Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 11 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:37 p.m. to examine the Government Response, dated November 23, 2006, to the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications entitled Final Report on the Canadian News Media.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Minister, we are pleased to have you with us and we welcome you to our committee. It is the first time we have gotten together with you and we are pleased that you could accept our invitation.
Joining you are Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, and Ms. Amanda Cliff, Director General, Broadcasting Policy and Programs Branch. Welcome to you all.
We will hear from you, Madam Minister, and then we will ask our questions.
[Translation]
Hon. Bev Oda, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage: Madam Chairman, thank you for inviting me to your committee to discuss the government response to your Final Report on the Canadian News Media.
[English]
Let me begin by thanking the committee for its hard work and diligence in analyzing an extremely complex subject. You have spent three years working on this report, and I should like to express my appreciation for the extensive work you have done on these important issues.
In a democracy, the free flow of information and debate on matters of public interest is paramount. In Canada, we have a long and strong tradition of protecting freedom of expression and public access to a wide range of views and information. The committee's recommendations point to the importance of maintaining a fully democratic and viable media sector. I agree with the committee's conclusions that Canadians are generally well served by our media.
Before I speak to the government's response, I would point out to the honourable members that a number of the recommendations from the committee's report do not fall under the direct purview of the Department of Canadian Heritage. As you can appreciate, these are areas that my colleagues will be overseeing and I will be working with them in addressing many of these issues.
Today, I am not in a position to specifically discuss recommendations that address the Competition Act, charitable status for foundations, capital gains taxes, the Security of Information Act, the Anti-terrorism Act, the Access to Information Act and certain parts of the Official Languages Act. I do, however, welcome this opportunity to discuss with you our government's response to your report as the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women.
To put our discussions in perspective, I would point out that the federal government does not directly regulate all news media or journalism. It does regulate certain aspects of broadcasting and provides support to periodicals. On most fronts, our government is acting.
The government response is framed within the context of ongoing policy deliberations. It articulates the view that current legislative, regulatory, policy and program frameworks have provided appropriate levels of review and effectively targeted available support. However, we all recognize that the media environment is changing. New technologies have presented many challenges, as well as opportunities.
As the committee knows, the government response encourages media organizations to adapt to changes in technology and to seize business opportunities as they evolve. At this point in time, we find ourselves in an environment that is under constant evolution. The means by which, and the pattern of how Canadians are accessing their news and information, are very different as we move forward into the 21st century.
Our response reflects the government's approach to address the issues while moving forward in a systematic and clear manner. There are numerous processes and reviews currently under way that are informing our work.
In response to the government's request, in December of 2006, the CRTC submitted a factual report analyzing the future environment facing the Canadian broadcasting system, which we are now using. I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, as he proceeds with telecom regulatory reform. Telecom reform necessarily requires consideration from a broadcasting policy perspective. My colleague, Minister Bernier, and I want to ensure an effective and coordinated approach that is in the public interest.
Also, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recently reviewed the Canadian Television Fund, as did the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. The former is also currently reviewing the mandate of the CBC.
In addition, the CRTC is conducting reviews of its regulatory frameworks for television and broadcasting distribution, with a focus on technological change. It will also be holding a proceeding in the fall of 2007 to review the issues related to media consolidation and diversity of voices. I welcome this initiative and will be following it with great interest.
In each of these areas, our challenge is to build on the strong foundations of our broadcasting system within the new global digital world. It is clear that the Internet — due to the proliferation of websites, blogs, pod casts and diverse news sources — is having a profound effect on the diversity of opinion and news available to Canadians.
Let us not underestimate the depth of that change. Canada ranks very high in the world in terms of Internet penetration. In 2007, 67.8 per cent of Canadians were Internet users, up 73 per cent from the year 2000. More and more Canadians are gathering their news and information from the Internet.
Furthermore, the Internet is democratizing the provision and access to news and information. Email, blogs and websites make it easier than ever for individual citizens to access, share and create news. Every newspaper has an online site. The sheer number of sources and new information is having a significant effect on diversity of news in Canada.
Moving forward, it is crucial that we ensure our policy and regulatory frameworks continue to be relevant in an ever-changing environment marked by convergence, consolidation, fragmentation, digital distribution, globalization and multi-platform realities. At the same time, we recognize the need to continue to protect diversity of news in this country, while ensuring we maintain a strong, viable Canadian media sector capable of providing Canadian viewpoints.
I assure you our government will continue to work to address many of the issues raised in your report. The challenge will be to find the right balance between ensuring access to diverse news and information and ensuring conditions are in place to encourage a healthy and competitive marketplace.
