THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 23, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:47 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to transport and communications generally.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. My name is Leo Housakos. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of this committee. I would like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator Simons: Hello. I’m Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, in Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Robinson: Good evening. Welcome. I’m Mary Robinson from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. This evening, we will begin our study of the local and regional services provided by CBC/Radio-Canada.
This evening, we have the pleasure to have before our committee officials from Cultural Affairs at Canadian Heritage: Joëlle Montminy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister; Michel Sabbagh, Director General; and Annick Munezero, Director. Welcome and thank you for joining us. We will first hear your opening remarks, which are relegated to five minutes, followed by Q and A. Ms. Montminy, you have the floor.
Joëlle Montminy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Canadian Heritage: Thank you very much, chair. Good evening, senators. I’m here today with Michel Sabbagh, who is Director General of the Audiovisual Branch; and Annick Munezero, Director of Indigenous, Digital and Public Media at Canadian Heritage.
We’re here to speak to you about CBC/Radio-Canada, specifically its local and regional services. Before I begin, I’d like to mention that CBC/Radio-Canada is an independent Crown corporation that operates at arm’s length from government. The Broadcasting Act contains several provisions that guarantees its freedom of expression as well as its journalistic and programming independence.
Through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CBC/Radio-Canada is accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.
[Translation]
CBC/Radio-Canada is also accountable to the CRTC, which sets out the public broadcaster’s specific obligations. These obligations include Canadian content, programming and local news requirements.
[English]
The role of Canadian Heritage with regard to CBC/Radio-Canada contains two main functions. The department supports the minister with respect to the typical governance and reporting matters of Crown corporations, so coordinating appointments and tabling reports before Parliament. The department also provides policy advice with respect to the corporation’s mandate and objectives under the Broadcasting Act.
For example, recently we were supporting the minister in our work with the advisory committee on the future of the corporation.
[Translation]
As you no doubt know, the media ecosystem is facing a number of challenges in Canada and around the world. The economic foundations that once supported public interest journalism have crumbled, leaving many parts of the country at risk of a media desert.
Traditional press publishers were once in a good position to provide quality journalism that supported democracy. However, these days, free content is widely available, people have little desire to pay and the advertising market has been restructured by global digital platforms. For example, in 2021, Facebook, Google and Amazon garnered over 88% of all digital advertising revenue in Canada.
[English]
These platforms are able to attract advertising, influence attention, shape how content is discovered and leverage user data to maintain an advantage. The consequence has been a substantial decline in traditional media.
To illustrate the impact, from 2008 to 2024, 521 newspapers across Canada closed or consolidated due to a merger, including 400 community newspapers. These major shifts in the media ecosystem have led to the spread of disinformation and a weakening of Canadians’ trust in democratic institutions. According to the Reuters Institute, Canadians’ trust in news overall sits at 39%, continuing a downward trend for both English- and French-speaking Canadians. This represents a drop of nearly 20 percentage points since 2018.
In response to this crisis, the government has introduced measures to support local, independent and reliable news. These include fiscal support such as the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, the digital news subscription tax credit and the registered journalism organization status to encourage charitable donations.
We’ve also introduced legislative measures — some of them you are familiar with — including the Online News Act from a while ago and funding programs such as the Local Journalism Initiative, the Canadian Periodical Fund and the official languages Community Media Strategic Support Fund.
Canadian Heritage has also introduced measures to build societal resilience to this disinformation, such as the Digital Citizen Contribution Program.
[Translation]
As the national public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a key role in promoting cultural expression, bilingualism and national identity. The Broadcasting Act mandates CBC/Radio-Canada to provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains. It fulfills this mandate in a number of ways.
CBC/Radio-Canada provides distinctively Canadian stories in English and French on its 27 television channels, 88 radio stations and various digital services. It invests in productions from under-represented groups, while providing services specifically for Indigenous communities in eight languages through outlets such as CBC North and CBC Indigenous. CBC/Radio-Canada also plays a vital role in broadcasting news and information, particularly at local and regional levels. CBC/Radio-Canada operates in over 60 communities across Canada.
[English]
This physical presence enables journalists to cover and amplify public interest stories that are relevant to the communities as well as foster a deeper connection and sense of belonging with the public broadcaster. It’s also worth noting that without the public broadcaster, many of these markets would become news deserts, as they may not be viable for commercial media.
To conclude, in an era of rapid technological change in an evolving media environment, CBC/Radio-Canada continues to have an important role to play to support and inform citizenship, cultural preservation and public discourse.
Thank you, chair, for the opportunity to discuss the role of the Government of Canada and the CBC in our national media landscape. We look forward to questions from the committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Montminy.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you very much for being here, witnesses.
I should tell you that I spent 30 years as a working journalist before I joined the Senate, six of them with the CBC and then the latter part of my career in newspapers. I am well aware of the trends that you describe of newspapers, particularly in regional markets outside of Toronto and Montréal, being in free fall.
For me, the role of the CBC has never been more important, yet the CBC is pulled in so many different directions. It is expected to do regional news, often being the only or at least the leading source in its communities. It does radio. It does television. It does online, which is a much larger part, as people have stopped watching TV and moved to consuming their news online. It does English and French. It used to do far more arts programming. Now that has all but evaporated, especially regionally. It used to do far more feature programming. That has evaporated, especially regionally. In the meantime, it is doing baking shows, music shows, sitcoms and the like, trying to be everything for everyone.
Is it reasonable to expect the CBC to do that on the budget that it has? Is it possible, in order to do its regional work well, that it needs not less money but much more? Is it possible that it can only survive if it focuses on the things that are most core essential to Canadians, particularly regional coverage?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for your questions. The funding of the corporation I think is at the core of your questions in terms of what we can do.
