THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 29, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], and in camera, to study matters relating to transport and communications generally; and study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this morning we continue our study of local and regional services provided by CBC/Radio-Canada.
[Translation]
To that end, the committee welcomes officials from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
[English]
We have with us Scott Shortliffe, Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and Michael Craig, Director, Audio-visual Programming and Distribution, Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission.
Welcome. Thank you for joining us.
I will have my colleagues briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac from Kennebec, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you.
Our guest, Mr. Shortliffe, will have five minutes for opening remarks and then we will turn it over to questions from honourable senators. You have the floor, Mr. Shortliffe.
Scott Shortliffe, Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Good morning and thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee.
Before I begin, I would like to thank the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people for having me here as a guest on their unceded, unsurrendered territory. I would also like to thank the Anishinaabeg people for being stewards of the land and waters in this area since time immemorial.
As you noted I am joined by Michael Craig.
[Translation]
As you know, the CRTC is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates the Canadian communications sector in the public interest. The CRTC holds public consultations on telecommunications and broadcasting matters and makes decisions based on the public record.
On the broadcasting side, we are implementing the Online Streaming Act and modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework. This is in addition to ongoing work we are doing in broadcasting, which includes issuing licences and determining the conditions of service under which broadcasters are allowed to operate in Canada. One of those broadcasters, of course, is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or CBC/Radio-Canada, whose programming is the subject of today’s meeting.
For our part, the CRTC imposes requirements that help CBC/Radio-Canada meet its mandate in both official languages, across all its services. The CRTC renewed CBC/Radio-Canada’s broadcasting licence in July 2022 and modified some of its requirements.
[English]
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, imposed enhanced reporting requirements on CBC/Radio-Canada to allow stakeholders to assess its performance in meeting its mandate, in particular, for Indigenous people, racialized persons, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and others. At the same time, the CRTC removed some requirements where CBC/Radio-Canada had routinely exceeded those requirements, such as those on independent production. To ensure compliance, we receive detailed annual records from CBC/Radio-Canada on different aspects of its license in addition to other reporting requirements.
In September 2022, the Governor-in-Council directed the CRTC to reconsider certain aspects of the CBC/Radio-Canada license conditions. This was after petitions were filed by stakeholders raising concerns about some of those conditions. Specifically, the Governor-in-Council asked how the CRTC would ensure that CBC/Radio-Canada would continue to make a significant contribution to local news, children’s programming, original French-language programming and independent programming.
Following the referral, Parliament passed the Online Streaming Act. We’re currently reviewing those elements of the license touched on by the reconsideration while also examining how the Online Streaming Act can help us ensure that those elements are addressed and continuing to monitor CBC/Radio-Canada activities through its annual reporting. Currently, these activities meet or exceed the CBC/Radio-Canada requirements.
[Translation]
While the review process is ongoing, let me assure the committee that the CRTC prioritizes the issues connected to CBC programming that you are studying, especially the availability of local and regional radio, television and online services. The availability of local content is a key priority of our work in implementing the Online Streaming Act. The changes that are needed to the broadcasting framework are substantial and complex. There are many interconnected issues to be addressed. That’s why we are consulting widely while also moving quickly.
In June, we released a major decision that will require online streaming services to make a base contribution to Canadian broadcasting. That funding will go to funds that have a proven track record of successfully supporting regional and local news, independent and emerging artists, and other areas of immediate need.
[English]
Additionally, we’ll soon be launching public consultations on issues of importance to Canadians, such as providing more flexibility to traditional radio broadcasters by updating regulatory requirements and updating the definition of Canadian content for the audiovisual sector. We’ll have proceedings considering relationships between small, medium and large players in the traditional broadcasting system, including online streaming companies, as well as looking at radio and audio streaming Canada, including how to define audio content and support Canadian music.
[Translation]
We look forward to hearing from Canadians on these issues. We have also prioritized our work around the Online News Act, noting that it will provide help to news organizations across Canada, including CBC/Radio-Canada.
[English]
In fact, just yesterday, we issued a decision on Google’s exemption request, clearing the way for it to provide funding to the Canadian Journalism Collective to be distributed to Canadian news organizations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. The CBC is focused on what Canadians need from their broadcasters and the broadcasting system. I would be pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I will let Senator Miville-Dechêne, and then I will ask the second if that is all right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why not?
Senator Simons: Because you are the deputy chair and I’m . . .
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, that’s kind of you.
The committee is interested generally in Radio-Canada’s local and regional mandate, which you spoke a bit about. You said that CBC/Radio-Canada had exceeded requirements, and that seems to me to be very positive. However, on the ground, we have to observe that outside urban areas in Quebec, there are fewer local news programs and less presence on the ground outside Montreal. I am thinking, in particular, of Acadie and the Maritime provinces, which all have to make do with a program produced in Moncton. In fact, Radio-Canada is reducing its footprint and its presence outside the cities.
Are you paying attention to this? Will you be making any comments and requests in this regard? I am aware that on this point, the mandate states that Radio-Canada has to work within its resources. I am aware of the mandate, which is vague on this point. You are really the CRTC, however. What are you saying and doing in this regard for francophones?
Mr. Shortliffe: Thank you for the question, which is an important one. I have to say that the licences that exist at present do require a certain number of hours of local programming.
There are not many details about the licence requirements relating to local programming. CBC/Radio-Canada exceeds the number of hours, but it is all a question of quality and content.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: And place.
Mr. Shortliffe: And place, yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: When a news program is broadcast from Quebec City for Rimouski and Matane, it is not exactly regional.
