HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 22, 2001

• 0901

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): It being nine o'clock, I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2),

[Translation]

to continue our review of the Canadian broadcasting system.

[English]

All of us are extremely conscious and know that the CRTC, as licensor and regulator, plays a huge role in the broadcasting system and indeed within the Broadcasting Act, which is a purview of this committee. It's very fitting that the CRTC should be our first witnesses today, following the minister and the officials of the ministries of both industry and heritage last week.

We are extremely pleased to welcome Mr. David Colville, the chairman of the CRTC,

[Translation]

Ms. Andrée Wylie, Vice-Chair, Broadcasting, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Executive Director, Broadcasting.

[English]

Mr. Colville, the floor is yours.

Mr. David Colville (Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for your invitation to appear before you today.

As you have indicated, but for the record, my name is David Colville, and I am the chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. With me are Andrée Wylie, the CRTC's vice-chair of broadcasting, and Jean-Pierre Blais, executive director, broadcasting.

We will provide you with an overview of how the commission has implemented the objectives of the 1991 Broadcasting Act through its policy development and its role in guiding the broadcasting industry to its current successful state. Since the last update of the Broadcasting Act in 1991, change has been a dominating theme. All stakeholders have been confronted by rapid changes ranging from those in ownership and industry structure to technological development and globalization.

Throughout this era of rapid transformation, the CRTC has been and continues to be flexible and adaptive in the face of change. The flexibility provided in the Broadcasting Act has allowed the commission to amend its policies and regulations to reflect the changing landscape. Our ongoing public dialogue on broadcasting issues clearly reveals that Canadians want to see themselves and their experiences reflected back to them.

The commission has recently enunciated the strategic objectives that will guide its policy development and decision-making in broadcasting. At the core of the objectives is the continuing theme of choice and diversity for Canadians while maintaining a strong Canadian presence. The objectives call for the delivery of a broad range of services in both analog and digital and the promotion of services that reflect Canadian values.

• 0905

[Translation]

Ms. Andrée P. Wylie (Vice-Chair, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): During the past few years, the CRTC has used the flexibility in the act to undertake comprehensive reviews of all of its major policies and regulations covering distribution, radio and television. New policies covering areas from ethnic broadcasting to digital specialty services have also recently been introduced to reflect the changing demographics in Canadian society and technological change. The results are now taking hold and have produced positive effects.

The Commission heard renewal applications for the CBC radio and TV networks in May of 1999. It was an opportunity for the public broadcaster to present a comprehensive strategy and for the CRTC to assess the role of the CBC within the Canadian broadcasting system.

In its decisions, the Commission emphasized the essential role the Corporation plays in providing high-quality Canadian programming that informs and entertains.

The Commission took the view that, in a period of fiscal uncertainty, the CBC should devote all available resources to the existing radio and TV services rather than expand into new ventures.

We encouraged CBC radio, both English and French, to extend their radio services so that a majority of each language group will receive these services throughout the country. The CBC has responded to this request and is currently expanding the reach of all its radio networks.

[English]

Mr. David Colville: The commission's revised policy for commercial radio had three major objectives: pride of place for Canadian artists, a strong French language presence in radio, and a well-financed radio industry that is better poised to meet the objectives of the act.

To reflect the increased availability of Canadian artists, the commission increased the required levels of Canadian music to 35% of all popular music selections. To place this in perspective, before the commission introduced regulated minimums for Canadian music in 1971, radio stations were playing approximately 2% Canadian selections.

In the early to mid-1990s the commercial radio industry was in financial trouble and lagging behind other media in growth. In response, the commission removed advertising constraints and relaxed most of the programming format and content regulations. Furthermore, with the new radio policy the commission developed a model that allowed for further consolidation in markets while balancing our concerns for preserving a diversity of news voices and for maintaining competition.

The results of these changes and the economies of scale realized from consolidation are shown on the slide. Revenues and profits both increased throughout the 1990s, and the industry is once again effectively competing against other media.

In order to encourage competition and choice and to balance the revised ownership restrictions, the new radio policy included measures that promoted the entry of new ownership into the system. The result has been numerous licensing processes for new FM stations in markets across Canada. Fully 39 of the 44 licences issued from these processes have been awarded to smaller players or new entrants in the system, bringing diversity such as new aboriginal and multicultural programming.

The radio industry continues to take advantage of the revised ownership guidelines, and as a result transfer benefits have totalled $51.4 million from the introduction of the policy in 1998 until July 2001. The transfer benefits are used to develop emerging Canadian talent.

[Translation]

Ms. Andrée Wylie: In the 1999 TV policy, the Commission decided to review the licences of major television chains as a group. Broadcasters will submit a comprehensive strategic plan for all of their stations.

One of the advantages to this approach is that it allows the Commission to more accurately review and compare licensees on a national basis and to apply regulatory obligations in an equitable manner between the groups.

• 0910

The larger groups, CTV, Global and TVA, were required to provide eight hours a week of Canadian priority programs in peak viewing periods. The requirements for priority programs created more airtime for Canadian productions and established new incentives to air quality Canadian drama.

As shown on the slide, viewing of Canadian English-language programs as a percentage of all English programs is up in 2000, reaching 33%. When the 1991 Broadcasting Act was adopted, viewing was at 29%. With the increasing availability of foreign services in the Canadian broadcasting system over the past decade, it has been a challenge to even maintain the viewing levels of Canadian programs.

Viewing of French-language Canadian programs, as compared to all French programs, has remained high, above 75%. As a result, the regulatory challenge for Canadian television continues to be with English programming.

Consolidation has also been occurring in the television business. Since June 1999, the tangible transfer benefits used to further the objectives of the act have totalled $429 million. This represents 10% of the value of each transaction.

The bulk of these benefits has been directed at quality priority programming.

Total expenditures on Canadian programs by television licensees in the system continue to increase. The spending on Canadian programs by conventional TV and specialty services was over $1.5 billion in 2000. The growth is coming primarily from the expanding pay and specialty sector.

The CRTC has introduced new Canadian programming genres and outlets for Canadian expression, new ownership, more programming diversity and choice into the broadcasting system through the licensing of pay and specialty services.

The growth this sector of the system has achieved in audience share, revenues and cultural contributions has been truly a success story in Canadian broadcasting.

This slide compares the growth in revenues for both English conventional and pay and specialty services. As shown in 1991, English pay and specialty revenues were only 25% of the revenues of conventional TV. In 2000, their revenues were close to 70% of the conventional sector.

The size of the French market has not allowed for the same level of licensing of new French-language specialty services, but as shown on the slide, their growth in revenues has more than tripled since 1991.

[English]

Mr. David Colville: This brings us to the emerging landscape, the digital age. Once again, the CRTC adapted to new times with its January 2000 policy framework on the licensing of new Canadian digital pay and specialty services. The policy used technology to further the objectives of the act by promoting a new wave of multicultural and minority language services. The commission's adaptive policy framework took a further step in promoting increased competition with the licensing of new digital services. This means that instead of the CRTC choosing the best services, more options would be presented to consumers. The market would determine the success or failure of programming ventures.

Approximately 80% of Canadian households continue to receive their television services from licensed distributors. As such, Canadian distributors play a pivotal role in achieving the objectives of the act. In 1993 the commission issued a structural public notice that introduced new distribution policies and recognized the development of digital technology and the potential for addressability and further competition in distribution. The commission's structural public notice also laid the foundation and provided the initial funding for what is now the Canadian Television Fund.

• 0915

In January 1998 the new regulations for program distribution came into effect. They were designed to be a comprehensive new approach to the regulation of all distribution undertakings and to provide consumers with the option of choosing services from among competing distributors. The system now includes two licensed direct-to-home satellite distributors and other competitors. Both Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice have seen rapid expansion and have given Canadians an alternative to cable.

This slide outlines the evolution of competition in distribution. In 1997 cable had basically 100% of the basic subscribers. As of October 2001, new entrants had captured approximately 18% of the market.

In 1998 the CRTC adopted a flexible approach for distributors to meet their obligations under the act to contribute to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming. The new regulations require that each distributor contribute 5% of its gross broadcasting revenues to Canadian programming funds and/or the community channel.

As shown, in the broadcast year ending August 2000, distributors contributed over $86 million to the Canadian Television Fund, as well as over $11 million to other programming funds. The strong annual growth in the contributions is clear from the slide. Furthermore, in the 2000 broadcast year cable distributors expended an additional $80 million on the operation of the local community channel.