As you know, the mandate of the corporation is to provide a wide range of services to Canadians, wherever they are. Yes, it has a very broad mandate. It has a mandate to, again, inform, enlighten and entertain. Those are kind of three different streams. As you said, contrary to when they were created 90 years ago, they have to do this on multiple platforms now, which is very costly. We are in a vast country, so Canadians are spread out, and to have that local presence can be a challenge.
I would say as well that we’ve looked at other countries in terms of the level of per capita funding that other countries invest in their public broadcaster. Sometimes it’s hard to compare because in Canada, we also have two official languages, and CBC/Radio-Canada also offers coverage in eight Indigenous languages. To find parallels are sometimes difficult because we have such a complex media environment for our public broadcaster.
Having said that, in terms of the current level of funding, CBC/Radio-Canada receives approximately $33 per citizen per year. That’s the level of funding. Within the 20 large democratic countries that we compare ourselves to, we rank seventeenth. The average within those 20 countries is $79 per citizen per year, so the level of funding for the corporation is far less and there’s complexity, as you said.
There’s been investment over the years. In 2016, the government invested $675 million over five years, and then there was a certain amount that was ongoing. Due to inflation and real dollars now, this increase is no longer significant.
In recent years, there have been increases of between $21 million for about three years, and then more recently, Budget 2024 increased the budget to $42 million.
Within that, as I’m sure you know, last year there were also some layoffs by the corporation in order to meet its financial pressures. They did increase, to a certain extent, their local presence as well in a number of locations. They now have a number of new bureaus because they are focusing on local presence. I forget the number of new bureaus but there are quite a few with one or two people so they can offer that presence.
Senator Simons: It just seems to me that instead of an ill‑fated bill like Bill C-18, which has thus far done absolutely nothing for Canadian journalism and, in fact, has made it far harder for people to access the news, if the government instead targeted dollars not just to the CBC but specifically to regional programming, we would be much better off than trying to create some Rube Goldberg device to take money from here and put it there. Why not just put Canadian tax dollars to serve Canadians where they live?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for your question. We cannot do that because of the independence of the corporation. We cannot direct the operations of the Crown corporations. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the independence of the corporation is described in many provisions of the Broadcasting Act.
In fact, when the corporation was created, there was a choice made to give the sole authority to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, with respect to the conditions of licence, which are now called conditions of services, to the CRTC. In terms of the content, what they do, how and where they do it, the government does not have any levers to influence these choices.
Having said that, the recent decision of the CRTC vis-à-vis CBC/Radio-Canada does contain a number of requirements in terms of local presence according to the broad objectives of the act, but we don’t have the ability to target investments toward particular activities.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. I think that’s helpful to set the stage.
Ms. Montminy: Thank you.
The Chair: The question I have is in regard to CBC’s licensing mandate, which is, in whole and in part, the exclusive jurisdiction of the ministry. The ministry is the one that determines the licensing obligations and rights. When the CBC was constructed, one of the core elements by Heritage Canada was that they service local and regional news.
The question I have for the ministry is: Why has it been now for years they have not been in compliance with that licensing agreement? They’ve been ignoring it because of cutbacks. They’ve drastically reduced the local regional news to the point it’s become a detriment. I repeat, they have infringed completely on their licensing right and the CRTC continues to allow them to do so. They’re part and parcel in allowing them to get away with it.
The question is: The CRTC has allowed CBC to get away with it; why has the government allowed them to continue to be not compliant with their licensing agreement?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for your question. Again, the government has no authority over the requirements or the conditions of licence. It is strictly the CRTC that determines the conditions of licence or conditions of service and ensures compliance. The government has no role. Again, this is as per the Broadcasting Act. The programming independence of the corporation is such that only the CRTC can impose those requirements and enforce them.
The Chair: Ms. Montminy, in the Broadcasting Act, the minister has final authority to instruct the CRTC to pull their licence if they’re not compliant. The buck always stops at the end of the day with the minister —
Ms. Montminy: There are some —
The Chair: — clearly.
Ms. Montminy: — mechanisms. For instance, the last licence that was issued in 2002 had some new requirements, and we received 14 petitions from various stakeholders. As a result, the Governor-in-Council has used the power under the Broadcasting Act to ask the CRTC to go back and revisit the conditions of licence that were put forward. A new revised decision or confirmation of a decision is pending, so we don’t know when the CRTC —
The Chair: So the minister did instruct the CRTC to revisit?
Ms. Montminy: To revisit its decision.
The Chair: Do you also agree in the Broadcasting Act the minister has the right to impose fines, Ms. Montminy?
Ms. Montminy: The Governor-in-Council did that, not the minister. It is not done — but it is a significant difference.
The Chair: Does the Governor-in-Council have the right to impose fines if they don’t respect their licensing?
Ms. Montminy: No.
The Chair: They don’t have the right to impose fines?
Ms. Montminy: No. The CRTC can do so if they are not complying with their licence.
The Chair: Basically it’s the CRTC, then, that’s not carrying out their mandate; is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Montminy: The CRTC has sole authority, yes.
The Chair: They are not imposing the fine and obligating the CBC to respect their licensing agreement.
Senator Clement: I want you to come back over the 39% lack of trust. If you could dig deeper in that. You then stated that there were some things that you have — thank you for being here, by the way. Sorry, that was so rude. It’s been a long day. Wow. Thank you.
You talked about 39% trust in news. Where do you get that? Can you give more detail around that? Then you listed some programs — labour tax credits, digital news tax credits. Let’s set aside the Online News Act, but those things don’t seem sufficient to counter the enormity of this issue.
I wonder if Heritage Canada and the government have some other plans, because this is scary.
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for your question. I will let my colleagues look deeper for more details on the public opinion research I quoted.