Mr. Shortliffe: You’re right. We have heard things said about these issues and it is important to us. The licences exist, but we know they have to change because of the Online News Act. Our intention is to start renewing all licences for Canadian actors, which includes CBC/Radio-Canada, before the end of 2025. We would be able to raise the issue at that time, not just as to the number of hours, which was the CRTC’s decision in 2022, but possibly as to the issues relating to certain specific localities.
How can we put it? There is a role for the CBC/Radio-Canada boards of directors and we are making efforts. At the same time, there are major concerns regarding the need to have more local information, not just because it is important to CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate, but because there has been a decline in local newspapers and radio stations. It is reasonable to ask ourselves whether the role of the public broadcaster is to ensure that there is more content. I am certain that this is a question to ask ourselves in the future.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are talking about the end of 2025; you say you are going to look at this. However, I am thinking of all the francophones west of Quebec; there are communities for which Radio-Canada is the only place where French is spoken. There are stations that are too small and are fighting for their survival. It seems to me that there is a degree of urgency: If we want francophones to survive across Canada, they actually have to exist somewhere.
Mr. Shortliffe: It’s a good question. We are making an effort to provide more support for francophone communities, not just in relation to CBC/Radio-Canada, but also for other stations. I do note your concern. I can say that this is a priority. It is included in the Online News Act and plays a large part in our planning. There are a lot of things that need doing, however. This is one priority, but there are others.
[English]
Senator Simons: I have to tell you, Mr. Shortliffe, this is a matter of some passion for me. I wrote my master’s thesis back at the dawn of time about the CBC, its mandate and regional responsibilities. I worked for six years as a producer at the CBC before moving on.
Over the course of my career in journalism, I watched as CBC local programming diminished and diminished and diminished, not just on the news side, but also on the side of music production, theatre production and documentary production as regional positions collapsed and regionally produced shows were cancelled.
I want to follow up on Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question. What are your metrics to say that they were exceeding their responsibilities to do regional programming?
Mr. Shortliffe: Under their licence conditions, they have to do a certain number of hours of regional programming. What we did in the last licence was to relax their conditions for major metropolitan areas, because they were always routinely exceeding those.
Senator Simons: Really? On what basis are you saying they have routinely exceeded in places like Edmonton, Calgary or Winnipeg?
Mr. Shortliffe: Based on their hours of local programming.
Senator Simons: Again, what were the metrics? How many hours were they supposed to produce? That is what I was trying to figure out.
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes, before, the licence condition was that they had an expectation to produce 14 hours —
Senator Simons: Fourteen hours in what period?
Mr. Shortliffe: Fourteen hours a week of local programming.
Senator Simons: And that is all together — radio, television, French and English?
Mr. Shortliffe: No, I’m speaking specifically of television.
Senator Simons: I’m not talking about television. I’m talking about radio.
Mr. Shortliffe: On radio?
Do you happen to have the numbers handy?
I can get you the numbers.
Senator Simons: I’m curious to know if those numbers have diminished over the last 20 or 30 years. To say they are exceeding their targets without telling me what their targets are is not helpful.
When you relaxed the standards, were they only relaxed for television, or were they relaxed for radio as well?
Mr. Shortliffe: They were only relaxed for television and only for major metropolitan areas.
Senator Simons: What happened as a result?
Mr. Shortliffe: In major metropolitan areas, where the expectations were relaxed, it was that they would produce 14 hours of local programming a week. Their standards are between 14 hours and 45 minutes and 16 hours.
Senator Simons: That is 14 hours of all local television: News, current affairs, feature programming?
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes.
Senator Simons: Fourteen hours is not a lot of hours.
Mr. Shortliffe: It was the standard that existed.
Senator Simons: It is two hours a day.
Mr. Shortliffe: It was the standard that existed for the previous ten years, so we did not —
Senator Simons: What was the standard before that?
Mr. Shortliffe: I am sorry. I would need to research that.
Senator Simons: That is what we need to know. It is critical to me to understand what the standards are for radio, because television, to me — in part, because I spent six years as a radio producer — it was local radio that recorded the symphony concerts and recorded the folk festivals and recorded the plays of the Edmonton International Fringe Festival or the Saskatoon Fringe Festival for broadcast, and that is what has evaporated.
I would be curious to see the radio numbers.
Mr. Shortliffe: May I ask you a question?
Senator Simons: Sure. That is only fair.
Mr. Shortliffe: It is an honest question, because I want to fully understand your concern. Also based on Senator Miville‑Dechêne’s comments, there are two parts. If I understand, you are not just concerned about the number of hours; you are concerned about what is done with those hours?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Shortliffe: And whether their reporters are covering things that are outside, say, the core. You spoke to that.
Senator Simons: These are not reporters.
To be blunt, we’re talking about everything. There was a time when Tommy Banks — who went on to a career in the Senate — was the host of a local CBC music show produced in Edmonton. Those days are gone.
There was a time when Edmonton produced The Irrelevant Show, which was one of the top comedy sketch shows on CBC. Then that show got cancelled, and everything is consolidated — English language programming — in Toronto.
Just filling the time with current affairs and lightweight programming is not the same as doing major production that builds new talent and feeds the network. Numbers like that would be important.
I want to ask you my question before my time runs out.
You mentioned that just yesterday you had approved Google’s exemption from what we know fondly here in this committee as Bill C-18.
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes.
Senator Simons: Can you tell us, where Google has chosen a collective of small independents to handle the money and to disperse the funds, how much money are you expecting will come to the CBC regionally under the terms of what we know as Bill C-18 under this model?