The increased capacity to carry programming services as a result of the new digital environment allowed the CRTC to offer more choice to consumers in 2001 by adding another 19 programming services to the list of eligible foreign satellite services. The current list includes some 95 foreign programming services available to distributors to provide choice to their subscribers, as compared to a list of 20 services available in 1991.

In 1999 the CRTC became one of the first regulators in the world to express its position on new media. The commission concluded that regulating the Internet would not be necessary to further the broadcasting policy objectives of the act. The issue can be reviewed again in 2004, when the effect of subsequent changes in the broadcasting landscape can be considered.

Consolidation and convergence in Canada's broadcasting environment is also part of a much larger international trend to mass media concentration and cross-media ownership. The commission attempted to strike a balance between the needs of industry and the concerns of the public about the growing concentration of media ownership and a balance between the benefits of strong players creating more Canadian programming and the need for a diversity of voices. The commission used safeguards in cautiously supporting the mergers. For example, we imposed conditions on owners that they avoid a complete amalgamation of their news services.

[Translation]

The Commission continues to challenge broadcasters to act responsibly with respect to violence, gender portrayal and to make programming accessible to the hearing and visually impaired.

The CRTC invites comments from the public on essentially all of the applications it receives and all policy issues before making a decision. Facilitating input from all interested parties is fundamental to the transparency of CRTC decision-making.

The Commission has extended the signal of the TVA network and French-language specialty services to all Canadians to ensure that francophones have programming options in their official language regardless of where they decide to live.

The Commission has licensed and provided adequate financial resources to a national network reflecting aboriginal culture, a first in the world.

We have licensed a wide variety of ethnic services for radio and TV and other applications are pending.

• 0920

The Commission will continue to look for ways to increase the number of outlets to supply ethnic programming.

We also recently introduced measures to distribute the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees across Canada, in both official languages.

Ensuring that the broadcasting system reflects the local and regional concerns of Canadians is a priority for the Commission.

We believe that more can be done to encourage new local voices and choices—particularly in television. We are currently developing new policies to facilitate the entry of more community- based media into the system. An increase in the opportunities for community groups to participate in the broadcasting system is one means to balance the consolidation of, and the growth in, the large national broadcasters.

The provision of local programming by the existing conventional TV stations, particularly in small markets, is an issue for the Commission. We currently have a policy process in place to examine the impact that DTH is having on small market broadcasters and ultimately the impact on the provision of local programming.

[English]

This committee will play a pivotal role in setting the stage for development of some broad agreed-upon principles and long-term goals to meet the challenges facing all the players in the broadcasting system of tomorrow.

New technologies and increasing globalization present both challenges and opportunities for new regulatory approaches to achieve cultural and societal goals. Technology will enable us to showcase more Canadian talent at home and abroad. It is more important now than ever to ensure our focus is on the promotion of Canadian culture and values.

We have been able to accomplish much with the existing legislative framework, but we are open to and welcome change to improve the system. The challenges are daunting, but we want to assure the committee members of our complete cooperation and commitment in supporting your task.

The CRTC's goal is to retain and improve upon the broadcasting system and ensure it remains a model for the world.

Thank you for your time and attention. We will be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Colville and Mrs. Wylie, for an extremely useful overview of your work for the committee. We really appreciate it. I'd like to open the meeting to questions.

Mr. Abbott will be first, followed by Madam Gagnon.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses as well for appearing before us. It helps us to come to an understanding of the CRTC, I'm sure.

I'd like to read just a small section of an editorial, and I would like your comment on it:

First, to protect French speakers against music they might actually enjoy, the CRTC requires French FM music stations to play music with French lyrics 65% of the time. The CRTC just renewed the licence of CKBY-FM in Ottawa for only 15 months instead of the standard seven years, and threatened it with contempt of court if it didn't mend its ways after the station dared to play hits 51.3% of the time during the week of May 9 to 15. Fortunately, no fatalities were reported from the exposure of the listeners to as many as 22 excess popular songs in one week, but the CRTC nonetheless pronounced itself gravely concerned.

CKBY says it's sorry and it won't happen again, but it all happened because it had the wrong top-40 chart. Apparently the CRTC, in 1997, changed its definition of a hit from something that had ever been in the top 40 on certain defined hit charts, to something that had only been on before 1980.

There's also an exception for Canadian hits, which arrives not with a bullet, but with a new year. To avoid discouraging the playing of Canadian music that has become popular despite the best efforts of government, the rule says a Canadian song that gets into the top 40 doesn't become a hit for a full year thereafter.

We're at a point where people are able to listen to whatever they choose, from satellites or even off the air, with better devices to receive signals. Isn't a little bit arcane for the CRTC to be meddling and basically censoring at that level? Is that really the future of the CRTC?

• 0925

Mr. David Colville: Let me provide a bit of a general comment, and then I'll ask Vice-Chair Wylie to comment on the French vocal music aspect, which was the lead-in on that.

If we're going to have a system to deal with ensuring that a certain amount of Canadian content is on the radio or on television, we're going to have to put some rules in place. These rules are often referred to as Canadian content rules, although we don't really get into the content of the program itself. It's rather a content rule to measure the relative amount of Canadian programming we have.

In the particular case of radio and the question of hits, it was a case that as we moved from AM radio to FM, a set of rules was put in place to try to ensure the new FM technology didn't sort of blow away or wipe out the AM radio operators over time. So we tried to put in place some rules that would constrain, to some extent, the FM operators, to ensure the AM operators would be able to survive.

Over time we're seeing AM adapt to the marketplace and largely move to more of a talk format. Many of the AM stations moved to FM. So I suppose that from time to time some of these rules look arcane. I mentioned in the presentation that we made some major changes to our FM policy to allow radio operators to be more flexible and adapt more to the marketplace. We're continually looking at these sorts of rules and adjusting them to allow operators to be more responsive to their consumers.

I'll have Vice-Chair Wylie comment on the French vocal music issue.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: On the second issue, Mr. Abbot, maybe arcane is a good word in this case. It is in fact, to follow up on Mr. Colville, to protect the oldies style of programming on AM, for those who have AM frequencies and have to compete with FM. It is applied only in the greater Ottawa area, to protect those stations that play old hits. Apart from that, the hits definition has disappeared. So it is for those who like oldies. Whether they're arcane or not, I don't know.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If I may suggest, it seems clear to me the CRTC, in this one example—and there are many more—is prepared to fundamentally censor what is on the air. In other words, you are involved in a role of censorship in terms of what kind of music is on the air. We've just established that.

You say you want to encourage communications services that reflect Canadian values and are responsive to consumer needs. I'd like to suggest to you that if you're prepared to censor certain music in the rather obtuse way we've just described, perhaps you also might want to consider the censorship of pornography and violence that's currently not just creeping in but flooding into stations, particularly television stations, available to the Canadian public.

I wonder if you would agree with me that those really extreme pornographic appearances don't reflect Canadian values. Perhaps I'm rather old-fashioned, I don't know, but I don't think they reflect Canadian values.

What is the CRTC prepared to do? If you're prepared to censor lyrics and the type of music, why would you not be prepared to censor the type of programming that depicts women, in particular, as objects, as opposed to their rightful and justified place in society?

Mr. David Colville: First of all, I wouldn't accept that we censor music. We have limits on the certain amount of Canadian programming that radio stations can play, and as we've just discussed, certain types of music, whether it's FM or AM, and so on. That's largely been to help the various elements of the industry survive.

• 0930

On the issue of pornographic programming, most of it, if not all of it, that I'm aware of is on pay television services that individuals have to subscribe to on an individual basis. We have codes that have been put in place to deal with issues such as pornography and violence on television.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has largely been doing an excellent job of dealing with complaints with respect to those issues. From time to time the codes will be breached, and when we become aware of that we deal with it. In the particular case of the pornography issue you raise, which became a concern earlier this year, once we became aware of the problem, it was dealt with expeditiously by us and by the services offering it.

The Chair: We'll come back, Mr. Abbott.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon, you have the floor.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you.

I'm pleased to have you with us this morning. I would like to ask you a few questions about the CBC, which announced that it had entered into an agreement with COGECO, the owner of the TQS stations, to manage news in three local markets in Quebec: Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi and Sherbrooke. The minister told us that this kind of cooperation was the way of the future.

