Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 42 - Evidence - October 31, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 31, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:46 p.m. to examine how the three federal communications statutes (the Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act, and the Radiocommunication Act) can be modernized to account for the evolution of the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors in the last decades.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Last June, the Senate authorized the committee to examine and report on how the three federal communications statutes (the Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act, and the Radiocommunication Act) can be modernized to account for the evolution of the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors in the last decades can be modernized.
This evening we continue our special study. I would like to welcome our witnesses from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel, Janet Yale, Chair, and Monique Simard, Panel Member.
Thank you for attending our meeting. The floor is yours, Ms. Yale.
Janet Yale, Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel: This committee has a reputation for thorough and thoughtful analysis on the issues key to our country’s communications sector. We are very pleased to be here.
As you know, our panel was appointed jointly in June 2018 by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Our mandate is straightforward. It is to make concrete recommendations to update the legislative framework governing our broadcasting and telecommunications sectors. I want to underline the point that our work is in aid of legislative change. It is about resetting the framework and helping to create the conditions for future success.
To guide that effort, the government provided us with terms of reference that helped to define and structure our approach. In addition, panel members have identified four themes that will serve as areas of particular focus. Personally, the opportunity to serve as chair of this panel is one that I approach seriously and appreciate greatly.
I began my career in the 1980s working in telecommunications policy at the CRTC. In the years since, I have served in senior leadership roles in both broadcasting and telecommunications, and in both the public and private sectors. I have also worked as an advocate for consumers and served on behalf of creative and cultural organizations in the not-for-profit sector.
I care deeply about these issues. I think now is exactly the right time for this sort of review, for the simple reason that the whole landscape is being remade right around us. Change has always defined this sector but never has there been such profound disruption with such far-reaching impact. If we don’t think ahead, we may find ourselves further behind.
I am also excited to serve alongside my fellow panel members. In picking the panel, the government has drawn on individuals with a broad range of expertise and interests. We have consumer advocates, academics, former regulators, creators, and those with commercial, legal and business experience. It is never possible to strike a perfect balance, but I believe my colleagues bring an impressive range of insight and understanding to the task ahead.
As mentioned already, our mandate is very much based on generating recommendations in aid of legislative change. For that reason, we intend to push stakeholders to be as specific as possible in their representations because it is not enough to simply hear about the challenges. Those are pretty well documented. Our real ambition is to identify remedies. We are placing a premium on the practical, on the technical, and on those ideas that are specific and able to help us identify how that change might be realized in a legislative context.
We are interested in what works today and what could work even better tomorrow. With technological change occurring at such a rapid pace, we bear an obligation to think not just one but two and three steps ahead.
I am sure this committee is taking a similar perspective. Many organizations think from their own narrow focus and others tend to get distracted by short-term transactional issues, but both our panel and this Senate committee have the opportunity to think beyond those constraints and consider the wider context of what it will take to build for the future.
I will finish with a few words about our process before handing it over to my colleague.
We are required to produce two reports in roughly 16 months. The first will be issued next spring after we have had a chance to gather input from various stakeholders, communities and the public. It will speak to what we have heard and will probably highlight areas of major consensus or major conflict that emerged from our outreach.
In terms of that outreach, there are three core elements to our approach as it stands. First, we have issued an open call for written submissions to help inform our work and shape our outlook. We are hoping for a robust response from stakeholders, the public and all others who have an interest in this policy area. All submissions will be posted publicly. I should also note that panel members have personally helped to produce a series of online presentations on the three distinct acts under review because, as we said, we really want to focus our efforts on potential changes in that respect.
Second, we are conducting a wide range and number of stakeholder meetings. There are at least 90 at last count, and no doubt we will be adding more in the future. We will be regularly posting and updating a list of those with whom we have met on our website.
Finally, we are placing a particular priority on hearing from underrepresented voices, including Indigenous groups and those from official language minorities. This was something specifically requested by the government, and already we have had one panel member travel to the North to hold meetings and receive feedback.
I should add that this is a living process. We will almost certainly add meetings and information sessions. We are open to and looking at the feasibility of other formats such as webinars and online outreach. In short, we are keeping an open mind as we remain in early days and we want to get this right.
The second report will follow sometime before January 2020 and will contain our final recommendations to government. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to speculate today on the shape of those conclusions, but I want to close by making this simple point.
We are committed to getting this right. We all come it this task from different places, with different perspectives and different experiences, but getting it right is our common purpose. We are prepared to put in the hard work and dedicated effort to serve that goal.
With any luck, this committee will in the not-too-distant future find itself reviewing new legislation that will have flowed from our work and yours as well. We can’t control that outcome. Ultimately, it falls to government to decide how to proceed, but that is our hope.
Thank you. Now I hand you over to my colleague and fellow panel member.
[Translation]
Monique Simard, Panel Member, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel: Thank you, Ms. Yale. I also want to thank the committee and its members for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening. It’s very much appreciated.
Let me begin by telling you why I agreed to become a member of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel. I’ve been involved in the cultural sector for many years. I started as a producer of films and documentary series, which gave me the opportunity to work with hundreds of artists and artisans. In 2008, I was appointed director general of the French program of the National Film Board, or NFB, where I managed documentary, animation and interactive production studios for francophones across Canada. I also endeavoured, with Indigenous artists, to develop training programs. During those years, through my involvement in the production of hundreds of works, I met and worked with francophone communities and artists across the country.
In 2014, I took over at the Société de développement des entreprises culturelles du Québec, or SODEC, where I oversaw all programming in film, music, book publishing and crafts. I again met and worked with hundreds of artists. As the president of SODEC, I chaired the Association of Provincial Financial Agencies, or the APFA, which brings together all the provincial or territorial organizations involved in culture and cultural financing. These organizations include the OMDC in Ontario, BC Film and Music, Yukon Film, and Manitoba Film and Music. The APFA oversees all these organizations. This gave me insight into the challenges in every part of the country, from Yukon to Newfoundland. My work alongside the artists and producers in all these fields and my observation of the increasingly difficult conditions in which they operate led to my decision to accept the proposal to join the review panel.
