Evidence of meeting #27 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
In English it's that “conventional television must support a basic level of information services”.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay, Chair. That helps clarify things for me. I think this is a very important motion, given what is happening, and it's certainly something I can support.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I come back to the amendment that deals with a basic level of information. Is Mr. Coderre thinking in terms of percentages? For example, if television station x had a licence requiring 14% in information services and it no longer wished to produce them, it could ask the CRTC to lower the level to 10% or 9% as long as it did not go below a certain basic level. Is that what Mr. Coderre means? I would like to understand.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
No, I was just talking about the principle. I really do not want to get into details like TQS having to produce 14 hours of information in Montreal and 9 and a half hours in Quebec City, for example. This discussion is not about the licence or the level of the licence.
In the light of the discussions I had with the union, specifically, we recognize that TQS has to survive, but it still must maintain a basic level of information. A basic level of information can include real information. It does not necessarily have to be news and commentary. It is not up to us to do the CRTC's work.
Given what experts have told me, this basic level as I am referring to it—perhaps I am not expressing myself very well—maintains generally understood principles and approaches for conventional television. I feel that, in so doing, we are not interfering or giving the impression of interfering in the affairs of a body which has a job to do.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
This is very interesting. I think I heard Mr. Siksay say that viewers should have access to good local and regional services, and Mr. Coderre is saying that it must support a basic level of information services. I noted that better than 50% of the staff of TQS are no longer there.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
They will do it, but we're talking about days, and there is right now....
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Yes, but the point is that a major percentage, 50%, of the staff of TQS.... And I'm not talking about TQS; I'm simply using it as an example. They require 50% of their staff in order to have, as Mr. Siksay says, access to good local and regional services, and as Mr. Coderre says, to support a basic level of information services. That's a dollar and cent issue. I've seen figures in the paper about the loss of $70 million. Whatever the numbers are, they are very substantial. They were looking at cutting half of their staff, so all of a sudden this access to local and regional services is the item in question. That isn't going to happen if those staff are gone.
This plays directly to the question of fee for carriage, which is currently before the CRTC. I just want to draw this to the attention of the committee, not by way of argument but by way of saying let's think about it. Broadcasters, whether they're the CBC or private broadcasters, are being compelled by various rules and regulations to come up with all sorts of dollars for drama. This committee keeps decrying the fact that we don't have enough comedy or drama or made-in-Canada entertainment; therefore, the stations, the broadcasters, are being asked to come up with those dollars.
If Parliament is going to be giving direction through this motion and through Mr. Coderre's motion tomorrow in the House to say to the CRTC that viewers must have access to good local and regional services, and it must support a basic level of information services, that's dollars and cents. The broadcasters have every right to come back and say that they absolutely have to have additional revenue. We all know that because the advertising revenue is directly related to radio, and to print--be it magazines or newspapers or billboards or whatever--there is a standard that advertisers will pay to for advertising on television, and I would be inclined to think they are pretty well at the maximum at this particular point. The broadcasters, public or private, are going to require additional revenue in order to do this while at the same time doing what this committee is also asking them to do, which is provide quality entertainment broadcast.
I just point that out, that these positions are not without consequence. That's all. As I said, whether we realize it or not, this, along with other things, is giving some direction to the CRTC that maybe they do have to go to the cable companies and say they're going to have to pay to carry those signals. This then has further consequences down the line from the cable and DTH companies, the BDUs, on the relationship between them and their customers, and whether their customers are going to pay for it.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
That's good. I'm just saying that these decisions we're making are not made in a vacuum; they have consequences. That's all I'm saying.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the two proposed amendments put forward by the member from Bourassa, I am interested in his proposal to include local production because, in fact, it was perhaps missing from Mrs. Mourani's motion. However, I wonder why he wants to change "information services" for "a basic level of information". Basically, I do not see that the wording gives us anything new, because information is produced by information services. Mrs. Mourani's motion does not specify either the quality or the quantity of what the information services produce. She does not mention large or small information services, just "information services". So unless there is something behind Mr. Coderre's amendment that he has not yet explained to us, I do not see what his addition contributes to the member from Ahuntsic's motion.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Let me respond to Jim's point of view.