We know that several local stakeholders tabled briefs and that they were very concerned about this kind of an alliance, particularly in terms of independent content and freedom of expression.

The Broadcasting Act says that the Canadian broadcasting system has three components: a public component, a private component and a community component. If the Canadian broadcasting system is a mixed system that includes both the public and private sectors, and if these two sectors must agree with each other, does that mean that they must form these alliances so as not to compete against each other? In this new context, where we must ensure the quality of programs, will the role of public television be changed, something that many people are worried about? I believe that yesterday, some witnesses in Montreal presented briefs to the CRTC.

We know that people in some regions are concerned. People are wondering what kind of freedom the two sectors will enjoy. They are particularly wondering about public television, which is supposed to be unique, cultural and different. Will public television be able to retain its freedom of expression?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: In the case of the agreement between COGECO and the CBC, there really isn't any radical change. There still are two separate newsrooms. These stations broke away from the CBC in the past, and now belong to TQS. The CBC insisted on having a greater presence in these markets. They wanted to be seen as aware of their responsibilities for these markets. So the CBC will be more visible and more present than it was in the past, thanks to its logos, its presentation, etc. Even so, there will be two separate newsrooms and the employees will be separate; they will only share the infrastructure.

This raised a number of issues recently. For example, in northern Ontario where markets are smaller and it is more difficult to offer local programming, we could trade or share infrastructure, facilities and perhaps even news gathering, without necessarily merging the two entities, which by the way is not the case with the COGECO agreement. In that case, there will always be two separate newsrooms, as in the past, and the employees will be separate as well. The main reason for this agreement is that the CBC wanted to have a greater presence, because instead of having an affiliated station as in the past, a competitor was now the owner of the infrastructures.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: If my memory serves me, this issue was in the press, after this announcement that had worried the CBC. So we will have to monitor this issue, and I think that we will have to be careful about such concentration.

• 0935

We also know that this trend to mergers in the radio industry is another cause for concern. People are worried about diversity of expression. We know that diversity of expression is an objective of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, but this also raises concerns because of acquisitions, such as Astral Communications' acquisition of Télémédia.

How is the CRTC ensuring that diversity of expression, employment, programming and local news are being maintained when such a concentration occurs? Can the CRTC set standards in its licences and enforce them?

The CRTC has a rule that says that in a market with fewer than eight stations, it discourages the same group owning more than three stations, two of which are on the same band. Yet in St. John's, Newfoundland, you have allowed a single company to own three FM stations and one AM station. What good are your rules if you don't follow your own criteria?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Like you, we recognize the danger of concentration and a reduction in the diversity of expression. But under some circumstances—and St. John's may be one—sometimes we must choose between having fewer stations and having more stations belonging to the same owner. It's a matter of attempting to maintain a balance in markets that are more difficult to serve and to balance, which is the reason for your concern and ours as well: diversity of expression and choice versus service to the public.

In the case of Newfoundland, when the board members weighed these two objectives, the majority came to the conclusion that it was less harmful to have one more station owned by the same owner than to have the public lose stations because they are not financially viable.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: One short, final question about programming.

The Chair: Very, very briefly.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We are told that it is difficult to include local performers in radio programming because the programming comes from the major networks. If they do not recognize a local performer, it is very difficult for some stations to promote them in their programming.

For example, we are told that 65% of the songs played must be in French, but if they play Céline Dion 40 times and another, even better known singer 40 times as well, to reach the 65% minimum, is that really providing some room for local performers who are not recognized?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: You will probably see in the CAB's written submission, as we recently saw in the newspapers, that we have begun projects to encourage the development of talent, and the CAB has also responded to our goals and objectives. So, when radio stations obtain a licence or renew their licence, they must make an effort to develop Canadian talent. You saw in the other submissions this morning the amounts that are being provided. The CAB has the Radio Starmaker Fund, which is intended to promote the development of new talent.

Of course, Céline Dion is very popular. People want to hear her, and we are a small country. Not everyone can sing, but we understand your concern, and efforts are being made to develop new talent. I'm sure you are familiar with Musique Action, an organization that the broadcasters must provide funding to each year in order to develop talent.

• 0940

[English]

The Chair: Dennis.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to begin by asking a question. It is the repeat of the very first question I asked the very first time I sat on this committee 13 years ago. This time, I'd like the question to be answered in writing.

We talk about Canadian content and the fact that Canadian content has reached new levels. I've always held the view that Canadian content didn't just include anglophone artists; it also included francophone artists. At that time, I gave the example of Richard Séguin. Today I'll include in my example Kevin Parent.

Why can the CRTC not give a directive to all radio stations in Canada—for example, in my city the CKFMs and other stations—that a portion of that Canadian content should also include some of our best francophone artists, so they can be heard not just on those stations in Quebec or Penetanguishene, Ontario, but on every single radio station in Canada? You don't need to answer that now, but I'd love a really good solid answer in writing.

The question I would like an oral answer to today is on your slide 26, societal values, violence, and gender portrayal. I want to pick up on some of Mr. Abbott's work here.

Mr. Colville, I say to you sir, humbly, I cannot support your view that the standards council is doing, to use your words, an excellent job. In my own community, repeatedly, this Howard Stern character is there every day of the week. We have examples on television. I have my constituents coming to me on a regular basis talking about violence and gender portrayal. I think it's really becoming a serious issue.

I just don't understand. I have a difficult time understanding why the CRTC can't do anything about it. You're always sort of reviewing, revising, checking, and talking about values and all these things. I just don't understand why we, as a government, as a country, and you, as an agency that hands these instruments out for broadcasting, can't do anything about it.

Can you please explain to me so I can maybe explain to my constituents why you think this kind of thing is okay? In your view they're doing an excellent job.

Mr. David Colville: I said the standards council is doing an excellent job, and I believe they are.

Just getting back to the discussion Mr. Abbott and I had, we don't believe our role is essentially to be a censor of programming. We have put codes and guidelines in place to deal with issues of offensive programming, whether it's language, violence, or sexual conduct. We believe, for the most part, those codes are being abided by.

In the case of Howard Stern, when the programming first came to Canada there was a significant amount of concern about what he did. We dealt with that issue—the Broadcast Standards Council did.

My understanding is the programming is edited. Somebody actually listens to the programming and edits the worst of the material out. I suppose no matter what one does, with respect to some of that sort of programming, somebody will continue to be offended, but we've tried to walk a fine line between becoming a censor and controlling that sort of programming.

I suppose people will always argue we've gone too far one way or the other, but we've been very careful to try to avoid becoming a program content censor.

• 0945

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Colville, have you ever had anybody say you've gone too far in terms of your intervention in an issue? For example, let's be specific: Howard Stern. Has anybody ever come out and said you've gone too far?

Mr. David Colville: I've seen lots of editorials on both sides of the issue, that the CRTC shouldn't become a censor.

Mr. Dennis Mills: What is your own policy position as chair of the CRTC when you're assessing the work broadcasters are putting on the airwaves? What are your views, and what are the CRTC's views or policy? You talk here about violence and gender portrayal, but what does that mean if you just let it go as to pornographic channels, etc.?

Mr. David Colville: We don't just let it go. As I indicated earlier—I don't have the codes in my mind word for word, and we can provide all this material if we haven't already and will be pleased to do so—but we put codes in place. The CBSC does its job based on codes that are approved by us, so we have addressed the issues of sexual portrayal and violence on television and have adopted codes to deal with those issues. The CBSC uses those codes as standards to judge the programming and the complaints that come to them.

It may be that from time to time we need to review those codes and sharpen them up a little, but they are in place. As I indicated to Mr. Abbott, from time to time broadcasters may breach those codes. When it happens, we deal with it, as we did in the case with the pornographic material that was being displayed on the pay services delivered by satellite.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you for coming today, and I appreciate your comments.

However, I want to say off the top, Mr. Colville or others, that I really thought your presentation sounded like one long commercial on behalf of the CRTC. I say that respectfully, but that's how it sounded to me, particularly the first 95% or 98% of it.

