Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

However, that's why people are referring to the loan. There's a need to stabilize right now. That is not to disregard the other longer-term issues--the regulations, stable funding and so on.

The point I'm trying to make is that until this morning the minister has held the position--and members of the opposition were holding the position in spite of her intervention this morning--that it would be interference with the CRTC to step up and do her job. This is bigger than that decision. This is about the long-term viability of the television fund. Given that fact, the point I'm trying to make--and to see whether you are in concurrence--is that this is bigger than that.

You cannot hide behind the process that has been engaged in terms of Shaw, Vidéotron, and the CRTC. There's a broader public policy interest here, in the name of Canadian content and Canadian production. The government has to step up, make an argument for the need for the loan, and accept responsibility for the instability.

Notwithstanding the announcement this morning, that a letter will be written, this decision that they weren't going to make their monthly payments was made a long time ago. Surely, nobody would not assume that a 30% cut in the money wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the industry. That is bigger and broader than the specific decision of the CRTC.

We have to compel the minister to cause the government to make the loan. We need argumentation for that. I think they have to accept responsibility for the crisis and see this as bigger than that very narrow piece that is currently the purview of the CRTC.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

We had to compel her to write the letters by calling her here.

[An hon. member]

Is that a statement?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Yes, I'd say it is.

[An hon. member]

It's not a question.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The question is that we're trying to find if in fact that's...

[Maureen Parker]

I can say that it is about the viability and integrity of the Broadcasting Act. I think that's what we're talking about.

Again, I would like to stress that the Broadcasting Act doesn't just talk about Canadian content and creators; it protects and licenses cable operators.

There were comments today about whether it would be harmful to revoke their licence and whether it would hurt the consumer. I would suggest that the consumer is already being ripped off. The reason they're paying for a Canadian cable operator is because they're supposed to be getting some Canadian programming. I certainly know that my people are otherwise totally prepared to have their cable delivered by Comcast U.S.A. If you ain't gonna deliver Canadian, we don't want you.

[Brant Kostandoff]

I think we're fortunate to have elected officials to govern and to review the performance of government.

The minister is in an incredibly difficult position. The government's commitment to fund the CTF sends a very strong message that this is an important process. At the same time, as Mr. Angus described, we have a bit of a power play going on by industry players who are frustrated, and perhaps rightly so. They have some legitimate concerns about the fund and its structure.

Arguably--and they have their lawyers as well--they have until August 31 to make those payments. Are they violating a CRTC circular? Sure. The CRTC can deal with that. It has limited enforcement provisions.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Does the government have an obligation to the industry in the meantime?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're just a little over time.

Mr. Kotto, please.

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

I will give my time to Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kostandoff, you said it is up to the government to bring all actors to do their share in the interest of all stakeholders. You talked about the roles of the government and the minister.

I would like to know what you mean by government. Is it the minister?

[Brant Kostandoff]

There are many levels to the government, and when I'm saying the government, I'm speaking to all those levels. The CRTC has a role here. The governing party has a role here. The opposition, this committee, has a role here, and I'm very pleased to see action is in fact being taken. A process is being followed. It's going to be longer than perhaps some of us might like, and that puts more immediate pressure on finding solutions to the crisis facing the Canadian production industry.

So I would divide this into two parts. Perhaps there is an obligation on the minister to look at the immediate crisis--and on this committee in its functioning in looking at the fund--to come up with solutions to address that.

In terms of the long-term structure and the review, the regulations exist, and if we want to change those regulations, that's a different process. So there are two levels here, and I think the action has to be across all aspects.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

It is extremely important that your answer is clear so that everyone understands what you want because we are obviously in a crisis situation. We have a role to play, as parliamentarians, and the minister has a role to play. There are regulations to be reviewed, and you cannot do all this in a time of crisis.

You are a lawyer. In your opinion, who has the solution?

[Brant Kostandoff]

Unfortunately, I'm employed by S-Vox and not able to offer legal advice to this committee. So with that caveat, again, for me, the reality is that this industry is incredibly complex. There are a variety of stakeholders, and they all need to work together and they need to find ways to work together.

I welcome the suggestions of Quebecor and Vidéotron in terms of new ways to think of funding Canadian production. I may not agree with them. I may not like them, but broadcasting is about the exchange of ideas, so let's share those ideas and see if we can come up with good solutions.

In terms of the immediate funding, I would recommend that this committee push for either a loan or an advance against government funding for next year to bridge that gap to August 31. If the distributors do not make the contribution by August 31, then there is a different remedy available to both the minister and the CRTC at that point because there is then a clear violation of the regulations, not just a transgression against a CRTC circular.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I have a last short question to ask you before turning to Mrs. Parker.

You said in your presentation that we should invest in Canadian culture. What do you mean by that?

[Brant Kostandoff]

I'm always fascinated by the fact that we have a variety of different agencies involved in this industry and a variety of stakeholders and we set different priorities.

To some extent, as a broadcaster, I look to the CRTC for leadership in identifying what the key cultural objectives are for the system. Recently, the CRTC has emphasized programming that celebrates cultural diversity, programming that reflects aboriginal persons, programming that certainly celebrates the dual languages of our country, and programming that is accessible to all Canadians, so closed captioned and described video.