You’re right, the trends that I mentioned in my opening remarks, these things are happening despite all the measures that I mentioned that we’ve put in place over the years. It is a very complex ecosystem, and the media entities in that space are structured differently and they face different kinds of challenges.
Again, a tax credit might be very helpful. That’s probably the measure that we hear is most welcome. In the Fall Economic Statement 2023, the government increased the journalism labour tax credit to 35% on salaries of up to $85,000. Previously, it was much lower. It was 25% on eligible salaries of $55,000. Again, this was at the request of the industry because a number of media outlets do take advantage of this.
With respect to the other measures that we have in place, they really pursue different objectives. I will speak, for instance, to the Canada Periodical Fund that we’ve had at Canadian Heritage for many years. This one is more pursuing the objective of ensuring that there’s diverse content available. It is not necessarily helping the business model of the industry. We’re not funding the organization, as such.
When you look at our measures, they all pursue different objectives. But in totality, I would agree with you that more needs to be done because we are still witnessing these very challenging circumstances for the media organizations across the country, including at the local level. Again, in terms of a viable market to be in some small communities, it’s much more difficult. Which is where the public broadcaster can play a role because, of course, being funded through appropriation and having the mandate to serve Canadians wherever they are across the country, in all languages and telling various stories, it’s complementary to other media outlets that are maybe not in the same position.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Michel Sabbagh, Director General, Cultural Affairs, Canadian Heritage: If I may on the Reuters Institute study that my colleague quoted earlier, it talks about Canadians’ trust in news overall from 2018 to 2024 dropping 20 percentage points. When you look at trust in CBC specifically, you see Radio-Canada is consistently rated the number one most-trusted news outlet in Canada’s French market, at 74%. CBC News is consistently rated the fourth most-trusted news outlet in Canada’s English market at a level comparable to the three before it, CTV News is at 66%, regional and local newspapers at 65% as well as Global News and CBC is at 63%.
Senator Clement: And that’s Reuters?
Mr. Sabbagh: That is according to Reuters 2024.
Senator Clement: Full disclosure, colleagues. I have a sister who works for Radio-Canada in Montréal in the learning, training, diversity, equity space. Just letting you know.
[Translation]
My next question is for Ms. Munezero. I’m intrigued by the news that, in addition to the official languages, the goal is also to provide services in eight Indigenous languages. I want to understand how this came about and how the eight languages came into the picture. What work are you doing with the communities? Is this process under development in consultation with the communities?
Annick Munezero, Director, Cultural Affairs, Canadian Heritage: We aren’t responsible for determining the languages used by CBC/Radio-Canada to provide services. CBC/Radio-Canada chooses these languages independently.
For example, in 2020, they started developing an Indigenous strategy that will take effect from 2024 to 2027. This strategy was developed in consultation with Indigenous communities, Indigenous leaders and Indigenous employees. CBC wanted to know how to improve the services and content provided, in order to better represent Indigenous communities in their content.
This strategy remains in effect until 2027. I believe that they must table a report each year to show the results achieved and to look at any lessons learned and ways to improve the services.
Senator Clement: CBC is responsible for choosing the eight Indigenous languages?
Ms. Munezero: Yes.
Senator Clement: The government isn’t allowed to suggest things?
Ms. Munezero: No. It’s really CBC/Radio-Canada’s choice. The government doesn’t impose any conditions as such.
Senator Clement: This strategy is on the website?
Ms. Munezero: Yes. Absolutely.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dasko: First, I have a couple of questions and then my main question. You said that Canada ranks seventeenth in the world in terms of funding. Is that just the public funding component or is that the entire funding of the CBC? Because it has ad revenue, obviously.
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for your question. Just the public.
Senator Dasko: Okay. So the $33 per citizen is taxpayer dollars, as is the seventeenth ranking.
I’m glad you added to the Reuters material because I have been studying it. One of the things Reuters found is that the level of trust — of course, it has gone down but it has actually levelled off, I believe, in the recent period. Maybe that decline, as we move forward, perhaps is not as dramatic as it might sound. And 39% puts us right in the centre of the world. The global average is 39% in the Reuters study I think, correct?
Ms. Montminy: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Dasko: Anyway, we are right there in the centre. Then you added your mention of the CBC and the others. I think that is an important part of the Reuters.
My main question is: I want to dig a little deeper into the regional and local spending of the CBC. What is your perception of their strategy with regard to funding of regional and local programming? How have they made their decisions? Is it a strategic plan? Or is it kind of hit and miss? What are they using to base their decisions on when they decide to close a local station? What are the considerations? What’s behind its strategy plan or more ad hoc? Anything you can tell me about that would be useful because the main thrust of our study is the local regional investment and spending.
Also there is CBC Radio too — not “Radio 2” but radio as well. There is radio and it serves a lot of local markets. How does that fit in with the regional strategy such as you have observed it?
Ms. Montminy: Again, CBC/Radio-Canada has complete independence from the government —
Senator Dasko: I understand that.
Ms. Montminy: — so we are not privy. From what we can observe and we understand, I would say the number one driver I would imagine for the corporation is the conditions of service because within that there are certain requirements in terms of the presence and in terms of the number of hours that they need to broadcast certain things on each of their stations. I will quote, for instance, that the conditions of service, for instance, impose that each CBC/Radio-Canada television station must broadcast local news every day except holidays for a minimum of seven hours per week for English language on CBC television stations and five hours per week for French language on ICI TÉLÉ station. These are similar requirements as private stations.
In terms of their presence and what they are offering locally and regionally, I would imagine that the first — and this is just one particular example of a condition of service that is related to news in all of their stations. But beyond this, in the strategic plan they have already decided you would see that they want to prioritize local connection. I mentioned in my opening remarks that they have opened new bureaus. I have a list here of where those are. We often hear the corporation speak to wanting to be present in most of the communities of 50,000 people and more. On the CBC side, there are, I think, 31 communities right now where there is not that presence, whereas on the Radio-Canada side there are only four because, of course, it is a much smaller territory to cover.
