Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Given the time and the fact that recommendation 6 is maintaining the status quo, unless we wish to change the status quo I think we should just support this recommendation, because it's really a motherhood one. It's saying, let's keep doing what we've been doing. I'd like to support it for that reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Are you assuming that the envelope system would be maintained under this? You make no comment on that. Is that an omission?

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

It's sort of based on what Ms. Fry said. At this time this is our recommendation. Further, if CRTC brings something back, and Mr. von Finckenstein has another set of arrangements that industry thinks is a good idea, we can certainly look at those.

But I'm saying that at the present time this is what we have, so let's maintain it. There will be a CBC mandate review. There will be a CRTC review. These issues will come back to heritage, but this is what we have now, so let's support it.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

For the time being. Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I would appeal to Mr. Kotto that we're going to be doing the CBC review, hold the current position, and then that can be reviewed with the CBC review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

My difficulty with this is that we're prejudging the work of the task force. We have a status quo that exists. Mr. von Finckenstein has agreed to start a task force to look into the very issues this recommendation seems to be pointed at.

Both 6(c) and 6(d) are issues that Shaw and Vidéotron raised. Paragraph 6(c) is the funding of CBC up to 37%. Both Shaw and Vidéotron have taken issue with that. Whether their concerns and complaints are justified is quite another matter. That's up to the task force to address. I assume Mr. von Finckenstein will eventually come back to us and submit his task force report. At that time we'll probably decide whether we want to hold further public hearings on it.

The same holds for paragraph 6(d), that the CTF allocates funds exclusively to independent producers. As you know, Vidéotron has asked to be given permission to do it in-house. All of us may disagree with that position, but it's an issue that the task force is now going to dig into. They're going to have broad consultations on the issue and bring it back to this table, and then we can decide whether we accept it or not.

But to now say we want to maintain the existing provisions is essentially a statement that we prefer the status quo to anything the task force is going to come up with, and that's unfair. There is a status quo already. There's no suggestion we're changing it until the task force has completed its work. But this statement is clearly prejudging what Mr. von Finckenstein is purportedly charged with doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Recommendation 7 is that:The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government move the annual contribution to the CTF to A-base, permanent funding as a step toward true stability to the fund.

Mr. Angus.

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

Overall, this fund has been basically lumbering from mini-crisis to mini-crisis because there has never been guaranteed funding. Even before the Shaw-Vidéotron situation, a number of producers were worried about signing deals if they didn't know if the CTF would be in place from year to year. You can't run the kinds of production deals we have based on yearly funding.

Fortunately the minister has said it will be two-year funding, and that has given the industry a good sign. But the long-term goal should be A-base funding so we don't have to worry that with each budget deals might fall through. The way government finances and the way industry finances are clearly out of sync in their production cycles.

So I'm bringing forward the recommendation for A-base funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I understand what Mr. Angus is saying. We heard that in testimony from the different people, especially the people who are in the creation end of the industry. They were thankful that the minister had stepped up to the plate with two-year funding, even making the announcement before the budget. In previous years, as they said, they'd been on tenterhooks up until the budget, not knowing if it would go forward or not.

I'm not sure if A-base permanent funding is something we should talk about today. I think there are going to be a number of recommendations that come down in the next little bit, and at that point maybe we can have that discussion, but right now there's a two-year commitment, and I hope that in the next number of months there'll be a long-term resolution to this issue. So I think we're prejudging and moving into areas that we don't need to move into today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, I call the question.

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

I would suggest adding “indexed”, because the Fund does not evolve at the same pace, depending on whether we're talking about the private or the public portion. There will be an imbalance.

I don't know whether Mr. Angus agrees with me on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, do we just put “with indexation” at the end, or where do we put it? Should it be “CTF to A-base...funding with a cost-of-living index”, or “indexed”?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It's “to the CTF to indexed A-base funding”.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I find it surprising that the Liberal members of this committee are now supporting, first of all, a permanent commitment to this funding, basically indefinitely into the future, and secondly, our actually indexing it, something that they failed to do for some 10 years from the time the fund was established, when the government was actually contributing to it.

They never did that, and now suddenly, because they're on the other side of this table, this becomes an important issue. They would never have tied their hands as a government in the way this recommendation suggests.

You know, what's interesting, Mr. Chair, is that here we have a minister who pre-emptively already commits to two years forward, $100 million per year, to continue to fund the CTF, which is a huge step forward, I believe, providing stability in the industry. But now we're going that extra step, suggesting we want to tie her hands and commit her indefinitely, in perpetuity, to keeping this funding in place--and on top of that, to indexing it, something that the previous government was never prepared to do but is now suggesting is a great idea.

It puzzles me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. I call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

Recommendation 8:

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage finds that it is unusual that the CRTC would engage in closed door hearings on the future of the CTF. Nonetheless, as the CRTC mandate is limited to payment obligations, and as the CTF is under the mandate of the Heritage Ministry, we recommend that any CRTC findings be brought back for public hearings mandated through the Heritage Ministry.

All I'm saying on this one is that I'm confused. I wasn't reading it very well. It says: “...we recommend that any CRTC findings be brought back for public hearings mandated through the Heritage Ministry”. There we are. Would that be to this committee?

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

My interest in this, Mr. Chair, is to clearly define the roles, because the CRTC has set up a task force, and it's not my position to tell the CRTC.... I find it unusual, and I've stated that, but they have the power to engage in this. But because this is a child of Heritage, it has to come back because there are other elements that the CRTC cannot rule on. It has to go through Heritage. So if the minister wants to set up a public task force, the minister can. I think it could come back through the heritage committee hearings, just to look at the recommendations of the CRTC and then hold public hearings and report back to the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

There are a couple of things.

Obviously there are some people who find it strange that the CRTC would hold closed-door hearings. I think it was explained by Mr. von Finckenstein that the reason they're holding closed-door meetings is that what they'll be discussing is sensitive corporate documents. They'll be discussing the financial obligations and financial conditions of these corporations.

I don't know whether any of you have worked in the business world. From my previous experience, this happened often. Whenever you were working in cooperation with some type of person who is in the middle ground, you wouldn't share your corporate documents with other corporations that you're competing with. Some of these documents will be sensitive simply for competition reasons.

Mr. von Finckenstein was very clear that this was the reason these would be held in private. I don't find it unusual that they would be held behind closed doors. I have some reservation about passing something that says we find it strange that these corporations would be able to keep their documents secure and private.

But that's fine. I think Mr. von Finckenstein was very clear that the CRTC would be releasing their report and that they would bring it back to this committee. I think there will be full transparency of the CRTC's intentions going forward.