Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order. This is the 38th meeting—we're almost getting up to 40—of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This morning, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing the study on the future of the Canadian Television Fund, with consideration of the draft report.

I think everyone has probably perused the report, and that's about all I have done so far. When our task was set to look into the Canadian Television Fund, it was the problem that Shaw and Vidéotron had stopped their monthly payments. That being resolved, I think we may want to make sure that something like it doesn't happen again.

I'm open to suggestions on how we should go about this. Mr. Angus has, just previously, given me a few things here. I know our experts have given it a quick going-over. We have one recommendation here, and I see Mr. Angus has quite a number of recommendations.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I stay up all night thinking about these things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There you are.

We can go into some of these as we go through this. I think the preamble, or the first part of this, is just an account of the witnesses who were here and some of their statements, to give us a background on where we are coming from.

Does anyone have any problem with the preamble as we have it?

Yes, Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

My comment may not seem particularly relevant to some. However, as I read it, I really had the feeling I was reading a report from the Minister, rather than a Committee report. Indeed, despite some criticism here and there, there is no mention of the inertia and hesitation that has characterized her approach to this issue. At the same time, mention is made of actions she took that led to a situational and fragile resolution to this problem. That is the only criticism I would make in that regard.

I have looked at Mr. Angus's proposal. I believe my position is closer to what is expressed in this proposal. Indeed, if we are going to talk about what the Minister did in relation to this issue, I think it is only fair to talk about what the Opposition did. Without pressure from the Opposition in the House and Mr. Angus's motion, I very much doubt that a positive outcome would have emerged so quickly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just to explain one thing—again I relate back to the preamble here, or the first part of our report—I'm not taking any position on the minister, other than that the minister was here as a witness and the statements that are in the report were made at this committee. Had the minister not been here as a witness and these particular statements had been made, then it might reflect that. But I would suggest that what we have here is a report of what went on at our committee meetings, some of the questions that were asked, some of the statements that were made. But I will take that into account.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I know Mr. Kotto has no intention of making this any more political a report than it obviously will be.

I would point out that some of the praise the minister had from the witnesses is also absent from the report, so it's a tit-for-tat kind of idea. I suggest that the approach, as you said, Mr. Chair, is to reflect on the testimony and the sequence of events that occurred.

Obviously I'm unaware of all the things that were happening in the background, although certainly I was aware of some that would counterbalance what Mr. Kotto is saying. But I don't see any value in getting into that. I think the approach of this report, which is reflective of the testimony at the committee and the public events in a chronological order, is probably a preferable way to go rather than getting down into the nitty-gritty that Mr. Kotto is suggesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

By way of process, perhaps it's difficult to judge the narrative absent the possibility that there could be more recommendations. I, for one, am supportive of Mr. Angus' recommendations. Therefore, the narrative might be tweaked to make the recommendations fit. I think we might want to test the support for the recommendations first. The debate around the narrative might be redundant if we all support those recommendations.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, there are a number of footnote references in the narrative. I would suggest that perhaps the documents associated with those footnotes might be an appendix to the report, for ease of reference and to put quotes in context and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

The narrative I thought spoke well in terms of the various issues we heard. I didn't feel it covered where we go from here, and perhaps it was not the role of the clerk to take us in that direction.

I'm sorry I didn't get it to everyone sooner, but I spent much of the weekend going over the evidence. That's why I've come forward with eight recommendations, which I would suggest is a way of moving us forward from what we've heard to amalgamating them into the report--parts or the whole thing, depending on the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I find myself in a very difficult position. We have eight recommendations here, some of which are fairly comprehensive. It would have been nice to have them ahead of time. This allows us no opportunity to discuss that amongst ourselves, as caucus. There is no opportunity to discuss these with the minister or even to place them in the context of the report itself. We could spend this whole meeting debating these recommendations. The report itself has one recommendation, which is very easy for us to take a position on because we've had a chance to review it.

This is pretty comprehensive. I'm not sure we're going to be in a position to vote on this today, quite frankly. And maybe that's not the intention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to suggest a change.

In my opinion, the report is well written and appropriately covers the events that occurred. However, on page 2, in the paragraph dealing with recent developments, it says:

In a letter sent to the CTF on December 20, 2006, Jim Shaw, CEO of Shaw Communications, called for major changes to the CTF's mandate and governance structure.

