Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

We started to expand that. I know the Liberals have expanded it as well, and we are looking at trying to provide more Internet service at a higher speed to those areas across the country.

I just wanted to check with you again, Ms. Kennedy, and see if there was anything you wanted to conclude with in regard to the scheduling of those meetings—not so much where they are held and stuff, but the outcome you hope to obtain from them.

[Helen Kennedy]

Thank you.

The consultation, as you have no doubt realized, is pretty multi-faceted. It is broad in terms of content, but it is also multi-faceted in terms of ways of engaging people. There are the six in-person events that the minister will hold, and I believe three of those are also going to be on Facebook Live. Even if you are not in the room itself, you can have an opportunity to participate through Facebook Live.

The web portal is also there for Canadians to submit their ideas and so forth. There is also something called a consultation kit, which has been developed so that people can go out and organize their own consultations and then report back through the web portal. It's a way of spreading it out. We wanted to make it easy for people—MPs, interest groups—to engage Canadians, and to give them a tool, because there are many consultations happening. As you go out in your ridings or as creators or industry stakeholders do their thing, there is an easy way to engage Canadians and to get feedback on where this consultation should go.

In terms of what we are trying to achieve.... I know I was speaking incredibly quickly, because I was trying to get as much in as I could, and I thank you for indulging me in that. What I was really trying to do was give you the key points that are already in the government's consultation paper. It sets out a very high-level agenda for what we are trying to achieve overall. In that list of things, you may have noticed that the government says that Canadians “participate in our democracy by having access to high-quality news information and local content that reflects a diversity of voices and perspectives.”

I think this consultation process is relevant for you, certainly, because the local content issue is there, and the consultation process allows an opportunity for all Canadians to speak up on that aspect. As we noticed in the results from the pre-consultation online survey, Canadians thought that having access to local content was very important.

I think that's enough for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Mr. Nantel for the New Democrats.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today.

You appeared before the committee at the very beginning of our study to help set the stage for us.

We've heard many troubling comments. I think every member of this committee is trying to bring grist to the mill and consider the issues carefully. We're glad to know that you are reading the transcripts of these meetings and paying close attention.

We shouldn't lump all the issues together in the same basket. Regional media and media in general are having a revenue problem. Advertising is no longer what it used to be.

What's more, our cultural content is also suffering from a lack of visibility. You need only look on Netflix, under the Kids category, to see that. Of the nearly 600 choices listed, only 15 to 20 of them, at best, are Canadian. That's something we need to discuss. Products come and go, but overall, why is that the case?

It may have less to do with a lack of co-operation on Netflix's part than it does with the fact that our production and distribution system has been very carefully managed from a supply and demand standpoint. It's a very tightly woven system. Someone looking to make an audiovisual production will already know who will be distributing it in four years' time because that group has assumed the distribution costs and included them in the production budget. It's normal that Netflix not be involved, since the company wasn't there when these productions began. Netflix wasn't part of the system, and the rights of over-the-top service providers may not have even existed when the production was made.

Today, I'm glad we're talking about the revenues being lost by our local media. That's clearly the purpose of the study. It ties into the feeling of appreciation that every Canadian can experience when tuning in to their local media. Instead of being made to feel isolated and cut-off, they can feel that they are part of a real community that's being talked about, a community where life matters, whose young people and local businesses matter. That's a factor that comes into play.

Ms. Kennedy is here to talk about the consultations. I think there is a communication issue. I hope the government is going to say that recess is over. It has to stop for a minute and recognize the fact that we have a tightly knit system and that it's in everyone's best interest to protect it. I'd like for everyone to come and give their input and for no decisions to be made right away.

The past few months have felt like recess. The Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office made changes to its rating system, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission made changes to its evaluation of Canadian content, Shomi shut down because it wasn't profitable, the publications L'actualité and Châtelaine could be sold off, CBC is improvising, and the Canada Media Fund decided to post our content on YouTube for Canada's 150th anniversary.

An all-encompassing view of the big picture is needed, but doesn't exist. I would expect the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to take responsibility for that. But I was pleased that, in your presentation, Mr. Bernier, you referred to the study commissioned by Canadian Heritage and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED for short, because it's important. ISED paid no attention to the matter for 10 years, on the pretense that it was strictly a heritage issue. I'm glad it's now at the table.

Ms. Joly has often said that everything was on the table. In that case, then, can we bring everyone to the table? Many people have called me to say that they would like to participate but that they weren't invited to the meetings. Must they go through Ms. Guindon and Mr. Smith, submit a four-page brief, stand up at the microphone, and say what they have to say? That doesn't work.

As I see it, I have no choice but to put my faith in you and Ms. Joly. You are both professionals who have been doing a very good job for some time, but the fact remains that the situation is critical. I shouldn't be mistaken for some paranoid person who's afraid of thunder. The truth is that our system is in jeopardy. The cracks are showing, and people are taking advantage of that. Foreigners who view Canada as just another market to conquer are capitalizing on the cracks in our system. I understand that mentality since it's in their best interest; they have to answer to shareholders looking for a return on their investment.