[Translation]
To achieve this balance, we must have flexibility in the regulatory and strategic legislative frameworks.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister. Recommendation 4 of our media study proposes that section 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act be amended to give a clear priority to news and information programming in the Canadian broadcasting system. The government's response to the study specifies that the Broadcasting Act balances a number of key objectives and priorities for the broadcasting system, including news and information programming. I should like to know how you feel about the balance between the key objectives and priorities of our broadcasting system. Is there enough emphasis in the Broadcasting Act on the importance of the news and information programming for the Canadian public?
Ms. Oda: As you have pointed out, the Broadcasting Act does outline the public interest areas that should be addressed to ensure they are present within the Canadian system. My personal experience, and I think the tradition of the CRTC, will show that news and information has always been an area of concern. I know they have extensive discussions with broadcasters both at the time of their licence renewals and transfer of ownership transactions.
The flexibility that is allowed within the Broadcasting Act as it is currently enables the commission to do an assessment as to what are the needs, and maybe the priority categories of programming, taking into consideration the needs of the Canadian public, the audiences, the needs of the production industry, the needs of the broadcasters and also the demands and interests of Canadians.
The Chairman: Recommendation 7 in our media study proposes that the CRTC does not delegate important matters having to do with media mergers and conditions of licence to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council or any other body. Do you agree with that recommendation? I also want to hear your comments on what should be the proper role of self-regulation in our system? What are the limits of self-regulation?
Ms. Oda: First of all, I would point out that the CRTC does allow for the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, CBSC, to assume a role within a process. The CRTC has continually maintained its responsibility in every area that the CBSC participates in so that it can, at any point, step in if necessary. The public also has the ability to go directly to the CRTC, and is not obligated to use the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council as a step in addressing their area of concern.
As far as delegation or any kind of working with the CBSC, on key areas of importance and public interest, I would suggest — I guess in my own personal opinion — that many of the areas that the CBSC deals with are important. They have to do with children's programming, children's advertising, sexual stereotyping and violence on television. These are important public issues.
In respect of the news, the transactions and ownership changes, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is not given any role in consideration of that.
The guidelines the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council uses to assess any viewer or comment by any Canadian are reviewed and approved by the CRTC as well, so the CRTC does have a great deal of involvement and responsibility even though the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is independent of the commission.
The commission has just recently issued a call for comments on a suggested guideline for journalistic independence code. As you can see by that call for comments, there is adequate time for public opinion to be inputted into their deliberation on the code, before they actually approve it for use by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The Chairman: I would refer you to Recommendation 40, which requires that the Government of Canada carry out timely evaluations and reviews of legislation and programs that have an impact on the health and vitality of Canada's news and information system.
Does the government consult with industry stakeholders to shape up the public policies with regards to news and information in Canada?
Ms. Oda: Certainly, the commission has a full public process. On major policy issues, it allows public hearings. They always put out any policy considerations for changes or amendments. They always put out a public notice allowing for adequate input from the public. As you recognized, the public hearing process allows any individual or group to make a presentation to the commission. They very clearly outline in the Canada Gazette notice the plans or issues they may be considering at that time. We agree with the comments some of your members have made. There is an importance to remain separate, to keep a separation between government, and that is why we believe the CRTC is carrying out that responsibility and allowing for full public input as an independent body.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you, Madam Minister, and thanks for the presentation.
In your response, you talked about ongoing analysis of numerous issues that are challenging Canadian media, and you touched on some of it in your presentation, so there are two things you can elaborate on. What are the major issues you think are challenging the Canadian media, and are there any specific ways or studies or reports that we as a committee could undertake on specific topics that you think might be helpful?
Ms. Oda: Thank you for the question.
When we see the environment as it has changed and the speed with which it has changed, primarily due to new technologies, I think we have seen technology evolving at a speed never faced before by this industry. We have also seen a very rapid take-up by particularly the younger generation of Canadians on the new devices and new technology.
The challenge for broadcasters is to respond to the demands of their audiences. They see that the younger generation is moving away from traditional outlets and services as they are provided. They are familiar and comfortable using mobile devices. In fact, this generation is demanding more mobility in enabling them to access the entertainment and information they want. They want it in a different format, short formats, et cetera. They are accepting of that. They want it speedily and wherever they happen to be, whenever they want it.
I think there has to be the services. The broadcasters have to recognize the impact that that will have on, particularly on the private broadcasters, their business plans.
