Canadian Heritage Committee on March 20th, 2007

[Graham Fraser]

I think there are two things.

First, I have no intention of having staff march into the newsroom and go through reporters' files, and neither do you.

I would point to the role this committee played in putting substantial pressure on the CBC to restore local programming. I think that by mandating and urging the government to provide the funds so that the CBC can meet its mandate responsibilities in terms of local programming, parliamentarians can play an important role in which you are not interfering with what is on that programming, but you are making it clear that part of the CBC mandate, which is already in the Broadcasting Act, involves local programming.

The other thing I would say is in terms of official languages. The Official Languages Act was amended in 2005, and now all federal government institutions, including the CBC, have an obligation to take positive measures to promote the growth and development of minority communities. That's an important consideration in terms of the programming for the English minority in Quebec and for French-speaking minorities in the rest of the country.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm sure we're going to get into a discussion. Of course, we're just at the beginning of our review and we're going to continue to go down that thing, but as new media come forward and as we continue to look for regional broadcasting that's available for local people, one concern we have is not to get a CBC that's a mile wide and only an inch deep, so that we get very poor product for everyone. I think at some point we're going to have to square that circle.

Thank you for your testimony today. We do appreciate it.

[Graham Fraser]

I understand your concern and I think it's an important one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott, I'm allowing you one short question. We do have other business we have to do before 11 o'clock, and I do have one question myself.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'll leave this open-ended, because we don't have enough time and it's a pretty complicated idea.

In the province I come from, we really do appreciate the value of Radio-Canada, particularly in the context of the francophone population, the Acadian population in New Brunswick.

I would worry. I would see two things. I would worry about the problem that could be created as the reach of public broadcasting is diminished, both in the context of other available broadcasting and also in the context of new technology. I would worry that the continuing effort will have less and less impact.

Clearly I'm curious--and again, I don't look for an answer right now, because I'm sure the chair would want me to say that--but I would like you to explore this: what is the profile of the content in the new media? I know it's not your mandate, but in terms of offering some advice to us coming from official language policy, it would be important for us to know what you see out there so that we can make decisions as to how aggressively we have to pursue this from your very specific perspective.

I'm glad you're here, because your very specific perspective is incredibly important to my very specific province.

[Graham Fraser]

That's a really interesting question.

One of the paradoxes of technological change--and, for that matter, of economic change--is that the huge opportunity that new media represent in terms of connectivity for communities brings along with it fragmentation, so it becomes a particular challenge to ensure that national institutions like CBC and Radio-Canada continue to have a full role and a full place in an increasingly fragmented broadcast spectrum, and do so in a way in which they can simultaneously meet local concerns and at the same time embrace the country as a whole.

In terms of the content profile of new media, in many ways it's a kaleidoscope in which there are almost an infinite number of pieces of what is now new media. I don't think anybody is at the point of being able to define a profile, but certainly it's something I and we will be reflecting on as we wrestle with the challenges from our perspective of official languages.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

I have a little bit of a statement, more than a question, relating to some of the questions and some of the answers that were given here today.

Related to Ms. Bourgeois and cartoons and the French network in Vancouver, when I was in Toronto—we came back from Vancouver to Toronto, and in my hotel room I like to watch news just the same, so lots of times I watch Newsworld and Newsnet--wouldn't you know, in that hotel, all I could get was CNN news. There was no Newsnet or Newsworld. I relate to your frustration, because I was a little frustrated myself.

As to the cable networks--raising some channels that are quite specific to people--my mother, since I have been elected to the House of Commons, is quite a frequent viewer of CPAC, and she's always looking for me to be on CPAC.

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

Has it ever happened, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Once.

What happened was that it used to be channel 59, and it got bumped up to 104. She had to then get the box--and then she got another couple of channels, too--and spend another $14 a month just so she could watch me on TV. So I do understand how those things go.

I must thank you very much for coming today, and again, for the questions and answers. It has been very educational for us all as we go forward on our study on our broadcaster. Thank you again.

I'm not even going to recess. We have one quick question. So as you folks depart, we will deal with that question as a committee, because we do have to be out of here. There is another committee following us.

Thank you, again.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just for our committee members, this is a little bit of a report.

The committee had very good hearings in Yellowknife, where it heard more than a dozen representatives from the community. In Vancouver, also, the hearings were most informative and interesting. I thought we had a tremendous response. We went a little overtime. We gave all the presenters enough time so they could get their questions to us. I found it very informative, as chair.

I thank the whole travelling committee, the people who were there for the various sessions, and all our staff, who did a fantastic job. Thanks to everyone, from the interpreters to our technical people to our experts and our clerk. But most of all, no one is diminished. All our members showed up for those people, and they really appreciated that.

What I would like to do is put in a request to the House to get authorization for the committee to hold hearings in Winnipeg on Wednesday, April 11--that's during recess week--and in Toronto on Friday, April 20, 2007. We have to do that. I need the committee's support.

The money is there to do this travelling. The Liaison Committee has supported us on that, but I do have to make the request to the House to get permission to travel at that particular time. So I would entertain a motion.

It is moved by Mr. Angus and seconded by Ms. Bourgeois.

I call the question.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

First we'll go to Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to draw the attention of committee members to a point I consider very important.

During our hearings in Vancouver, you and I were the only ones there. I find it rather peculiar that the committee should go to the expense of travelling to regions or to other provinces in order to meet with people and for committee members not to be there.

It gives people a very bad image of our committee. Moreover, this is taxpayers' money. I do not want to focus specifically on the Conservatives, but the fact remains that you were the only representative from your party there. I do not want to lose face in this type of situation, which I do find rather peculiar.

Moreover, we travelled economy class so as to allow all members of the committee to travel. Well, we could have travelled business class, and it would have cost less. In fact, if there were only going to be two of us there, we might as well not have gone at all. I'm not interested in working for Canada in other parts of Canada. I wanted to share my frustration about this with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just in response to that, there were four of us in Yellowknife. In Vancouver, throughout the hearings, there were four of us. When we sat at the table, there were times when someone maybe had to go to do something else, but there was only one time when I think there were two of us. Anyway, that's well taken.

I do have the committee's support for travel. Only half of the committee was approved to travel, so let's make sure we get our names forward and we do have a full contingent in Winnipeg and Toronto. Thank you.

Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

April 20 is designated for where?

[An hon. member]

Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The meeting is adjourned.