I won't touch on all the things you said, but you did mention that new policies covering areas from ethnic broadcasting to digital specialty services have produced positive results. You take credit for preventing the CBC from spreading its resources too thinly and for perhaps keeping it out of some wild, or at least costly, new ventures. You take credit for restoring the commercial radio industry to good health, and you did that by allowing for more commercials and by relaxing content regulations. You also take credit for creating more air time for Canadian programs, and you also say that spending is up on Canadian programs by both conventional TV and specialty services. That's what I mean when I say that it sounds like a long commercial.

Then lo and behold, at the end of your presentation, almost in the last few paragraphs, you turn around and say that the challenges are “daunting”. Here I was believing this was one great rosy picture you were painting, particularly the part of it that belongs to the CRTC, and then you turn around and say “the challenges are daunting”.

My question would be, what challenges are daunting, and if they are so daunting, do you have any ideas for how you're going to deal with these “daunting” issues? You say in your presentation near the end that we, this committee, are going to play a pivotal role, I assume in dealing with some of these unidentified, anonymous, daunting challenges—but you're not going to share any ideas. Do you want to take us in camera? Is it that you do not want to insult anybody or question anybody's policies or practices? What is it that keeps you from sharing...?

You've got a large staff. You spend a lot of money, Mr. Colville. If the issues are so daunting and if you have some ideas, why don't you spend the next few minutes to tell us what they are?

Mr. David Colville: First of all, I don't apologize for sounding proud about the work we do.

Mr. John Harvard: I'm not asking you to apologize.

Mr. David Colville: We are proud of the work we do, but I don't mean that we take credit for that. Everybody in this room does this job on behalf of Parliament because of the Broadcasting Act.

Mr. John Harvard: You say that now, Mr. Colville, now that I've raised the issue. You didn't say it in your written copy.

• 0950

Mr. David Colville: I absolutely mean this, Mr. Harvard. We are proud of the work we do. I've mentioned this to the staff at the commission. There aren't a lot of jobs one can have in government where you can be working on as important a set of issues as communications, whether it's broadcasting or telecommunications, and be in a position where you can see the results of the work you do out on the street the next day. We have a group of 400 or so staff and commissioners who work hard and who are really proud of the work they do.

Mr. John Harvard: But I'm more interested, Mr. Colville—

The Chair: Hold it. Let Mr. Colville finish, please.

Mr. David Colville: I understand the point you've raised, and I'll get to it.

We wanted today to indicate that we've been flexible in dealing with issues and that we can respond to issues as the environment changes, as the technology changes in the marketplace. We certainly didn't want to hide any issues or ideas. I mean it quite sincerely when I say we're here today and will be happy to come back as many times as you want in whatever sort of environment and discuss the issues, either the past issues or future challenges.

I think one of the challenges we're going to be facing moving forward is, how best are we to balance the issues as we move into the digital environment, the Internet age, where people are going to have more choice and where we're going to have more globalization? It may well become more and more difficult to deal with some of the issues the Broadcasting Act challenges us to deal with, one of which is advancing the issue of Canadian programming, Canadian content. As different technologies emerge and more trading issues arise around the world, I think it's increasingly going to be a challenge to ensure that we can continue to have a pride of place in Canadian programming.

It's not a question of trying to hide it. I think what we tried to demonstrate is that as technology changes over time, we've been able to adapt our regulation and policy to that changing technology. That's going to continue, and it's going to continue to provide all of us.... We take pride in what we do, but we do it on behalf of the people of Canada through the Broadcasting Act, which you collectively put in place. We collectively have a challenge as to how best to address this going forward as technology and globalization emerge upon us.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you truly believe, Mr. Colville, that a majority of Canadians want more choice? I can understand Canadians wanting perhaps more of the same of some things, more local programming and more Canadian programming, for example. But when we already have the so-called multi-hundred channel universe and have the kind of information overload we already have, I really wonder whether Canadians want more choice. Do you believe they're not happy with 400 channels and want 450 or 700 channels? I don't know. My guess is that they would probably say, no, don't give me another 100 or 200 channels, but you might give me some more local programming in the city of Winnipeg, or you might give me more of the same Canadian programming.

My question is, if I'm right in that assumption, how would you as the CRTC then give Winnipegers a better reflection of their own community through television or through radio? Similarly, how would you provide a better reflection of their country through more Canadian programming, not just with another 100 channels?

Mr. David Colville: There are two issues you've raised there. I think the second one in particular is another one of the challenges we're going to face going forward.

On the first one, the choice question, I think you're probably correct. Most surveys show that most people have six, eight, or ten favourite channels they want to watch. The problem is, my ten are probably different from your ten. Maybe two or three of them are common. So in order to satisfy most people's concerns, you end up with a whole lot of channels. One of the things we've tried to address in moving into a digital world is how to take advantage of digital technology, which provides the kind of addressability that means I can watch my ten channels, which are different from your ten, rather than all of us having to watch the same basic cable package in the same first tier.

• 0955

On your second point, I think the issue of local programming is a significant challenge as we go forward. We're dealing with that issue right now and expect to be putting out a public notice fairly soon addressing the whole question of local expression and local programming.

Again, I've often said that our job is a daily delicate balance of competing vested interests. One of the challenges we've faced over the years is to try to get more high-quality Canadian drama on television, because that was what we characterized in the past as an under-represented category, and it's expensive to do that.

In order to get the kind of strength of players, if you will, to be able to produce good-quality Canadian drama, we allowed, and indeed encouraged, the kind of amalgamation we've seen with CTV strengthening, rather than being, as somebody suggested, the definition of a network as 12 people quarrelling. This has enabled CTV to become a good, powerful operation.

Then there's the challenge of balancing those big, strong national players and the local focus one wants to have in Winnipeg or Halifax, where I come from. So I think it's going to be a challenge as to how best we can draw that balance in ensuring good, strong local programming.

Having said that, I think CTV, Global, and the CBC, in television and radio, do a good job of providing local reflection and local programming. I know in my house the Live at 5 show is one of the most popular shows on TV.

Mr. John Harvard: I don't envy you your job. You sometimes have to take a lot of crap, perhaps even from committee members like myself.

Anyway, thank you. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

Thank you for coming in to see us.

We are here to review the Broadcasting Act and the broadcast system, where it has been and where it's going. I look at paragraph 3(1)(b), in which it talks about the system comprising public, private, and community elements and providing a pubic service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty, and take that as a guide as I go forward in this study. So we have public, private, and community elements.

We know that the private element has had a very good run in the last ten years. They're very proud of themselves, and we've all been lobbied by them already and know they're feeling very effective in their task. But it certainly isn't the case with the public and community elements, even though these are the elements that are the most Canadian. When you turn on your TV you'll see the evidence of that.

CBC-TV, as the main public element, has demonstrated that it has had its priorities straight in terms of public programming, Canadian programming, despite a 13.5% drop in revenue between 1991 and 2000. The CBC continues to spend on Canadian programming and it has increased its spending by 19.5%.

Private conventional TV—CTV, Global, CHUM—increased its spending on Canadian programming by about the same amount, 20.5%, but its revenue increased by 36.2%. So CBC is clearly the most efficient producer of Canadian programming, spending 78.8% of the revenue on Canadian programming in 2000, up from 57% in 1991. And yet public and community elements of our system are taking a beating.

I guess one of my questions to the CRTC is why has this happened? Why have the public and community elements been diminished? Why has fragmentation been promoted at the expense of national identity? And why are the special needs of the regions being forgotten? I would say our parliamentary committee needs to know this so we can figure out how to turn this around.

Mr. David Colville: I guess a large part of the answer to that question, at least insofar as the CBC is concerned, may well have to do with funding. As you know, we don't control the funding for the CBC.

As I think you're aware, when we dealt with the licence renewal issues for the CBC we had hearings across the country in large and small communities, and we certainly heard from the public about their concern in making sure regional community programming concerns were addressed and reflected in the programming on CBC television and radio. And we addressed those issues in the renewal decisions.

• 1000

Beyond the CBC, I think we've licensed a number of community radio stations, for example, across the country to serve particular needs of communities. I can think of the station we license in Cole Harbour, part of Dartmouth, to address a very significant concern in that area, as you know. Beyond that, I'm not quite sure how best to answer your question. Perhaps you can be a little more specific.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess I need to know how you see the balance between community, public, and private in this broadcasting system that we have created. I don't have a clear sense that the public system is holding its own, and I must say that I haven't a clue what the community element is. I'd like to know, and I think the committee needs to know, the extent of the community element of this broadcasting system. How many people are employed in it? What is the range of contact with the Canadian public? How many ears or eyes are seeing this community television?

