Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 16, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 5:30 p.m. to consider future business of the committee.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are meeting today to study the future business of the committee. Senator Forrestall could not attend today, so we will not study the future business of the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety.
Senator Roberge: Bruce Carson was to give you the English version of the report; the French version is being finalized for next week.
The Chairman: Yes; we are not distributing the report today.
I need a motion:
That a subcommittee on communications be established to study matters relating to communications which may be referred to it from time to time by the committee.
Senator Poulin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
I need a further motion:
That the subcommittee consist of five (5) members, three (3) of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Senator Roberge: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion that I require stipulates that "the initial membership of the Subcommittee on Communications will be as follows..." Do we have any members who wish to work on the Subcommittee of Communications?
Senator Poulin: I would be interested. Senator Kirby has gone to a funeral, but he has shared with me his interest in working on the subcommittee.
Senator Johnson: I am interested, too. How many are we allowed?
The Chairman: Three on this side and two on the other side.
Senator Spivak: Surely other people could also attend.
The Chairman: Yes. Any senator from the committee can attend.
Senator Finestone: I would be pleased to attend.
The Chairman: From the Liberal side, we have Senators Poulin, Kirby and Finestone; and from the Conservative side we have Senators Spivak and Oliver.
I received a membership change from Senator DeWare on February 14 regarding the Transport and Communications Committee. The change was from Senator Johnson to Senator Oliver.
Senator Johnson: That is not true. Senator DeWare phoned and advised me about this meeting, as did the leader of our party five minutes ago. I do not know what you are talking about.
The Chairman: I have a copy of it here.
Senator Johnson: No one informed either me or the leader. Senator DeWare changed that yesterday.
Senator Roberge: Is that on the main committee?
The Chairman: Yes. You must be a member of the main committee to be a member of the subcommittee.
Senator Johnson: I was not told about any of this. It does not apply to me. Senator DeWare told me yesterday that it was all a misunderstanding and a mistake and she rectified it. I do not know why it is still standing.
Mr. Michel Patrice, Clerk of the Committee: I have not received a membership change at this point in time placing you back on the committee.
Senator Johnson: I am sorry, but you cannot do that without consulting me.
Senator Spivak: I do not think that is accurate.
Senator Johnson: No, it is not.
Mr. Patrice: Membership changes are not in the control of the clerk of the committee; it is the different whips who look after that.
The Chairman: Yes, the request comes from the whips.
Mr. Patrice: I do not do anything, I just receive the requests.
Senator Johnson: We already discussed it with the whip.
The Chairman: It is the initial membership.
Mr. Patrice: Substitutions can be made at another time.
Senator Spivak: I think it is a mistake.
The Chairman: Were you told to attend the meeting, Senator Oliver?
Senator Johnson: No, you were not.
Senator Oliver: As I understand it, it is impossible to serve on a subcommittee unless you are a member of the main committee, and I am interested in serving on the subcommittee. I was going to be substituted for one day to be a member of the main committee for purposes of going on the subcommittee. That is what I understood.
The Chairman: This is all news to us, Senator Oliver. The whip has not informed me of it, and no one has discussed it with us. It is rather embarrassing. You are saying this is done for a day? February 14.
Senator Spivak: This is notification of changing committee membership for February 15, 2000. Today is February 16. It does not apply then.
Mr. Patrice: Yes, it does.
Senator Johnson: Why?
Mr. Patrice: With a membership change.
Senator Johnson: It is not a membership change permanently. It is a membership change for one day.
Mr. Patrice: It is the date when the membership change takes place, and that change is in effect until we receive another membership change.
Senator Johnson: It is a mistake, because the whip told me it was not effective.
Senator Spivak: We will have to fix it.
The Chairman: Could we have Senator Spivak on the opposite side?
Senator Johnson: Who orchestrated this deal?
Senator Finestone: Not us.
Senator Johnson: Senator Oliver, you must know something about it. I am a member of this committee. I come to the meeting and I am told this, while my whip and my leader have told me the contrary. Now, I am sitting here with this situation.
Senator Spivak: It will be fixed.
The Chairman: Could you fix it amongst yourselves? Senator Oliver, you do not have to leave.
Senator Johnson: I think you should put forward a motion that Senator Oliver not sit on the Subcommittee on Communications until this situation is resolved.
The Chairman: We will hold the second member until you resolve it, and then we can have it set up very fast. Would that be okay to you all?
Senator Oliver: Yes.
Senator Johnson: Yes.
The Chairman: You can resolve it amongst yourselves.
Senator Johnson: You told me that it was supposedly resolved.
The Chairman: Senators Poulin, Kirby, Finestone, Spivak and one other member, from the Conservatives, will join the Subcommittee on Communications.
Senator Roberge: Why do you not put me down?
The Chairman: No, I think it should be resolved.
Senator Roberge: Just in order to have the membership list.
The Chairman: No, we will be together again anyway in a meeting on transportation safety and security. We can resolve it there.
Senator Poulin: On a point of order, I know that we have a rule that says that subcommittees cannot comprise more than 50 per cent of the members of the full committee.
