Evidence of meeting #44 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you. I appreciate that little look over here. That was really nice.
Before we complete this session, I would like to thank our witnesses.
If there are any members who have further questions, could they get them to Mr. Rabinovitch? Maybe those responses could come back to the whole committee.
We'll leave that open. I know Mr. Kotto mentioned that he had a few more questions.
I hope you will receive those questions and send the responses to the committee.
President and Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
By all means, we would encourage it. Call it transparency, call it what you want, but the important thing is that you be informed as fully as possible of how the operation works. I hope you will get the opportunity to see more of the operation across Canada.
Finally, if I may, once you have completed hearing from Canadians, I hope we get the opportunity to come back to discuss ideas together.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. Thank you for that.
I always wait until the end to give a little statement.
Some of us were very fortunate to get to Yellowknife and to visit CBC North. We also visited the CBC studio in Vancouver.
It seems to me, and to some of my colleagues, as we have talked—and this even goes back to some of the review of our movie industry—that one thing is good quality programming. I wonder if sometimes the funds aren't spread too far. Rather than having 24-hour-a-day or 18-hour-a-day programming, the time might be squeezed together a bit to make sure the high-quality programs come out. Put it in the can, and it could be watched at various times.
I know I went to bed in Vancouver and fell asleep with my television on. I woke up, I think it was about three o'clock in the morning, and Peter Mansbridge was giving the news. I think that was when I fell asleep. So it was either a very long newscast or—
But I think that is another way to stretch the funds. Have that good quality there and maybe shorten up how far we're trying to reach. That's just my “for instance”.
Again, thank you for coming.
We have a bit more committee business, so we'll take a break for about five minutes.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Could we please get this meeting back to order? We only have five minutes, and we probably have another committee coming in after us.
We do have a motion before us. It's a notice of motion dated February 26, 2007, from Dr. Hedy Fry that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage require the CRTC task force on the Canadian Television Fund to conduct public hearings and only where necessary hold certain meetings in camera.
That motion is put forward. If you'd like to speak to the motion, make it very short, because we only have five minutes.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I would like to speak to the motion.
The motion is a reasonable one. No one is suggesting that the CRTC is up to no good, but the thing is that when the CRTC publishes a public report but has only in camera hearings, nobody knows what they heard, who they heard from, whether their reach was broad enough, or anything. We don't know whether they are reflecting in their report what they actually heard.
More and more as we go around the country, we recognize that the public is very interested in programming, in broadcasting, in how the CRTC is working, and in the new digital media. I think it's a good accountability thing for this to happen. All this motion does is say that, as Parliament, we have the ability to require the CRTC to do so. The minister doesn't, but Parliament does, so I'm just suggesting that Parliament simply say to the CRTC that they hold public hearings and that they can hold in camera hearings where they think it's in the best interests of protecting their witnesses. They can make that decision themselves.
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Notwithstanding the words of my friend, the fact of the matter is that this motion is questioning what the motivation of the CRTC might be. It also questions their level of competence. It's absolutely outrageous.
Totally apart from that, I would like the clerk to tell us if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has the authority to make a statement that we “require”. If it's the desire of the members to suggest, then of course the government would vote against that, but that's up to the committee. The difference here is that I'm asking about the word “require”. We don't have the capacity to require the CRTC to do anything, do we?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jacques Lahaie
This is a request that the committee is making to the House. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is making a request to the task force.
It's an expression of the committee's wish.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Well “ask” is different from “require”. “Require” is in the English version. I'm reading “Canadian Heritage require”. The CRTC is a totally independent commission. It is totally independent from the Parliament of Canada, and it's certainly totally independent of this committee. If this motion is passed by the committee members as written, it will make us very laughable.
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It's a very short comment.
This motion comes from February 26, 2007, when we were discussing the Canadian Television Fund. There was ample opportunity at that time to deal with the various recommendations. This motion did not come forward then. It's coming forward after a report has been submitted to Parliament. If we accept this, it will certainly bring into question the credibility of our heritage committee, since we would now be running across with addenda to reports that have already been brought before Parliament.
Secondly, I think it brings into question the credibility of this committee if we even raise issues about political interference at the CRTC. If some of us have objections to the minister directing things we don't like, how can we turn around and tell the CRTC to do their job after we have already submitted our report? This is too little, too late, and it should not be accepted.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
As a point of information, Mr. Chair, the honourable member is saying this just came forward. It did not just come forward. In fact, I had that motion on the table when I asked the honourable member to look at it on the day he was discussing his motion.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
You weren't there; you left. The day we discussed it you left.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
May I finish speaking, please, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
On the day the honourable member submitted his own motions, which we supported wholeheartedly, I asked him then if he would look at amending his motion to include this. It was already a written motion, and was sent out. He said no. He declined at that time to even consider it. We asked for it to be considered later on. We were told it would happen. It is only now coming to be discussed here.
The point is that we are not the minister. The minister and the department cannot intervene and interfere with the CRTC. However, we are Parliament. We are representative of Parliament. We are an all-party committee, and therefore—The CRTC is responsible to Parliament.
This is a process motion. This is not a motion that reflects on the CRTC. It's simply accountability, for a process that is open.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, we've heard the points around the table. I'll call the question on the motion that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage require the CRTC task force on the Canadian Television Fund to conduct public hearings and only where necessary hold certain meetings in camera.
(Motion negatived)