Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We'll be voting against it for a couple of reasons. One, I believe, as with the previous motion, that the proper place for this is with the department that dealt with it and with the committee that works for that department. In this case, this is a matter for the international trade committee. Obviously this is an international trade deal--or perhaps, if they wished, foreign affairs--but it's very difficult to deal with a domestic industry and to discuss a foreign trade deal and the negotiations that may be occurring in that regard.

I believe that certainly in this case Mr. Simms and Mr. Angus have correctly pointed out that there are other issues at play here, not the least of which, I can assure you, is that if we're not successful in passing a modernization of the Copyright Act, we will have problems with any trade partners, including negotiating a trade deal. But even if we don't negotiate a trade deal, if we don't modernize the Copyright Act, having met with members of the European Union, I can tell you, as I'm sure others have across the table, that it is something they're expecting us to do regardless.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I agree to a certain point; I think it's probably more to do with ACTA than anything else. But anyway, I would like to say as an addendum—I think that's the word that's going around—that I'm not so sure if having the Minister of Canadian Heritage or half the heritage department here is a good idea. I don't think there's much they can add to it, really.

I think the international trade component and the people involved in that are key to this issue. They're germane to the conversation. I think they're the ones who can give us something. I really don't think the heritage officials can at this point--much less want to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. I'm going to call the question on motion 2 concerning the Canada-European Union trade negotiations. If this motion is defeated along with motion 3, I would ask that members work together to come up with a motion in advance of our discussion about it in committee, so that we can have some sort of a better consensus.

Monsieur Pomerleau.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, after listening to what everyone at the table has been saying, I very much agree with Mr. Angus' comments, as well. I think we should spend a bit more time on it, a bit later. The committee is free to hear who it wants, and it will be up to the committee to decide whether such and such a person appears before it or not.

Therefore, I would suggest that these two motions be set aside for the time being and that Mr. Angus and my colleague meet to put forward a motion together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. To be procedurally correct, I'll call the question on motion 2. You can always reintroduce it at another meeting, provided you give me notice. I'm going to call the question on motion 2. All those in favour?

(Motion negatived)

The motion is defeated. Now, with respect to motion 3, I'll simply ask that you not move the motion. That's the way we'll deal with that.

We're now going on to motion 4 and motion 5. We'll deal first with motion 4, but I'd point out that motions 4 and 5 both have to do with our emerging digital media study, and I'll make a suggestion as chair. If people are generally comfortable with what these motions are suggesting, I suggest that the committee just adopt both these motions without much discussion or debate, and then we can get into a bigger discussion about how we're going to structure the remaining 12 or 13 meetings we have between now and Christmas.

We have motion 4 in front of us. It's from Mr. Rodriguez, but I need somebody in this committee physically to move it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The motion reads:

That the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage, within its current study on Emerging and Digital Media: Opportunities and Challenges, invites small and independent broadcasters to testify of the future of independent broadcasting in Canada.

That's the motion in front of us. Is there any debate on this?

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Not to disagree with you too vehemently, Mr. Chair, but of the two motions, I think the second one that's proposed by Mr. Angus is a little bit more comprehensive. I do think, knowing what it is they're actually looking to accomplish from this, that we might get a clearer report if we actually look at it as a separate issue. I don't disagree that there's overlap and that we could find commonality with the current study we've undertaken, but I think I'll vote against this and support Mr. Angus's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I certainly understand where Mr. Rodriguez is coming from in his motion. Here's what concerns me. I was looking at some similar issues at the same time, and I did feel that if we just announced that we were going to talk to the small independent television broadcasters, within the context of the study we have been doing it would be lost. The other study has been very large and very broad and not all that clearly focused, and not all that clearly focused for a number of reasons. Because when you mention digital, suddenly everybody is part of the digital culture, and where are we going with the committee?

There are specific issues in terms of the new viewing platforms, with television, with the funding for television, and with the fact that we now have a few very large vertically integrated players. How do they play? How does independent production play? Where is independent television? What's the role of the Canada Media Fund?

These are all decisions that I think have to be made in the context of a landscape that is dramatically different from what it was when we met two years ago on the television study and we were talking about fee for carriage and local television. Some of those issues have already been pretty much addressed, I think, just by corporate takeovers. There are real, clear issues facing the diversity of voice and diversity of ownership, and how we are going to make recommendations to government for new production and how it's going to play, whether you're watching it on your Bell phone on Bell CTV or viewing it on the Internet.

I think this is a specific study separate from the overall, very large digital study, which we may continue or we may decide to hold until copyright is dealt with. I don't know. But I think we need probably five meetings anyway to address some very clear implications for the television landscape right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm not going to repeat what Charlie said, but I do agree with his points. May I suggest this, even though I just physically moved it and can't physically move it back? We'll defeat it, as was mentioned by Mr. Del Mastro, but if I can move an amendment to Mr. Angus' motion.... Should I do that right now? Should I deal with this and then deal with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes. Motion 4 is in front of us, not motion 5. You can't withdraw it, but it's not a huge consequence if it's defeated. You can reintroduce it word for word at the next meeting. It's not a big deal.

Seeing no further debate I'll call the question. All those in favour of motion number 4? Opposed?

(Motion negatived)

We'll now go to the motion that Mr. Angus has given us notice for.

Mr. Angus, would you care to move the motion?

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

I will move the motion and spare you my explanation, because I believe I've pretty much explained it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The motion has been moved and is in front of us. I believe Mr. Simms has an amendment.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, I do. Very quickly, point 2 in the motion says “the role and viability of small broadcasters”, and I would like to add “and independent”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. We are now on the amendment that has been moved. The amendment is to add the words “and independent” to the second point. We will have discussion on the amendment.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I'm wondering if it should be “small and independent television broadcasters”. There are many broadcasters out there. Again, we are not opening this up to a general discussion of broadcast. I think we have to be focused that we are talking about these players in the new viewing platform, so if we say “small and independent television broadcasters” it actually makes it clearer who we are dealing with as opposed to community, television, radio, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. I've got you. The amendment as moved by Mr. Simms is to add the three words “and independent television”.

Is there any debate? If not, I'll call the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

We're now on the motion as amended.

Seeing no debate, I will call the question. All those in favour? Opposed?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you. We have disposed of all the motions.

I'm going to suggest that we map out the next 12 to 14 meetings. But before we do that and I get your more detailed direction on what witnesses you want to have appear and the focus you want to have, why don't I give the floor to the analysts for 15 minutes to give us a succinct briefing on what has been done to date? So when you make your suggestions, you can do so with that knowledge.

I'll give the floor to the analyst. Please go ahead.

[Michael Dewing, Committee Researcher]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

As chair, I would make the suggestion that somebody move us in camera simply because we're discussing aspects of a potential report.

Mr. Angus has moved that we go in camera. All those in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. We'll suspend for a minute to move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]