I think that you’re well aware that I truly believe that arts and culture are mirrors of our society. They reflect who we are. We need to make every effort to ensure that we can express ourselves not only freely, but also in our own unique way. Only we can tell our stories and interpret them in our way. By “tell our stories,” I mean compose our music; write our songs, plays, poetry and literature; and, of course, create our films and television shows so that our actors and musicians can work.
In many respects, we’ve been very successful, as a result of a series of measures and programs over the years and decades. Our works have won acclaim around the world and are a testament to our artists.
In my opinion, that’s why we must continue. Public support has always been important in Canada. That’s a good thing, because it has helped us build a true cultural identity.
We have many tasks and challenges as a panel. We live in a technological and economic environment that’s constantly changing. Everyone says and acknowledges that the changes have never been this significant and fast. We live in a world of “disruption,” a word that’s widely used in both English and French.
The pace of change is dizzying, but we must keep up. Things move fast and things change. We can’t lose sight of the basic framework in which we must operate. Of course, we need to renew the framework or at least make sure that it’s solid.
That’s why we decided to start with the legislative structure and the associated regulations.
Our approach is orderly, rigorous and future-oriented. In this case, the future isn’t a hollow concept because our future is truly at stake. Our culture is our identity and will remain our identity in the future.
Our panel has identified four major themes. You’ve probably read our terms of reference, which are quite extensive and consist of about 15 pages and 31 questions. We worked together over the summer, staring in the first few weeks, to group all this under four themes.
The first theme is the reduction of barriers to accessing advanced telecommunications networks for all Canadians. We know that not everything is accessible to everyone in the country yet.
Second, we must provide the necessary support for the creation, production — there are creators, but they must also be able to produce — and discoverability of Canadian content. We can produce and create great things. However, Canadians must first know that these works exist and that they can go to see and purchase the works. That’s important.
When it comes to improving the rights of the digital citizen-consumer, I believe that we can’t only reduce this theme to the notion of consumer. We must add the notion of citizenship. It’s difficult to exercise our citizenship without access to today’s digital channels of communication.
The fourth and final theme, which is as important as the other themes, is the renewal of the institutional framework for the communications sector.
All these themes — and I can see what mission you’ve established for yourselves —are intertwined. Personally, I’m passionate about this mandate. I’ve seldom had such an intellectually challenging mandate in my life. I think that the same is true for my colleagues on the review panel. We have very different but complementary expertise. We’ll use our expertise to support the public mandate that we’ve been given. Thank you for listening.
Senator Dawson: You both mentioned the diversity on your panel a few times.
[English]
Trust me, it can’t be more diversified than the group you have around here. We have in common being in the same political environment but we are from very different backgrounds.
This happened in a parallel. We decided as a committee that we wanted to study this subject. No one asked us. We felt there was a problem, and we had to be involved.
At the same time we learned, on practically the same day that we announced what we were studying, we learned that the government had announced a panel on the same subject. First of all, we are going ahead, so we have to learn to live together. I guess somewhere along the road, we have been discussing over the last few weeks about having somewhere to focus. We don’t want to trample on your subjects or repeat too many things. We are not working for you. You are not working for us. We want to be productive.
We are looking for guidance. If you think that we can do things that you can’t, please encourage us in looking at those issues.
[Translation]
Your respective comments indicate that Canada has no “one size fits all.” I know your background in areas other than production. Canadian policy is two scorpions in a bottle. The legislation that we try to implement often tends to be for English-speaking Canada, French-speaking Quebec, or for the francophonie in the Eastern and Western Canada. It’s all well and good to say that CBC and Radio-Canada are one company. However, the people who have worked in the field are fully aware that there are two companies. There is one English-speaking company that competes with the Americans, and one Quebec company that’s predominantly Franco-Canadian and that faces different challenges. We need your advice.
[English]
One of the first witnesses we had here told us he was meeting with you and having lunch with you. I told him that we would like her to come before the committee. We would like to get some parameters so that where we are going and where you are going does not overlap or conflict.
We have a calendar that is much shorter than yours. We want this issue to be dealt with before the next election. We want the government, the parties and the players. We will be reacting before you do in February.
We are looking for guidance on what you think we should be saying early in our report. I know you are not political, or maybe a little bit in the past. We are looking for guidance so we can help you and you can help us.
The Chair: We would like the report done by the end of June.
Ms. Yale: I will kick it off and see if my colleague would like to add anything.
First, we welcome the fact that you are also undertaking this study. These are very important questions. I would say at the outset that we have a lot to learn from each other.
We see incredible opportunities to learn from the organizations you are hearing from. Hopefully, if we produce our interim report before you have done your final report, you will be able to reflect on what we have heard, plus all of our written submissions that will be submitted in response to the open call for written submissions, which will come in on November 30. Those will be on the public record. Obviously those will be available for you to consider as well.
In terms of specific guidance for you, I think it would be presumptuous of me at this stage in the process to do that. Obviously we are at a very early stage in our process. We released our call for comments on September 25.
As my colleague expressed, we spent the summer thinking about the terms of reference that had been given to us by government and thinking about how it would be best for us to organize our work and think about our process. The questions set out in the terms of reference are ones that have been given to us by government, but it is ours to decide.
The process we follow is subject to the two timelines we have been given in the What We Heard report of the spring of 2019 and in a final report of no later than January of 2020. We are independent in our process. We have many questions as you can see from our call for comments.
At this point I wouldn’t say we have answers that we could give in the form of guidance to you.
The Chair: Do you want to add anything, Ms. Simard?
Ms. Simard: No.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. I appreciate your professional experience, which gives you the necessary perspective to conduct this review. Canada has adopted a broadcasting policy, and I haven’t seen any indication of a desire to get rid of this policy. I’m happy to see that.
I want to ask questions about the audience, especially Radio-Canada’s audience. Radio-Canada and CBC are part of the Canadian broadcasting policy. The terms of reference contain a number of questions, including two questions that I want to address.
The first is question 13.6, which reads as follows on page 14:
How can CBC/Radio-Canada support and protect the vitality of Canada’s official languages and official language minority communities?