Senator Spivak: Which is six.
Senator Poulin: Usually, subcommittees have five members. Is there any way that we could, without going against the rules, have a bigger membership?
Senator Spivak: No, but you could have six members on the Subcommittee on Communications, and I would so move, Madam Chair.
The Chairman: No, that is 50 per cent.
Senator Spivak: It is 50 per cent of 12. What is wrong with that?
The Chairman: One side should have one more than the other side.
Senator Spivak: Oh, right, I forgot about that.
The Chairman: We would then have to go to seven members, and I would not want to transport the standing committee into a subcommittee. It should be seven members or five. We cannot have seven because we cannot have more than six, no more than half of us. The government has to have one more.
Senator Spivak: Let me just say that very often we have trouble getting members to come to committees. If we have members who wish to serve, let us make it easy for them to serve.
The Chairman: There are rules that have to be respected.
Senator Spivak: It is crazy not to utilize the talents.
The Chairman: I would not want to lose the talent that we have on this committee, but this is not a matter that can be settled on this side.
Senator Poulin: Would it be according to the rules that the number of the full committee go beyond 12?
The Chairman: It is 12 members. It is in the rules.
Senator Poulin: What was that story we used to have on television?
The Chairman: If you go by the book, you have no problem. We are trying to go by the book here. This matter will be settled, and we will be back with it next time.
The Chairman: I need a motion:
That the subcommittee be authorized to send for persons, papers and records, whenever required, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it.
Senator Spivak: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I need a motion:
That the committee's power to permit coverage by electronic media of meetings be conferred on the subcommittee.
Senator Maheu: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will need today a presentation of the proposed order of reference by Senator Poulin. We need a motion that the chair be authorized further to present to the Senate for adoption the order of reference.
Senator Poulin: Madam Chair, will you, therefore, be submitting the report to the Senate tomorrow?
The Chairman: Tomorrow or next week. We will see. If we cannot do it tomorrow because there are some matters to be settled first, we will do it next week.
Senator Poulin, do you have copies of your proposed order of reference?
Senator Roberge: Is it translated?
Senator Poulin: It is at translation. Yesterday they thought they could do it for 5:30 today, but when they saw the 12 pages, they told me it could not be ready until noon tomorrow. I can speak to it without distributing it. I leave that to the chair.
The Chairman: I am in your hands, senators. Perhaps you would rather have a copy of the proposed order of reference from Senator Poulin to make it easier to follow.
Senator Spivak: Is this what we had talked about this previously? It has been revised.
Senator Poulin: It is fleshed out a bit.
The Chairman: May I suggest that it be distributed and that as soon as we have the copy, we proceed. I know that this is not what we usually want to have.
Senator Maheu: On a point of order, I know I am not a regular member but for 30 years I have been fighting against exactly this. This country has two official languages.
[Translation]
As a Francophone, Senator Roberge, I think you are being had.
[English]
Either we will do it the way Parliament has set it up, or we will not. You could make a ruling in committees that it is not necessary. I am not going to block it, but I object.
Senator Spivak: I agree.
Senator Poulin: I can speak to it. It will be available in both languages and sent to your offices.
Senator Maheu: If I had not been arguing this point for 30 years, I would not have raised it.
Senator Poulin: Something striking hit me between the eyes this morning. In The Globe and Mail, in The Citizen and in the National Post, I counted the number of main articles in the first section and in the business section, and 80 per cent of the articles touched on new communications. Our Transport and Communications Committee is doing very timely work. In other words, we are taking a step back and looking in a timely fashion at a relevant issue of today.
We are realizing that, with the major changes in the communications industry, the whole economic engine of this country is changing, and it is really moving. All of us, individually and collectively, have become aware of this in different fashions, either within our own institution or outside in our lives that we live in different regions of the country and internationally, because quite a few of us do international business. I find that that is where we really see it. The real value of our work is in looking at what we can do in terms of public policy to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the major technological changes and that new economic engine.
The proposal is to develop forward-thinking ideas and comments on the direction of technological change, its impact on policy-making bodies, and the implications for Canadian culture, foreign ownership and our major trading partners. The title that we gave to the paper was "Convergence, Competition and Consumers." In the first two studies that we did, "Wired to Win 1" and "Wired to Win 2", we spent a great deal of time looking at what convergence has done in the daily lives of consumers, business people and governments at all levels. We looked at the technological point of view. I think we want to look even further. We want to look at countries around the world to re-evaluate their policies.
I find that, even based on today and every article of today, competition has become a major issue. We have always looked at our competition policies in terms of how the technology and the infrastructure of the country was organized, and the whole infrastructure has changed. In our previous studies, we also talked about old media and new media.
[Translation]
Some of the observations and recommendations made in our two studies date back almost one year. Today, they appear in the newspapers, one year later. Let me give you an example. Senator Spivak will recall that during our first study, we discussed technology at considerable length. We also noted, however, that the content would take on greater importance for people, both individually and collectively. I do not know if you have read the series of articles reporting on our findings and on the testimony of witnesses.