I truly believe that the future of the conventional TV is so important that we have to ask ourselves what conventional TV includes. Now, you were talking about the revenue, and there is a discussion right now and a report from the CRTC vis-à-vis the future of sharing with the cable companies. That's an issue.
But I truly believe at the same time that when we're talking about information here—news—you shouldn't just put a number. It's not just to quantify, saying, “Well, we're losing $18 million, so let's cut information”, because conventional TV includes news services. That's why the kind of discussion we're having about the future is our job. How do we define that kind of conventional TV?
For your information, they want to cut 270 employees out of 500 or so, but on that they're ripping out all the news service. So it sends a message that we're losing $18 million, so services equal that amount of money. News is becoming a merchandise and we're getting rid of it, and it's just like a budget issue and an expense. That kind of discussion about the orientation—should we merchandise news services?—is a valid point among ourselves in what should be the future of conventional TV.
The reason I'm talking about a basic level is that we can say what information means and all that. We can have a lot of definitions. We can have a former politician who has his own show comment on what's going on in the news every day and say, “Well, I'm doing information. I'm on the news. I've been doing that for three years as a radio host, but I'm not a journalist.” So it's not a basic level of news service.
The reason it's accurate to have that kind of discussion is that no matter what, you have the power at the end of the day. After the CRTC conclusion, the minister has the right to go to cabinet and say “I'm against” or “I'm in favour” or “Redo your homework”.
There are two issues I will just mention. I believe CRTC has the right to do its job, and it's not our duty regarding the level of what should be included, like the percentage or whether we should have nine hours or ten hours, or whatever. But I believe, at the same time, that to say you believe in conventional TV and it should include a basic level of news is sending a kind of orientation of what we believe, but they're doing their job. And if the conclusion is not what the minister believes in, she can come back to cabinet and change that.
That's why we're not talking specifically about one licence. That's why we're not saying specifically how much and what should be the minimum. But that's why, with those amendments, what we're sending as a message is that we believe in conventional TV, and by the way, that conventional TV should include a basic level of news support. And at the same time, when we're talking about a regional sensitivity, we're talking about local production.
I think some of the people should say we're borderline or ask where the thin red line is here. But I really believe, because I check it myself, we show compassion because we believe that it's a disaster to see all those families lose their jobs. And with all the convergence of radio and the news, this is another issue. But our duty is to say what we think about conventional TV. We'll do that today with that motion, and tomorrow we'll have a debate on that from the official opposition.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, we've heard from all different angles on this. Right now we have an amendment before us.
Mr. Siksay.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Chair, could I ask that we deal with the two phrases separately, that we deal with it ad seriatim, that we vote on each phrase separately in Mr. Coderre's amendment?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
No. The amendment is what we have here first. Do you want to make another amendment?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
No. What I'm suggesting, Chair, is that given my sense that there is clear support for one of the phrases he's proposing, if we split them off we would get a good reading of the committee. So if we could deal with them separately, I think that would be very helpful to the committee, and I think it would give us a way forward and a clear indication of what people think of his suggestions. If we just deal with each phrase separately, I think that would be very helpful.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I said one amendment that included two points. If he's against it....
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'll call the vote on the amendment, and we can have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10 ; nays 0) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Now we will vote on the motion as amended. It reads:That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government point out to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that conventional television must support a basic level of information services, including quality regional information services and local production.
(Motion agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
It's been suggested that we move to Mr. Del Mastro's motion first. The notice of motion from Dean Del Mastro reads:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite organizers, officials and participants of Canada's pavilion at the Shanghai 2010 Exhibition to give an update.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
We should have an amendment and ask to go to Shanghai, because we don't want to distract them on the ground and we might slow them down. I want to know what's going on in the field.
I'm kidding.