They also have to look at utilizing the new technologies and the new platforms. As you can appreciate, many of the traditional broadcasters are trying to evolve their new business plan. What will be the business case? We see the Internet being supported by advertising, but the level of advertising support on these new platforms is not at the level where it automatically replaces traditional broadcasting. This is something people are testing. There are different models evolving as we speak.
In the area of radio, we see the impact on the music industry of the new technology. We saw where originally music was being taken off the Internet with no payment. Then we saw subscriber payments being considered. We now see EMI, a Great Britain music company, offering their music library free to an Internet service. I think they are trying to find the business model for them, and I think that is one of the big challenges they face.
They also face fragmentation. They are trying to capture and make this an asset. Every news operation actually has a website that provides some other news and information available to the public, et cetera, but as they go on, their financial resource base is primarily still measured in their traditional services, the over-the-air services they provide. They are in some way fragmenting.
They are seeing that impact on their business plans. They are trying, I think, to find the business base or fundamentals of the broadcasting business as we move forward into greater use of new technologies.
Senator Tkachuk: The CRTC in December produced its report on the future environment facing the Canadian broadcasting system.
Will you formally respond to this report, or will you talk about it tonight? I will leave it at those two options. You can say yes or no, and then I have no further questions.
Ms. Oda: The CRTC makes many reports. In the report they did for us in December, we asked specifically for a factual report to inform us and give us a picture of the technologies and their impacts, not only on the broadcasting system but also the changes they could see in the audiences and how they are accessing news, information and entertainment.
We are anticipating a report from the task force on the Canadian Television Fund. As you know, there is a federal government contribution to the Canadian Television Fund. There is a joint responsibility there, so I am sure that their report will have some impact on the government and its approach to the Canadian Television Fund.
On the process they have announced on the diversity of voices proceeding, my experience tells me that the commission is very clear on its responsibilities and the areas in which it has jurisdiction. When it does find it is in the public interest to make recommendations to the government, it does so.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing tonight and presenting to us.
My question is in response to the government's commitment and recommendations numbers 12 through 15 which concern the CBC. The government indicated that the CRTC's report on the future environment facing the Canadian Broadcast System would help inform policy deliberations. Now that you have had approximately four months to consider that report and its findings, would you please address those recommendations in detail — that is, numbers 12 to 15.
Ms. Oda: I would be happy to do that. This government has been very clear that it supports a strong public broadcaster in both official languages. It believes that the country is stronger with a public broadcaster that provides public service. We want to also make sure that the public broadcaster in both official languages and across every one of its services remains relevant and meaningful to Canadian audiences.
We have indicated with our support that we believe in the public broadcaster. We have been monitoring representations that the CBC has made not only to your committee but to the House standing committee as well. We have now the House's standing committee doing a review of the CBC mandate. We have been monitoring that and are waiting for that report to come out.
In Budget 2007, we approved $60 million in additional programming for the CBC, and for the first time certainly within the last short history we have done it over a two-year period rather than on an annual basis. This enables the CBC to do longer-range planning. It also recognizes the reality that many of the major productions that the CBC may choose to undertake do not necessarily happen within a 10-to 12-month period, that many of these plans and productions require a longer period of time for their development and creation.
Consequently, we strongly say that we welcome the review being done by the standing committee. I know they are travelling across the country. Hopefully, we are trying to encourage the public to participate in that review.
Senator Zimmer: With respect to the committee's recommendations that the Canadian Revenue Agency strengthen its procedures for determining whether a periodical is Canadian, your response indicates that your department reviews the content of many magazines and community newspapers regularly to determine funding eligibility.
How are the findings of these reviews communicated to the CRA and how does the CRA use that information?
Ms. Oda: There is not a formal process by which information is exchanged. What happens is that each department or agency, in fulfilling its own mandate, investigates the information they require in order to fulfill their legislative responsibilities and their regulatory responsibilities.
The review that we do, in order to provide the support we give to periodicals, will show that we ensure that the content and the benefit go back to the Canadian interests here, Canadian interests being not only purely by ownership but certainly for content. It is important that we have Canadian content in the periodicals that we support. That is why we have programs that support content as well.
We do not keep a registry. As you know, some periodicals, of which we are very proud, have a very long and strong history. Other periodicals are attempted and many do not survive a longer period of time. Our primary focus is to ensure that there is always Canadian content in Canadian magazines and that the information, the stories, et cetera, are present in those periodicals.
