Canadian Heritage Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

The Francophone Secretariat will clearly have to respond to the aspirations of Quebec organizations while taking into consideration the specific needs of the artistic and cultural organizations in French Canada.

Can you assure us that that will in fact be the case?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes, I want to ensure that the department and the work we do regarding cultural and arts policies, and the programs we institute, are going to meet the specific needs of the francophone artistic and cultural communities.

I also want to make sure that within our programs and policies the different realities are recognized. As many of you will recall, in the report we did in the last session on feature films, there was a great discrepancy between the success of Quebec and the French-language films versus the English-language films. I think the thing is that, in one way, to applaud Quebec for the success its films have had does not mean that further support and further promotion of Quebec film should be abandoned. I think a greater success is always welcomed, and greater support is also welcomed. But they have to be addressed in two different ways, and maybe some different programs, because one program may not be appropriate for the other community.

That is why it was very important for us to establish the francophone secretariat. In order to make sure that it's going to be effective and undertake the appropriate work we would like it to do, I've held three round tables. I've met with over 50 organizations in Quebec and I've asked them to work with me so that we get input from them as to where and how the francophone secretariat could work effectively in their interests.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

You said earlier that we had to keep up with developments in new technologies. Have you had the opportunity to meet Mr. Sirman, who was recently appointed to the board of the Canada Council, to look with him at the new technological possibilities that can support artists in their creative activity?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

In fact, I just placed a call this afternoon to Mr. Sirman to congratulate him on his appearance before the committee. I thank the committee for your unanimous endorsement of Mr. Sirman. As you saw for yourself, he's highly qualified and very enthusiastic to take on his new role. I also had the opportunity over this past weekend to meet with Madame Karen Kain, who is the chair of the board of the Canada Council. I've asked Mr. Sirman that upon his confirmation we would meet and then start talking about the plans going forward.

So yes, I have met with Mr. Sirman. I am very supportive of him. I understand what his vision of the arts and culture is, and I also recognize his commitment to the arts and the cultural field.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today. I appreciate your honesty and your forthrightness in answering the questions.

One of the things I've noticed over the last number of years certainly is the nature of our consumption of media. Our consumption of culture is changing. It seems that my generation and the generation that's following my generation are consuming culture far differently from my parents' and my grandparents' generations. You mentioned that our country is lagging behind other nations in terms of preparing our different departments for this emergent technology. I'm wondering if you would identify some of the challenges that you consider would be important for us to deal with in the near future, and what policy changes we might see as a result of that. I don't want you to speculate on certain policies, but to talk about where we see challenges, and where we see other countries going to address this.

What I'm wondering is, how do we regain the ground that maybe we've lost by not considering these new technologies as part of the policy framework?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

It's essential to understand the new technologies and the different ways Canadians are receiving and consuming their entertainment, their information programs, and services. If we are not where Canadians are going to be, if our Canadian products, our cultural products, our programs, our films are not going to be where Canadians are accessing those products, then we will have done a disservice to Canada's culture, and to our artists, our creators, and our production sector.

That is why the broadcasting industry and the media industry have clearly indicated that they need a framework that recognizes that the digital world is a different world. Even the private broadcasters, in many public statements, at their conventions, etc., are looking at the impact of the new technologies on their businesses.

The business models were based on traditional models. I say as a former vice-president of programming that to know the program you paid dollars for is available within hours on the Internet devalues the program; it just changes your entire business model.

What is the new business model? We see now that the Internet providers, etc., and the websites are looking for where the business is. We've talked for two decades about convergence and about the Internet and all these technologies. Until the industry finds the business model there, we are going to be left behind. That's why I'm very supportive of hearing from those industries and hearing from the sectors.

I had a demonstration at Concordia University last week from Hexagram on the developments and the new technologies they're taking advantage of. I had a round table with new media creators. These are successful companies. We have the talent here and we have the ability. We have very successful new media companies, and that's what motivates me to look at all the new media programs we have and to ensure that we are supporting that sector adequately and in the right way. This is why I say that in many of our reviews we're looking in the new media area at how we can do this effectively.