Before conducting this review, you must understand the composition of Radio-Canada’s French-speaking audience, especially outside Quebec. I want to address the aspect regarding francophone official language minority communities. It’s often said that only one million francophones speak French as their first language. I’m from Manitoba. I know Canada very well, but I’m especially familiar with the official language minority communities. There are 2.7 million Canadians who communicate in French and who want more space to live in French. I want to know the following. Does Radio-Canada provide the resources and make the efforts needed to reach this larger audience of over one million francophones who speak French as their first language?
Ms. Simard: Thank you for your questions, Senator Gagné. As my colleague Ms. Yale said, the review of the role of a public broadcaster is one of the issues we’ve raised in this technological and economic environment that has changed so significantly in the world of communications.
We’re also asked to pay particular attention to minority communities. I’m particularly sensitive to these communities, especially given my experience as director general at the National Film Board. I met with all the francophone communities in Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, and with several francophone communities in New Brunswick, since we had a studio in New Brunswick.
I understand this situation. I also understand it on a cultural level, in light of the importance of Radio-Canada in a context where we were often partners. We’re in listening mode. We’ll hear people give their opinion on the role that the public broadcaster CBC/Radio-Canada must play. By the way, CBC must also play a role for the anglophones in Quebec. This aspect exists as well. I don’t think that we’re questioning the fact that we have a public broadcaster. However, is the public broadcaster doing its job properly? Could it do better? What are the resources? How should things be done?
Of course, this is extremely important. I understand and I can tell you that this issue should be heard properly. Let me assure you that we’re listening very closely. At this time, I can’t provide the result of our consultations, since they aren’t finished. Some people have lots of ideas. Most people feel very strongly about CBC/Radio-Canada, but not everyone does.
In terms of what Senator Dawson was saying, I think that we must support each other in our work, since we won’t necessarily hear the same things at the same time. We must support each other because we’re addressing the same issues.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I have a specific question for Ms. Yale and then maybe a general question for both of you.
It is more of a practical question. Ms. Yale, you used to be the president of the Canadian Cable Television Association. You reacted to a 2003 Supreme Court decision by noting that having rates for hanging cable lines on hydro poles, except by individual utilities, would increase prices for consumers.
I am wondering if you could tell us or update us on your perception of the results in the past 15 years. Did you predict accurately?
Ms. Yale: To be honest, I haven’t been involved in the industry since 2010, so my knowledge on that specific subject wouldn’t be very up to date. I can’t really answer your question in terms of the history of that.
Certainly we’re aware of the fact that access to infrastructure is a very important question. It is part of our terms of reference. It is also something that is very much on the minds of many players in the sector, particularly as we start to think about the introduction of 5G technology and what it will mean for access to infrastructure currently under the jurisdiction of different federal, provincial and municipal governments, depending on what infrastructure you are talking about.
Thank you for your question. It’s very much on our minds. At this point, we don’t have a specific view on those issues.
Senator MacDonald: That leads to my next question.
The Canadian Communication Systems Alliance has recommended to the committee that the CRTC be given the power to act as a regulator for support structure attachments, including provincial hydro poles.
Do you agree with the recommendation? Why or why not? What is your position on this?
Ms. Yale: I understand the recommendation that CCSA has made. As I have said, we understand that access to infrastructure of all types is taking on increased importance, particularly as we start to think about new technology and the demands it will place on access to a variety of infrastructure. It is not just the ones that are under provincial jurisdiction today but the ones that are under municipal jurisdiction as well.
It is one of the reasons we are casting a very broad net on the kinds of consultations and meetings we are holding and why we have issued an open call for comments. We are hopeful that those on various sides of the issue will have lots to say that will help us.
I really want to emphasize the point that it is not just about the need for access to support structures as part of the evolution of technology. Our mandate is legislative reform.
To the extent that people have specific recommendations around those support structures, we would really like to understand is whether those recommendations require legislative change? If so, what would be those specific recommendations for legislative change?
Senator MacDonald: This is a broad question for both of you.
Responsibilities for broadcasting and telecommunications are really broken up into four jurisdictions: the Minister of Canadian Heritage; the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development; the Competition Bureau; and the CRTC.
If you were reorganizing the powers of these organizations, what would you recommend, if anything, that should change?
Ms. Yale: One of the specific questions we have been given as part of our mandate is to look at the institutional structure governing the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors as represented today in three pieces of legislation: the Radiocommunications Act, the Telecommunications Act, and the Broadcasting Act.
When people make their recommendations to us, we want to make sure that they address the issue of what is the appropriate structure of the legislation and what is the right division of powers as among the government, the courts, the CRTC, and so on.
We are looking forward to people making very specific recommendations to us on the questions that you are posing at this point.
As I said, we are very early in our process, and we don’t have conclusions. We have lots of questions.
Senator MacDonald: Ms. Simard, do you want to add anything?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: No, I think that Ms. Yale summed it up well. We’re at the start of the process. We started working at the end of June on taking note of and organizing the terms of reference, which are extensive, as you know, since you’ve given yourselves fairly extensive terms of reference. We started the consultations in September. What we’re really doing right now is listening, hearing and asking questions, but we can’t reach any conclusions yet. The matter you’re discussing is clearly written. It’s the institutional framework. We need to look at it and review it. Is it still the right framework? Is it the best? Should other institutions be merged or created? This remains to be seen. We haven’t made any decisions or held any discussions yet regarding this issue.
[English]
Senator Wetston: Thank you for coming today and for your submissions. I have one four-part question that is related to your four themes. The reason I am asking it is that I might not have another chance. I would like to get your reaction to each of them, if I may, only because I am not sure whether I am on the right track.
First, in terms of reducing barriers to accessing advanced telecommunications, is that about market structure? Is that about facilities-based competition? Is that about the concentration in the sector? Is that about the opportunity for new entry? What are you getting at there, if I might ask?
Second, with respect to providing the support necessary for creation and production content, is that about over-the-top providers? Is that about Netflix? Is that about contributions to the sector? Is that about the level playing field? Is that what you are thinking about?