Senator Zimmer: You note that the CRA can also consult with your department, which acts as an adviser on a case-by-case basis on issues of Canadian content. The committee saw no evidence that there was a trigger mechanism obliging the CRA to investigate whether the newspaper in question is Canadian, according to the requirements under the Income Tax Act, so under what circumstances would the CRA consult with Heritage officials on issues of Canadian content?
Ms. Oda: I will ask my officials to give you a fuller answer. There is no automatic trigger. There is no obligatory trigger. It is on a case-by-case basis. They probably could give you history of some incidents that have occurred in the past.
Jean-Pierre Blais, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Canadian Heritage: It is similar to any other area where the tax department has obligations to administer. It can be based on complaints from third parties, which they will investigate. It is obviously confidential because it is tax-related. However, it can also be on their own evaluation audits where they will come up with some information. The department, for its own programs, does a periodic review, based on a risk-based analysis every three years, of ownership for those magazines that receive funding from our programs.
Senator Johnson: I want to go back for one question on the CBC. I know the budget gave more money to the CBC, and I know our report referred to the need for that in terms of the CBC defining its mandate. You do recognize the need for modernization of the CBC, but you did not tackle how this will be achieved. We are trying to get a fix in our committee about just which direction this might take. You indicated that the report of the CRTC would help inform your policy decisions in this regard.
Have you learned anything with regard to the future of the CBC from this report?
Ms. Oda: We certainly have, not specifically necessarily about the CBC. I think it is important that the services of all of our Canadian broadcasters, and particularly our public broadcaster, will be where the audience will be in the future. The report we received from the CRTC gave us some indication of change in viewing habits and accessing different technologies or devices, and certainly tells us that the CBC has to take into consideration these new technologies and the new media platforms. In fact, the CBC does benefit from support from the government to ensure that their programming and some of their content is available on new media platforms, either through the website or in different services in which they participate. Certainly, they have to also evolve as the world changes.
Senator Johnson: They have to involve in terms of the environment you were describing about the technology and adaptation to what is happening and the evolution of it. Are you optimistic? What do you think about that happening in terms of the content of the public network?
Ms. Oda: It does concern me. It concerned me when I actually had the privilege of reviewing the CBC at one of its licence renewals in a former life. It does concern me that if the CBC, as the public broadcaster, is not serving the Canadian public as an audience and providing the programming and the content that the audience will choose to view or listen to, it is legitimate to ensure that they should be asking themselves and we should be asking the public broadcaster to ensure that the service they are providing is that which will serve the public.
There are many services; we look at the information provided on audience levels to the different services. As you know, the CBC provides multiple services. If you look at the services provided, even by language breakdown, et cetera, you see that some services have stronger audience levels than others. I know that, certainly in reports from the CBC, they are aware of that as well and they are attempting to address that.
Senator Johnson: My thoughts on a public network are positive and you have indicated your support of that as well.
Ms. Oda: I should like to add that the Prime Minister has taken a lead on this early in his mandate by articulating strong support for a strong public broadcaster. He has pointed out that the public broadcaster should be relevant and meaningful to Canadians and that its mandate must serve the public. There is an indication of recognition by the government that long-term stable funding must be worked toward but that, first, let us ensure that the service we are supporting with public funds is meaningful and relevant to Canadians.
Senator Johnson: It is positive and very much in keeping with what we found in our studies over many years between elections and the current government. It gives us great commitment to our continued work in this area. At times, we wonder if we are contributing to this process in the media and communications area of our work in Parliament. The report of the committee was helpful and I hope you found it so.
The committee heard that the competition has a narrow focus on advertising markets and that the CRTC has largely set aside concerns about news and information. That presents a problem and a gap exists. We outlined this in our report on the Broadcasting Act. If the government will address this, as suggested in our report, how do you plan to address the problem?
Ms. Oda: As you pointed out, there are two separate entities — the CRTC and the Competition Bureau — with two different mandates and areas of responsibility. The CRTC clearly has the responsibility of the strictly non-commercial, financial aspects, although it does take into consideration, I assure you, the impact on the marketplace, on audience levels and the support given to any one service. When introducing new services, it looks at the impact on the markets and other services that exist in the market. The primary objective of the CRTC is laid out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, which achieves the public interest policies in respect of content and service provided.
Minister Bernier and I are working together. He has introduced some proposed changes to the Competition Bureau, which we are considering as to the impacts on the broadcasting side. One of the recommendations was fining power for the CRTC. Minister Bernier has introduced the concept for the Competition Bureau and we are giving consideration to that recommendation.
