Canadian Heritage Committee on May 6th, 2008

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

--and I appreciate that, but with regard to this committee, the only place and time we can decide what we want to do to make the request to the Liaison Committee is here and now, and Mr. Coderre seems to imply that we can put that discussion off to somewhere else. Well, we can't; we have to decide now.

It's very important that we go to Vancouver. I've said that a number of times now. If we're going to have other people appear, I think they should come to Ottawa. We can make that arrangement for them. People have spoken strongly in favour of encouraging people to come here for that, but Vancouver does have a particular interest in this, so I would urge us not to support Mr. Coderre's--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to call the question on the amendment by Mr. Coderre:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hold hearings prior to the summer recess on the decision by CBC/Radio-Canada to disband the CBC Radio Orchestra; on CBC/Radio-Canada's commitment to classical music; and on the changes to CBC Radio 2.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Now we vote on the motion as amended.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

It's proposed on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Is it proposed on division?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

That needs to be unanimous, Chair, and I don't accept moving it on division. I'd like to have a vote on it--and a recorded vote, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

So the motion, as amended, reads:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hold hearings prior to the summer recess on the decision by CBC/Radio-Canada to disband the CBC Radio Orchestra; on CBC/Radio-Canada's commitment to classical music; and on the changes to CBC Radio 2.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

A point of order, Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, after this vote, I will submit a notice of motion that you be given the mandate to seek the Liaison Committee's approval for us to travel, specifically to Vancouver.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll move on to the next order of business, a notice of motion from Maria Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

I will read the motion.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the following be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity: The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government point out to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that conventional television must support information services, including quality regional information services.

This motion is as a result of what happened at TQS recently. I hope to get the committee's unanimous support for this motion in order to send a message to the CRTC that conventional television should maintain its information services. I am also very pleased that the Liberal Party may have its opposition day on this matter. I see that we are all going in the same direction, and I thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have been working on this matter for a long time. I had an opportunity to discuss it not only with TQS people, but also with the unions, with TVA and others. But our intention is not to tell CRTC how to conduct its business, and TQS people understand that. Our role, as the government in waiting, is to provide some direction and to allow the minister to do her work satisfactorily, not the CRTC's work.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Mourani's motion is not complete. I think it should be amended because we cannot just mention information services. Does that mean exactly the same thing? The CRTC knows that it would be impossible for TQS. I feel that we have lost a little regional sensitivity. If we are mentioning quality information services, we must also mention local production. So I would like to make an amendment.

I gather that this is a new file for Mrs. Mourani, but what is important now is to provide opinions that will reflect something that the unions understand and accept. We want TQS to survive, but we also want to make sure that conventional television supports a basic level of information services, specifically quality regional information services and local production. They may make television for the Montreal region, but we, who understand and are sensitive to the other regions of Quebec, and to the country as a whole, we have to make sure that people on the spot are going to offer a basic level of information services and, above all, local production.

So here is my amendment. After "conventional television must support", the words "a basic level of" would precede the words "information services". And, at the end, the period would be removed and the words "and local production" would be added.

En anglais, we're talking about “local production”, but we're talking about “a basic level of information”.

If Mrs. Mourani does not understand, it is her problem, not mine. I said that I wanted to address the focus and the local production.

Those are the amendments I am proposing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could you just help us with that amendment?

Next is Mr. Abbott, and then Ms. Mourani.

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

I'd like to make some comments specifically with respect to TQS; then I would like to read into the record from the Broadcasting Act.

First, with respect to TQS, as I answered in the House of Commons on Friday to a question from a Liberal member, the government is following the situation at TQS very closely. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has sent a letter to the CRTC chairman asking him for details on the process he intends to follow in this matter.

I might mention in a bit of a parenthesis that it is our reading of legislation with respect to the CRTC that this is the extent, at this time, of what the minister can undertake, and she has done it.

In response to that, on Friday, April 25, the CRTC announced that it will be holding public hearings in Quebec and Montreal starting on June 2.

Again, if I can put it in brackets, one of the frustrations of this is—certainly I'm aware of the fact—that there have been 200 people laid off as a result of the decisions made around the TQS issue. I'm sure it must be very frustrating to them and to listeners and viewers of TQS that the hearings are not starting until June 2; nonetheless that's the practical reality of how long it would take to actually get things in place to hold the hearings. They are moving forward. They have made a commitment. The CRTC is planning that all stakeholders will be able to participate in the process.

I'm about to read from the Broadcasting Act to underline the fact that it's the CRTC's responsibility to regulate in a way that ensures that the act's objectives are reached. I just want to put clearly on the record that the minister, within the law as presently written, is doing exactly what she can do. After the CRTC has made whatever their decisions may be, there may be other things that can happen, but at this particular point she has gone to the full extent of what she can do.

With respect to the Broadcasting Act's broadcasting policy for Canada, paragraph 3(1)(i) says that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should:

(i) be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes, (ii) be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources, (iii) include educational and community programs, (iv) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and (v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector;

That is what is outlined in Canada's legislation presently in existence. The CRTC, in the process of the hearings that will be commencing on June 2, will be taking into account these five points as set out in legislation.

