Canadian Heritage Committee on May 11th, 2006

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Can we debate that motion first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Sylvie was before me, Mr. Chair.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I am also a new member. I am not against drafting a motion to see if the necessary funds are available. I find the idea interesting, particularly as I do not know that world and there is a lot of talk about it.

I am a neophyte who has just arrived in this illustrious place. Would it be possible to divide the group in two? For example, five or six people could go to the Banff Television Festival and meet with the representatives of Telefilm Canada, and others would go to the Montreal festival. We could therefore participate in both events. They are two different worlds, but we would probably find the same people in both.

Am I right, Mr. Kotto? I ask him because he knows the milieu. Would it be possible to proceed in this way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Simms.

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

I would have to disagree, because you'll find that the world of television and the world of film.... Based on my experience of being in the last session of this committee and our film study, I won't call them mutually exclusive, but they're different worlds in the sense that you have language but also....

I am very interested in French television and French movie production in Quebec. I would be interested in going to Montreal. Although not entirely different, there are many different themes involved when it comes to the different languages and perceived cultures.

So I would like to go to both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

I just thought it was important, because Mr. Warkentin is new. I certainly didn't run in an election to talk about Telefilm, or culture and arts; I ran to represent people in my riding. But when I came here I was given a portfolio. As a legislator I have a national obligation to deal with issues that are much beyond those of my riding. I'm dealing with people back home with mine injuries who are looking for compensation, and they don't understand that I'm here talking about the CRTC. But that is my role. My role is to make sure we represent national policy around this table. So at times we are called to go, to understand.

Now, it's not mandatory to go. I know some MPs who never go on international trips, and that's fine. But if we are going, it's because it's the best opportunity for us to understand an issue and come back. At the end of the day, it's probably cheaper than trying to track all those people from all across Canada.

You mentioned the need for a memorial for the Mounties. It's also important to remember that the role of this committee is not necessarily to be advocating for individual projects in our ridings. I'd love to, and I take up those individual projects with the minister whenever I can. Our job is to try to work as collaboratively as we can. It's a good committee for that, in terms of collaboration on national issues and national problems we're dealing with in culture and arts.

When people back home see me doing that work, they start to understand and they say, “Obviously you are there as a legislator, and that's your role.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What's the timeframe for this trip? Is it two days, five days, or a full week?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

People will be there for six days, but the festival itself is from Monday the 11th.... The reception is on Sunday night, but it's really from the 12th to the 14th. So there are three days of intense meetings. The two days before, the 9th and 10th, are for new media. So a new media festival is developing.

There are a number of producers from Quebec and from francophone communities outside of Quebec who also participate in this festival. You don't get them all, but Telefilm, which is involved in both linguistic productions, is there in fairly significant numbers, as is the CBC, incidentally.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I wasn't finished. I was just starting to question. My apologies.

I'm not categorically opposed to travelling to various parts of the country to better understand the television and the film industry. For me, the timing is poor. We've just started our work on the Hill.

We, as government MPs who don't have ministerial responsibilities, sit on two committees. We're getting our feet wet. Quite a number of us are rookies. I don't have enough time right now to get all the things done that I need to get done. On top of that is quite an ambitious government agenda. If you cobble all of those together, for me there's a problem there.

On top of all of that, we have the optics. I wouldn't classify this as a junket; the public will likely classify it as a junket, especially so soon after the election.

I understand the sentiments, and I understand what the purpose of this trip would be. I just want to be very careful. At this point in time, I would not be supporting this particular trip simply because I personally have lots of work to do and I believe we can get the same amount of work achieved here.

I know that not all the same people will be able to come here, but to send 12 people or even half the committee, six people, to Banff, I'm not sure is the best investment of taxpayers' money right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

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

We are not out of the woods yet. The arguments are solid, on both sides.

To respond to Ms. Boucher's question, as Mr. Simms was saying, film and television do indeed constitute two different worlds with different cultures. Those who work in these worlds do not speak the same language, nor do they have the same problems. Montreal, as we know, is an important hub in terms of feature film production, but it is an under-exploited platform because it does not always have the necessary financing.

But when we are far removed from those worlds, we cannot appreciate what their needs are, hence the necessity to get closer, to immerse ourselves in them, and to be in close contact with these worlds that are fighting the big Hollywood machine, Silicon Valley or New York. If we are far removed from it all, we cannot understand.

In time, what we will see is American hegemony, American cultural products. The Americans export 7 billion dollars' worth of cultural products; the British export some 8 billion dollars' worth. If we are not close to these people, to their problems and their crises, how can we understand them? How can we make any decisions on their behalf? How can we make decisions to move towards a new film or cultural policy?