Senator Adams: Madam Minister, I live in Nunavut, a community with one radio station. Sometimes the CBC broadcasting is difficult because of Inuktitut and English. We live in Rankin Inlet and find that it is the same in other communities. Radio provides our communication, but we do not have access to news from other Northern communities. As soon as the local radio is on at 9 a.m., the news is all Inuktitut, no English; only a bit is translated to English. We do not hear anything from CBC so people change over to the other station. The CBC comes on at 7 a.m. in Iqaluit, which is 6 a.m. in Rankin Inlet. That is on until about 10 p.m. there, or 9 p.m. in Rankin Inlet. The local radio station begins at 9 a.m. with the forecast and is on the air until 9 p.m.
Between that and the CBC, we have local news from other communities but people in the community only listen to local radio. We do not know what will happen in the other community, because sometimes we get national news on CBC every half hour or so. Sometimes CBC switches back and forth from Inuktitut to English. After 6 p.m., the national news comes on Radio 1. It is English all night on the CBC.
You talked about the CRTC doing a study on the forecasting in Nunavut. In Iqaluit, we begin at 7 a.m. and switch over in the afternoon in Northern Quebec and in Kuujuak at 2 p.m. We listen to Inuktitut at three places. In Rankin Inlet, the CBC has Inuktitut broadcasting at 4 p.m. until 6 p.m., and after that it is in English.
People are concerned about the local radio station. I spend a lot of time in Ottawa and at 6 p.m. I can watch Question Period in the Nunavut legislature, and I can see it in Rankin Inlet. The CRTC should study how the system forecasts should be set up between English and Inuktitut in Nunavut. On Saturday afternoons, we have a French broadcast in Iqaluit.
Taxpayers have local radio stations and there should be more understanding and working together of the Inuktitut and English broadcasting. They should work together. It is difficult for you because you have understanding of English and French.
Ms. Oda: Senator, I appreciate your raising the issue because, certainly, the service in the North and other more remote areas is always a challenge, in particular for the provision of services in Aboriginal languages. As you know, I am also responsible for Aboriginal languages, and I know how important Inuktitut is to the communities in the North.
I do not have specific information on the details of service that is provided in Rankin Inlet and other Northern communities. I am not familiar with how much is network programming and how much is local programming and the language breakdown.
I will share with you the importance of the Northern services. As a public broadcaster, the CBC has to be aware of its responsibilities to all parts of the country. If I may, I would be pleased to obtain more information on the details and specifics of the service, senator.
I know the obligation within the entire broadcasting service is to try to provide as much service — we cannot guarantee full service in every language — as possible in recognizing the needs of the Aboriginal communities.
Senator Adams: Right now, we have CBC, local radio and services like that. There should be some people from Nunavut involved who are concerned about local issues. The radio is a kind of education system, too. Sometimes, we listen to other languages as well. I just want to make sure we are not left out.
Ms. Oda: I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Fox: Good evening, Madam Minister. I was not part of the committee when it tabled its report. I am reading the recommendations with great interest, as I am sure you did.
My first question deals with recommendation 15 about the CBC. Could you tell us your personal position on this recommendation, particularly the last sentence? I have the English text in front of me.
[English]
In particular, the CBC should leave coverage of professional sports and the Olympics to the private sector.
[Translation]
Is this a statement that you could subscribe to? I understand perfectly that it cannot be accepted or rejected without saying at the same time that, in order to maintain the integrity of CBC's financing and programming, it should, if it is going to get out of professional sport in particular, receive additional funds to compensate for the loss of the profits it makes on sport broadcasting.
Can you go into a little more detail than the very vague generalities set out in the two paragraphs on the subject? What is your position?
[English]
Ms. Oda: I would certainly be pleased to do that. In reviewing the CBC's certain positions and in their reports, their appearances before various committees and the commission, they have always indicated the requirement to depend on some of the professional sports for revenue-generating purposes.
I take your point. If you were just to look at your recommendation with certain assumptions in place, our assumption would be that it is important that the CBC articulate and demonstrate that they can provide the service that Canadians want, the programming and the content that Canadians want, and are willing to support by viewing it and listening to it. Once that is established, then the resource requirements of the public broadcaster are determined.
Senator Fox: The recommendations essentially are saying that the CBC should get out of professional sports. While I recognize it is easy to make the recommendation, there are consequences that flow from that. What would your position, as a minister, be on the CBC getting out of professional sports? If they did, there would obviously be some revenue implications that somehow would have to be made up.
Ms. Oda: One of the questions would be: What do we define as "professional sports"?
Senator Fox: What I saw last night on TV.