Third, in terms of improving the rights of the digital citizen consumer, is that about net neutrality? I know you are to look into it. I asked the chair of the CRTC about it yesterday. I am preoccupied with net neutrality. I am perhaps on the wrong plane here, but I am preoccupied with it. I would like your comments on that.
Fourth, in his last question Senator McDonald may have gone into this last question on renewing the institutional framework. I go back a long way. I remember the Department of Communications that had one minister responsible for both areas.
I also recall the day when we weren’t as divided on broadcasting and on telecommunications. I don’t need to tell either of you about convergence and what is happening in the sector.
As you are thinking about institutional reform, for me it is not just about the statutes that you mentioned. It is also about the way government has organized themselves in today’s environment. My question would be that maybe we should go back to the department of communications.
Ms. Yale: I will start.
The Chair: Let’s try to be out of here by nine o’clock.
Ms. Yale: You’re scaring me.
The Chair: I am just kidding. We could be here longer.
Ms. Yale: Let me start by saying that there are good reasons this is a joint legislative review, given the interplay among many of the issues. You have noted them yourselves in the way in which you posed the questions.
For ease, we’ve tried to group the 15 pages in the terms of reference and the 30-plus questions we have been given under themes that would allow us to create some structure to the way in which people made their submissions to us.
In terms of thinking about the first theme, at the end of the day we want to create a blueprint for the future that is a world-class communications sector. It is explicitly in our terms of reference and really captures the essence of our aspirational goal to create a legislative framework that enables a world-class communications sector.
When it comes to infrastructure, we are thinking about how to ensure that broadband access is ubiquitously available to all Canadians. Irrespective of where they live, whether or not they have accessibility issues and their language, they should have the ability to connect and to connect with each other so that they are members of the digital economy.
We also recognize that there is a need for a viable market structure to ensure there are incentives to invest in the necessary infrastructure for people to access the broadband at affordable rates.
How do we balance all of that? Those are some of the questions we are considering. At the end of the day, we know that telecommunications infrastructure isn’t just about making sure consumers have access to broadband at affordable rates.
We know as well that the telecommunications infrastructure is a real engine of economic growth, particularly when we think about the way in which disruption is happening in many sectors of the economy, including the energy sector which you know well.
We need to think about all of those ways in which Canada can be a world leader in world-class infrastructure, recognizing that for consumers it’s about having ubiquitous access at good speeds and at affordable rates.
That would be the first part, and I will let Monique Simard address the second part.
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: I would add that access to new technology means the ability to exercise our rights as citizens and our citizenship. If we don’t have access to modern and sophisticated technology today, we can’t exercise our rights as citizens.
To answer the second part of your question concerning content, meaning the creation, production, discoverability and promotion of Canadian content, it’s obviously a key part of our mandate. Why? Because digital technology has obviously completely changed the content. Today we can access any free or paid content when we want, where we want and on any platform we want. This weakens Canadian content in many ways, and yet Canadian content is an essential part of our collective identity. This is an extremely important issue.
By “weakens Canadian content,” we mean that the content is weakened by the availability of other content from different companies, platforms and so on. We’ll be looking at the whole issue of foreign operators and their activities in Canada. I can’t tell you what conclusions we’ll reach, because this is obviously a topic that you hear about every day in the newspapers and on the radio. Everyone’s talking about it, not only in Canada, but around the world. I imagine that you have your own research groups in the Senate that will provide input, because these questions are being asked almost everywhere around the world. Obviously, we’ll address the matter, listen and hold discussions. We’ll then make recommendations, and you’ll do so as well. We can’t stick our heads in the sand like ostriches. This is an unavoidable reality in relation to our mandate.
[English]
Ms. Yale: If you permit me, I will come to your last couple of points. You asked about the digital consumer and if it was about net neutrality. Certainly net neutrality is one of the issues.
When we think about the digital consumer or the digital citizen, issues about consumer protection are very much on our mind. We want to make sure that sufficient digital technology safeguards are available to consumers in terms of their safety, security and privacy. With the proliferation of new technology, some of the safeguards may need to be enhanced or changed in the way in which they are enshrined in legislation. We are addressing many consumer and citizenship issues.
Finally, to your comment about the good old days of the department of communications, I would say we are waiting to see what institutional reform, including changes in terms of allocation of responsibilities as between government and CRTC, or even within government itself, will come forward. We look forward to seeing if that recommendation comes in the call for comments on November 30 or before you in any of your consultations.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, Ms. Simard. I’m always surprised when you talk about consumers. This government took three years to launch this study, and the study will be available in a year in a half. Therefore, the study will take a total of five years. I’m surprised that we’re taking so long to meet the needs of consumers, because this has been a critical issue for a decade. This is a critical issue for francophone communities across Canada when it comes to consumers, costs and accessibility. How many consumer groups in your organization sit on the committee?
[English]
Ms. Yale: In terms of the committee itself, I was certainly a consumer advocate for many years and another of our panel members is very involved.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m talking about incorporated consumer groups. There are about 200 of these groups across Canada. How many representatives of these groups are full members of your panel?
[English]
Ms. Yale: In terms of members of the panel, to my knowledge there isn’t a consumer organization on our panel. As you well know, I did not have any say as chair of the panel in the composition of our group.
In terms of our outreach, we are making sure that we meet extensively with consumer groups, accessibility groups, and groups representing official language minorities right across the country. We have done extensive outreach with all of those involved in the issues, both in telecommunications and the cultural sector.
We are making a special point of reaching out to those groups in all of the meetings that we’re holding.
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: In other words, no groups are represented on our panel; no one represents a particular group. I think it is important to point that out. No one represents —
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Simard, consumers are dissatisfied with cable and telephone services because of monopolies. A few studies have been conducted on telecommunications. In order to come up with something that will really meet consumers’ needs and expectations, it seems to me that the government should have appointed one or two consumer groups, so that they could speak on consumers’ behalf.
[English]
Ms. Yale: I take your point. That would be something you would have to address to the government since obviously we were not involved in the selection of panel members.