In recent times, the CBC has prioritized these local connections and has opened a one- or two-person bureau in Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, Nanaimo, Cranbrook, Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Swift Current, Brampton and Kingston. They have also launched seven local podcasts to spotlight and celebrate diverse local communities from P.E.I. to Vancouver. These are examples of things that they express in the strategic plan and then that translates into some of their decisions, operations and investments.
Senator Dasko: It’s a population density model then?
Ms. Montminy: I know that one of the measures that they use is having some presence in as many of the communities of 50,000 —
Senator Dasko: Are you talking about radio or television or both?
Ms. Montminy: Presence doesn’t mean they have a full station. They have infrastructure around the country. We could list what that is. They have infrastructure in terms of radio and television and they obviously now use — but I’m talking about the physical presence of a journalist in the community to cover stories and to interact with Canadians.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here. I’m not sure how to start. I guess maybe I could ask how many people in your area, your department, are specifically focused on the activities of the CBC only or exclusively focused on the activities of the CBC?
Ms. Montminy: I’ll let my team speak. I don’t think we have a team that is strictly dedicated to CBC/Radio-Canada. We have a team that is structured around public service media and more. Maybe I’ll let Ms. Munezero respond because she’s a director.
Ms. Munezero: Thank you for your question. Our team looks at public service media but not just CBC/Radio-Canada. We look at TV5 programming as well. We also look at, for example, funding that was announced in Budget 2024 around providing more funding to APTN. We have ICI TÉLÉ. We have a bunch of public service media that receive funding, and we look at all of those. So there is one person maybe who focuses more at a given time on the CBC but it is broad.
Senator Tannas: That helps me a lot. Thank you. As you look at the various public media outlets that receive public funding, do you have like a scorecard? How do you analyze value for money for all of these different — is it viewership? Viewership isn’t anything anymore because there are all of the other touch points of grabbing a news article online et cetera. What are your metrics in terms of evaluating the worth that we are getting from these sources that are taxpayer funded? It must have evolved substantially over the last while, no? Could you give us a little colour on that?
Mr. Sabbagh: The broad framework in terms of the objectives of the corporation is laid out in the Broadcasting Act. They haven’t changed significantly since 1991. We talked earlier about inform, enlighten and entertain as kind of the top-level, broad objectives of the corporation. There are also more specific objectives in the act.
Those objectives are put into practice or into actual requirements by the CRTC and into those conditions of licence imposed by the CRTC. That is where the CRTC can evaluate, at the time of renewal, whether the corporation has met the conditions of licence and what adjustments need to be made in order for the corporation to continue to meet its objectives under the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Tannas: Given the reduction in audience participation in traditional media and the sharp reduction in participation at CBC, how do you advise the government on whether they should get $20 million more or $50 million more or $1 billion less or whatever? As you go through the process here, who is actually doing any kind of quantitative analysis? Is there any, or is it just “spray and pray” in terms of money?
I’m totally new to this. I don’t understand. I don’t mean to be asking rude questions. But I’m just John Q. Public, and I don’t understand how all this money goes in and how anybody figures out whether we are getting our money’s worth. How would you know unless you are measuring? I’m wondering what the measurements are to say whether we are getting our money’s worth. What are they? Can you give us any bread crumbs on that?
Mr. Sabbagh: Perhaps I can provide a few of the accountability measures that the corporation needs to meet. One is its capital plan. Every year, the corporation must submit its capital plan to the Treasury Board, and it needs to be approved.
There are also a number of reporting requirements to Parliament or to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in terms of the corporate plan and the annual report which is tabled in Parliament.
Accountability to the CRTC is also important in terms of meeting its conditions of licence. That’s an important part of how the corporation meets its targets.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: I have two questions. I’m an unapologetic CBC fan. I wake up with Steve Sutherland every morning, figuratively, on CBC Cape Breton. It certainly allows a person to stay connected wherever one might be online.
From the department of culture — culturally, CBC does so much for our region. When I think of CBC Cape Breton, the Rankin Family, Natalie MaMaster, Ashley MacIsaac, comedian Ron James — those artists would have gotten their start with CBC in Cape Breton.
For the last 30 years, we have hosted Celtic Colours International Festival. It is an integral part of our shoulder season tourism product. CBC is there every step of the way, promoting that aspect of our culture.
Should regional programming take a hit going forward? Should it shrink in any way going forward? How do you fill that void by not having a champion for culture in the regions of this country? As much as it impacts Cape Breton, I’m sure it has an impact in other rural and remote communities as well. How do you fill that void? How essential is CBC to promoting culture in those communities? I guess that is the essence of the question.
Ms. Montminy: I’ll start and maybe my colleagues will want to add something. You are absolutely right that CBC/Radio-Canada has a major role in promoting Canadian culture. It’s part of its mandate, promoting diverse culture expression across the country and featuring Canadian talent, Canadian artists, through music, through the audiovisual format. Absolutely, the examples you gave are compelling.
The corporation is the single-most important domestic partner to Canada’s independent production sector by far. Just to show you, in 2002 CBC accounted for over one dollar out of every three dollars spent by Canadian broadcasters on programming acquired by independent producers.
Maybe my colleagues can give you the total impact of those investments. The Canadian independent production ecosystem very much depends on the investment that the CBC makes in all of its programming because, maybe contrary to the private sector which may buy rights to other shows, the broadcaster is obviously mandated to create Canadian content with Canadian talent. It’s definitely very impactful —
Senator Cuzner: Once you hit Bryan-Adams-type status, the Americans will pick you up, and someone had to give Celine Dion her first chance.