Ms. Oda: That is one aspect. As you know, in past history, the Canadian Football League could be defined as a professional sport, certainly. I would suggest that its appeal for the same purposes as a professional sport and the National Hockey League is very different. What we have to look at from a policy basis as a government is what is the public interest. What is in the public interest and then what is the responsibility of the public broadcasting service to provide the content or the coverage that Canadians want?
If you take it at its face value, yes, that recommendation would have an impact on the financial resources of the public broadcaster, but there has to be more discussion as what is important. What sports are important to Canadians and what is the responsibility of the public broadcaster to provide and then to look at the resources that they require.
Certainly, when we think about professional sports, the sport last night is the one that comes to mind most often.
Senator Fox: Crosby against Ottawa.
Ms. Oda: There are various other events in sports, et cetera, that I think are in the public interest. I know the commission has asked the CBC its feelings as to its responsibility to extend coverage when it was covering the Olympics to the Paralympics and various things like that. Canadians are indicating increasingly that the Paralympics are important to Canadian audiences. I have confidence that whoever is providing the Paralympic coverage will do it with a robust amount of Canadian content and recognizing what Canadians are saying about all events within the Olympics and the Paralympics.
As you know, this government recognized what we call the heritage sports — hockey, lacrosse, and I think it is three-down football. I have a family member who is very accomplished in the field of lacrosse. There have been many attempts for a professional lacrosse league as well. It is not as supported certainly on a commercial basis, or even from a broadcast base, but these are things that we constantly should be asking to be deliberated and challenge the public broadcaster and also make sure that the public is able to give input and let the public broadcaster know what the demand is.
Senator Fox: Thank you for your answer. I should like to move on to another one that in the immediate future will be right on your desk, and it is recommendation 18, which says that that the appointment of the president of the CBC be made by the government from a list of candidates prepared by the board of directors of the corporation. I am not saying I agree with this, but I should like to know your position. Do you agree with that recommendation?
Ms. Oda: As you know, this government has gone through a long process of ensuring that there is full accountability and transparency in all aspects of the government's work. Appointment was certainly a key part of this process. We have, within the legislation now, the proposal to set up an appointments commission, which we will be moving forward as we implement the different aspects of the Federal Accountability Act.
Senator Fox: As I read your answers, you say that the public appointments commission mandate would be to oversee and report on the selection process, and the selection process that is recommended by this committee is that it be made by the government from a list of candidates prepared by the board of directors.
Is it that something that you subscribe to and that it would go through that process or do you reject it? I do not mind if you reject it.
Ms. Oda: It is not necessarily that we reject it; totally outranked. We have different entities and agencies within the government. Some are asked for recommendations from the board. Some boards undertake a process and come forward with recommendations for consideration by the government. Certainly we have an opportunity here and we will undertake. We will be having conversations with various members, not only of the board but also other groups that should be consulted when an important appointment such as this has to be made.
Senator Fox: I say candidly that I prefer that approach to saying that you would be bound by recommendations coming from the board of directors. Obviously, that is one source, but there are other sources that should be considered. To my mind, it is up to the government and not to the board of directors to choose the president of the CBC.
I should like to go on to the question of cross-media ownership for a moment and then perhaps foreign ownership, and I will stop there. The committee noted that most nations prohibit cross-media ownership.
In our own lifetimes, we have seen a number of situations occur. There was no ban on cross-media ownership up to the early 1980s, and then when Mr. Fleming was secretary of state there was the introduction of the ban on cross-media ownership. He was acting on a recommendation of the Davey commission, if I recall. After the election, Mr. Mulroney's government decided to withdraw an order in council to the CRTC at that time. We have come back to a situation where there is no overall prohibition on cross-media ownership.
Yet we see, as the committee noted, that many nations, if not most, prohibit cross-media ownership. Why would we not have the same kind of prohibition and is there any indication from the practices of other countries that the prohibition has harmed their existing media in any way? It is a general question of cross-media ownership. We did not have it, we had it, we did not have it. Many other countries have it. Good or bad; what is the government's position on it?
Ms. Oda: We would look at the situation, noting how it has evolved. We have a large land mass and a relatively small population compared to the United States and Great Britain.
We have to try to maximize and take advantage of every opportunity to make sure that we have strong entities that can continue providing the services that we have.
Our government position is how to provide the best public service in and of itself. I think tradition, where we are today, is that cross-media ownership is allowed as long as we ensure that within the broadcasting system the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, as set out in section 3, can be achieved. Cross-media ownership, in relationship to news and information, is to achieve the diversity of voices that we would like to have available.
