light of the very specific information I am asking for, I would ask that your staff or yourself submit the answers to these questions in writing to this committee as quickly as possible. Of course, we are aware that it is normal for a public broadcaster to modernize its technical equipment. That said, it is relevant to ensure that we are not seeing, rather, a liquidation of its assets which will diminish its production capacity proportionally.

Here are my five questions.

First of all, is Radio-Canada divesting itself of technical equipment as we speak? Could you provide this committee with its inventory as well as the assessed value of what has been sold by the management of Radio-Canada since 2008?

Secondly, could you let us know what will happen to the archives, photographs in particular as well as the Radio-Canada audio and video documents, for instance the documents contained in its library, sheet music, or any other document of value?

Thirdly, has Library and Archives Canada been involved in this project, in compliance with section 16 of the Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada?

Fourth, how is Radio-Canada disposing of its assets? We were told in the past that the Treasury Board Secretariat was doing it through crown assets, but that this was no longer the case today.

Fifth, what procedure should Radio-Canada follow in such a case?

I am giving the five questions to our clerk. We would very much appreciate your specific replies to these questions as soon as possible.

I would now like to talk about Radio-Canada buildings.

As I said earlier, Radio-Canada has to obtain cabinet authorization for any real property transaction of more than $4 million. Take for example the Radio-Canada tower on René-Lévesque Boulevard in Montreal. The P3 project we have heard about more or less triggered the costume-related crisis. This led 25,000 people to demonstrate in the streets of Montreal, mainly for the three reasons, which I will explain.

Claiming that there had been a $60,000 deficit over two years, which is all in all quite small, the operations of this costume resource were shut down. This speaks to a very cavalier attitude and a carelessness with regard to the heritage value of this wealth of costumes, and of course to negligence regarding the role Radio-Canada is supposed to play, in the cultural community in particular, to further creation in arts and theatre. The costume repository was clearly an important resource for the entire cultural milieu when it needed costumes. I am speaking here of theatre, film and television.

We are happy to learn that a group seems to want to acquire all of the costumes. That is good news for us. However, may we hope that the Maison de Radio-Canada and CBC will host this group that will manage the inventory? Canadians would certainly want Radio-Canada to remain a concrete point of convergence for all resources and talents, as regards heritage or the dissemination of culture in Montreal.

To conclude, I would like a situation report on the acceptance of the P3 project with regard to the Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

It goes without saying that I understand the role Radio-Canada plays very well. With regard to your first questions, we are going to do our best to provide the answers as quickly as possible.

Regarding the decisions made by Radio-Canada, you would know very well that concerning several of them, the government is not involved. Radio-Canada is responsible for its own daily decisions. Some of your questions, Mr. Nantel, should be addressed to Mr. Hubert Lacroix and to the members of his team. They manage these files. They released their strategy in 2014, but they also said in 2011 that their strategy involved selling certain buildings. So those questions would be better addressed to them.

PPP Canada is an organization at arm's length from the government. Even though it comes under the Department of Finance, it is independent. That is why any question regarding the P3s should be addressed directly to that organization.

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

Thank you, Madam Minister.

In other words, when the first question regarding Radio-Canada's obligation to seek cabinet approval has been answered, you will be able to answer all of these other questions. Currently, Canadians are concerned about the big fire sale at Radio-Canada, for a total amount that would need validation and approval from cabinet.

I would also like to talk to you about the recent CRTC decisions. As administrator of the Broadcasting Act you must certainly know that section 5(2) says the following:

The Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that

(a) is readily adaptable to the different characteristics of English and French language broadcasting and to the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings [...] operate;

Do you recognize that the implementation of recent CRTC decisions by that organization do not take the realities of the Canadian francophonie into account in the least, particularly in Quebec? Many people have in fact raised the issue, and I have written to you on this topic.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

As I said in my reply letter, and as I mentioned repeatedly, some decisions are not governmental. Of course, the CRTC has obligations to both official languages, as do the government and other federal organizations. When it comes to Radio-Canada, I am convinced, as Hubert Lacroix had said, that the needs of minority language communities and of francophones throughout the country are taken into account.

The CRTC is authorized to monitor what Radio-Canada does regarding official languages, and that component is at the heart of its mandate. It would never have received a licence if it had not made efforts to demonstrate that it was fulfilling its mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

Mr. Dion, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Madam Minister, Mr. Francis and Mr. Flack.

First I would like to wish you good luck regarding the new developments in your professional life next fall. I may be mistaken, but I believe this is the last time you will be appearing before this committee. I wanted to say that you have my best wishes and I hope you will be very happy.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I would like to go back to what Mr. Nantel was saying about the sale of the Radio-Canada tower.

According to what I understand, as we speak or in the next few days, if this has not been done already, the consortium's proposal will be presented. There is only one consortium involved now, and this is worrying, because it undermines the competition element that could lead to an interesting purchase offer for the tower, both from the perspective of the consortium or from the perspective of Radio-Canada, regarding the sale.

CBC/Radio-Canada has to evaluate the consortium's offer, but this may take all summer. Afterwards, if the offer is accepted, Radio-Canada will negotiate with the City of Montreal to firm up approval of the project, and this could take us to the winter of 2017. A lot of energy is being poured into this.

What is being said at Radio-Canada and elsewhere is that it would be more rational to obtain prior authorization from Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In other words, once Radio-Canada has done its assessment and determined whether it likes things or not, the government would immediately give its opinion and say whether it agrees with that evaluation. This is not interference, since in the final analysis you will have have to give an opinion because this is an expenditure of over $4 million. This would be a very rational way of doing things, to avoid having the City of Montreal and Radio-Canada spend close to two years negotiating something that may not receive government approval. I think this needs to be determined right from the beginning.

Do you think, as I do, that it would be preferable that your government provide prior authorization in the fall before the City of Montreal and Radio-Canada undertake these negotiations?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

First of all, a procedure is in place. You both talked about the details of those negotiations. The government cannot make decisions, actually, without knowing those details. It cannot express an opinion about a request if there is no request. As you said, the consortium is presently in negotiations. At one point, there was more than one consortium. The details of the negotiations are changing. Until the government has received all the information on the matter, it cannot make a decision. Frankly, it would be irresponsible of a government to take a position with letting those involved in the negotiations do their jobs. That is what we are waiting for. As soon as we have all the information, we will come to a decision.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

You will have all the information by the end of the summer. The consortium will have put its offer on the table and the CBC will have considered the offer. Before starting discussions with the city, so that the project fits in with the city's development—and that could take years because we are talking about an entire neighbourhood—the government would be able to grant pre-approval at that point. It is within your power to do that. It is not interference; you will have to decide whether to grant pre-approval or not. My suggestion would be to do so. Do not let the city and the CBC negotiate something that perhaps would not have your support.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I am told that the process is moving forward well. When I have all the details, it will be my responsibility to make a decision. However, I will not do so before I have all those details. I know that the negotiations are going well. There may be changes before it all comes to my desk. In my opinion, it would be irresponsible to make a decision without having all the details.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Let me suggest this. At the end of the summer, the CBC will decide whether it is accepting the consortium's proposal. You should decide in advance whether or not you will be allowing negotiations with the city, so that people do not waste their time for a couple of years.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Personally, I need to see all the details. It is like saying—

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

You will see whether or not you want to grant pre-approval.