Mr. Shortliffe: I’m not sure how much will go to it regionally. It was capped at $7 million for CBC/Radio-Canada in the regulations that the government passed. It is then meant to be distributed based on the number of full-time equivalents.
I would have to talk to the Canadian Journalism Collective, or CJC, because they are administering that. We are not administering it directly.
When CBC makes its application to the CJC, they would then be responsible for how much goes regionally and how much is kept locally.
Senator Simons: We met with officials from Canadian Heritage last week. They were adamant that it would be inappropriate for the government to give any direction to the CBC about where they should spend their funds. They said that CBC/Radio-Canada, their independence needs to be protected.
Does the CRTC have any power to direct where that funding goes —
Mr. Shortliffe: No, not under Bill C-18. The regs make it very clear that our role is to approve, or not, the exemption request, but we cannot then direct the Canadian Journalism Collective on how it directs the money or the organizations that receive the money under the bill.
Senator Simons: Can the CJC have its own criteria? When we debated Bill C-18, my goodness, we put in all kinds of amendments at this committee to make sure that enough money went to Indigenous, enough money went to racialized and Black and enough money went to francophone and to local.
Will the collective have any power to say, okay, we’ll give $7 million to the CBC, but you cannot use it to keep the lights on in the big blue building; you have to use it for French francophone production in Acadie, or in Edmonton for that matter?
Mr. Shortliffe: My understanding is that under the regs that the government passed, no, we cannot direct that and the CJC cannot. It has to use formula presented to divide up the money. It is then up to the organizations who receive the money to direct the money.
Senator Simons: So all of those amendments —
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Simons. Pass the baton to Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: At the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, CBC cancelled the local “CBC Compass” show in Prince Edward Island, the only locally produced TV news show in the province. That was in direct violation of their broadcasting licence. The CRTC had set conditions. They had minimum hours of local programming. Secondly, they had to have public consultation if they were changing the hours they were on-air. None of that happened. Why did the CRTC not impose any penalty on CBC for that action?
Mr. Shortliffe: I have to note that I’m speaking here as staff. I cannot speak to the internal deliberations of the commission. What I will say is that the commission renewed the licence after that. It looked at the issue. In general, it concluded that this was not an intentional breach of licence. It was due to the worldwide pandemic and that it was a force majeure and, therefore, it was not a breach which needed a public hearing. That was the decision of the commission in renewing the licence.
Senator Downe: No, private sector TV station in Canada made a similar decision. It was only the CBC — publicly funded by taxpayers of Canada, including taxpayers in Prince Edward Island — who were affected by this decision in a province with a high percentage of the population who are seniors and a low internet adaptability and feasibility in certain parts of the province. We were highly dependent on that local TV newscast for information at a time when, I remind you, people didn’t know if you purchased a green pepper at the grocery store whether you had to microwave it or put it in the toaster to prevent getting COVID. It was a lack of information. It was critically important. We were very disappointed in that.
We were also surprised to find out that the public is consulted in public hearings about what they want. There is an outreach. The CRTC has hearings. The CBC makes certain commitments. The CRTC makes certain commitments. But under the legislation, the CRTC cannot deny CBC a licence. So it is a complete charade. Well-meaning Canadians are sitting down, sending in submissions. The CBC is making commitments that they have no intention to keep, as was the case in Prince Edward Island. The CRTC imposes conditions that the CBC completely ignore. It sounds like a make-work project.
Mr. Shortliffe: If I may address two things that you have raised.
Senator Downe: Sure, please.
Mr. Shortliffe: Our assessment at the time was the CBC was not making a decision to deny that program, that it was because it had people who were either sick or unwilling to come in. You are quite correct that other broadcasters did not experience that.
To give you a comparison, earlier this year when there was a water main break in Montréal, both Bell Canada with CTV and TVA lost programming for a number of days. It was not intentional. It was a result of the circumstance that happened. The commission’s assessment, because it did look at it at licence renewals, that is what happened in COVID.
I will say, though, that the point you raised, the importance of CBC to public safety, is absolutely well noted.
In terms of our inability to deny them a licence, that is correct. We can call them to a mandatory hearing. We now have under the Online News Act a very long process by which we could impose an administrative monetary penalty on them. That is somewhat more complex than it would be for any other player, because we would have to have a public hearing, make a report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who would have to lay it before Parliament for 15 days. But we do have those tools.
So I respectfully disagree that it is not that we don’t have any tools for CBC compliance. I will note that the structure of the bill that the Parliament passed does give CBC more privileges in a sense than other broadcasters. We also impose more conditions on them than we do on any other broadcaster.
Senator Downe: Thank you for that. First, I want to address the concerns about staff. I have heard from staff at the CBC Charlottetown who were quite prepared to come to work. So they were not responsible for the cancellation. They were quite prepared to put in whatever requirements were requested to keep everyone safe but to do their job and provide the service for Prince Edward Islanders, which we were highly dependent on.
I am shocked that this is allowed to continue. This is really a scam, in my opinion, where the CRTC takes no action. The CBC is in violation of their licence. The CRTC takes no action. They go through this, as I said earlier, charade where well-meaning Canadians submit proposals, the CRTC holds a hearing and the CBC makes commitments about what they are going to do. Not only are none of them met, nobody is ever punished for not meeting them. That is the heart of the problem as far as I am concerned.
My last question is that this committee heard about the independence of the CBC. The mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the minister responsible for the CBC in 2020 included instructions that they were to strengthen the regional mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada to broadcast more local news. This follows up on the questions from Senator Simons.
In 2020, the mandate was for more local news, but I just heard that number has not increased in the last 10 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Shortliffe: Not substantially, no.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I want to welcome the witnesses.
