Evidence of meeting #4 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
In the short term, what can we offer our media services, in terms of a lifeline? I'm not sure whether everyone is aware that conventional television networks don't receive cable carriage royalties. We're talking about an outdated system, so we won't be making any such investments. But it still exists.
Can we find a solution to that problem? Can we look at other ways of making money? Money is the problem.
Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
As we said, the CRTC's position is this. Nearly $4 billion in support is available to us, here in Canada, through various mechanisms. Within that amount, a number of supports are accessible, and we're exploring the need for a reorientation, to help a new segment, one that didn't traditionally have trouble but now does. It's important to look at the whole picture.
We are also trying to remove barriers to innovation. Funds and mechanisms are available. We want to remove barriers that may have prevented investment in digital media, as well as those that tied the creation of new programming to the broadcaster. Efforts are being made to look for and encourage change, while focusing on programming.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Earlier, we heard that industry-focused departments weren't doing much to help media services. And yet, a number of technological approaches could help them.
We've also heard from a number of people that protecting Canada's cultural diversity—our two official languages and our culture— essentially rests on you and the Department of Canadian Heritage, because that's not at all a consideration that matters to industry-focused departments or the Competition Bureau. That's something that is expected of you, is it not?
Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Indeed, we focus—
Liberal
Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
We focus on programming. We strive for a system that produces high-quality programming that will appeal to Canadians, regardless of the platform.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Ms. Dabrusin and Mr. Vandal, whoever goes first, you have only two and a half minutes each.
Thank you.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I was happy that you raised the speech given by Monsieur Blais at the Canadian Club. I want to ask about something he mentioned about a subsidy for news in one part of his speech. He referred to news reporting and government subsidies as strange bedfellows. He seemed to be pointing to different models for trying to improve funding for local news.
I was wondering if you could comment on what he was alluding to as he was going through that.
February 23rd, 2016 / 10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I know I introduced it in French in my speech. This is where I have to tread carefully, because those are matters that are in front of our commission for decision right now, but I'll try to find a way to help you in the answer.
Those are questions that we asked at this local hearing. There were a number of overarching questions. Certainly local news is important. There is a lot of money in the system. Should we be looking at changing it for local news purposes? There are some funds available for independent small market stations to support them doing local programming. A small fund does exist for that purpose.
We asked questions. Should we be expanding that fund? Should we be looking at a better redistribution of existing funds, taking some away from other areas that may be doing better and concentrating on and allowing funds to flow towards local news and information? To what end should we allow that and for what purpose? If we do go down that path, there will be important questions as to the quality of what can be funded or subsidized.
But we also—and this is where Mr. Blais' speech comes into play—have to ask ourselves the question about independence of news and information when a government entity involves itself in the production of news and information. I think that was the latter point he was making in that it is quite a struggle to, if we are to involve ourselves in news to this extent, how it should be done to ensure that proper independence and quality journalism are maintained.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I recognize that I am pretty much out of time.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Could I just ask for a question, perhaps, to be answered?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was reading the diversity of voices policy from 2008, which found a reasonable plurality of editorial voices in most local markets. But that is an eight-year-old report, and I was wondering if there has been an update on that, if that plurality is still found, and if that plurality includes gender and ethnic plurality as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
Mr. Hutton, perhaps we could get that response sent to the clerk so we can distribute it to all the members.
Thank you.
Mr. Vandal, you have two and a half minutes.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
My understanding is that until 2014, there was a local news improvement fund that was financed by a small levy on the broadcasters, and it was cancelled in 2014. Can you tell us why?
Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It wasn't local news; it was local programming. Although local programming often is news, it was....
That fund was introduced at a very trying time in the broadcast industry. We've talked a lot about advertising revenue being shared across multiple platforms. In 2008 there was a rather serious downturn in the economy, and there were television stations that were closing. Subsequently, as many of us learned, the major broadcasters were likely in a situation where they were in technical default, just in their own financial health.
That fund was brought into place to ensure the maintenance of local television stations during that particular period. It was also there to help them transition to digital, because digital broadcasting was becoming the new norm and there were changes to how we allocate spectrum in this country that they had to adapt to. It was very precise and it was put in place to help during that precise period.
When we removed the fund, essentially the fund had been successful in achieving those objectives, which was ensuring that the stations did not close, and it gave them time to recuperate from the economic downturn. So, the stated purposes had been achieved and those stated purposes were no longer required.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
There's a longer conversation there, but I don't have time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, now we're out of time.
I would like to thank the CRTC for being here today and for answering questions.
I have a question that I would love to ask you, but I think we're running out of time. I would like to ask you to please send the answer in writing. Now you are regulating broadcasting, radio-television, and telecommunications. Who is going to regulate, in terms of accuracy, the digital platforms? Anyone can put anything out there and nobody knows if it's accurate or if the quality is there. People read it and they buy it. The big question is how we regulate this. That's a huge question. Maybe you could send us an answer.
Thank you very much, Mr. Hutton.
Now I would like us to move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]