The only answer I can give is that each of us were asked if we were willing to serve and to make our best possible recommendations for legislative reform balancing the various issues we have in front of us, including the rights of the digital consumer.
As I was saying in response to Senator Wetston, we are very preoccupied with the safety, security and privacy of consumers with the disruptive changes in technology that are taking place.
The Chair: To follow up, how many panel members are there and where is everyone from?
Ms. Yale: We are seven panel members.
The Chair: Two are here.
Ms. Yale: We have another panel member in the room, Marina Pavlović , who is based here in Ottawa. She works in the area of academics. She is a professor who studies consumer and digital protection issues and serves on the board of the organization that deals with consumer issues around telecommunications services.
Peter Grant, whom you may know, is a broadcasting lawyer. He started his career at the CRTC and was involved in the drafting of the current version of the Broadcasting Act.
The Chair: Where is he from?
Ms. Yale: I think Peter Grant is originally from Toronto or Kapuskasing.
The Chair: I don’t need to know where they are from originally but where they live now.
Ms. Yale: He lives in Toronto. Hank Intven, a telecommunications lawyer, was involved in the drafting of the Telecommunications Act that is currently in place and led the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel. He is currently living in Victoria.
The Chair: He is not from there, is he?
Ms. Yale: He is originally from southwestern Ontario.
I was born in Montreal and now live in Ottawa.
Monique Simard, is from Montreal.
Pierre Trudel is based in Montreal. I guess he was originally from Montreal.
Monica Song is a telecommunications lawyer based here in Ottawa.
Did I forget anyone?
Ms. Simard: No.
The Chair: There is no one from the Maritimes, the North or the West, really.
Ms. Yale: That would be correct.
The Chair: That is interesting. I wanted to know that as a follow-up to what Senator Boisvenu was getting at.
Senator Galvez: It is interesting to talk about this subject. It has been growing in our minds and discussions. I am completely outside this field, so I am trying to organize my thoughts about it.
Most of the things that you both have said are music to my ears. It is true that we have heard about a lot of problems that were listed by my colleague Senator Wetston. We also heard from a lot of authorities that were supposed to do things before and not let the situation degrade to the point Senator Boisvenu is talking about.
As an example, many people came here to point fingers as to why the CRTC didn’t do this or didn’t do that.
I gather that you have described the method or the approach by which you will fulfil your mandate. Ms. Simard, you have described the theme objectives to which you want to direct your recommendations.
It is similar to evaluating a bill and receiving a lot of people: witnesses, lobbyists and groups. Do you think that you will be giving your recommendations without taking into consideration economic and technical factors, as my colleague described?
Do you think you have carte blanche at the end to say that you need to split the CRTC or some of the present bills?
Ms. Yale: If your question is how independent we are, we have been given terms of reference by the government. They made it clear to us that we are completely independent in terms of the process we undertake and the recommendations we make.
Senator Galvez: Will take into consideration any economic factors?
Ms. Yale: For sure. We certainly understand we have to think about all of the factors that would be necessary to create, as I said, a vibrant communications sector. That involves quite a number of factors ranging from what it will take to have a world-class infrastructure. Obviously, it is about how we can build economically affordable infrastructure and how we can ensure financing for the creation, production and discoverability of Canadian content.
Implicit in many of the issues we have to address is the economic model under which these things can take place, if I am understanding your question properly.
Senator Galvez: Yes. You said that you wanted to create a framework for legislative communications of the future, but we have been hearing that the communications domain is evolving quickly.
What does future mean to you? When will you have to revisit that?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: I think it’s the same challenge your committee faces. In our reflections on this, people talk about two things: pace of changes and complete changes. Total paradigms shifts are taking place.
To make recommendations, we must be able to develop them in this context with the necessary flexibility. That is probably a theme you have often heard mentioned by people who came to talk to you: Flexibility is needed, as nothing can any longer be passed within rigidly defined compartments. We must stop thinking in a vacuum because everything is related and connected today. So we will have no choice either but to deal with this in that way.
When I say we want to propose, I mean that we are being given the mandate to propose. I still don’t know what we will propose. We have no claims in that respect for the time being. We are hearing from people; we are listening. The description of problems is starting to get pretty extensive and detailed. Solutions for the future still need to be worked out. So that is sort of how we see the situation.
[English]
Senator Manning: Thank you to our panellists. I would like to ask a couple of questions with regard to your starting to receive written submissions as of September 1.
Ms. Yale: No. We issued our call for comments on September 25, and the deadline for written submissions is November 30.
Senator Manning: I know you mentioned in your remarks that you had around 90 stakeholder meetings. How many written submissions have you received so far?
Ms. Yale: None, as yet, unless someone decides to submit ahead of the deadline, which we are not really expecting. We are expecting a flood of submissions, I would say, at the end of November.
Senator Manning: That was to be my next question, so you answered that one too.
You may have answered this question, but are you looking in your mandate at the cost of competition out there that gives opportunity for Canadians? I live in a small fishing community in Newfoundland and Labrador. Are you looking at the costs of telecommunications in different parts of the country, especially in remote areas, versus the costs in urban centres? Is that part of your mandate?
Ms. Yale: Absolutely. One of the things that is explicit for us to consider is how to ensure that Canadians, irrespective of where they live, have access to broadband infrastructure at affordable rates.
That is very much part of what we have to consider in all parts of Canada, including First Nations communities in the Far North.
Senator Manning: In the stakeholder meetings you have had so far and since you have not had any written submissions so far, has that been part of the discussion? Can you elaborate on the concerns people have raised?
Ms. Yale: Fair enough
Senator Manning: Can you elaborate on the concerns people have raised?
Ms. Yale: I think it will come as no surprise that we are meeting with consumer groups everywhere we go. Affordability is very much on people’s minds, as well as access to high-speed, true broadband infrastructure.
It is one thing to have access to the Internet. It is another thing to have sufficient broadband and sufficient speeds so that you can be a true participant in the digital economy.