CBC is seen as a cornerstone for culture and democracy as well. Any Canadian who pays attention would have to be concerned around the degree of misinformation and disinformation that exists. The stuff that drifts in from the States now, from our friends south of the border, are paying attention to the — I’ll call them characters, those involved with the convoy movement here in Ottawa. When those characters appealed to the judge that their “Miranda rights” were not respected, it sort of tells you they are getting a bellyful of U.S. media and watching a little too much U.S. television.
How concerned is your department about where we are right now with misinformation and disinformation and the impact it will have on our democratic institutions?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, we are very concerned about the rise of disinformation and foreign interference and the news deserts that exist across the country, which means that Canadians turn to social media, often getting information which may not be from trusted, reliable sources.
We have seen direct correlation from various sources in terms of the impacts of disinformation on polarization and on other negative impacts on society. We are very concerned. We certainly feel that we need to prevent news deserts from happening. We need to ensure that the presence of CBC/Radio-Canada Corporation has a presence in many communities. There are also other measures that the government is supporting. We still support newspapers whether print or digital. We support all kinds of other forms of media in the private sector to complement this ecosystem, to make sure that we combat this disinformation.
Senator Cuzner: Are there any particular initiatives you are looking at? Misinformation and disinformation are really affronts to our democratic institutions. I would think these would be issues of concern for you.
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for the question. Maybe I will spend one minute to tell you about the Digital Citizenship Contribution Program we have put in place. It provides direct funding to civil society organizations in Canada to increase their digital media and civic literacy.
This program aims to create a more critical and informed citizenry. We think it’s absolutely critical.
Over the last several years, we have provided $21 million and supported about 115 projects from coast to coast. We have different partners such as MediaSmarts and CIVIX that have done work in public schools across the country to increase literacy. We inspire ourselves with models from other countries such as Finland, which has a very strong media literacy program that’s embedded into their curriculum in the schools.
Of course, education in our country is a provincial jurisdiction, but there is a lot that can be done. We are working with provincial and territorial partners to encourage them to see what they can do in terms of the education system, but we are working on that media literacy so that people can, as they are given access to so many different platforms where it’s becoming more and more difficult, see what is true, what is not true, what a reliable source is. Artificial intelligence, or AI, has been around, but now with the increase of AI tools and deep fakes and other forms, I think it will become quite challenging for Canadians to make the distinction between what’s true, what’s not true, bots and everything else. Disinformation, of course, leads to mistrust in institutions and governments, but it can also lead to all kinds of other negative impacts.
Senator Cardozo: First, I just want to mention a couple of things, and I can be corrected in time.
As I understand it, you said, that the minister has the power to pull the licence of the CBC. I don’t believe that’s the case. If anything, the purpose of creating a public broadcaster and a licensing agency was precisely not to allow that to happen.
As I was taught 27 years ago — I was a commissioner at the CRTC, by the way, around the turn of the century — the recent one, not the other one — one of the things I was taught was the reason they set up the commission was so that elected people would not have the right to do that. Some of them didn’t want to have the right to do that because, as they were politicians, they didn’t want to have to make the tough decisions as to who would get a radio licence in a riding, for example.
As I understand it, the minister doesn’t have that power, and Parliament has specifically not given her that right.
The other thing is, I don’t believe that the CRTC has the ability to fine the CRTC. As I said, I’m open to being corrected, if you can show me.
The Chair: I will. The reason I’m certain is in a previous life when I was just the vice-chair of this committee, we studied CBC/Radio-Canada, and that’s why I mixed it up. I conflated the ministry versus the CRTC. If you contravene your licensing agreement, it’s clear the CRTC has the right to pull your licence, which the CRTC has not done. They also have the right to fine you if you’re not compliant to your licence, which, again, the CRTC has not done.
Senator Cardozo: Has not done.
The Chair: I just want to highlight the importance of the point I’m trying to make. Between our government, between the CRTC, which is a creation of the government, we’ve allowed the CBC to basically blow up their fundamental requirement, which is to provide regional news and regional services, and no one has said boo about it. That’s the only point I was trying to make. And we’re still not saying boo about it.
Senator Cardozo: Right. I think that’s precisely what I hope we will do with our study, but I still want to clarify whether that ability to fine applies to the public broadcaster as it does to the others.
I just want to make one other point about the public broadcaster. People sometimes criticize it or ask the government to criticize it when it gives a certain news story or not. If you want the government to do that by turning it from a public broadcaster to a state broadcaster, a state broadcaster is where the cabinet and the government tells them what to cover and how to cover it. The whole world, including cabinet, is open to criticize the public broadcaster. I would be concerned if the cabinet were in there on a regular basis telling them how to cover story X or Y.
That’s not what you said. I’m just saying that’s what people say quite often.
For our researchers, I think one of the things that would be useful to have would be the sections of the act that deal with the CBC, and, perhaps, the sections of the CRTC licence that deal with local programming. I think that would be useful.
My quick look at it is — and excuse me saying this number — but it’s 3(1)(m)(ii) is the section in the CBC section of the act which says that CBC/Radio-Canada must reflect Canada — I don’t know if the word is “must” — “. . . reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.”
I draw that to our attention because it doesn’t use the word “local,” which we might want to comment on in time.
There is mention of “local” for the broadcasting system at large, and that is under 3(1)(i)(ii) and 3(1)(i)(ii.2).
The Chair: Senator Cardozo, all that is in next week’s briefing when we have the CRTC before us. In the meantime, we have the ministry before us, and we are doing a specific study on CBC and regional services. Maybe we can ask some questions to the witnesses.
Senator Cardozo: I will in a second.
The Chair: The housekeeping we can do.
Senator Cardozo: I just want to highlight those as we’re starting this study, to note that we might want to look at something that we might want to recommend down the road as to whether the act should be more specific.