If we stay away because of our fear of the public perception of the use of public funds... We toured the entire country within the framework of our study dealing with feature film policy. No one ever challenged that, because the work was justified. However, I understand that we have just been elected and that the idea of travelling right away poses a problem for you. On the other hand, we have responsibilities, as Mr. Angus was saying. And these responsibilities go beyond the boundaries of our ridings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Kotto.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we use the word "trip", we are not talking about a vacation. It is important to clarify that. I abhor talking about that as if it were an issue of expenses. These are not expenses, but rather investments that demonstrate a certain recognition of their work to these communities and groups. We must take the time to go and meet them on their turf to discuss the importance of what they do.

We are talking about an investment and not an expense, Mr. Chairman. I am not convinced that the word "expenses" should be the precise term used in this context.

My colleague on the other side made a comment to the effect that parliamentarians are very busy. During my first term in office, I realized that the right time would never come. As parliamentarians, we have certain responsibilities. One of them is to improve the lot of groups and communities.

There are only 24 hours in a day. I drive 2,000 kilometres a week, and it does not always suit me to do so, however that is the reality of my riding. Despite that, I find the time to meet my other obligations and I adapt my schedule as a result. As parliamentarians, we have work to do. We absolutely have to face that and accept the challenges. I believe it is one of the reasons why we go into politics and one of the reasons people vote for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I want to clarify my position again. It wasn't that I have a concern about our travelling at some point. My concern is that we'll possibly have four meetings prior to going to Banff and then only two meetings following that before we break for the summer. My concern is that we'll be there for three days and I don't think we'll get full value for the money spent. I'm thinking if we went next year as opposed to this year, we might be that much further into it. The groundwork would be in place to be able to bring this information back. I think it would probably be appropriate to miss this year.

Certainly I don't want to make it sound as if I am opposed to ever doing it. I just think at this particular time it's been pointed out quite clearly that there's so much work that needs to be done. I'm not sure that heading out to Banff is the best way to get that work done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

We might be able to reach a compromise in order to reduce the costs of the committee. Each of us could use our member travel points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Having listened to the debate, and I think it's been a healthy debate, perhaps.... Mr. Scarpaleggia and perhaps Mr. Bélanger--I can't recall--were you involved when we did the review on standards and broadcasting in Canada? I apologize, because I can't recall if you were involved on that review.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

You mean the report done by Clifford Lincoln? I was just joining the committee after three years.

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

Yes, I'm sorry, I had forgotten that.

Mr. Scarpaleggia and I will recall that it took about a year and a half. There was a tremendous amount of travel, there was--I'll pick a number--half a million dollars, maybe more, involved in the travel. We ended up with an 800-page brick.

I think there is a lot of information there, but my point is, if we were talking about going to Banff as part of a constructed study, it would make some sense. For the expenditure, if it was $50,000 or $70,000, whatever the amount of money is, the amount of time for the committee members could be part of the consideration. But most importantly, if I may suggest for your consideration, the idea of getting this information, doing this networking, meeting these people, getting these ideas, adding to our corporate knowledge as a committee would be good if it were part of a larger picture.

I am a little conscious of the fact that out of film and broadcast and radio and museums and multiculturalism and youth at risk--and I can go down the whole list of our $4 billion department--to pick one item, which would probably be a valuable thing to do--I'm not contesting any of the discussion here today--particularly within this timeframe when it's really isolated from all of these other things.... I'm just wondering about the value of it.

For myself, I would not be voting in favour of going on the trip. Obviously, as the government is in a minority position, we have to be conscious of that. I'm suggesting that doing this trip and getting this information is absolutely of value, but it should be done within a context.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand there's a whole list of things that the Department of Canadian Heritage has a responsibility for, but it seems to me there are priorities. One of these priorities is broadcasting policy.

I value the work the committee has done in the past, the Lincoln report, and I also read parts of it--certainly the dissenting opinion I quoted today in the House, as you may recall. The fact that the government is talking about a review of the broadcasting industry at large and preparing to initiate a review of the CBC mandate is of extreme interest to most people in the industry and a lot of Canadians as well. I believe my colleague Mr. Angus has suggested that be our top priority. I totally agree with that. I suspect there are others around this table who agree.

Accordingly, the capacity to meet in three days with representatives from the entire industry, whether from government or the private sector, would be invaluable, Mr. Chairman. It's in that spirit this year, not next year—because by next year both of these reviews are likely to be done—that there's the notion of having our group mingle in a structured way and listen to the people who are there. I thought it would be quite appropriate and a great saving of time and money over the long term, because there is a concentration—they're all there—and it would give us a three-day window on the industry that you couldn't buy with the same kind of money by bringing these people here over a full year.