I am new to the committee. I understand that the CRTC is an administrative tribunal that is independent of the government, and your role is to evaluate the quality of the services offered by CBC/Radio-Canada. To evaluate the quality of its services, you look at its funding model. Do you have an opinion about the funding? The last time I looked at our public broadcaster’s funding, we were 17th out of 20 Western countries, with about $33 per person. It is about $100 per person in the United Kingdom for the BBC. Do you do comparative analyses, looking at your counterparts in other countries? The funding model is not the same. To evaluate the quality of the service, you might have to look at funding. Do you think the public broadcaster’s funding is up to the job at the moment?
Mr. Shortliffe: Thank you for the questions.
I have to be careful. We are doing a comparison with the United Kingdom and other countries. Recently, a conference of public broadcasters was held here in Ottawa, and I had the opportunity to speak with dozens of public broadcasters.
Obviously, it would be easier for CBC/Radio-Canada to fulfill its mandate with more funding. It is not the role of the CRTC to lobby the government regarding funding. That is the job of Canadian Heritage. That being said, when a licence is reviewed, one of the questions we ask is whether CBC/Radio-Canada is able to comply with certain points if we impose them. That is an issue for us. Our role is not to impose funding thresholds on the government. At the same time, CBC/Radio-Canada’s level of funding is certainly lower than for other public broadcasters.
Senator Gignac: I am trying to understand who does what. Canadian Heritage is part of the government. Are there independent experts who can enlighten us? The collateral damage arises from the fact that, unlike in some countries, the Crown corporation goes after advertising revenue. That creates problems for private broadcasters by reducing the advertising revenue available to them. About 18% of CBC/Radio-Canada’s revenue comes from advertising. That creates problems for private broadcasters who have to close down outside urban areas. Who does what? Are there experts in Canada? Are you saying that this is a sensitive issue and you are not able to state an opinion on it? Canadian Heritage is the government. I am trying to understand who could enlighten us. We are independent, in the Senate. We want to make good recommendations.
Mr. Shortliffe: I spent 23 years at Canadian Heritage. It is the role of Canadian Heritage to advise the government on CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate and to make sure there are enough funds for it. It is the government’s choice to have a mixed funding model.
Senator Gignac: I was talking about private broadcasters. Take Mr. Péladeau at Québecor, and other people. Other countries fund their public broadcasters 100%. So CBC/Radio-Canada sticks its fingers in the advertising pie. That causes collateral damage to the private broadcasters. Does that concern you? Who deals with that?
Mr. Shortliffe: It is a combination of us and Canadian Heritage. Mr. Péladeau and other private broadcasters have called for our requirements to be loosened for private broadcasters. It is our intention to study the issue in the near future. I mentioned in my presentation that there are other processes coming. The time allowed for advertising is being reduced and that will affect all broadcasters in Canada. One of the CRTC’s roles is to ensure that all broadcasting systems are working, not just CBC/Radio-Canada. That is one of our priorities.
Senator Gignac: It is now 2024. This is nothing new. You are telling me that it is your intention to look into this. Did you not do that already, five years ago? The finding was that private broadcasters are having problems and closing their stations. For quite a while now, they have been saying that the business model means that CBC/Radio-Canada is competing unfairly with the private sector. I am surprised you have not made recommendations yet. You are looking into it, you are going to do it; that is good news, but I am a bit surprised you have not looked into the issue before now.
Mr. Shortliffe: It is not that we haven’t thought about it before. With the passage of Bill C-11, however, we have new tools. We have to hold public hearings, and that takes a lot of time. We are prepared to move forward with our planning. I can’t share the plans, because we are a quasi-judicial tribunal, and I do not have permission.
The big concern is how the system as a whole is working, not just CBC/Radio-Canada; we want to make sure there are broadcasters in the private sector, particularly outside urban areas. It is relatively simple to make sure programming is being produced in Toronto and Vancouver and Montreal. It is important to have that production. The more production centres, the more it costs, and that explains the trend toward concentrating in a few big cities. One of our roles is to make sure there is good programming being produced outside the cities.
Senator Gignac: CBC/Radio-Canada is eligible for the Canada Media Fund’s performance envelope program, and that has led to a degree of unease. The private broadcasters are having funding problems. CBC/Radio-Canada gets 36% of the revenue from that program. It would have been very useful if the study you are going to do had been done before CBC/Radio-Canada was given 36% of the envelope.
[English]
The Chair: I have a couple of questions as well for our witnesses. Listening to your exchange with Senator Downe, he brought up and highlighted some problems during COVID, which you used as an opening to say that it was extenuating circumstances and it was unintentional on the part of the CBC. I can’t get my head around that, because at the end of the day, when we’re talking about the CBC providing regional news and coverage in some places in Canada that are quite remote, don’t we need the CBC to be doing that in the most difficult moments when we’re having a pandemic, when water mains are breaking or when we have emergencies? If they’re not able to do that in those critical moments, why does the government continue to up the envelope of subsidies? Now it’s up to $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion. Why is the CRTC continuing to cut them slack?
Mr. Shortliffe: Thank you for the question. It’s difficult for me to address. I acknowledge that it’s absolutely important for CBC/Radio-Canada to provide local services. It is absolutely important that they provide services during crises. The feedback from this committee and from other stakeholders has certainly put an emphasis on that, we will be examining that as we move forward, as we’re looking at resiliency of emergency alerting, as we’re looking at 9-1-1. There is a whole question around emergency alerting that we need to address, as well as resilience of systems.