The tradition, as you have noted in your report, is that conditions of licence are applied. The conditions of licence can only be applied to the broadcasting side through the Broadcasting Act, but very clearly some major elements are put on licensees, as conditions of licence. In the case of Quebecor, an independent committee monitors this and responds to any concerns that might arise out of it. I would also suggest that the commission is going to be obligated to review this as they look at the journalistic independence process they have just decided on.
Senator Fox: I should like to go to foreign ownership and I am wondering if you would like to make the front page of The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir and La Presse tomorrow morning. The question of foreign ownership is being debated again, and it is focused mostly on the telecom sector. Does the government have a strong position on foreign ownership in the broadcasting area?
Ms. Oda: The government at this particular time is not contemplating foreign ownership in the broadcasting sector. We have been working closely with the Minister of Industry and are reviewing the telecom panel's recommendations. It certainly makes reference to foreign ownership, but those recommendations also indicated that it should be a separate consideration as far as broadcasting because of the implications.
The government wants to ensure that we have a strong Canadian system for the ultimate objective of ensuring that we have a robust amount of Canadian content in all categories of programming available to Canadians.
Senator Fox: When you are saying the "broadcasting system," are you including cable casting as part of the broadcasting system, or do you make a distinction between broadcasters and cable casters?
Ms. Oda: Content is content. I refer to it as a cable specialty channel or one of those digital channels that are narrowly focused as "cable service."
Cable service traditionally is a broadcast distribution undertaking, like satellite distribution over the air transmission. I understand we can now start getting it on our mobile phones.
We want to ensure that we will have Canadian content in the categories of programs that are important. Certainly news and information is one of the key ones; we must ensure access and availability of Canadian news and information.
Senator Munson: You mentioned the Paralympics, so I will make a pitch here from any broadcaster in dealing with Special Olympics, intellectually disabled men and women from age 15 to 65. In Shanghai, this coming October, there will be 10,000 athletes from 110 countries. We have a strong focus from the broadcasters covering Paralympics. From my perspective, Special Olympics are being ignored. TSN does one hour of one event every two or three years, and I think it is incumbent upon broadcasters, private or public, to take up another level of programming and pay a lot more attention. It is a very important for Paralympians, but it is equally important for Special Olympians. I feel that on one side of the ledger they are being shunned to the side. This comes from an American to a Canadian perspective of dealing with these kinds of issues and I would encourage the government and broadcasters to stand up and recognize the Special Olympians.
Do you think that private broadcasters in this country are doing enough to promote Canadian content?
Ms. Oda: To be very frank, I think there is never enough. We can always do more because we have very talented people. We have content that certainly should be viewed and heard by Canadians and internationally as well.
We can take an example and I think every private broadcaster does it in a different way. I saw, because I was there at the time, the advantage of cross-media ownership when I was with CTV and how they were able to cross promote within their newspapers and broadcast outlets. I could see where, if you have a conventional television station, you can cross promote if you have a cable specialty channel and thereby direct audiences to different programs across that. There are benefits to cross-media ownership.
I think we can always do more promotion. We have to recognize the realities of a private broadcaster vis-à-vis what drives their businesses, but certainly, I would like to see more Canadian programming in every category of programming, done by as many people and in as many ways as possible.
Senator Munson: From the perspective of many, what drives their business is American programming. For example, if we look at CTV, they have a morning show, some newscast, Newsnet and W-5. Beyond that, what is it? It seems to me, in the situation they are in, they should do a lot more.
Ms. Oda: I do not want to comment on any one individual company's practices. However, if you go back to the origins of Canadian broadcasting, we have done a fine, commendable and outstanding job of having as strong and diverse Canadian broadcasting system as we have, considering our geographic location. We are the only country that faces the proliferation and the cross-border availability of the worldwide dominant American services. Despite that, I remember Izzy Asper having to truck an antenna across the border to set up a Canadian station. That is our reality.
Many people do not like simultaneous substitution, but if you look at the alternative of not having taken advantage of simultaneous substitution, the benefits have come back to the Canadian system through Canadian programming and Canadian news, as you know, Senator Munson.
If you look at the programming costs of any entity, public or private, a very robust and strong news resource, personnel, staffing and feed are some of the most expensive elements of per-hour cost for news. We have taken advantage of a very difficult situation to be able to support that.
Senator Munson: I agree, but as Senator Dawson has said, we have a lot to learn from Quebec. How is it that, in the private and public sectors in Quebec, 80 per cent of its programming is produced in Quebec and Quebecers watch it?