What will it take to ensure that people in every part of Canada are truly able to participate and have access to all of the services that would be available to people in major urban centres because of the speed of their Internet access?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: I think it is important to tell you that we are also talking to smaller operators that handle installation and are often very involved in more remote, less accessible, lower-density regions. They have very specific knowledge of accessibility problems for people living in low-density areas.
When we talk about remote regions, it all depends on what the region is remote from. I would rather say low-density areas. This is the issue that arises in telecommunications. It’s about density and low-density. Of course, we remain very much attuned to what is being said. As I was saying earlier, I know that my colleagues also feel that this is a matter of citizen rights.
[English]
Senator Manning: I’m concerned about the discussion around sparsely populated or remote. Where I live in Newfoundland and Labrador we don’t have cellphone coverage. When I grew up there, as I have said before, the only channel we had on our TV was CBC. It was our outlook to the world. Today, when I turn on my TV, I have channels from all over the place.
Ms. Simard, you mentioned that the pace of change was dizzying. There is no doubt that it is. Just trying to keep up with the technology is dizzying.
How does your panel plan on addressing the concerns of maintaining cultural identity and our stories of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador?
In my situation, compared to what you have on your remote and flicking through the channels from all over the world, I haven’t seen any, versus the “Land and Sea” show on CBC in Newfoundland. I would rather watch “Land and Sea,” but many other people might want to watch something else. How do we maintain that?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: One of our biggest challenges is strengthening our content, our Canadian production, and exposing them to discovery. New terms are being used in telecommunications, such as “disruption” and “discoverability.” “Discoverability” is all about finding ways and strategies to ensure that Canadians and families — like you, in Labrador, or those living elsewhere — can discover, be aware, appreciate and make their own choices. It is not about closing the country to foreign content. It is about prioritizing the positioning of our content and our stories.
I am a former producer. I worked in Newfoundland and in all of the country’s regions. The way people write the scenarios of their stories in every part of the country will differ because they have their own identity. There is a national identity and a regional identity. It is important to preserve them. Our work is to prevent them from being diluted in everything that is produced, within the wide range of service offers. We must highlight our offer amid the sea of current offers. That’s a major challenge, but it is also our mandate.
[English]
Senator Manning: I wish you luck with that.
Ms. Simard: Merci.
Senator Simons: Up until three weeks ago, I was a journalist. I am here filling in tonight for a colleague.
You have talked, Ms. Simard, about disruption and paradigm shifts. The pace of technological change is such that what we have regulated in Canada up until now has been radio and television.
As I am sure I don’t need to tell you, nobody under the age of 30 watches television. The younger they are, they don’t buy televisions. They get all of their news content online. Broadcasters such as Global, CBC and CTV have all recognized this. Certainly in Edmonton where I am from, Global and CTV have dramatically shifted their resources in their newsrooms toward online, as has the CBC. In 15 years, I am not sure there will be television.
Radio is the same. It is satellite radio and podcasts. All of these fall outside the ambit of what the CRTC can regulate, particularly in terms of content.
In terms of the mandate of your committee, I am curious to know whether you have the discretion and the brief in your mandate to look at what happens. In broadcasting the net grows tighter. Will there be broadcasters 20 years from now?
Ms. Yale: The reason we have been asked to study the question is for the very issue of concern that you raised for the way in which people access content.
It is not just what we call over-the-top services from outside Canada. The fact is that consumers, especially younger consumers, as you know, increasingly want to access their audiovisual content, music, entertainment and news online on many devices at any time anywhere.
How do we ensure that is part of the system when we consider what means to have a communications system of the future? We have to figure out a way to make that relevant and to think about how that is sustainable for the long term.
As you say, business models are changing and adapting. Many radio and television broadcasters have shifted resources in anticipation of the ways they will survive and thrive going forward. That is challenging the traditional regulatory model. It is our mandate to try and figure out what the new model should look like.
Senator Simons: Is there a place, then, for regulating content in that new paradigm? I don’t know how on earth one would propose to regulate what is on the Internet, or do you need to do it more in terms of a funding model rather than a regulatory model?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: We attended an annual conference on international communications today. For this afternoon’s topic, people came from France, the U.S., one person came from Taiwan and someone else from Europe. The question asked was the following: Can the Internet be regulated? That question is coming up throughout the world right now. So far, there has been a laissez-faire approach. We told ourselves that the Internet was open. Since 2008, with mobile phones, when the shift occurred toward social networks, we have been wondering whether the Internet should be regulated or not. That is a good question, which comes before us in a way.
You are a journalist. Newspapers, print media — We need to talk about media today. We can no longer think about a print newspaper, a television or a radio. All that is being contaminated. You go to a website instead. In Montreal, La Presse no longer exists in hard copy. If someone had told you that five years ago, you would have thought it impossible. There is La Presse+, which has texts, but also video and audio content. There are hybrid media, which are very extensive and of good quality. The issue is the shift of advertising revenues.
Senator Simons: Exactly.
Ms. Simard: All traditional media used advertising business models that have now shifted elsewhere. I am sure that you will discuss this a lot. The numbers are there. We have to take that into account, as well.
The vocabulary is changing, as I said earlier. Now we use disruption and discoverability. At the same time, the very terms of media will change because of technology. Is “broadcasting” still a term? We have a piece of legislation that focuses on that, but is it the right term? We don’t know, but our task is to ask the question, and I assume you will ask the same question.
This is a time of fundamental changes, especially with regard to information. That is a citizen and democracy concern we should all share. We must also take into account the aspect of skip generations, habits and usage. Are an 18-year-old’s habits the same as they will be when they are 30 years old? We need to take that into account.
[English]
Senator Simons: My dad still needs the TV Guide. My daughter doesn’t know what the TV Guide is. In your mandate is the balance to be struck between protecting and supporting legacy versus new mediums?
You talked about the whole issue of discovering things. Should the emphasis be less on regulation and more on supporting the new media platforms so that new audiences can discover that material?
Ms. Yale: Yes.
Senator Simons: That was easy.
Ms. Yale: As my colleague was explaining, the definitional boundaries are blurring between the various forms that were discrete in the past.
As we think about the appropriate way in which the regulatory system can be ultimately structured, we will have to take into consideration that the old newspapers may not exist, but we want local expression, whatever that form of local expression is on a transponder is.