I mentioned the section on “region.” In terms of “local,” is there a government expectation that the public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, does local broadcasting? Is there an expectation on your part, or is that spelled out more on the CRTC side? What is the extent that you, as the government, as Heritage does, to say you have to do local, and what is the part that the CRTC does?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for the question. This is a good distinction to make.
Again, Canadian Heritage, or the government, does not have any authority, any levers, to tell the Crown corporation, which is independent as a Crown corporation but also in terms of its programming that is completely under the authority of the CRTC, we have no ability to direct where investments should go and how the appropriation should be spent.
Again, this is done, as you said, on purpose so that the CRTC is the one that will impose those licences. The only way we could do that, just to be clear, is through legislation. If we were to change the mandate of the corporation under the Broadcasting Act, which has several provisions — you were right that section 3 is the section that lays out the mandate and the key objectives of the Broadcasting Act, which includes the CBC. There’s an entire section of the Broadcasting Act at the end, which is Part III, which has all the governance provisions that apply to CBC in terms of its board and so on, many sections relevant to the CBC and the Broadcasting Act.
If we wanted to make some changes, if the government wanted to make changes, it would have to be in the act, not by directing the corporation to do more local.
Senator Cardozo: Let me challenge that, because I think the government can, and it does from time to time when it gives the CBC an extra envelope of money for this or that. I can’t think offhand, but there have been various times when you were provided money for certain aspects of broadcasting. Maybe people don’t want to hear this, but, “We’ll give you an extra X amount of dollars, but you need to keep X number of stations open.”They wouldn’t get into defining those, maybe, but in the powers that the Governor-in-Council has to give directives to the commission — I guess, not the CBC — between money to the corporation and a directive to the CRTC, could it not influence a general administrative issue like that?
Ms. Montminy: The general answer is that we have to be careful because, again, there are several provisions that reinforce the independence of the corporation. Directing funds to a particular purpose could be in that grey zone. To say this amount of money to open X number of stations, I think that would be crossing the line of independence. There could maybe be some more general kind of orientation, but again, I would say that is subject to legal interpretation of the act. I will leave it at that.
Senator Cardozo: Do I have time for one more?
The Chair: Not really, but given the fact that your preamble at the beginning wasted a lot of time, I’ll give you more time.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. I look at the two sections I mentioned, subparagraph 3(1)(m)(ii), and the other one within the Broadcasting Act. One deals with the corporation should reflect the regions. It doesn’t use the word “local,” but in the broader section, subparagraph 3(1)(i)(ii.1), there are several references to “local” that Parliament has told the CRTC to accomplishment that for the broadcasting system overall. I would think that is where the CRTC’s ability is to push the CBC to focus on local. Regional could be the Maritimes as opposed to specific, local cities and towns.
Ms. Montminy: You are a former commissioner, so you know how this works. The process for a licence renewal involves many stakeholders making representations to the CRTC, and the CRTC makes decisions based on the public record, and it will impose those conditions also based on the objectives of the act. They could be directing based on all of this input that they have.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
The Chair: I’ll get us going on the second round. I just want to pick up on Senator Tannas’s questions. I spent some years prior to coming to the Senate in communications marketing, and the barometer, the threshold, for determining the value of content in the broadcasting industry was ratings. Over the last decade plus, CBC’s ratings have been abominable. Forget about their rating in terms of trust and news among the public. I’ll give you an example. In a city like Calgary, the viewer audience on a daily basis is maximum 20,000 people.
I will exclude Radio-Canada because I have a bit of an affinity for it. Their ratings are half decent. In the case of CBC, if you do a cost analysis of people who watch it and the $1.4 billion tax welfare cheque we give them, the per-person subsidization of this outlet is far more than $33. It’s significantly higher.
Furthermore, when we compare it with other public broadcasters around the world, there are a lot of them that get more funding than the CBC, but they’re not dipping into the advertising pool of the private sector either. When we talk about informing, enlightening and entertaining Canadians, if you look at the numbers and the eyeballs, they’re not following this, but they’re paying a heck of a lot of money for a service they aren’t using.
The question I have for the ministry is: Is that a concern? Has it been a concern for the ministry, given the fact that the number of Canadians following CBC is diminishing but the investment is growing?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for your question. I would say, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, there are significant challenges facing all public broadcasters around the world. With streaming services and social media platforms entering the space for a number of years, capturing the attention of audiences is a challenge for everyone.
As a result, I would imagine that the viewership is shifting and there are different methods. I mentioned as well that the platforms have particular ways of keeping attention on their content. These challenges are faced by all public broadcasters around the world.
I would also mention that many public broadcasters around the world also have a hybrid funding model. The numbers that we gave you are the public money that is being invested in these other broadcasters. Some can also self-generate revenues and others cannot. It depends again on which country. We can give you a full analysis of this.
It is a challenge. Again, we’re not making decisions for the corporation day to day, but in terms of general observations, I would say that the challenge of retaining audiences right now is on all of the platforms and all of the media. Everybody is fighting for that attention because there’s a multiplication of content that’s been made available to people. I think it is expected that the viewership might be reduced as a result of this exponential growth of content that’s available to Canadians.
The Chair: I’ll tell you what concerns this committee, and that’s why we launched this study at the initiative of Senator Cardozo, is the fact that the CBC has cut drastically when it comes to regional services. I understand that the CRTC is at arm’s length from the government and the CBC is as well, but what isn’t at arm’s length is your decision over the last years is to continuously increase taxpayer funding for the CBC.
The question is a very simple one: Why has your ministry continued to increase their funding by hundreds of millions of dollars when they’re not respecting the requirement to provide regional services and regional news? On the contrary, they’ve been cutting them while their funding has been increasing.