I have to tell you that our cable station, and I know I'm not alone, has changed hands many times. People will say it's inaccessible. It is not meeting community needs. We know that cable distributors are making enormous profits, yet where is that community element? Where is that sense of empowerment that people want to be feeling with their own channels? I must say those are the two issues, community and public—those sectors will be one of my main focuses in this study. I'd like to hear some of the answers to those concerns.

Mr. David Colville: Let me say, as the act suggests—more than suggests, requires—all three elements are important, and we believe that. The CBC plays a hugely important role in terms of our broadcasting system here. I think the decision we rendered a year or so ago reflects that concern. It's not just our concern; it's a concern relayed from our discussions with the public across the country and equally the community element.

As I indicated, we're in the process of reviewing this whole issue of community programming, and we expect to be putting out a public notice before too long addressing the issue of not just the community channel on cable television, but the whole issue of local community programming on television and indeed on radio as well.

In terms of specifics about numbers, we could certainly.... If we had some specific questions, we could certainly put together an analysis of the number of stations and where they are viewing and that sort of thing for you to address those specific questions.

Andrée, do you want to add?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We could also add that as the technology permits, more and more channels are being offered. We have also licensed on a digital basis a number of regional news and public affairs programming services, which are not yet offered to the public, but certainly show the desire of broadcasters to offer them and the desire possibly of subscribers to subscribe to them. In other words, you may be aware of the regional news and public affairs service that is available in Toronto on an analogue basis called CP24. A number of these have been licensed across the country, which should add, as technology rolls out, the possibility of another venue for local and regional programming.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Maybe we could just ask that we do get a good analysis of that community sector and try to put the questions together so we can all have those answers before us. Thank you.

The Chair: The way I understand it, Mr. Colville, you offered to produce information in answer to Ms. Lill, which you would send to our clerk.

Mr. David Colville: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you. If, following this, there's additional information that members require, we'll go back to the CRTC and ask for it. Thank you.

• 1005

We will now go back to Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Colville, you said the CRTC was not a program content censor. You also mentioned that there are about 400 employees of the CRTC. Of those 400 people, what would be helpful to us as a committee, I suggest, would be if you could give us some detail of fundamentally what their functions are.

For example, when you are currently micro-managing the various entities by instructing them to keep logs, which presumably you audit—channel line-ups, capacity reports, and things of that nature—obviously, some of those people are involved in that. I think what would be of value for the committee would be for us to understand how what appears on the surface to be regressive, and something that is from yesteryear, is going to be of value into the future. Particularly, I think we should take a look at what I think was probably, in retrospect, a questionable decision by the CRTC with respect to DTH.

We are looking down the barrel of Internet. We realize there is going to be more and more programming coming to us over which we will have no control with respect to Canadian content, as technology increases.

Let's take a look at your decision on DTH. This is a knife that cuts in both directions. The fact that in Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia, I can sit and watch Halifax television, and vice-versa, has completely broken down any regulation that you have over the on-the-air broadcasters. As more and more people become involved in watching satellite, and it is a rapidly increasing number, the restrictions you put on on-the-air broadcasters and for their licence, and the marketplace for which they are going to be able to fund all of those programs that come under those restrictions, go completely out of the air. That was a parallel decision made by the CRTC.

Now that's a knife cutting in one direction; let's talk about the knife cutting in the other direction.

I find another decision really questionable. Perhaps you could help us with it. When a section of TVO—TFO—applied to go onto cable in Quebec, they were declined. I have a tremendous amount of difficulty understanding why a French-language service to people in Quebec with voices from outside of Quebec would be against the best interests of the people in Quebec. Interestingly, because of the other decision about DTH, people in Quebec have been able to pick up on TFO, and they are expressing an interest in it. You can see, therefore, our confusion, or at least certainly my confusion, in understanding the current history of this CRTC with respect to the decisions that relate to new technology and new access.

That's a lot of questions all wrapped up in one statement.

The Chair: I was thinking that.

Mr. Colville.

Mr. David Colville: Let me try to address them.

First of all, we would be pleased to provide a breakdown of the major staff groups within the commission. First of all, we have a major split between broadcasting and telecom, and we're only talking broadcasting around the table here today. But we can provide that information.

You went on to talk about the logs and the capacity reports, and you characterized it as micro-managing. If you are going to have Canadian content requirements, we have to have some way to measure whether or not in fact the requirements are being met. That's really the purpose of the log. We don't have the luxury with the number of staff we have to actually go and micro-manage every station to find out, so we do this on a random basis. If the station is coming for a licence renewal, we'll check the log to see how they're faring. For the most part, it's not a problem.

The capacity reports were done because in trying to address the issue of licensing new channels and trying to address the transition from an analog to a digital world, we were trying to get a handle on how that transition is going from analog to digital. What would be practical in terms of our licensing, knowing what's actually going on out there in terms of who has what capacity?

• 1010

It would be folly for us to require the carriage of several hundred channels on digital if in fact most cable operators didn't have that capacity. So the reason for the capacity reports is for us to get a better understanding of how is this move from analog to digital going, how fast is this going, who has what capacity, and so on? Again, this is so we can use it as a reality check to see what's practical in terms of the rules going forward.

The case of DTH...again, a balancing act of trying to draw the line between allowing stations...having the satellite able to respond to the particular markets it served. One of the disadvantages the satellite has, relative to cable, is that they don't have the local television channels or stations in a given market across the country, whether that be Halifax, Cranbrook, or wherever. So they've picked up a number of local stations across the country to try to make that package satisfy consumers relative to the competition with cable.

That raises another issue: now, as a local broadcaster, I have a foreign local station coming into my market. It raises program rights issues. As you know, we've tried to deal with the program rights issues, with protecting the local operators through our simultaneous substitution rules relative to the Americans.

So certainly the DTH one, again, is a balancing act between letting the satellite operators carry enough stations to allow them to be competitive with cable and, at the same time, satisfying consumer viewers' wants in terms of the choice they have and putting in place a scheme that makes sure the local off-the-air television broadcaster is not disadvantaged. So we continue to address those issues, and we're addressing that TVO-TFO issue right now.

I have some experience with this from my former life, when I was with the Government of Nova Scotia and we were dealing with the issue of trying to get our own educational television service going in Nova Scotia. The question came up at that time about TVO being available in Nova Scotia. From the perspective of the Nova Scotia government, our view was if cable operators and viewers wanted to see TVO—at that time, it was the English service—we had no problem with that. But the CRTC rules required that there had to be a priority place for the local educational service. Our view was if TVO wanted to come in here, that was fine, but they didn't get our priority place on cable, because that was reserved for us, Nova Scotia, in Nova Scotia.

In the case of TFO in Quebec, our view was it can be made available; the issue at the time was whether it was going to be mandatory or not.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, Mr. Abbott, TFO has been available in Quebec for a long time, if the cable distributors.... The application that was filed with the commission was to give it mandatory carriage at a cost. And one has to hark back a little to the act.

Parliament tells us we can give licences to Her Majesty in right of a province, except when it's an independent authority of the government for educational purposes. So each province may have one. So they have difficulty in requiring and making mandatory the carriage of TFO in Quebec for a cost when it's a provincial authority. It has been for a long time available for cable operators to provide it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: As a point of information, is aboriginal television mandatory in Quebec?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: It is mandatory across the country, except there are exceptions for very small systems with limited space. And it has a francophone component.

The Chair: Before I turn the mike over to Mr. Bonwick, I should mention to members, for their information, that the CRTC has kindly agreed to come back before us next Thursday, where there'll be a panel on Canadian content, including French or Canadian broadcasting, Telefilm Canada, the Toronto Arts Council, and CAVCO, which is the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office of the Department of Canadian Heritage. So there'll be a program devoted to all Canadian content where the CRTC will come back before us. I wanted to make this information available.

• 1015

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, to the witnesses or the guests, accept my apologies for being late. I had a ride that was supposed to pick me up this morning and didn't show, so I was reliant on the taxi service.

I did get a chance to review your presentation while others were questioning you. I always find it somewhat humorous as government creates commissions and agencies to distance themselves from the decision-making process, until such time as they dislike the decision you make; then they want to question it all over again.

I have, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, a few statements I'd like to make; then I'll try to squeeze in a question at the end. If you have to, you can perhaps respond next Thursday or in writing.