We are hoping that CBC has learned from what has happened and can do better. The commission, as I said, looked at that at the time and accepted that they were caught up in a situation that was out of their control. I understand that Senator Downe respectfully disagrees with that, but that was our assessment at the time.
In terms of their level of funding, that is a question for the government. It’s not something that we set at the CRTC.
The Chair: We had the ministry before us last week, and they punted the ball over to the CRTC and to Radio-Canada. We have the CRTC before us now and ask, what the consequences are when they’re not respecting their licensing, and, of course, we punt it back to the government. Thus, we see what the problem is here.
My second question is, to Senator Simons’s point, how do we measure and what are the benchmarks for success or failure? You mentioned hours, which is reasonable. Of course, you’re preoccupied with hours of services; Senator Simons is more preoccupied with content and what they’re offering up Canadians. I have a different benchmark, and it’s called ratings. In your opinion, is the CBC/Radio-Canada right now — specific to local broadcasting coast to coast to coast — are their ratings, in your opinion, satisfactory?
Mr. Shortliffe: I hesitate to pronounce on that because I’m here as a representative of the commission. I’m obviously not the commission. I will say that CBC/Radio-Canada should be relevant to all Canadians. Their ratings certainly could be better along those lines. It is absolutely a valid question to ask.
If I may address something else you said, I think it’s absolutely fair to say that we’re punting the question back to Canadian Heritage in terms of financing. I will say in terms of holding them to account — and we will be holding more public proceedings which concern CBC/Radio-Canada going forward — I would encourage the voice of the Senate and all Canadians to participate in that because we do have to act on the basis of a public record. We do have tools that we can use to hold them to account.
The Chair: This is my last question before I pass it onto Senator Dasko. CBC/Radio-Canada, over the last couple of years, has shut down a lot of newsrooms across the country, particularly in regional broadcasting, and they’ve laid off a lot of journalists. Last year, we passed Bill C-11 with false pretences, in my opinion. It has been over a year now. In your opinion, has Bill C-11 done anything to reverse the trend of newsrooms closing down and journalists being laid off?
Mr. Shortliffe: I would say that we’re in the course of doing that. Part of our decision this summer was specifically to vote money and base contributions from streamers to local news funds on both radio and television. Now, I will state that our assessment of the most immediate needs were not actually for CBC/Radio-Canada or the largest broadcasters, it was for independent broadcasters because they are facing the greatest financial pressure. I think when we took that decision, we said explicitly that’s a first step for news. Other steps have to be taken.
The CRTC sees news funding in Canada as one of the most pressing issues we have to resolve. News is often seen as a loss leader. You referred to cuts in CBC newsrooms. There have been even greater cuts in private newsrooms. This is absolutely something that you can and will hold us to account that the CRTC needs to address. We need a sustainable future —
The Chair: My question is — and obviously I’m not holding the CRTC to account for this — why did news broadcasters, in a matter of days of passing Bill C-11, lay off journalists across the country from coast to coast to coast in large numbers if this bill was something they held in such high regard and was supposed to bring results?
Mr. Shortliffe: I’m afraid you would have to ask those broadcasters for their individual decisions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here. I’m still trying to understand and unpack what local versus regional is and what the requirement is. I think about my province, Ontario. How are local and regional defined? What are the requirements, let’s say, for the CBC with respect to the province of Ontario? When it comes to local, are we talking about where programs are produced in a local or regional area, or are we talking about content and what is produced? Help me understand what the requirement is. Anyway, I’ll just throw that out to you.
Mr. Shortliffe: I’ll start and ask Mr. Craig to provide a little more detail.
When we’re defining regional and local, we look at where material is produced. We’re about to have a more detailed discussion about what the definition of Canadian content is. The historical definition focuses on where things are done and who does it because when you try to quantify what that content is, it can become complicated quickly. We will have that discussion in the near future. To date, we look at where things are produced as whether or not it’s local. In terms of the specific requirements, I’ll ask Mr. Craig to elaborate.
Michael Craig, Director, Audio-visual Programming and Distribution, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: In terms of the specific requirements, it’s important to recognize that the commission’s powers with respect to regulation are at the undertaking level, which is to say we can look at local radio stations or local television stations and impose requirements on them. When we regulate and require certain hourly requirements. In the case of television stations in non-metropolitan areas or, historically, in large metropolitan areas, up until the last licence renewal, we imposed requirements on them.
We impose local programming requirements, but it’s understood by the CBC that part of its requirements will be made up by regional programming. Oftentimes, it will, as per the evidence that it provided to the commission in the past, provide programming, not only to the specific region, but also into areas surrounding that region.
Senator Dasko: Okay. With respect to Ontario, then, what is regional? If regional means where something is produced, which is what Mr. Shortliffe said, where is it required that it be done? Are we in a situation where the regional becomes less regional? Could you do all the regional requirements from Toronto, for example? Could you do it?
Mr. Craig: Thank you for the question —
Senator Dasko: Would it be under the 14 hours or whatever the requirements are? Could you do northern Ontario from Toronto? It doesn’t sound as if they can do that because you did say that where it’s produced is important. Anyway, I hope you understand what I’m trying to get at.
Mr. Craig: I think I do, and I can speak again to the requirements of the commission put on in undertakings. Then, I might ask Mr. Shortliffe to follow up.
With respect to the requirements that the commission can impose, the commission will impose on an undertaking level a certain number of hours. In the past, if the commission wanted to impose 14 hours on Toronto, it would impose that on the local Toronto station and then give guidance in the decision to the CBC with respect to the expectations surrounding that. Ultimately, the programming decisions for the CBC and the editorial decisions from the CBC lie with the CBC. The commission does not specify the editorial decisions of the CBC or how they’re intended to be made.