Ms. Montminy: I would mention that since 2021, there have been modest short-term investments made in the public broadcaster. I’m talking about $21 million in 2021. That amount was extended twice. Last year, that amount became $42 million, and this was to counter the very real inflationary pressures that exist on the broadcaster in order to maintain a similar level of production and, of course, to maintain the workforce or limit the number of layoffs that the corporation was facing.
The Chair: Recently, they announced even more layoffs coming over the next few months despite all of these injections. I don’t expect an answer to that, but that’s our concern. We continue to put in more and more while they continue to cut and cut.
Senator Simons: It is certainly true that television viewership is dropping. It’s dropping all across the industry. Nobody is watching CTV or GlobalTV the way they used to either. I believe CBC Calgary’s morning show the “Calgary Eyeopener” is number one in its market. The real challenge we’re facing is that an entire medium is dying. People don’t watch local television anymore, period. When I say “don’t,” I mean statistically speaking.
I used to be a producer with CBC’s “Ideas.” I haven’t listened to “Ideas” as appointment radio for a long time, except that I listen to the “Ideas” podcast all the time. The CBC has been extraordinarily nimble in creating online portals that really work and websites that are very popular. When I think about the CBC newsroom in Edmonton, most of the people there seem to actually be working on the website, not on the TV show. Podcasts are the way. I think I consume most CBC Radio — they live in my phone, I walk my dog and she gets to listen to me listen to Terry O’Reilly.
At a certain point, as television becomes an archaic medium, does Canadian Heritage and the Canadian government actually have to consider whether television is the way forward or whether the digital environment is the way forward?
I’m going to ask my bonus question following up on Senator Cuzner. You talked about big television production. I think what Senator Cuzner was talking about was the fact that regional local stations used to nurture up-and-coming musical performers and comedians. When all of the dollars get sucked into very expensive glossy television production, there’s no money left in the regions to record local folk festivals or local symphonies. There’s no money left to have shows that nurture young talent from the regions. I worry too about the money being sucked into the void of big-budget television production and not the regional use of those dollars to bring up regional talent. Those are two separate questions, I’m sorry.
Ms. Montminy: Thank you. The mandate of the corporation is that the content be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means as resources become available for the purpose.
I agree that there are certain kinds of technologies that are on the decline in some regions of the country, and others are more popular. That shift to the digital world is definitely happening, and the corporation has been investing to meet Canadians where they are, which is on their device. There are also many regions in this country that still rely on television and where the news at dinnertime is still the most-watched show. We also have the North, where CBC North and CBC Indigenous are very important platforms.
It varies greatly. Again, I think these are good questions for the corporation in terms of how they make these choices. At the moment, they are sustaining all of these different formats. It is definitely expensive to do so. I know they are attempting to streamline some of these in terms of the infrastructure behind all of this so that these platforms can be compatible and they can find some savings.
Senator Simons: And the staff are expected to do radio, television and online.
Ms. Montminy: Yes, producing content that can be used on multiple platforms, definitely.
I agree we are in this area of transformation. Older Canadians might still prefer television, whereas younger Canadians are on this, and then there is radio, which is still a very popular format in English and French in Canada.
Senator Dasko: I’m just looking for a little bit of clarification. Chair, you’ve used the phrase many times today “they have cut regional programming drastically.” You’ve said it many, many times. They’ve broken their licence and they’re not getting fined for it and whatnot. I’m sure I heard Ms. Montminy say that, in fact, that CBC is investing, you have created, you have invested in regional programming. You mentioned the criteria of 50,000 population and so on as being a criterion. Are both of these things true? Is this true? I’m just asking.
The Chair: I’m not the witness. They can speak for CBC and let you know if they’ve increased regional broadcasting. If they have, then we’re wasting our time with this study, aren’t we? There’s a reason we commissioned this study.
Senator Dasko: I’m just asking. You have said that you have increased regional broadcasting. You’ve set up new stations, I think you said, based on a population criteria. But then we’re hearing that you’ve also drastically cut regional. Is that also true?
Ms. Montminy: Again, I did not do this. It’s the corporation.
Senator Dasko: I completely understand. You have said many times that you don’t make decisions. I get that.
Ms. Montminy: We are not the corporation. We are not CBC. I would invite you to invite them to speak to their decision.
Senator Dasko: I know you’re not.
Ms. Montminy: As for Canadian Heritage, from the annual report and other reporting documents that we can see we can acknowledge that they have invested in new local stations. I’ve quoted and gave examples of those locations. That is in the recent couple of years.
I have no knowledge of them not meeting their licence requirement. I have no knowledge of them being under any kind of compliance issue with the CRTC. I think they are, as far as I know, meeting all these requirements, but again, that’s for the CRTC next week. Possibly invite the corporation to also describe how they are going to implement some of the commitments that they have made in the strategic plan.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you. I was trying to get a picture of what’s actually going on.
The Chair: Senator, maybe the cuts they announce from time to time is a figment of my imagination.
Senator Dasko: I’m just looking for clarity on what’s actually happening.
The Chair: Same here.
Senator Dasko: And there’s many more.
The Chair: Like I said, I think there’s a reason why Senator Cardozo moved this study. We think there’s a problem across the country when it comes to regional news.
Senator Cardozo: I would thank you for acknowledging that I had suggested the study, but a few minutes ago, when you described that you provided some colour commentary which was perhaps a little more colourful than what I would have used. Indeed, we’re concerned about the status of local programming. We’re concerned that there seem to be some cuts. I think, as Senator Simons and others have talked about, we’re also concerned about what’s happening with the rest of news media, as the private sectors, TVA and CTV, have cut drastically, and a lot of newspapers have cut drastically.
In the sense of all of that, CBC/Radio-Canada and the importance of it at the local level becomes all the more important. If it is cutting back, then that’s all the more problematic.