We then turn to the CTF, and their priorities are not always in alignment with those identified objectives of the regulatory body. If we are going to drive alignment in the direction of the industry to achieve those cultural priorities, I think there needs to be a better dialogue among those different agencies to set the priorities for the industry to follow.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Parker, I found it difficult to understand your position as set out in your presentation. Maybe it is due to the translation, but then maybe not. You said you agreed with the minister about injecting a sum of money to save the fund. Then you said later that we needed policy direction in this file and that the CRTC should act decisively.

Who is to act decisively? The minister or the CRTC? Please clarify this for the committee.

[Maureen Parker]

Everybody. No, I'm kidding.

I apologize. We should have had the paper translated, but I had to change things as we were going along.

Again, if we're only going to do the order, number one would be a policy direction from the minister to the CRTC. I don't agree that we have to wait until August. I think it has to be done right now. The CRTC can look at what is enforceable in a circular. This week I read some legal opinions that said there is certainly some responsibility tied to the monthly circular. I think we should let the CRTC examine it immediately. It is from the minister, and that's where it would start.

On the fund, bridge financing will again have to be a decision that is made by the Department of Heritage. I'm assuming you work in conjunction with the Department of Heritage.

It is what we're looking for in terms of leadership from this committee, from our department, and from our minister. There are thousands of jobs at stake and an entire production year in less than four or five weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was interested by your suggestion that what we're dealing with right now in terms of the future of our television industry is a house of cards in crisis. I would broaden the suggestion to say we're dealing with a legitimization of the entire broadcast and regulatory framework when you have the kind of public spectacle being played out by both Vidéotron and Shaw.

I'd like to speak about this in terms of the fact that we're two months into this crisis. It took public hearings to finally get the minister to stand up and say she'd send a letter.

Meanwhile, we've had very public attacks by both companies--attacks on the CBC, attacks on Canadian programming, and attacks on your work as writers, directors, and producers across Canada, so that people don't even want to watch these shows. We've had attacks on the accountability of the fund, and we've had threats of lawsuits against Radio-Canada executives who spoke up in defence of this fund.

The message I heard from the players in industry when they met with the minister was that she told them to sit on the sidelines, say nothing, and keep out of the press. Meanwhile, the other side launched this continued attack on the legitimacy of the whole television fund.

I'd like to ask you this. In terms of the damage that's been done to the confidence of our television industry right now, what will it take in order to ensure the financing deals that are going up in smoke right now will go through domestically and through international television deals?

[Maureen Parker]

I think it again comes back to a directive to the CRTC. At this point, I think the CRTC is going to have to review the regulatory and contribution structure. Obviously, we need to tighten up. We would welcome a review, quite frankly. Let the CRTC have a look at it to see whether or not it needs to be strengthened.

I think Canadians want Canadian programming. I don't think Canadians will be willing to pay for the protection of cable companies in the marketplace unless they get something different.

I would like to say that if this indeed requires a CRTC review, I would then ask the minister to commence immediately, but in the interim, ensure our industry has enough resources to keep going forward.

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

Yesterday, Vidéotron-Quebecor gave their latest bottom line in this standoff. The response from the minister was that she thought they had brought forth interesting observations. I'm looking at what they said. Is it because of CRTC support that they've been allowed a massive concentration of Quebec media and control? They are virtually unchallenged because of it. They say they're going to pull out of the CTF and use the money to beef up their own internal market share by going after video on demand. Yet I'm not hearing anything about commitments, again under CTF, to ensure the kind of specialty programming that is part of this--for example, children's programming and other programming.

How would you, as writers in that, feel about a situation where one giant player in the market can take funds from subscriber fees and put them into their own domestic production, without any kind of regulation or commitment? I'd like to hear from both of you on this.

[Brant Kostandoff]

As I said earlier, the concept of exchanging ideas and dialogue around better ways to engage in Canadian production is always welcome. Absolutely, from our perspective, there need to be some parameters around any kind of funding, because the commercial interests of the largest players are not always in alignment with the cultural priorities of the industry. To let them engage in funding productions to suit their own purposes does not necessarily enhance the richness of Canadian broadcasting as a whole, so there needs to be some framework around it.

Could it be a fund that is more directly under the management of Quebecor? Is that a partial solution, that some of the money go there and some go to the CTF? Those are all ideas to explore. The challenge is that we don't have time right now to engage in that dialogue in a meaningful way. And to the minister's credit, that is to some extent what she's been trying to do. But we're now at a crunch and we need to come up with some short-term solutions.

[Maureen Parker]

I just feel that we do have regulation. I don't know why the owner of Vidéotron believes that is an enshrined right, because we do have regulation. We have to enforce our regulation. We have to show that we stand behind our regulation and the principles set out in the Broadcasting Act.

My colleague mentioned in her presentation that we think it would be a terrible idea for Vidéotron to have its own fund. Again, the reason the CTF was set up.... There are established principles. We were not wrong in setting up this fund. The last 11 years of work have not been fruitless and in vain. We have done good work.

If there is a governance issue, if another seat is required, those are all things that we can discuss, but if it is a matter of—and I truly believe this was the intention all along—pulling out the money and putting it into your own fund, then that's not acceptable, and that message has to be sent.