Evidence of meeting #27 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I call to order meeting 27 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Today we're on committee business. The first order of business is a notice of motion from Bill Siksay.
Mr. Siksay, would you like to present your motion?
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I want to confirm that we're in a public session.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think folks have all seen the motion, which would call on the committee to hold hearings this month regarding the decision by CBC/Radio-Canada to disband the CBC Radio Orchestra, on the CBC/ Radio-Canada commitment to classical music, and on the changes to CBC Radio 2, and as part of that, that the committee travel to Vancouver for some of those hearings.
As we were discussing at our last meeting when the folks from the CBC were here, this decision has been very important to thousands of Canadians. I think probably all of us have heard from some of those folks. My understanding is at least 15,000 Canadians joined a Facebook page to discuss the changes at the CBC, many of whom are also concerned about the disbanding of the CBC Radio Orchestra.
As I noted the other day, this is of particular interest in the area of Vancouver where I think CBC Radio 2 enjoyed one of its largest, if not its largest, listening audiences, and where there was very strong support for CBC Radio 2, as Canadians have come to know it. It's also where the CBC Radio Orchestra was based. There is a strong commitment to the radio orchestra in Vancouver as well.
There aren't very many national cultural institutions based in western Canada, let alone in Vancouver. I think probably the CBC Radio Orchestra is one of the only ones. I think that gives it a very special place in Vancouver, in the lower mainland, in metro Vancouver, in British Columbia, indeed in western Canada. It's very important that the change that disbands the radio orchestra not be done lightly. I think it's something that demands the attention of elected officials as well in that regard.
There is great concern across the country about the changes in CBC/Radio-Canada's commitment to classical music. Many people have seen CBC playing a key role in the development of classical music in Canada and in the development of classical musicians, composers, and conductors in Canada. The role of the orchestra and the CBC was crucial in all of that. They are very concerned about what that means to classical music in Canada with the changes at Radio 2 and the changes to the orchestra.
It's very important that we hear from those folks. I know we've been hearing from them in e-mail, but there are many people: academics, people who have worked in the cultural industries, composers, musicians, and others in Canada who have very strong feelings about this and would like to make the case directly to us about the place of CBC, its commitment to classical music in the cultural life of this country, and how they see that as fundamental to the mandate of the CBC under the Broadcasting Act.
Some of them have spoken at public demonstrations. We've seen demonstrations outside many of the CBC facilities in Canada. They called it “Raise a Ruckus for Radio 2”. Many of them spoke there. In Vancouver at the most recent concert of the CBC Radio Orchestra, there was a rally before the concert began, which included many folks from the cultural community in Vancouver, folks from the UBC School of Music, musicians from the orchestra, and student musicians from CBC, who all spoke about the importance of the radio orchestra. I think it would be very important for all members of the committee to hear their input on this.
It's for those reasons that I hope that folks can support this motion. I hope we will agree to travel to Vancouver. I think we should visit other cities as well with regard to this. I'm sure if we decide to do this, members will have suggestions about it. I see it as something very important.
I think many Canadians feel we're on the verge of losing something that's been very important in the cultural life of Canada, and I think that would be something that would demand the attention of this committee.
Thank you, Chair.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, we are in favour of this motion. I have no statement to make for the media, so I will not take as long as my colleague. But I feel that we should also bear in mind that the president and the vice-presidents of CBC/Radio-Canada were here last week and we still listened to their point of view. We heard their point of view first-hand, whether we accepted it or not. But it would be appropriate for us as parliamentarians to take the pulse of Canadians. We have all received letters and every lobby group in the world has sent the same message.
I think it's useful to have that kind of discussion. Now we're talking about urgently having those hearings in May 2008. I guess we should take a look at what you have on the agenda already, but I think, for the sake of the discussion, we will support that motion for all the reasons that we spoke of in the last meeting, because we asked all those questions about it from both sides of the committee. I think it's an appropriate one.
I'm questioning a bit the fact that you want to hear it urgently in May 2008. Maybe we should have some discussion--not another filibuster--on that. However, I will support that motion.