[English]
When we look at convergence in terms of old media and new media, we also realize that technology has made the silos indistinguishable one from another. A few years ago, it was evident that when we talked of television, we would look at it in one silo, radio in another, telephone in another, and information in another. Today, we can hardly tell the difference. Because of the fundamental change, we really need to revisit the whole issue of competition and foreign ownership. The next wave of competition will therefore be across the silos and not only within the silos -- for instance, in the telephone industry.
In the lines of our inquiry with the subcommittee, I think we will review the possibility of looking at five phases. The five phases would permit us to do what we call short-term studies. We could very focused on one issue, bring out a preliminary report and then move on to a second phase.
Phase No. 1 could look at lessons learned from the introduction of competition in the long distance telephone market. One of the issues raised today in the papers was competition in the newspaper print industry. The fact that Thompson is selling so many of his newspapers is bringing forward the whole issue of competition. We had considered the possibility of looking at competition in the newspaper industry, but when we did the research with the clerk we realized that when that study was done in 1970 under the leadership of our former colleague, the Honourable Keith Davey, it cost $550,000. Today it would cost about $1.3 million. We therefore decided to tackle competition in a more compact issue, the issue of long distance telephone service, and tackle competition in a more restrained industry to start with. That would be Phase No. 1.
In Phase No. 2, we would look at the question of cross-silo competition to see what policies should be put into place now to encourage the growth of competition across the silos. I have identified seven areas that we could look at.
In Phase No. 3, we should look at how we can now promote Canadian content in the face of convergence. We began looking at that in "Wired to Win 2", but we only touched the tip of the iceberg in our study. Because we knew that there was a prorogation coming, we quickly brought forward our report.
[Translation]
This means that we need to review the whole issue of Canadian content and appropriate policies.
[English]
Again, I have identified four areas we could look at.
Phase No. 4 would be to examine the evolving role of federal regulatory agencies. I am thinking mainly of the CRTC and the Competition Bureau, but we might want to look at one point at the International Trade Tribunal and other agencies to see what role they play, but it is a difficult subject because it is so complex. However, it must be visited by someone.
Phase No. 5 would be to see how we could promote the connectedness of Canadians. There has been a commitment that Canada should be the most wired country in the world. "Wired to Win 1" and "Wired to Win 2" did confirm that, but we must see what Canada has to do to remain one of the most wired countries in the world. That would be the last phase.
[Translation]
In short, these would be the five phases of our work.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you want to speak about the methodology?
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Exploratory methodology is generally connected to research. We will base our work on research and on the findings of our two first studies. We will also want a status report from our researchers. We will hear from industry representatives and take at look at what departments, regulatory agencies and interest groups are doing. There will also need to be some public consultation. When we did our two first studies, we did not consult with users in general. We need to so do at some juncture. We should also be looking at the strategies other countries have developed.
[English]
Senator Spivak: In terms of competition, the big issue is not so much Canadian competitiveness, although that is still a big issue, but the concentration. It seems to me that AOL and Time Warner pose a huge threat, as does the possibility that 90 per cent of Canada's newspapers might be owned by one company. The other side of it is the magazine issue. That is a politically sensitive issue, but I do not know how we can avoid it. I think we should revisit it. As well, the CBC is reaching a point where it needs some high-level friends. I know that it is also a politically sensitive issue, but I do not know how we can avoid that. If the CBC were gone, there would be nothing but commercial slush to slush through everyone's mind. It is still the CBC, along with a couple of specialty channels, that is giving us high quality television. There is just no comparison. The other thing to consider is the role of the CRTC, which is increasingly being eroded, and its role vis-à-vis the CBC.
I like the way you have outlined it. We need to look at some very specific cases. You know the Harvard method of case study. I think we should look at that. I do not know when you want to do this. It might be good at the beginning or in the middle. We could look at specific cases, get the witnesses in on those cases, and then see what you can extrapolate from that. These are huge juggernauts that are hitting us. It is like the Air Canada thing. It is the same thing. It is the concentration of these huge giants that will have so much influence. I suggest that as a parallel kind of structure. It is not a structure, but we could slide in the case study issue.
Senator Poulin: I made sure that "draft" was written on each paper, because this is a living paper. The subcommittee will have to sit down. I just wanted us to have some meat to start with.
Senator Spivak: Absolutely.
Senator Poulin: You are absolutely right, and it has to be reviewed now.
Senator Finestone: I compliment you, Senator Poulin, on a very good presentation. It is exciting. I did not think I would ever get excited again over a study. I can only tell you that I thought I had heard about culture until it was coming out of my ears, but this sounds exciting. It is very timely.
I should also like to support Senator Spivak's observation. To be able to carry through such a project, you need a case study method, but can you have a specialist who can determine a case study process? It is such a huge mouthful that it will be successful only if you use the case study method.
Senator Johnson: There is a fire alarm, and they are evacuating the building. It is very loud out there. They told me to get out, so I thought I would see if you were all here.
Senator Poulin: Could we at least ensure that the motion for the membership is moved so that we can report?
The Chairman: We are not through yet. We will have to come back. I think we should adjourn.
The committee adjourned.