Regardless, we have a system in place, and I'd like to know what the formal process is in order to get an invitation to the table. I'm not one of the ones who want to participate, but many stakeholders would like to know that everyone is at the table.

One of them is George Cope from Bell Canada. He's at the helm of a company we have always been very proud of, one that leverages the benefits of spectrum for its wireless business. He's a major player representing a key public company.

Pension funds are at stake. Everything is important. Bell isn't some monster, but a hugely important player. It nevertheless has a responsibility to Canadians. The same goes for the family of Ted Rogers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have two minutes, Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

There are major players, but everyone is affected, right down to the makeup artist on a music video production team. Everyone has a perspective. We're talking about an industry that represents a lot of people and a lot of jobs, one with a lot of visibility.

When will all those people have their say?

The consultation process is friendly enough when it comes to regular Canadians, but not when it comes to the big industry players. We aren't talking about museums or the arts. Everyone panicked when you first took the wheel. Many pointed to the fact that no artists were involved. We're talking about a culture-based industry, but that's not how it was presented. I think all the industry players want to have their voice heard. They must be heard.

Ms. Kennedy, I know it's a never-ending question, but I'm listening. Go ahead.

[Helen Kennedy]

I think I'll allow—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Kennedy, you have 30 seconds to respond. Thank you.

[Helen Kennedy]

Okay.

Obviously there is the web portal and the minister's Facebook Live events, but on top of that the department is having technical briefings with key stakeholders after the in-person sessions with the minister. There are different ways for us to engage the players. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, MP kits, your consultations, and those sorts of things will also allow it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

In this short period, having meetings with the minister, will this be known? Can we know who's going to meet with the minister to speak out? Can it be George Cope? Could it be the people of AQTIS in Montreal?

[Helen Kennedy]

Okay, so the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, you are well over seven minutes now. Thank you very much. Maybe Ms. Kennedy can try to fit that into the next question she gets.

Mr. Vandal is next.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bernier, in 2010, the publications assistance program became the Canada periodical fund.

In two or two-and-a-half minutes, can you tell me the fundamental difference between the two programs?

[Jean-François Bernier]

In 2010, the Canada periodical fund resulted from the merger of two existing funds: the Canada magazine fund and the mail subsidy program administered by Canada Post. Prior to that, the Canada Post assistance program totalled $80 million. In the 1980s, the program budget even hit $200 million. The purpose of the program was basically to subsidize home delivery.

In 2010, the two funds were merged, and the way they were administered was overhauled. The formula is now based on readership.

We're rewarding success at reaching readers, and—I'll conclude on that, since I think I still have 15 seconds—all the money can be used not just to pay for the posting of L'Actualité but to pay for your website, your expenses related to writing, and pictures—maybe not to buy a yellow bus—related to the business of a periodical.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

But the fact remains that official language minority communities are no longer recognized.

Isn't that right?

[Luc Marchand, Director, Periodical Publishing Policy and Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

The program criteria for minority language periodicals are actually less stringent. For example, to access the program currently, a publication has to have 5,000 copies sold, but, for minority language periodicals, that threshold is lowered to 2,500. That means we have made the program easier for them to access.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

When the programs were merged, did the new Canada periodical fund receive the same amount of money, more money, or less money?

[Jean-François Bernier]

It received the same amount as the year before the two programs were merged. Generally speaking, the funding allocated to the two former programs wasn't cut. They were merged, and the same amount was allocated, approximately $75 million.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Do you think that puts publications like La Liberté, in Saint-Boniface, at a disadvantage? Its readership is scattered all over the province. In such cases, the publication has to be mailed, and postage costs have gone up 60% over the past eight years. What are your thoughts on that?

[Luc Marchand]

In La Liberté's case, it did indeed lose funding when the two programs were merged. The figures show that. A large chunk of that decrease is due to the drop in subscribers. So, the lower the readership, the less funding the publication gets, as Mr. Bernier explained. But when you compare the former program, the publications assistance program, and the Canada periodical fund, the figures show that funding for French-language periodicals rose by about 30%.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Would you acknowledge that it's a no-win situation?

[Jean-François Bernier]

It's an issue.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Very well.

We can discuss it more later.

I have a very basic question that I realize I'm not sure on with regard to Canadian content. Maybe you can clarify. I think of Canadian content for radio and TV. Does Canadian content apply to newspapers as well?

[Luc Marchand]

In order to access the program, eligible publications must have at least 80% Canadian content.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Okay.

We've received a wide array of recommendations from witnesses.

There are all sorts of recommendations. Are you familiar with these? Could you comment on one of them, the Canada Media Fund, which funds digital content in television in both official languages?

There have been a few suggestions to include local news productions in being able to access the Media Fund. Could you comment on that?