I think that my Vancouver colleagues, Don Bell, Hedy Fry, among others, are working very hard and are in complete agreement that we should look into this problem. We must also protect the spirit of what CBC Radio 2 is presently doing with classical music. The radio orchestra is part of our heritage too. It is the last one in North American and it must be protected.
I will not do the same as the anglophone chair,
who called that just a band. I think it's more than that.
I believe, though, that we should be supportive of our colleague, and why not go to Vancouver?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you.
I know, Chair, that it's a bit cheeky for a visitor and sub to actually butt right in, but I am a former chair of this committee and also probably the only one at the table who took part in a demonstration outside the CBC building here in defence of classical music on Radio 2.
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Out of order.
3:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Well, I wasn't arrested. There's that about it, which wasn't always the case in my past, but we needn't go there.
Simply to say that I've found the changes that have already been occurring with Radio 2 distressing, in the sense of the dumbing down and the loss of intelligence. And the proposed changes, as we understand them to date, make it even worse as they get rid of some of the most talented and thoughtful people who talk about classical music and turn it into God knows what.
I urge this work upon you even if I won't be part of it. Of course I'd like to go to Vancouver too, and I may offer to substitute for that trip too.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chair, we are also in favour of this motion. The only thing that I wonder about is the urgency. I know that it is important, that it is in the news and that it is happening now. But, given the agenda, I wonder whether it is realistic to arrange it for May 2008. That is my only question. We have already passed a motion to meet with the CRTC about regulating the Internet. Normally, we should put it into the agenda.
I was also wondering about the whole matter of artists and their income. I wanted to look at that too. We should see whether this can be done in May. I do not know if my colleague would amend his motion so that we could consider doing it later.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd rather not go to Vancouver to have some of these hearings, because I think that it's just as well to have the witnesses come here to Ottawa to present us with their views, rather than having the entire committee and all the research staff, the analysts, the clerk, and all the support that's entailed, go to Vancouver. I think it's much easier to have the witnesses from Vancouver come to Ottawa to present us with their point of view. That's my view.
We're not here enough as it is. Many of us come in Monday night and leave Thursday night. We're barely here three days and this is just another disruption to our schedules here in Ottawa.
My preference is to stay in Ottawa.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chairman, of course all of us have had representations by Canadians.
I think one of the interesting things that was said by our witnesses from the CBC was that Canadians are as engaged on this issue as they are, as brought out by Mr. Godfrey and others. That is excellent and says that people care about the CBC, but I think we do have to take a look at jurisdiction. I think we have to take a look at the legislation within the Broadcasting Act as to whether in fact it would fit in with the law, as I read it, for us to be undertaking this trip.
I'm taking a look at the Broadcasting Act, under standing committees, subclause 45(4). Let me read it:
The standing committee on English language broadcasting shall perform such duties in relation to English language broadcasting, and the standing committee on French language broadcasting shall perform such duties in relation to French language broadcasting, as are delegated to the committee by the by-laws of the Corporation.
So, to begin with, there is a question about the jurisdiction. It very well may be a good exercise in this virtual negative public relations exercise that we would fundamentally be undertaking. It may be a good exercise, but we don't really have the jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Broadcasting Act is very, very explicit under objects and powers, subclause 46(5), which is the most germane one:
The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.
So the CBC, if there were a desire—and I'm not suggesting there should be or even that there is—to change the Broadcasting Act to make it that committees could go to Vancouver and have hearings with Canadians and give direction to the CBC, that would require a change in the Broadcasting Act.
If I may read this most germane clause again:
The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative
--and this is the key one--
and programming independence.
So we could go and we could take the time of the committee and the dollars to go to Vancouver, and we could have these hearings, but we have no jurisdiction. So the hearings would be very interesting, and I'm sure the executives of the CBC would probably take note of what was said at those hearings, just as much as they took note of many of the comments by my colleague, Mr. Fast, by Bill Siksay, by Mr. Coderre, as they did at the committee hearing last time, but nothing changes. We have to make sure that what it is we're doing on behalf of the people of Canada will have the potential to have a change, and as I say, according to my reading of the Broadcasting Act, 1991, we have no jurisdiction. So I don't know why we would be going through this exercise.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
If that were true, we would not be able to look into much. At a certain point, democracy requires us to represent public opinion, and we must make use of that in order to send messages.