Speaking to my friend, Mr. Abbott, I really take exception to some of the things he's said. Mr. Abbott was using words like “morality” and “censorship”, and when I hear those words—especially in these buildings—the hair stands up on the back of my neck.

He made a suggestion that perhaps I'm old-fashioned because of morality, and I'm suggesting it's somewhat of a slight on today's generations to suggest that previous generations would have higher moral standards than today's, or the future's. I certainly take exception to that.

He's using the word “censorship”, and as has happened in the past and no doubt will happen in the future, sometimes his definition is different from that of the rest of the committee members—and perhaps the rest of the country, for that matter. Censorship is a word that really creates a sense of trepidation or nervousness in my heart, and I think it's important.

I was looking through, wanting to make sure I had the definition properly in hand when I was looking at it. For Mr. Abbott's benefit, and I think for the record as well—for those who are watching, or viewing the record—censorship is “an official authorized to examine printed matter, films, news”, etc., “before public release, to suppress any parts on the grounds of obscenity or threat to security”.

I would suggest, with all due respect, that is not what you are doing. I would suggest that is an absolute misuse of the word. It's creating a misleading and false impression to anybody who may be watching. If anything, my preference would be that you err on the side of greater flexibility for freedom of expression, rather than trying to tighten it up, as some of my colleagues have suggested, saying you should be heading in the opposite direction. I would counter that.

There is also a mention about choice and what you should be doing or shouldn't be doing with regard to the number of requests that come forward for channels. I believe the industrialized world—and for that matter, certainly Canada—does want more choice. I would suggest there may be a half a dozen channels for everybody in this room that are common, but I would also suggest there are likely four or five that everybody in this room finds unique, and when we look just in this small room, that's likely 400 or 500 channels.

I would also put forward that if somebody in private industry is prepared to invest money in establishing a new channel and putting that request forward, they've likely researched the market to determine whether it's viable or not. In turn, I would suggest that offering more is better than trying to shrink it and offer less.

Another point I would like to address concerns profit. It seems to be tossed out as if it's a bad word or profanity or something by my colleague in the NDP. I would suggest if we're going to be fair about this, if we're going to analyze the industry, and especially the private sector component of it and the financial success realized there, rather than talk about—I think your quote, Ms. Lill, was “massive profits”—I think what we should be looking at, if you want to examine that portion, is return on investment. What are they investing in the industry, and what is their return based on that investment? I suggest you would get away from using adjectives like “massive” once that takes place.

• 1020

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Well, it's an emotional thing when you start talking about censorship. It's something that truly makes me terribly nervous when government starts to.... If history has taught us anything, it's certainly that government should stay away from censorship as much as possible.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm wondering if there are any questions for the witness, though.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Well, I wanted to counter your positions, and it's questions and comments, Mr. Abbott, so I think I have the right to use my time as I wish.

My question, however, is this, and hopefully you didn't address it in your opening remarks: five years from now, what tools or changes would you like to see us incorporate in our recommendations to allow the commission to fulfill its mandate to the Canadian people? Thank you.

The Chair: I guess that's the kind of question you would want the CRTC to ponder and write to us about.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It can ponder, or if they have something they would like to respond to now, that would be fine.

Mr. David Colville: I think I would like to think about it and get back to you. It's probably fair to say we haven't given a lot of thought to the precise kinds of changes or amendments we're going to need.

As I was mentioning earlier to Mr. Harvard, I think the challenges we're going to face include the question, how are we going to continue to have a Canadian presence as technology changes? We've referred to the Internet and other technologies. I'm not convinced, first of all, that the Internet is going to blow away existing conventional television and all of a sudden everybody's going to start watching television on the Internet or accessing a movie server in Los Angeles and abandoning the Canadian system. I'm not sure the technology is going to allow it, and I'm not sure, even if it did, that would necessarily happen.

Over the years we've talked as if radio was going to kill off records, and television was going to kill off radio, and cable was going to kill off over-the-air television, and satellite was going to kill off all of the above, and yet they're all still existing in the marketplace in some form and they've all adapted to the marketplace.

I think the question of how we're going to balance—picking up on your reference to the issue of profits—how we're going to continue to have good strong players in the marketplace who can spend the money to do good-quality Canadian programming in a market the size of Canada; to have the strong players and still have the kind of diversity of thought and opinion we're going to want to have in the marketplace—I think those are some of the challenges we're going to face going forward. We can turn our minds to some of the more precise issues, but I think, generally, those kinds of concepts—again, it goes back to Mr. Harvard's question to me; perhaps we didn't, in our presentation, spend enough time talking about that sort of thing, but we'd certainly....

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I wonder, Mr. Chair, if they might just spend some time, put some thought into it, and come back with some ideas and suggestions they would like to see incorporated.

Mr. David Colville: One thing I would say is that I think it's important.... I was asked to give an address to the Kennedy School in Harvard about a year and a half ago, and I was expressing some comments about what I thought were the distinguishing characteristics or differences between the American and the Canadian system of regulation. I mentioned three points, one of which—and I think it was the most important one for me—was that the legislation not get too prescriptive.

I can use the telecommunications side more as an example because I'm more familiar with the American one there. When the Americans brought out their Telecommunications Act of 1996, they not only provided a sort of broad policy objective for the FCC and said, “Here's the objective we want you to achieve.” They also told them almost precisely how to achieve it—which, as things changed in the marketplace, then became difficult to adjust and adapt to, because the act ended up being so specific and it was difficult to change it.

The Chair: Maybe you could let us have a copy of this address, through the researchers.

Mr. David Colville: I was actually speaking extemporaneously about that point, because we had gotten into a discussion about this with the class I was speaking to.

The Chair: I was just thinking we want to give a chance to other questioners, so if you have a record of it in any form, it would be really helpful.

Mr. David Colville: Well, we'll give some thought to this issue and get back.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1025

[Translation]

We'll now move on to Mr. Duplain, followed by Ms. Gagnon.

Mr. Duplain, please go ahead.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I would like to congratulate you and thank you for being here with us today. I'm sure it's not always easy to be working in your field. You receive more darts than laurels. In our regions, we too often hear the criticism. I realize that studying the radio and broadcasting industry is a world in itself. It's very complex.

First of all, I'd like to touch upon the issue of community television, as Ms. Lill also did. Some people have approached me and shared their concerns with me regarding community television.

In your brief, you said: “ensuring that the broadcasting system reflects the local and regional concerns of Canadians is a priority for the Commission.” You also talk about creating new voices and new choices, particularly on television. You also say that you are currently developing new policy for community services. In the past, some legislation was done away with. I won't go back to everything that was done regarding community television and the fact that the cable operators were relieved of some of their obligations.

You are undoubtedly aware that municipal amalgamations have reduced the number of hours of community TV programming. Groups are maintaining that this is the case because programming is done in the regions and then distributed to the different community television stations. However, the problem that we are starting to see is that the programming no longer has a true local flavour.

If I may, I will give you an example. I am lucky enough to live in a city that has a very dynamic community TV station. The people who work there want to offer certain programming and they are fortunate to have a cable distributor that helps them a lot. It's nice to have community television that truly reflects the community. I do not think that my community television station is the only one in Canada like that. There are dozens.

However, these people have some concerns. They wonder what would happen if the cable distributor decided to sell the company. They wonder who would buy the company and what would happen in the future, and they are worried. They are concerned about their lack of means.

For some time now, people have been telling me that they are not sure that the CRTC is truly listening to the requests and concerns from groups working in community TV. There are a lot of questions about this. A lot of people talk to me about this. People are concerned and they need to talk. They really want community TV to keep its local programming.

I would like to hear your comments on that especially since you were talking about new policies for community services.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Mr. Duplain, we realize that these requests are very important in Quebec, because Quebec has developed a community TV system that is different and possibly a bit more independent than elsewhere in Canada. However, requests are coming from throughout Canada with respect to community programming. We are examining the matter. Vidéotron changed its approach to Canal Vox. As for the partial disappearance of some community groups that participated more in the past, we have not heard anything in that regard in areas served by COGECO. This really is something we are examining. We looked into the matter when Quebecor bought Vidéotron.

A moratorium on any changes is currently in place and will remain until we have brought down our decision on the possibility of going back to more accessible community-based television. Will community television remain as it is presently or will it go back to what it was in the past in all areas of Quebec? That remains to be seen.