Senator Dasko: What about Windsor or Guelph or places like that?
Mr. Craig: In Windsor, in particular, there certainly is a requirement on the radio side where the commission was concerned about the French-language requirements, in particular that certain requirements were not being met by the CBC. There were certain complaints. At that point, the commission decided to take additional steps in that regard. But again, when it comes to regulating the CBC, the commission, on the traditional side, regulates at the undertaking level, and where the television and radio stations are is where the CRTC could decide to impose requirements.
Mr. Shortliffe: I will add that basically when the CBC appeared in front of us, they said they understood what we were saying. They understood we wanted the programming and the news to be local — and I’ll pick someplace other than Windsor. For that matter, we could take Ottawa — but that some of it would be regional because there is regional news that affects everyone in Ontario, but they understood what the mix was.
One of the questions we will have as we look at their next licence renewal is how well CBC has followed the spirit of that decision. If, to your example, it became a situation where because it’s considered regional, in fact, everything in Windsor is about traffic jams on the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto, that would be brought to our attention and we would certainly have a different discussion with CBC/Radio-Canada.
We collect an enormous amount of information from them on a yearly basis that we try to analyze. We’re trying to give them the flexibility as a corporation to make reasonable editorial decisions and to not micromanaging their editorial decisions, while trying to ensure that they are meeting the spirit of the requirements.
We tried to strike a balance in the last licence decision, and certainly there can be a vigorous debate on both sides whether we have ended up striking it. We looked at CBC’s operations on both radio and television and said there’s a lot of content in the major metropolitan areas, which is good, that is where a majority of Canadians live, but we want to see more defined commitments for the regions. Within the regions, through particular municipalities, you can have some flexibility, but we want to see more emphasis on regional programming. That is something we will be examining because that is a marker we put down in our last decision. CBC, being independent editorially, decides how that mix will go, but it is something we are looking at very closely.
Senator Dasko: They decide if there is going to be a station in Guelph versus Windsor or in Thunder Bay or in North Bay?
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes.
Senator Dasko: They make those decisions to either open or close a station? They could say they’re going to close North Bay and do it out of Huntsville or wherever. They make those decisions routinely.
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes.
Senator Dasko: Okay. I think I’m understanding it a bit better.
Can you tell me, what do you use as your most authoritative source of audience data? What do you use for audience ratings, who watches what and when, the demographics, and what are your main sources? What are the most credible sources?
Mr. Shortliffe: That’s an interesting question because we try to use a number of sources. There is Numeris, which normally provides data. What I will say — and we’re concerned about this as a commission — especially as we move into the streaming world, it is harder and harder to get accurate data. This is not a slam at Numeris, which does an extremely hard job, but we are engaged in looking at more data sources because when you talk about the popularity of a program, especially if it is available now on a variety of digital platforms, then it can be more difficult to find the actual reach. When there is something directly on CBC Gem, CBC can tell us how many times it has been accessed. We sometimes need to dig deeper to ask questions, like is access that someone clicked on it for two seconds by mistake and closed it, or watched it for an hour, and we can get that from them. When you’re in a world with different cable systems, satellite systems, the equivalent of virtual BDUs like Amazon Prime, we are trying to get a more robust data system together. I would say that at the moment there isn’t a single authoritative data source. We try to look at as many different data sources as possible.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shortliffe. Senator Dasko’s time is up.
Senator Muggli: I’ve been stewing on metrics ever since Senator Simons spoke earlier, and I’m curious about one of the measurement tools regarding perception. I have a lot of perceptions about a lot of things I know absolutely nothing about and have never consumed. I’m curious what exactly is meant by “perception.” How do you measure perception, and is that actually a good measurement?
Mr. Shortliffe: That’s an excellent question, and it depends on what you’re trying to measure. If you’re talking about perceptions of the public broadcaster, we’re aware that, obviously, we do a licence renewal every number of years. The CRTC is — I’m afraid to say it and I hope we’re getting better on this — not something where Canadians instantly say, I want to participate in your processes because it is so easy and open. We are trying to improve that, but I will confess that we are not the best. We try to look at a number of public opinion research surveys. We try to collect information in different ways.
Back to the question regarding data, it is difficult to say there is a single authoritative area, and there is a danger when you’re looking at perception surveys because how the question is asked can influence what the response is, as you well know.
Senator Muggli: Do the survey questions actually confirm that people have consumed the product before they are passing judgment on it?
Mr. Shortliffe: That depends on how individual surveys are designed, and that’s certainly something we try to take into account at the CRTC.
Senator Muggli: I think that would be a very important consideration, and you should have people who really know how to design surveys to ensure that the questions are being asked appropriately. Thank you.
Mr. Shortliffe: Absolutely, a valid point. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I think this segues nicely. One of the challenges, of course, is that nobody watches television anymore, linear television. I mean “nobody” in the grand sense of the word. I have not watched the CBC local news on a television set in years. I am still consuming CBC local news in Edmonton, I just get it online. Rarely do I stream a news clip, I’m reading the print product because, frankly, in Edmonton, they simply hired all the people from the Edmonton Journal newsroom and now employ them to make an online newspaper in the CBC. I’m wondering how you’re measuring the clicks to the website and how important that is. Maybe 14 hours of television isn’t relevant if all the news is online in print form.
Second, I would like to know if Facebook’s response to Bill C-18 actually led to fewer people being able to consume CBC news.
Mr. Shortliffe: On the second answer, I’m afraid I don’t know. We could take a look into that, or certainly CBC should be able to answer that, but I’ll be honest, I don’t know.