The CBC/Radio-Canada people really want to hear from us. That does not mean that we are going to manage their programming. We are not putting the independence of CBC/Radio-Canada in doubt and we are not influencing it. They have a job to do. On the other hand, our job is important too. This committee did not intervene in the Hockey Night in Canada affair. That was programming as well.
As representatives of the public, we are called on to look into a number of matters. This is a forum in which it is acceptable to do so. If it were not, the chair would be forced to declare any number of questions out of order.
The way in which my colleague has drafted his motion is interesting because it makes us into a springboard or a forum for Canadians who are sending us letters about the problem with CBC Radio 2 and the radio orchestra. I think that it is relevant. Are they going to listen to us? If they do not, I can see that they will pay the price as people change stations. Our goal is to prevent that. I have always felt that democracy consists in listening to people's opinions and representing them without getting in the way of the law.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I want to speak to some of the concerns that Mr. Abbott raised.
As I remember the discussion we had with the folks from the CBC last week, Mr. Chair, you reminded us of some of the same kinds of legislative obligations that Mr. Abbott just reminded us of. I think you might have warned us once about that, but I don't think you disallowed any of the discussion.
I don't think the CBC folks refused to discuss anything that was raised at the committee last week. In fact, I was pleased that they encouraged a very open discussion of the changes at Radio 2 and the decision to disband CBC Radio Orchestra. It seems to me they are very willing to see us engage in that kind of discussion with Canadians. I don't think there was any attempt there, or no one saw the need, to limit that discussion. I think that speaks positively about the kind of exercise this motion would imply.
I don't think there's anything in this motion that's directive. It's us seeking information from Canadians about the importance in Canada's cultural life of the CBC, of Radio-Canada, of Radio 2, and of the CBC Radio Orchestra. Nothing in the motion prescribes what action we would take. I think the committee would have to discuss that, after we've held our hearings, to see what action we might want to take at that point. That might be the appropriate time to have that discussion. But I think it is very important, as Mr. Coderre said, to hear from Canadians on this, given the concerns.
With regard to “urgently in May 2008”, my concern has always been about how long this Parliament is going to last. I think that's where that phrasing comes from. I do believe we need to do this before the summer recess, because the decision to disband the orchestra comes into effect in the fall. If we haven't done our work this spring, then I think we may miss the boat. It may be too far down the road to have any influence on that decision.
I would suggest that we need to do this prior to the summer recess. If that wording is helpful to people, I would be prepared to see that change made. We could take out “urgently in May 2008”, and we could say instead “prior to the summer recess”. But I do think it's important that we do this before the summer.
Thank you, Chair.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If, as it appears, a consensus is emerging that there be this kind of public consultation, I would want to add my voice to my colleague's comments regarding the location of these “hearings”. I have a concern that if we go to Vancouver, we're making it Vancouver specific. Even though the CBC orchestra is based out of Vancouver, the issues that the motion actually address are much broader than that.
I think I've shared my feelings at this table already that one of the angriest people would have been my wife, when she heard about some of these changes. I would suspect that people right across this country have serious concerns about what they perceive as a dumbing down of CBC's classical music offerings. I would prefer that the hearings be held here in Ottawa so that we're not sending the message that this is a Vancouver issue. I would prefer to have them here.
Quite frankly, I would hope that even the CBC would send representatives to those hearings to make sure that they hear first-hand what Canadians are saying about their proposals. I know that one will be here, but if in fact that's the direction we're going to go, at least let's have it located here in Ottawa.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to the motion. I would remove the words "urgently in May 2008" and would replace them with the words "prior to the summer recess". I would put a period after "CBC Radio Two" and delete the words "and that the committee travel to Vancouver for some of those hearings."
If we hold the hearings here, we could meet more people. Given our agenda, I doubt whether it will be possible for us to go to Vancouver and to do all our work before the summer recess, because we scarcely have four weeks left. We will have perhaps two meetings in May and perhaps three in June. So I would take out the part about Vancouver and I would put "prior to the summer recess", because, as our colleague has just said, it will possibly be too late in the fall. This is a consensus that would allow us to hold the meetings and to hear from as many people as possible before the summer.