You're quite right, new technologies and new media are creating some very interesting challenges. I would suggest they are not challenges; they are new opportunities.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Have I run out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, you have, and we have run out of time.

I would be more than willing to go part of a round more, but it wouldn't be fair. We have done the two rounds we agreed to.

Again I thank you, Minister, for being here today, and your staff, and I thank everyone for the questions for the minister today.

Let's take a two-minute pause—

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

If I may, on behalf of my colleagues here, I would also like to thank the minister, but also reiterate our desire that if she can make herself available again before the summer recess, we'd be delighted to continue this dialogue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

We'll have a five-minute pause before we go back into our meeting again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, everyone, for getting back to our meeting.

I would like to say, first of all, that I was at the Liaison Committee today with the request for our funding for Banff. I'm batting a thousand at the Liaison Committee, as I was turned down again, just as I was turned down last year. I was turned down for various reasons, and there was only one person in support of our going to Banff—me, the person making the motion. So it was turned down, and we will not be going to the Banff World Television Festival.

It was suggested that maybe a smaller contingent of one person from each party go. It was also suggested that it might be a good idea next year, so that we have more time to organize it a little bit better. So those were some of the questions, but it was both the Liberals and Conservatives who turned me down, so I got it full throttle.

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

Shame on them all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Shame.

But anyway, that's my report.

Yes, Charlie.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to put on the record that I do believe that if someone were going to fight for us, it was you. So I know you put up a valiant fight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, I appreciate that. It's on the record.

Yes, Mr. Abbott.

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

I have an issue that I want to draw to the committee's attention--and hopefully I'll be very quick with this--and I want to do it in as constructive a way as I possibly can in spite of the fact that it appears to me to be a little on the negative side.

As everyone on the committee is aware, I have attempted personally and on behalf of the minister, who was just here, to be helpful, to try to make sure that the committee will be effective. Unfortunately, we have done very little. At this point, we have been debating motions and talking about tabling reports, and all sorts of things. As was pointed out by Mr. Fast, we have museums, the archives, the library, the art gallery, the National Arts Centre, aboriginal programs, youth at risk, the Canada Council, all sorts of things that this committee really should be dealing with, along with the other things we've been discussing.

The committee will recall that the other day I was quite adamant in regard to the motion--although I'm sure it was well intended--that we should be calling witnesses with respect to UNESCO. It was my position, and I believe the position of my colleagues and the minister, that this was really superfluous and not really a good use of time. That was the specific perspective from which I was arguing.

Mr. Bélanger will recall that during the course of debate on his motion on Tuesday, I asked a question and I made very clear in the debate that I had fully supported Minister Copps with respect to the instrument, that the government was in favour of the instrument. The committee will recall that I have repeatedly said that the government is in favour of the instrument.

Some of you may have noticed--I think it was fairly obvious--that the Prime Minister himself, on the amendment to Mr. Bélanger's motion, made sure that he conferred with Minister Oda in the House--this was all done in public; there was nothing secret about this. He went to the whip, and our party agreed to the inclusion of the clause in the motion as proposed by Mr. Bélanger that said we were absolutely standing behind the whole issue of protecting culture in the GATS talk.

Further--and I really can't think of anything that could be any clearer as to what the party position is--I'd like to read what the minister answered during the course of question period, in response to Mr. Kotto's question on the WTO.

Minister Oda said:I want to be clear to the House and to all Canadians. The government has supported in the past and will continue to support the UNESCO declaration for the maintenance of diversity in cultural expression. I am proud to say that I have met with the Coalition for Cultural Diversity and we have just authorized more funding so it can continue the work. As well, I will do what I can with the other countries as I meet them.