On your first question, when we did the last licence, it was before Bill C-11 passed, so we didn’t have explicit jurisdiction over the internet activities of CBC/Radio-Canada. We do now. When we re-examine their licence, we’ll be asking about the totality of ways they reach Canadians. Bearing in mind that the chair asked us to be concise, stay tuned. You’re raising an excellent question. CBC/Radio-Canada is reaching people in more ways than they used to, it is more under the ambit of the CRTC, and that has to be a consideration when we look at their licence conditions going forward.
Senator Downe: I’m wondering if you could send the committee members the ratings for the CBC if you have them for the larger cities in Canada and Prince Edward Island. My understanding is that where there’s heavy competition in places like Vancouver and Toronto, CBC is far down the ratings scale, but in Prince Edward Island, where there’s no other locally produced TV news, they’re extremely high and people watch it. That’s why we were even more dependent on them in the pandemic than other areas.
For my second question, I made the argument earlier and Senator Housakos followed up about public consultation and the CRTC conducting hearings, the CBC showing up, which in my view now is a collective waste of time because it’s not a licence renewal, it’s a rubberstamped renewal. Is the CRTC considering fining the CBC for any violations of their licence on a go‑forward basis? You could ask the commission and get back to us.
Mr. Shortliffe: I will raise it with the commission, but as a legal matter, we don’t disclose what we’re considering doing on a go-forward basis. I will take the question back to the commission.
Senator Downe: This is a government-mandated and regulated industry. Look at other government-regulated industries like driving. We all have a licence. You have to qualify for a licence, there are rules of the road. If I’m caught speeding, I can’t tell the police officer that my meeting has been moved up an hour, I’m late for the meeting, and he would say that those are circumstances beyond your control, I’m not giving you a ticket. It doesn’t work that way. What you’re telling us is that’s how the CRTC treats the CBC. It’s totally unacceptable, and they should change your policy.
Mr. Shortliffe: We’re a quasi-judicial tribunal with the powers of a federal court. Exactly like a federal court, we don’t announce a sentence before we have a public process.
Senator Downe: Have you ever fined the CBC?
Mr. Shortliffe: We have not. Our fining power was introduced in the law last year. We are developing the regulatory cadre around it. We did not have the power before.
The Chair: Just to clarify this, because there was a decision and debate at our last meeting between myself and Senator Cardozo. If I hear correctly, the CRTC has the right to fine an organization that is in breach of their licence.
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes. It is called an administrative monetary penalty. It’s not exactly a fine, but it is similar. It is meant to ensure compliance. It can be escalating up to $15 million per violation. That’s the maximum in the act. The act does allow us to do it with CBC/Radio-Canada, although it changes some of the powers. For any other company, when we see noncompliance, we can actually individually name members of the board of directors or the CEO. We are not allowed to do so with CBC/Radio-Canada. If we choose to do an administrative monetary penalty against CBC/Radio-Canada, we have to hold a public process first, inform the Minister of Heritage and lay it in front of Parliament before such an administered monetary penalty is administered, and that’s in the act, it’s not something that we have discretion with.
The Chair: I appreciate that, I just wanted to clarify it. The point Senator Downe is making is if we have laws and regulations and are not applying them, then we are defeating the purpose of accountability.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am going to come back to Radio‑Canada and draw a parallel with the question from my colleague, Senator Simons. Radio-Canada has actually made a fairly impressive about-face in the direction of its website. The website site does not just rebroadcast television and radio reporting. Programming on the net, by the net and for the net is being produced with rather sizeable resources. I compare what is on the Radio-Canada website to what francophone newspapers are doing and there are clearly very substantial resources at Radio‑Canada. This expansion of the website is resulting in very strong competition in all the francophone print media. This is moving away from a system where the broadcaster broadcast and toward a system that is in competition with all the private newspapers that are finding it hard to survive.
This is a new reality, since Radio-Canada wants to do less and less broadcasting, because that gets a smaller audience than the website. Where do you stand on that? Of course the future lies in part on the Internet, but at the same time, Radio-Canada has resources that are out of proportion to others for occupying this sector, and all around it we hear quite a bit of complaining from the newspapers.
Mr. Shortliffe: That is an excellent question. I agree that there is direct competition with broadcasters and local newspapers. That is an issue we will be looking at in connection with Bill C-11, because we now have more authority over online issues.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What would you be able to do? What powers do you have that would allow you to intervene?
Mr. Shortliffe: We would be able to make rules for the Internet, but only up to a point. We would be able to manage the Internet, since it is a question where —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You can answer in English.
Mr. Shortliffe: It’s not a matter of French or English; I am looking for the right concept. When the Internet is used as a broadcaster, if there is a story that includes audiovisual material and texts, we play a role. When it is text alone, we don’t, because that is the Internet in general. So for us, it is important to define rules for the Internet, because we understand that it is not Parliament’s intention to say that the CRTC is responsible for all the content on the Internet; that is not our mandate.
However, when there is mixed text and audiovisual content, we play a role, and to that end, we have to understand the entire news ecosystems. This is a fundamental issue for us and it is an important issue for the future, not just for CBC/Radio-Canada, but for all news services that exist today, because the information available online is constantly expanding.
I could say that this is a good thing in some cases, because there are small towns that no longer have local newspapers; there are radio stations that have a strong online presence, and it is a good thing to have very local news for those communities.
So the issue is not necessarily that the competition that exists is a weakness in the system; rather, when there are more voices in the system — newspapers, radio stations and television stations, in the private and public sectors — that is the best situation possible.