Then, a little further on, it says:

The company announced that it was withdrawing its financial support.

I would prefer that we say: “At the same time, the company announced that it was withdrawing its financial support”, or “On that occasion, the company announced that it was withdrawing its financial support.” It seems to me that without those link words, the sentence does not flow well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, and then we'll go to Mr. Abbott.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I understand Mr. Fast's comments. My concern is that I didn't get the report until Friday afternoon. None of us have been in a position to give each other much lead time. We spent the weekend going over it and getting recommendations because we had to be here for Tuesday. Between Friday afternoon at 3:30, when I saw it, and Monday, when we started to finalize the report, we were all in a position where it was a little more difficult than it would have been had we had a fair amount of time.

But I would suggest that the one way through this that's fairly straightforward is that we go recommendation by recommendation. My understanding was that we were going to be looking at the report and voting on its recommendations. We can discuss it recommendation by recommendation or we can look at it in the whole; it doesn't matter to me. I think we're all well enough aware of the evidence to be able to make informed decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I believe it comes down to a question that we should be determining as a committee right from the beginning. The existing situation where we are, as of this minute today, is that we have gone through a crisis that was created in no small part by the withdrawal of the funding by Shaw, then by Vidéotron, their deciding to reverse their position. The issue is now before the CRTC, who effectively have taken the reins of control out of the hands of the CTF. I think Commissioner von Finckenstein certainly gave me a lot of confidence that he's going to be able to make this happen.

Now, we ask the question, what is the purpose of this report? If the purpose of our report to the House is to say this is what we did and this is where it was, then the report as drafted does that. If the purpose of this committee, and it's a perfectly valid choice on the part of the opposition.... If the choice of the opposition is to get into these recommendations and create an extra element for consideration of the public at large and for the consideration of Mr. von Finckenstein and the CRTC, then that's it.

The fact of the matter is to crank it up a notch and to put these recommendations, should they pass, with the wisdom of the collective committee.... Certainly most of them I would be very strongly opposed to, but nonetheless, should they pass, then we've created another point of conflict. It strikes me that we don't need another point of conflict for the CTF and for the producers in Canada. What we need for them is some kind of security of knowing that they have the CRTC with the CTF issues under control so they can go ahead and start producing their shows rather than our creating an extra point of conflict.

I say quite bluntly, that's exactly what these recommendations, should they be included in this report, will do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

That's a valid point, but I don't agree. I think it's our job to learn lessons and make recommendations around those lessons learned.

The reality is that this has been a painful experience for a whole bunch of people. I would argue the industry.... There's a lot of responsibility. There are some good things that have happened that need to be identified. I think it's important, from my perspective as a member of the committee, to support the good work that has been done by the Canadian Television Fund. That's reflected here. I don't find it strongly enough reflected in the narrative in terms of the people who have appeared.

I think there are lessons learned. We heard witnesses from across the country. I think we owe it to them not to take the position that somehow for us to exercise our right as parliamentarians runs the risk of adding fuel to the fire. I think that's unlikely. Quite the contrary, I think we should inform the debate--the public, the government, our committee--of what we've heard. Otherwise, they've come here for a lot of time and given us a lot of advice that we simply have not acted on.

This is not a criticism of the report. I think the report basically does frame the discussion appropriately. Now, as parliamentarians, I think we need to offer advice. This is advice that I support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I simply want to support what Mr. Scott has just suggested. I am in full agreement with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, we have Ms. Fry first.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

There are some things about the narrative that make me agree with everyone else that it's not strong enough. What we have in terms of the one recommendation in the report is that it's really just a band-aid.

It says that we urge the CRTC to amend the Broadcasting Act to stipulate that they must make monthly.... That doesn't stop Vidéotron and Shaw from going against the regulations again if they choose. Then we're back to square one, we're constantly sort of arguing, and calling them frauds, etc. We need to look at how something becomes sustainable in terms of the fund and deal with it once and for all. I think that to fix it for a temporary period of time until the next crisis really has us reacting to crisis after crisis. That isn't strong enough in the one recommendation.

The second thing I believe is this. I tend to agree in principle with a lot of the things Mr. Angus said, but I have this ongoing concern about the CRTC, which has set up a task force to also look at the Cable Television Fund. I am very disturbed that they're not holding public hearings.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's right.