You can imagine, then, that I find myself somewhat perplexed and candidly disappointed upon my return from the House of Commons--Mr. Chair, I think you will find that in committee, when a person has the floor they have the floor--particularly after all this had taken place, to see an immediate release from Mr. Bélanger entitled “Harper Government Votes Against Protection and Promotion of Canadian Cultural and Artistic Identity”.

His quote in his release is:The reason this motion was brought forward at this time is because we had reason to doubt the Harper government’s commitment to protecting and promoting our Canadian cultural sovereignty. Yesterday's vote proves our concern was justified.

I must say, I find that perplexing and disappointing for all the reasons that I've outlined, and I wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

This has been a long, drawn-out explanation of his hurt feelings. I don't know that it was on the agenda. So I would suggest that he bring it back, we'll put it on the agenda, and we can talk about how to make him feel more included. I don't know what else to do. But I would like to get on to what's on the agenda--that is, our motions--and move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, it's on the record. And what we'll do is we will take that to heart and we'll move on to our agenda.

Again there's a motion by Charlie Angus, Friday, May 26, 2006, on CBC design team layoffs:That the committee should call on the Minister of Heritage to intervene in the scheduled layoffs and closure of the English-language design team at CBC Toronto, and that she should also require that this decision and other significant structural decisions be deferred until the renewed mandate of the CBC is established following the full review that is expected to take place this fall.

That is the motion. Is there any discussion?

Yes, Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I unfortunately didn't have an opportunity to raise with the minister the question related to this particular motion, and I think it's a very relevant one. The reality is that you have a minister who feels very strongly about having a mandate review of the CBC, and what all that really means we're not sure. At the same time, we have certain actions being taken by the CBC, such as the closure of the design department, that are quite important. Obviously most of us are very concerned about what has taken place. In many ways one would argue that it undermines this whole notion that the minister wants to go forward with this review.

I think if the review is going to happen, as the minister has stated, then it would seem that the only course of action would be in fact to have a revisit of the situation when the full review has taken place. To take an action like that in many ways undermines the whole review process, if that's the route that this committee and the minister are going to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you.

On the motion itself, I've indicated to Mr. Angus,par personne interposée, that I have a concern that we should not be meddling in the internal affairs of CBC, and I will certainly maintain that position. That does not mean we cannot express concerns and these can be relayed, as they would be by simply being on the record or through a motion that is somewhat modified from what we have. And I'd be open to that.

But this motion, as it is, calling on an intervention into the affairs of the CBC, Mr. Chairman, would be tantamount to substituting ourselves for the board of CBC, which I don't think is appropriate.

Now that I have the floor, and also for the record concerning the previous intervention by the parliamentary secretary vis-à-vis the debate on Tuesday in the House on the motion.... Mr. Chairman, I believe that you've already ruled that someone who has the floor keeps the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Have your say.

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

Thank you, sir.

Indeed all kinds of members, including the Minister of Heritage, have put out press releases on that vote, explaining why they voted against it. This is a matter of perception, and there are concerns among Canadians in terms of having the government vote against maintaining Canadian content, especially in view of the debate, where it was very clearly indicated that we're not asking for things to be fixed as they are, but there's room for strengthening and innovation, and we shouldn't be going backwards.

It's the same thing with maintaining the restrictions on foreign ownership in cultural industries. I think there is a great deal of concern about that in the country. It's the same thing with the maintenance of financial support for public broadcasting, especially in view of what's on the record, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the dissenting opinion for the Lincoln report on public broadcasting in this country and on broadcasting, public and private, where the current parliamentary secretary to the minister basically advocated for the privatization of the CBC.

In view of the concerns out there, Mr. Chairman, as the spokesman for the opposition, I have the right to point out that the government voted against. That's what I did, and for them to take offence at that baffles me. Mr. Abbott is baffled as to why I would put out a press release; I'm as baffled as to why he would take offence that I may have an opinion that differs from his.