To our mind, the issue is to ensure the best outcome possible, and that is a work in progress.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: On round three, if senators are interested and if our witnesses indulge us for a few more minutes, we’ll start with Senator Simons, and I’m willing to take other senators.
Senator Simons: I got a reward for being concise last time so we’ll see if I don’t abuse this.
I want to come back to Bill C-18 and Bill C-11. Canadians were promised a great deal with these pieces of legislation, which I know that you are not responsible for writing. You are only responsible for administering.
I wondered if you could tell us — I want to follow up on what Senator Housakos said — with Bill C-11, is there going to be an increase in production funds for CBC to create more original programming that might come from the regions as a result of the funding promises of Bill C-11, or is that money going to more likely go to co-productions with streaming services such as Netflix, Prime or Disney?
Mr. Shortliffe: I am going to be evasive simply because we have not made those decisions yet. The commissioners on the CRTC — I keep on mixing our organizations, which is not good for this meeting — we simply have not reached those decision points yet. What I can say is that we’re very concerned about regional production across Canada. We’re very concerned about that overall ecosystem. We are looking at the way streaming services can play the best role there.
One thing we saw as hopeful, and it is only a single production so it is not meant to be everything — right now they are filming “North of North,” which is a sitcom supported by CBC, APTN and Netflix. Netflix contributed to building a studio in Iqaluit, which allows them to film up there. This was not sparked by the CRTC. We can take no credit for it.
But we look at that and say when you have a foreign streamer, APTN and CBC/Radio-Canada working together to do a production on a level that has never been done before in Iqaluit, that is the kind of thing we want to see more of.
Senator Simons: Yes, we do.
Mr. Shortliffe: Whether we will, will be a part of our job going forward.
Senator Simons: Tell me then, you were quite clear that with the money in the Online News Act, that the CRTC has no power to direct any of those funds and the Canadian Journalism Collective has no power to direct any of those funds.
With the production funds that are encompassed in what was then Bill C-11, will there be any more directive capacity to say a certain percentage of that money must be spent in regional production?
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes.
Senator Simons: Okay.
Mr. Shortliffe: We have vastly more. Bill C-18 was essentially given to us to administer, but the policy work was done by the government.
Bill C-11, we were given a complicated mandate to fulfill but we have a great deal of flexibility in how we fulfill it. We already had our process that led to the base contributions where we always said that was a first step. We estimate it will be about another $200 million in production. But that was always intended to be a first step. You will shortly be seeing subsequent steps. We have quite a bit of flexibility in what decisions we make.
We will always face the question of do we want to be hyper‑directive, in which case — because we are public servants in Ottawa, we’re always worried that for hyper-directive we could cut off innovation in the industry. On the other hand, if we’re too wide open, people will argue the system can be gamed. This is always the question we face in making rules. But we have quite a bit of leeway in what rules we will make on what monies will be devoted and how.
Senator Simons: That is really interesting. I hope you will keep us apprised once you have made those decisions.
Mr. Shortliffe: It would be a pleasure to.
The Chair: One last question from me, and a comment: We are preoccupied with regional news and making sure that Canadians in rural parts of the country are served properly. We have seen CBC, and other broadcasters for that matter, closing down stations, closing down newsrooms and firing journalists. But I think we all agree that digital platforms are a way to reach people in a broad, robust way. We have seen even the CBC/Radio-Canada acknowledge that they need to invest — and they have invested a lot — in building their digital footprint and digital platforms.
One of the direct results that Bill C-18 had is it forced Meta and that platform to pull out of news.
Has the CRTC done an evaluation on how damaging that has been in disseminating information and news to rural and regional parts of Canada?
Mr. Shortliffe: We have not done a direct study of that, no. However, we are currently engaged in correspondence with Meta. We have received anecdotal complaints saying that people have obeyed the news ban on Meta. We’re currently engaged in correspondence with them to try to understand what exactly they are doing and the impact of that.
We have been focused on the Google exemption. Now that it is done, we’re looking at Meta. That is not to say that we found that Meta is outside of the law; it is to say that we have questions. We want to understand what they are doing. Looking at that, we are also trying to understand the impacts upon the broader system.
The Chair: I suspect they are responding like any business would respond when they think their revenues are under attack.
The other question I have is in regard to Bill C-11. CRTC has committed to building a framework. It was supposed to be by the end of this year, but I believe it has now been pushed off to the end of next year, if I’m not mistaken.
We all know there will be an election between now and next year, so have there been political considerations that encouraged the CRTC to push it back to next year? The truth of the matter is that we all recognize that once Bill C-11 is put into place — and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong — there is a huge risk that these digital platforms will pass the additional costs on down to the end user, which is the Canadian taxpayer or consumer.
Mr. Shortliffe: I can say that I have seen no political pressure on timing, nor has anything been raised with me by my colleagues at Canadian Heritage.
We have been dealing with an enormously complex piece of legislation that is asking us to do many things. We prioritized the base contributions, frankly, to get a foot in the door to say that we want streaming platforms to start getting involved in the system and to start contributing.
In terms of our next steps, which we have basically been working on all year, you are going to see a large number of consultations launched in a short period of time, because we are trying to finish our policy work in a timely manner so we can move on to individual conditions of service.
That is very much being driven by internal work pressures at CRTC. No one has raised a political consideration with me.
If there is an election, speaking as staff, my only concern is that it is an election blackout, which means that, for 45 days, we can’t launch anything publicly. That will interrupt some of my timelines. That is the grand extent of my political concerns right now.
The Chair: Mr. Shortliffe and Mr. Craig, thank you for being generous with your time and answers.
(The committee continued in camera.)