With that said, I will try not to spend too much time sparring with you, chair, as we go through this study —
The Chair: I think you should be less concerned about my questions and worried about yours.
Senator Cardozo: If you put words in my mouth —
The Chair: All I said is that you initiated the study. That’s all I said.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for that part. I appreciate that.
My question is about how you look at CBC and Radio-Canada. They appear to have different levels of popularity and viewership, as has been mentioned before. How do you look at that difference from a government point of view? What are your thoughts about it? Do you think the English side can learn from the French side, or does it have to do with the fact that they’re very different markets? There’s a very different relationship between English and American versus French and perhaps somewhere else.
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for the question. I think that there are a number of factors at play. Of course, the fact that the market, as you said, is very different and the presence of Radio-Canada in the French market is well established. Of course, Radio-Canada serves not only the province of Quebec but the rest of the country and has a lot of requirements in terms of serving official languages minority communities. The market is smaller, and they have more connection to that market. I think that has given good results.
On the English side, of course, the competition with our neighbours to the south in terms of the content that’s available in that language and from around the world has been a challenge for the corporation. I would imagine that that in terms of success, these challenges are significant to overcome. I don’t know if my colleagues want to add anything.
Senator Cardozo: One idea that has come up from time to time is that if Radio-Canada is so popular in television and radio, on the English side, radio is fairly popular. The struggling part is English television. Perhaps the non-news component of that, so CBC Radio One as opposed to the news network. Have you thought about letting that part go?
Ms. Montminy: Again, Canadian Heritage is not in a position to determine the portion of the corporation. It is an independent Crown corporation and Canadian Heritage is not in the position to say, “You should stop doing television programming.” That would be contrary to its mandate to do that at the moment.
Senator Cardozo: Contrary to the mandate in the act.
Ms. Montminy: The mandate in the act. We are there to entertain. The entertainment part exists both in French and English, and they also have to strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French. They cannot offer services in one language and not offer it in the other language. I would also mention to your earlier point about some of the challenges that CBC might be facing is that because of the competition in terms of production, the cost of production in English Canada is significantly higher.
Senator Cardozo: Why is that?
Ms. Montminy: That’s because of the competition. The labour cost, for instance, is higher. As you know, in Canada we also do a lot of service production for studios. Producing a TV show in English Canada is much more expensive, so your dollar doesn’t go as far, which again might impact the ability to invest as much in various shows.
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Sabbagh, did you want to add anything?
Mr. Sabbagh: Just to complete the answer, my colleague quoted subparagraph 3(1)(m)(v), namely “. . . . strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French . . . .” However, there is also subparagraph 3(1)(m)(iv), which says that the programming provided by the Corporation should:
be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the specific needs and interests of official language minority communities.
Senator Cardozo: In a sense, if the corporation wanted not to provide television in one language or the other, it probably has the ability to do that, recognizing the particularities of each community. Would it require a change to the Broadcasting Act to do that?
Ms. Montminy: That’s my understanding.
Senator Cardozo: Do you think there are lessons that the English side can learn from the French side since somehow they are doing better?
Ms. Montminy: It is difficult for us. These are all questions that I think would be better answered by the corporation itself because we are not in the day-to-day operations. We are not in the news room. We are not in the decisions about how to connect to Canadians. Again, we are far removed from the day-to-day operations of the corporation. I’m sure it is one corporation with very distinct markets to serve. I’m sure they share best practices, and yes, I’m sure you could probably have a more enlightened answer from colleagues from the corporation.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Clement: I’m going to struggle because I don’t want to get the same answer. CBC is coming and I don’t want you to have to repeat that answer again. I’m going to try to go to the bigger picture. I spent the weekend in Toronto with young people at a municipal conference — teenagers to age 25. They don’t listen to news in the way that we do or watch TV, but they do connect to their municipalities, to their communities. That’s clear. They do connect to their identities. If they are trying to protect an Indigenous language, they are exploring their Indigenous identity or racial diversity, that they connect to.
I’m just trying to think how we speak to them and how we bring them into this space where they are connecting with information that is real and correct. What is Canadian Heritage doing to support that, to support young people in their identities, in their language, in trying to connect to real information?
Ms. Montminy: We have a broad suite of programs in our department with respect to every aspect of arts and culture. For instance, the cultural expression of our Canadian identity through all of these methods is at the core of what we do. We support the creation and access to that content for all Canadians. We support the book industry. We support the music industry. The audiovisual industry. We have all kinds of programs. Youth is absolutely a focus because we know that they are bombarded by content from everywhere else and that having access to good quality content helps them to understand their identity, and Canadian values are really important. Many of your colleagues mentioned the examples of impactful music artists who have been influential. Definitely that’s the kind of things we do.
In terms of news itself, I would point out that the corporation actually has a couple of interesting stations. I may not find the name. There is kids news and something similar. I don’t know the name in French, but they have developed these platforms for young people, children to actually interact with the news, which I think is a really good thing to give them that information at the level that children would be engaging with. These are examples of things that are being done by the department, but also by the corporation to engage youth.
Senator Clement: So you work with CBC on those programs?
Ms. Montminy: We don’t. We never work with CBC on any programming ever because they are completely independent. We take note of what they do and look at the rest of the media ecosystem.
Senator Clement: What you do doesn’t inspire them?
Ms. Montminy: I don’t know where they draw their inspiration from. We are aware of what they do. I would assume they are aware of what we do as a department in terms of general funding. But we don’t design programming together. That’s not something that we do.
Senator Clement: Maybe that’s an issue. Thank you for your answer.
The Chair: Thank you to Ms. Montminy, Mr. Sabbagh and Ms. Munezero. You were very generous with your time. As you can see, there is a lot of interest.
(The committee continued in camera.)