This matter concerns us, and your fellow citizens make sure we are well aware of the problems they face in this area.

The Chair: We will now go to Ms. Gagnon and then to Ms. Lill.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1030

I have plenty of questions on the Internet, which deal with the fact that you decided not to regulate it. For example, aren't you afraid of missing the boat if you wait to see what impact it could have on Canadian content? Nevertheless, I would like to ask you some questions that deal with other topics.

In accordance with CRTC policy, you say that you want to increase the availability of specialized official language and minority language services—and that is a good thing—as well as services for multicultural and multilingual communities in Canada.

We know that since Astral, a cultural channel in Montreal, was sold—I believe there are two new owners—all commercials are exclusively in English. It comes from Toronto. That runs counter to the policy on both official languages. More often than not, immigrants express themselves on this channel either in their language, or in English. It is understandable, because it is a service they are being offered. That means that people are not speaking French on this channel. What control mechanisms can you use in a situation that, like this one, is inconsistent with the CRTC objective regarding respect for both official languages?

It is a bit difficult to see how you can, for example, exercise any control to further your objectives, whether it be your objective regarding diversity, or language quality. It is quite difficult to see how you implement a control mechanism. Do you have any resources for follow-up once you have issued a licence, if someone is not complying with the conditions of licencing?

I have another series of questions.

You said in your presentation that you had social concerns. These are CRTC objectives. One of these objectives deals with transparency. I would like to know what you mean by transparency. Various briefs that have been presented to us list transparency as one of the concerns that several organizations share. People have written to us on that topic.

Let's start with the board of directors. Personally, I have no idea where the people on this board come from. So I would like an overview of the makeup of the board—you are probably not in a position to provide that this morning. I am asking you for this, because we have been told that there should be a lot more openness, that these appointments should not be political. If, for example, we do not move towards a more democratic process for people sitting on the board of directors in order to ensure there is more transparency... We know what happened with Mr. Lester at Radio-Canada. When you are on a political party's payroll or at the mercy of an appointment, you know that you are accountable. So I would like to know what you mean by transparency.

At any rate, I do plan to follow this situation. I think that it is time to have a cross-section of people from broadcasting. I am not judging anyone. I am just submitting these questions because they have been raised in various briefs dealing with the issue of transparency at the CRTC.

Thank you.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: These are obviously not CRTC appointments. We do not appoint anyone. For us, transparency is our ability to take action and use our resources to enable the public to participate in the system openly.

Everyday, we respond to the very high number of requests for information and complaints that we receive. I am trying to remember the exact number, but it escapes me. Someone will perhaps be able to give me the number shortly. Okay, here it is. There are 250 per day.

• 1035

We use our resources and go to great lenghts to make our Web sites easily accessible. We devote a lot of energy and resources to organizing public hearings and informal consultations on our policies or, for example, when the CBC licence renewal comes up. We travel throughout Canada and we hold informal forums where people can come and tell us about their problems, etc.

That is how we see transparency: our processes are public, we try to be accessible and we aim to make it easy for people to talk to us. We also make every effort to ensure that our decisions are easier to read and less difficult to decode. We also provide summaries so that people have a better understanding of where we are going; we make every effort to ensure that our language is easier to understand. That is what our view of transparency means. Our operations and our decision-making process must promote and facilitate public participation.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... invent mechanisms to verify respect for both official languages in the case of the multicultural channel.

The Chair: Ms. Wylie, can you answer the question?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I am not sure I understand which service you—

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... Montreal that was controlled by Astral and that has been sold since. This criticism has been sent to me because I am heritage critic and people have asked me to check. It seems that the program comes from Toronto and that there is a lot of advertising in English on this multicultural channel in Montreal.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Are you talking about CKMI, which is a conventional station? If I understand correctly, your concern is that there is more advertising in English.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Some programs are in a foreign language, but most are in English.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I apologize. You are not talking about CKMI, but CJMT, the multicultural channel. When their licence was issued, we imposed language conditions. The channel broadcasts in French, English and other languages, and they must comply with certain conditions on the use of these languages.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like you to explain to me how you make sure that the conditions you set when you issue a licence are actually met. When, for example, you talk about a proportion of 65% in French, what do you do to know if the figure is accurate? What control mechanism do you have?

The Chair: Could you move more quickly, please.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I know, but it is because—

The Chair: Okay, but I think she has understood the question.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Earlier on we talked about the reports that broadcasters must provide that reflect what they are doing. We can also know if they are complying with the 65% proportion in French or not. We have used mechanisms in the past to bring them in line when they do not comply with the rules. So we know what they are broadcasting. They must provide us with a report.

The Chair: And if they are not complying with the conditions?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Normally, if they are not complying with the conditions, we only grant them a short-term renewal and we also monitor the situation much more closely.

Perhaps Mr. Blais would like to add something.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In the end, any regulation can be violated, there doesn't seem to be any real control. If you have such a process, you must threaten to withdraw the licence or apply some kind of sanction. I really wonder what kind of control you have. You seem to be saying—

The Chair: I think the question is very clear.

• 1040

Two other people also want to ask questions. We must leave the room at 11 o'clock. I would suggest that Mr. Blais provide us with a document outlining exactly what control mechanisms exist and what the potential sanctions are if the criteria are not met.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Can we ask him to include some examples?

The Chair: If it is possible, yes.

[English]

Mrs. Lill.

Excuse me, Mrs. Lill, I would like to keep just a short time for a question for myself.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to comment on your presentation. You say the commission attempts to strike a balance between the needs of industry and concerns of the public about growing concentration of media ownership, between the benefit of strong players creating more Canadian programming and the need for diversity of voice. I'd like to juxtapose that against a comment by the owner of CanWest Global:

In the future, journalists will wake up, write a story for the web, write a column, take their cameras, cover an event and do a report for TV and file a video clip for the web. What we have really acquired is a quantum leap in the product we offer advertisers and a massive, creative, content generation machine.

There's that nasty word “massive” again.

That sounds to me like one voice, one set of eyes. That doesn't sound like a diversity. I'm just trying to square the circle around this diversity word, because I don't see diversity coming through in the media convergence we're seeing. I'm seeing multi-tasking, multimedia content generation. But where is the variety? Where are those voices that are different and quirky and that we need to survive to keep a national culture?

Have you in fact just rolled over on this whole issue of media convergence? Please justify to me how it is you are dealing with this very central question of diversity?

Mr. David Colville: When we talk about this issue of so-called convergence between telecommunications companies, newspaper companies, and television, we're largely talking about three players in the marketplace. Now, granted, they're three big national players, but first of all they are three players. So there are three different voices there—at least three. And there are many other voices in the marketplace that we've licensed across the country, whether radio stations, other television stations, specialty channels, and so on. There are a lot of licensees and a lot of voices in the marketplace.

I can't comment on what Mr. Asper may have said at a speech, talking about what their views were. But I think we've tried to address that issue, as we noted in our presentation today, and to draw that balance between, on the one hand, allowing.... We don't know what this convergence is going to be. I don't think anybody knows. You could ask Mr. Monty or Mr. Péladeau or Mr. Asper. I don't think they know for certain where this convergence issue is going or where the efficiencies are largely going to come from in terms of managing these businesses on a going-forward basis.

We wanted to try to provide the flexibility to allow them to efficiently run those operations on the one hand, and yet at the same time deal with the diversity of voices, particularly in news, that would ensure that people across this country get different points of view on the news. It goes back to the answer Vice-Chair Wylie gave to Madam Gagnon earlier in terms of addressing that issue in radio.

Even in Jonquière, when the radio industry was having a lot of trouble back in the early 1990s, when we allowed stations to get together to jointly market their services, we still insisted that they operate different news operations, because we do think that diversity of opinion is important in the marketplace. So when we said we were dealing with the convergence issue, that's the balance we were trying to draw—to make sure these companies could still gain the efficiencies and yet still ensure that there is a diversity of opinion.

I don't know where this convergence issue is going to go. As I said earlier, I think it responds to Mr. Harvard's and Mr. Bonwick's questions, I think one of the big challenges going forward is how best do we draw that balance in this country between allowing strong players in a more globalized marketplace that we're going to have to deal with, and yet at the same time have that diversity of voices and diversity of opinion. Some of that will be drawing a balance between those players. Some of it will be having new local community voices in the marketplace. But it's going to continue to be a challenge, I think.