Senator Simons: We don’t want the CRTC regulating La Presse on an iPad either.
Ms. Yale: The issue is that the content it is now in print, on radio, on traditional television and audiovisual. What is the right way to address those from a Canadian cultural perspective to ensure the Canadian content of the creation, production and discoverability? That is the fundamental question.
One of the reasons your panel has been struck is to identify the challenge of how to ensure that there is a vibrant Canadian broadcasting system, using the term “broadcasting” largely to reflect the system as a whole.
Senator Simons: In a world of more narrowcasting all the time.
Senator Wetston: I know that you will cover a lot of territory but, as you might imagine, I am a little concerned about market power. I remain so, particularly with respect to the huge international global companies that have such considerable market power as FANG group. You have heard about that, of course.
Ms. Yale: Indeed.
Senator Wetston: I am wondering whether or not you will be able to pay some attention to this issue as it may affect some of the issues you will be studying and looking at in your review.
Ms. Yale: Certainly the FANG Gang, as they are called, are very much on our minds when it comes to Canadian cultural issues in terms of people accessing audiovisual content outside the current regulated system.
You raised a slightly different question: What are the market failure issues associated with their emergence in the context of the traditional players?
As Monique Simard indicated, we know that they are scooping up a huge amount of the advertising revenues that would have been available previously to support the Canadian cultural sector. We see the evolution to more and more subscription-based models to replace the advertising revenues that were there in the past.
Are market solutions such as subscription models other ways to adapt to the change? Are they sufficient to ensure that we have a robust, vibrant, world-class communications sector, or is there a need for other forms of intervention that would be necessary in a legislative framework to address them and other things?
The Chair: Ms. Simard, you talked about the incredible amount of change taking place. Doesn’t that mean that it will create more demand for programming and creative content?
Won’t these platforms need something to broadcast? Isn’t that good? Isn’t that a great, positive thing for the Canadian economy?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: I will tell you that this is the golden age of content. Recently, there was the Global TV and Digital Content Market, MIPTV, and there has never been as much demand for content production. We are used to thinking of television, the theatre and the radio. That no longer exists. What does exist is a demand for good content.
So yes, the answer to your question is that there are many platforms that need to be supplied with good content. We have extraordinary creators here: scriptwriters, cinematographers, actors, musicians. The challenge is to get organized to support that production to supply various platforms, here and abroad. People now know that they need to be able to shine on the world stage. They can no longer operate in a closed market.
The best example is Quebec, which is recognized for the successful ratings of Quebec productions. Even in Quebec, industry people can no longer think that the market is closed and that they can be satisfied with that. So the challenge is to continue to be excellent and ambitious in terms of content, and that content must be known by Canadians, who pay for it in part or in full. That question is being asked everywhere. People must be the best in their own country, but also internationally.
[English]
The Chair: But isn’t the question: Are people watching it? The question of creating it is not that great a question to me. The great question is: Will people watch it? If people want to watch it, people will create it.
You are looking at it backward. You can create all the content you want, but if it is on TV or on a platform no one is watching, what is the point of it? What is the point of all of that?
Ms. Yale: Let me make two comments. First, as Ms. Simard said, the demand for content is extraordinary with all of these platforms, and the industry is very involved in producing content right now.
First, the issue for us is making sure that the content created and produced in Canada reflects Canadian culture, could not be anyplace or anywhere, and is a Canadian story that reflects cultural aspirations.
Second is discoverability. When there are so many choices out there, how do we ensure that Canadians who want to see Canadian cultural content can even find it?
If you’re a Netflix subscriber right now, Netflix, pushes content to you based on your viewing preferences. Every member of the family has their own Netflix profile. I see everybody is nodding their heads. Then Netflix uses its algorithm to decide what content to push to you.
It may be interesting, but if I as a Canadian wish that their algorithm includes a preference for Canadian choices, how does that take place right now? It’s very hard to ensure that the great Canadian content on the screen is pushed to me so that when I am flicking through I will say, “Oh, I’ll watch that; it looks interesting.”
When you say, “I’ll just watch what is on,” the fact is that there is a huge and increasing number of choices. Part of our mandate is to think about how to make sure that it is discoverable, and that’s very tricky to figure out.
The Chair: You know how that works. If I watch a Canadian historical piece more than once, that is what will show up as a preference for me. I will discover it, and all these Canadian pieces will show up. Then that is what I would watch because that is what I like and that would be terrific.
Ms. Yale: That would be terrific.
The Chair: It doesn’t mislead me. It only takes me to where I want to go.
Ms. Yale: Assuming you even know that it is there in the first place.
The Chair: That might be another problem.
Ms. Yale: There we are.
The Chair: I am older and it drives me crazy. Nonetheless, I have heard this before when TV came out. People were talking about the end of the film industry and the end of radio because television was going to be everything. Everyone should look at a history book to see the discussion that took place during that time.
Do you know what? The film industry fixed things up. They changed, and all of a sudden people were going back to the movies.
Radio is surviving quite nicely in Canada. I am enjoying Canadian radio. I listen to it all the time. Before, when I got out of range for listening to 650 in Saskatoon while driving to Alberta, I had to find something. Now I don’t have to do so. I go to Sirius radio and listen to what I want.
It is not that I didn’t listen to the radio back home. It was only because I was away, and I found a way to get there.
There’s a lot more to this. We are making it too complicated. I think the market will determine these things.
Ms. Yale: Senator Wetston asked the same question: Will the market take care of these things in terms of the way market structures evolve and new business models come into play?
Certainly, as part of our journey and based on the submissions we receive, we have to be open to understanding whether it will be the case that market forces will address these things. If we think they do, then what would have to change in the legislation to enable that because right now things are fairly tightly regulated?
If we don’t think market forces would be sufficient or if there would be market failures of one sort or another, including the discoverability of Canadian content, what appropriate tools and resources need to be enshrined in legislation, both potentially in terms of incentives for that content to be created, produced and discovered, on the one hand, and enforcement mechanisms so that there is a stick and a carrot to ensure that obligations put in place through the legislation can be adhered to if there are failures to adhere?