Now, maybe I don't understand—and this is not a rhetorical thing, for I'm saying truly I maybe don't understand—but the fact that the Broadcasting Act currently says “be drawn from local, regional, national, and international sources” and “include educational and community programs” and “provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views”.... I'm wondering about the urgency or the necessity of this motion. I'm not speaking aggressively against it; I'm just asking whether there is actually a need for it.

Doesn't this motion in fact duplicate what the CRTC's rules of engagement with the public and rules of engagement with the broadcasters and the broadcast industry are?

If it's the desire of the committee and, if we have Mr. Coderre's motion tomorrow in the House, if it's the desire of the House to give more clarity and more direction to the CRTC, it will be interesting for us to then try to figure out the relationship between the direction that's been given.... Is it a recommendation? Is it a statement of where they must go? And is that in any way in conflict with what is outlined in legislation for them to do at present?

So I'm just putting some facts on the record here, and again I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing is an exercise that will achieve some objective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Mourani and then Mr. Coderre.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I think that what we are doing with this motion is useful. It is important to tell the minister that she has a role, and the role is not necessarily to intrude. Unfortunately, that is not what we have seen lately. We have seen private deals and stalling tactics. The motion is important, in my opinion. If the Liberals are making an opposition day out of it, then of course it is important.

Mr. Coderre's amendment dealing with "quality regional information services and local production" is not a problem for me. But I would like him to expand on what he means by "a basic level of information". What kind of content is that exactly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We go to Mr. Coderre and then to Mr. Siksay.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There are several things.

First of all, Jim, thank you very much for your questions. I think they're well put. But at the same time, I think there's a difference in what we're doing at a standing committee of Parliament. Sometimes, as you know, when we're providing some studies and we're pushing the envelope to the government from our own perspective, we're doing exactly that.

So tomorrow we'll have a motion. It's opposition day, and we will talk about the future of la télévision généraliste. So I think it's consistent. We're doing our job and we're saying what we think because we're focusing on those kinds of issues. So I think it's a valid point to talk about and I think the motion plus the amendment will provide that.

Secondly, the reason I'm talking about a basic level, un certain niveau, I totally agree with you that we shouldn't be there to tell the CRTC or do the job of the CRTC. But at the same time, as a government, as a Parliament, we have the capacity to define some orientation. And the purpose of the motion, which is good, is we're not talking specifically about TQS. We're talking about télévision généraliste because there's an issue there. We know for sure that TQS might be just the first of many that will suffer the same situation. We all know that since 1999 there's been a new policy for the future of.... How do you say la télévision généraliste? Conventional broadcasting. Thanks, Bill.

And we all know there's a precedent with Toronto 1, which became Sun TV. There was a situation there. Now we don't want to ask, and that's the reason I'm talking about un certain niveau. We're not saying we will have exactly the same thing and this is what you should do and define percentages and keep the same people there. By talking about a basic level we're saying conventional television includes an information service, so we need to keep a certain level.

That's why I believe the amendment is important. And when we're talking about regional sensitivity, I think there's no way we can have a regional approach without thinking about local production, because if that's not the case everything will be based out of Montreal or from the Quebec area or from Toronto, and we all know that became a problem for the regions, which don't feel their television necessarily represents their regional point of view.

That's why I think that by talking about conventional television here, we're not talking about a specific case--and I know exactly what you're talking about--but at the same time some ministers in the past said they felt they would have to take a decision. We can, after the fact, go through cabinet and decide on the situation. Remember radio satellite and all that. But I don't see any intrusion if we have a minister who tries to define the future of conventional television, because it is a major issue. And I know for a fact that after TQS you might have TVA, which will say we already have our specialized news network and we will get rid of the others. We can talk about that.

So by keeping it in a principled way and by having those levels of amendments, I truly believe that not only are we doing our job but we are respectful of exactly the point you were talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll go to Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to say that I think all of us appreciate the concern about what's happening in Quebec, particularly with regard to TQS. It is very important to the people in Quebec and to workers in the television industry in Quebec. And it's something that is of concern to all Canadians, because there are many circumstances across the country in which a similar scenario has unfolded or could easily unfold.

We want to make sure that Canadians have access to good local and regional news services. We want to make sure that there's competition in those services, as well. For many of us, this goes to the whole question of media democracy and to the importance of differing points of view and differing organizations covering the events of the day and the stories of the day. So TQS is something that's of concern to all of us.

It's not clear to me, in Mr. Coderre's motion, whether you are deleting the phrase “including quality regional information services”.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

No, I'm adding.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So you're just adding that there be a basic level of information service, and then you're adding the phrase “and local programming”. Is that correct?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, it would say that it would include quality regional information services and local production. I'm adding. Regional and local production should be included.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I got that, but can you give me the wording of the first amendment you're making, Mr. Coderre?