Andrée, did you want to add to that?

• 1045

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Madam Lill, we have also attempted to put some safeguards in place. As you know, they're considered quite severe in the case of Quebecor. Perhaps some of you feel they go beyond what should be done by an organization such as ours to make sure in that small market that there isn't some overly negative fallout from the consolidation. In English Canada we have put some safeguards into place—I was asked earlier about transparency. One of those is to require an independent committee so that if people feel certain behaviour is unacceptable according to the promises made, complaints can be put, and the broadcasters have to report on the results of the use of that committee on a yearly basis.

Those are the current safeguards we felt would at least ensure that we have given the message that we will be looking at the effect of this. Of course, as you well know, there is an argument that consolidation may indeed allow more diversity, more stories, more capacity to increase investigative ability. We understand there's another side to this.

The Chair: Ms. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a very interesting presentation, and I'm really looking forward to next Thursday when there'll be some more things I would like to address.

I would like to make one comment, Mr. Colville. We're not moving into the digital age; we're there, and we have been for a number of years. It's going to have a huge impact on what is watched by Canadian people.

There's really one element that we've overlooked completely here and that is human nature. We haven't added that into the equation. There is some concern about censorship. Some comments were made by my colleague who found some channels offensive, and I understand his reasoning behind that. Then there were some comments by Mr. Bonwick attacking that particular stance, which I actually found amusing, but that is neither here not there.

When I first moved here to Ottawa, I didn't have television for the first little while. When I did get television channels on, I just had the basic ones. I had the kettle on the first night, waiting to make a cup of tea—I was going to sit down and relax—and I was channel-flipping. I went out to take the plug out of the kettle and make the tea. When I came back in, there was full frontal nudity on television on a channel that was just there. I was absolutely amazed. It was the French channel. So when you're saying that those things are chaste.... It was the French channel and, let's be honest here, “oooh, baby, oooh” doesn't need translation. I was able to catch the gist of what was going on in the sack. So I immediately turned it off. It's not what I want to watch, but I happen to agree there are people who do want to watch that. So there have to be choices there.

What I would like to zero in on are two things on slide 10. It says, “The transfer benefits are used to develop emerging Canadian talent” and “have totalled $51.4 million from the introduction of the policy in 1998 until July 2001.” Could you please elaborate on what that is and give me an example? What is it we're developing? How are we using this money to develop Canadian talent?

The Chair: Ms. Hinton, why don't you...?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: The second question is the next part on slide 11 where it says “the requirements for priority programs created more airtime for Canadian productions and established new incentives to air quality Canadian drama”. Could you give me an example of one of these quality Canadian dramas that benefited from this?

Mr. David Colville: Sorry, could you go back to the first question and rephrase it again? I just missed the first part of the question.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I threw you off with my comment, didn't I?

Mr. David Colville: Yes. I was thinking.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We want to know if it was male or female.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: We're not going there.

I'm asking about the transfer benefits used to develop emerging Canadian talent. Can you give me an example of the emerging Canadian talent that would get funded by this?

Mr. David Colville: This is referring to the benefits we require for transactions, if I'm not mistaken. In the case of the BCE-CTV transaction, I think the benefit figure was over $200 million—additional money that was being put forward by BCE into the system that would not otherwise be there to support the development of more Canadian programming. That was a requirement of us as part of that transaction.

• 1050

I don't have specific programs off the top of my head. We could provide you perhaps with some examples, but I don't have....

Andrée.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I believe slide 10 is about radio. Canadian talent development is the promise made when new licences are given, and at renewal, which I referred to earlier this morning.

An example would be...well, everybody contributes to either Musique Action, or FACTOR, which is for the development of new talent. It's an organization that dispenses funds, for example, to upcoming artists to help them produce their first CD. Many are produced every year. We also allow funds to be given more locally, if that's what is preferred by the radio industry, whether it's for scholarship or promotion of Canadian artists, especially up-and-coming new artists, not the ones who have made it. Some of them make it as a result.

Since 1998, some $50.4 million has gone to this type of activity. I don't know if that's a sufficient example for you.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: The answer you're giving me then is that if a Canadian talent...let's say we have an up-and-coming singer, a Shania Twain on the rise. This fund would go toward Shania Twain to get her started?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Normally, by the time she gets to be Shania Twain, she's no longer eligible. It's for helping new talent. Every six months there are quite a number of CDs produced by these artists and there's encouragement to play them on the radio. That's how you get a Céline Dion or a Shania Twain. They have a beginning here.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: That answers that one.

Second, where you say the requirements for priority programming created more air time for Canadian productions and established new incentives to air quality Canadian drama, can you give me an example of a quality Canadian drama that this helped fund?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: You may be familiar with Da Vinci's Inquest. I don't know if it includes nudity, but this is the type of program that is very expensive to produce. It's very difficult to produce programming that will attract viewers when you have American programming, which in many cases.... On average, an hour of American programming production would have had twice the amount of money put into it. So it's to help certain...by priority programs, we mean the type of program that is seen less, because it's very expensive to produce, such as drama, or regional programming that perhaps would not be produced except...or shown in high-viewing hours, in prime-time hours.

The Chair: Okay. Could I list two or three questions that somehow got missed that you could get back to us on?

The first was that Madame Gagnon asked for a profile of the commissioners of the CRTC, with their backgrounds. Could you send that to us?

Second, I think there was a question about your decision to examine new media and not regulate it. Have you any intention of revisiting or reviewing the decision not to regulate?

Mr. David Colville: Could I quickly answer that now? We can certainly provide an answer.

That part of new media, that part of the Internet that would fall within the definition of broadcasting as defined in the act, we exempted. As we indicated in our presentation, we'd be reviewing the exemption in, I think, 2004. So yes, the opportunity is there to review that.

The Chair: Finally, in regard to the official languages of Canada and the sanctions, can you tell us why, for instance, respect for them shouldn't be regulated?

• 1055

There's one question from my side, which I find very intriguing. In the background work we went through to prepare for this study, which was pretty extensive, a lot of challenging questions came up from different people we interviewed. They were left unanswered; they were just challenging questions that were brought to us as things we should find out.

One was in regard to this vacuum created by the fact that there are two ministries, Industry and Heritage, that look after broadcasting in some form or another, and the fact of the very quick evolution of technology over the last few years. It was suggested to us—this wasn't our own finding—that there was a vacuum of policy-making at the level of government, and that the CRTC has filled the vacuum by becoming more and more of a policy instrument instead of being a licenser and regulator.

Could you address that? Is the CRTC becoming more and more of a policy agent, the government having abandoned its role as policy-maker? Has the CRTC had to fill that role itself? Do you sense that at all?

Mr. David Colville: Not really. I think the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act have their own policy sections that define the policy of the government. I think this word “policy” gets a little misused from time to time, and I would characterize what we do as putting in place the regulatory policy to deal with the issues.

If the act says the programming on the system should be predominantly Canadian, then we've developed that television policy, for example, to define how we're going to achieve that. I don't see a conflict between our developing that sort of policy and the policy in the act, which is the purview of you folks.

So I don't get that sense. Furthermore, there is the opportunity in both acts, really, for policy direction from the government in any event, recognizing that sometimes it can take some time to amend legislation and there is the opportunity to deal with issues as they come up from time to time.

So I don't see there is a vacuum or indeed a conflict between the commission's role and establishing regulatory policy to meet the broader policy that's in the act.

I think, going back to a comment I made earlier, there are a couple of virtues in the existing act. One is that it was technologically neutral, which allowed the commission to deal with technology as it was changing. I take Ms. Hinton's point that we're in the digital age. We think of it as a transition. When I think of cable...you know, we still have one foot in the analog world and the other in the digital world.

So one of the things that was a benefit was that it was technologically neutral. There was also the fact that it was written in a way that provided broad policy direction without getting too detailed, allowing the regulator the flexibility to deal with changing conditions as they go on.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Colville.

Unfortunately, these sessions have to be short. We have to surrender the room. But I think it was extremely informative and interesting. We look forward to seeing you again next week. We appreciate your time and input. Thank you very much for appearing.

Mr. David Colville: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, we'd be pleased to come back not only next week but when there are other opportunities, depending on the issue, with some of the staff, to address details. We're pleased to help you with your continuing work here. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.