We are very conscious of the fact that we have to think about a future that is constantly changing. The legislation has to be sufficiently flexible, not too rigid, as you pointed out. If in fact the evolution through the market will take care of the problem, then that will be one of the conclusions we could reach.
As I say, it is very early in our journey, and we have lots of questions but we don’t have answers.
Senator Gagné: I have a follow-up question on the idea of markets. If it is a question of opening up the market, let’s pull the plug on Canadian content because all the American products will probably just take over.
I guess that could certainly be an option, but I am not sure that is where we want to go. Well, that is not where I want to go. Maybe that is what I am saying.
Being from a communauté de langue officielle minoritaire, it is important that I can recognize myself in content. It is a question of balance. What I am hearing is that there has to be give and take in all of this.
Ms. Yale: Certainly our mandate is to ensure Canadian cultural expression.
Senator Gagné: Exactly.
The Chair: Is “Saturday Night Live” a Canadian program on NBC?
Ms. Yale: Because there are Canadians on it, do you mean?
The Chair: No, because a Canadian produced it, developed it and turned it into one of the best late-night comedy shows on television. Tons of Canadian comics were on that show who got extremely famous in Hollywood and made movies in Hollywood that were shown in Canada.
What is Canadian content? Wasn’t all of that Canadian content, all those people we lost to the United States making movies and TV shows? There are tons of them.
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: Those are great shows, but a very important thing that has not been mentioned is intellectual property, which is what brings money into the country. So, “Saturday Night Live,” a show that I appreciate as much as you and that makes me laugh, does not bring any money to Canadians. Some Canadians work on it, of course, but intellectual property of cultural production is extremely important. It is the core of the issue right now all over the globe: where does the revenue from a successful production go?
I will give you an example in the video game sector. Canada is a high-performing country in the video game industry, especially in Quebec. Ubisoft employs thousands of people in Montreal, as well as in Vancouver, among other places. They are inventing extraordinary video games that make a tremendous amount of money around the world. Assassin’s Creed was conceived by a young Quebecer, but not a penny is coming to Canada. Everything goes to France, which owns the game’s intellectual property rights.
So when you think of content, it’s about not only what is there, but also what country the content belongs to and must return. Our great actors and scriptwriters who go to work in New York and Hollywood attended our Canadian public schools, our Canadian theatre schools. They were well educated, and that’s wonderful. However, we must think about a national mandate that reflects our identify.
To answer the question asked by Senator Galvez and Senator Wetston, it is clear that economic parameters are also at the heart of our reflections. It is impossible to think of these issues without thinking of the economy. Intellectual property is money.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Simons has a question to ask, and then I will ask one question at the end on copyright, which you can think about. It concerns us all.
Senator Simons: I want to flip around the whole question about discoverability.
I first saw “Kim’s Convenience” as a stage play in Edmonton. It came on tour. Then it became a television show, and I thought, oh, an earnest CBC Television show.
One day I watched an episode on an airplane, and I thought it was kind of adorable. I don’t watch conventional television, but then it popped up in my Netflix. At first I thought it was just in Canadian Netflix, and then I heard all my American friends talking about what a wonderful show it was.
I thought it fascinating because it was not a show that a Canadian could have sold to an American broadcaster. However, for a niche market like Netflix, it has become hugely successful, not because it is dumbed-down content stripped of its Canadian identity, but because it is the most extraordinarily Canadian/Torontonian show possible.
I thought about “Kim’s Convenience”; “Alias Grace,” which is also a hit on Netflix; the new “Anne of Green Gables,” an international hit on Netflix; and, from Edmonton, “A User’s Guide to Cheating Death,” with the University of Alberta’s Timothy Caulfield.
When we look at these models, we see high-quality, intrinsically Canadian programming penetrating international markets in Australia, Britain and the United States in a way they could never do before.
Does that tell us that the market is not the magic solution to everything and that, if we put the investment into Canadian content, perhaps we don’t need to be regulating it so much as promoting it, making it discoverable, and putting before people as they never would have before?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: I could answer in two ways. It is true that great things are produced and then sold to Netflix, and intellectual property remains in Canada. That is important and it’s very different. However, there may be productions that are undertaken by Netflix in Canada whose intellectual property belongs to Netflix. So different economic models exist.
However, what we should aim for is two things: first, keeping intellectual property in Canada as much as possible because that is profitable; and, at the same time, having the ambition to sell our productions internationally.
You probably watch Scandinavian cop shows from Sweden or Norway. They are major successes whose intellectual property remains in Scandinavia. Since those shows are of high quality, they are watched around the world. The challenge we are facing consists in managing to both create and support wonderful productions.
Sometimes, as you said, shows cover topics that you don’t find interesting, but that is not the case. A good story is a good story. These are always good stories and, when they are done well, they become universal, and when we say they are universal, we mean that they can be sold around the world. However, funding is needed for promotion and marketing. I am speaking to you as a former producer, as this is an area I am very familiar with. I am telling you that, when I look at countries similar to Canada in terms of size and population, with linguistic complexities similar to ours, I know that it can be done.
I may be exceeding my mandate, but I am speaking passionately because I did that and because I know it is possible. All that requires a fairly sophisticated system, and Canada has had a sophisticated system for decades. In 1930, when Canada created CBC/Radio-Canada, it was a choice based on values. Over the course of decades, many institutions have been created, such as the NFB.
Mr. Chair, of course, the world is changing and we sometimes have apocalyptic visions of the change, but we must be able to measure the change properly to deal with it. That is your job, as well as ours.
[English]
The Chair: I think we could see it all as opportunity and not as problematic.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: Thank you very much. Thank you for listening to us.
[English]
Ms. Yale: Thank you.
The Chair: It was more like a discussion. I think everyone really enjoyed it. We wish you the very best in your work.
Ms. Simard: And to you.
The Chair: We will watch each other, and maybe we will learn from each other as well. Hopefully we will be finished in June and you will be finished on time in 2020.
(The committee adjourned.)