I know there is diversity in that we have the CBC giving us Canadian content and so on, but it seems to me that the private broadcaster on the English side is not paying enough attention to its responsibility for Canadian programming, which the CBC does.
Ms. Oda: First, we recognize that we as a government in our policies and programs have to pay specific attention to the different realities within the francophone and anglophone markets.
In the broadcasting situation, language is a very strong determining factor. We certainly promote francophone services in Quebec. We want to ensure that the content is there available in French, not only within Quebec but for francophone communities outside of Quebec.
There are very different circumstances. If you look at the promotional clout of English-language services available to Canadian entities — as I said to someone, if every time an English author's book is promoted on Oprah, what kind of resources would we have to put towards promoting one Canadian writer's novel to get that same kind of promotion? That is the reality within the anglophone market.
They face a very different situation within the francophone market. Their challenge is that they have a smaller market against which to put the costs of their programming. They have a smaller international market in which to sell their productions as well. I am told that by the French-language producers all the time.
Their reality is very different, as is their business model and their potential international sales market. Therefore, we have to look at them separately and ensure that government support and policies recognize those differences and will be there to support where the real needs are for each of those realities.
Senator Munson: I have a couple of questions relating back to the CBC. Does the government believe that the CBC should have stable long-term financing?
Ms. Oda: I think I have responded to that.
Senator Munson: I am asking specifically.
Ms. Oda: I said, and I will be clear again, we think the mandate of the CBC should be to provide the public service that will be meaningful and relevant to Canadians. Once that service is being provided, we have to ensure that the mandate does have the stable and long-term funding that it will require.
Senator Munson: Thank you. In terms of mergers, as a minister — you talked earlier about the Competition Bureau and you are not responsible for that.
We have recommendations, we have worked on this for a couple of years and we think they are important. We then see the mergers with CHUM, as well as proposed mergers, and then we look at the Vancouver and New Brunswick environments. I know you have said that the public has a right to play its role, but I do not think the public understands how to play its role when it comes to these mergers.
Is there a point where getting bigger is just too much at a rate where you have cross-media ownership, for example in Vancouver and where every newspaper and the prominent television stations in the province of New Brunswick are owned by one person?
Do you worry from time to time that, when it comes to diversity of voices, when it comes to journalists and individual reporters wanting to work in a competitive environment, they will no longer be able to do that? If they do work, the chill factor comes into play, where journalists have to behave because when they look to the left and right they are working for the same owner?
Ms. Oda: There is a process present there. The commission must always ensure at the end of the day when it is considering transactions that they will result in a larger entity with more responsibility or more outlets. At the end of the day, the responsibility as outlined in the act is that the public interest must be served.
The public interest is not only in service. It is in support as well, to ensure that there is different decision making and no cross-representation on editorial boards when there is cross-media ownership and that there is a separation.
I remember this because I was part of a proceeding. One of the first cross-media ownerships in existence was the Rogers/Maclean-Hunter deal. We had discussions. You have to look at the public interest. It says that you cannot have a radio station or a newsroom subscribing to the same news service. It does not serve the public interest or the entity. What is key is the decision-making in how that content is being provided through the service, whether it is the radio station, the newspaper or the television service.
Therefore, I am comfortable that, clearly, the Broadcasting Act obligates the commission in reviewing these transactions to ensure at the end of the day the net result is in the public interest.
Senator Munson: It took two and a half years for this report to be put together. The written response to our recommendations seems to reflect that the status quo was okay. With respect to any of our recommendations — as senators, we feel we play a vital role in trying to influence government — are you prepared to implement any of our recommendations?
Ms. Oda: Thank you for the question because it gives me the opportunity to provide some clarification.
In doing an analysis of your recommendations, I can say that there are only three recommendations that, at this time, will not be acted upon. Those are recommendations 24, 32 and 39.
Out of the recommendations in your report, as I pointed out, many of them fall outside of the direct purview of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Some are being worked on by other departments. As I say, we are involved certainly in recognizing how they affect our responsibilities.
The government is acting on 30 of the 40 recommendations. It has already acted on two of the recommendations. We have given a directive to Canada Post regarding the Publications Assistance Program and we have enacted the whistle-blower legislation. The 28 other actions are currently under way, either directly as the committee suggested or in an alternative fashion. We believe seven recommendations require no action at this time because the conditions are already in place for the reviews that you have asked for.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister, for your presence here. We hope to see you again. Thank you very much.
Ms. Oda: Thank you very much.
The committed adjourned.