Canadian Heritage Committee on June 12th, 2008

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, judging from the testimony given, it's clear to me that no one is opposed to the concept of historic access. Everyone supports that concept. However, we need to take matters further. I agree about Tuesday. Our extremely efficient clerk could perhaps even invite Paul Gratton, the new Chair of the CTF, to testify. He is based in Toronto but could fly here fast with Rapidair. I understand that he is a clear and assertive speaker. I think it would be a good idea to hear from the new Chair of the Board of Directors. I propose that we devote two hours to a meeting with him.

Since this is a public meeting, I want it clearly understood that I am prepared to support this motion. We can allow ourselves a few more days. There's no question that we will be meeting on Tuesday. It could prove interesting. Above all, I do not wish to give the people listening to us the impression that any decision would come at the expense of educational broadcasters, among others. I will defer to the majority opinion. Nevertheless, I believe that everyone here supports the CBC's historic access and that no one is necessarily opposed to Mrs. Mourani's motion. However, perhaps it would be a good idea to consider this matter further so that by Tuesday, we have some additional tools to work with.

I'd like the research officer to do some additional checking. We're talking about historic access to a 37% share of the overall Fund. The CRTC is recommending that this 37% share be maintained. However, Heritage Canada must provide some funding accordingly, so that this share remains stable. In other words, the CBC's share of the total envelope must not decrease. That is the gist of the CRTC's recommendation. In order to maintain this 37% share, any costs associated with private productions must necessarily be offset by Heritage Canada. This lends even more weight to your motion. I think we need to see some figures. I've read the annual report.

[Marion Ménard, Committee Researcher]

I don't have it. I looked for it.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that would be a useful exercise. I don't know how Mrs. Mourani feels about this. It is not question of setting aside her motion, but rather of exploring this issue further and ensuring that the interests of the parties, in particular those of the CBC/SRC, are better protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, given that we understand that when we were doing our Canadian television fund hearings, or whatever you want to call them, we heard many people say that they did not like the fact that the CBC got 37% of the envelope, I am really concerned that those in government will try to remove that 37% when they start making decisions as to how to allocate.

We also know that we have those graphs, if you recall, with the big red, blue, and green slots, showing that certain other public broadcasters and educational programmers, such as APTN, TVO, TVA, etc., all had percentages of the pie allocated to them.

It's my understanding that what this is really doing is suggesting that there is an ability for Shaw and Vidéotron to have a say on the board where the private funding goes. I don't have a problem with that, if that's what they wanted to do. But if we could amend Ms. Mourani's motion and add not only that CBC productions should get at least 37% of the total funding, but also that the same stable allocation of funding to other public broadcasters and educational programmers be maintained, then I think we will be sure that the two chunks of envelopes will stay the same. I would like to do that before we get the minister making decisions. The reason I would like to do that is that we have agreed on a lot of things—and I think in this committee we can agree and disagree—and are very well aware that there have been a significant number of people within the government ranks who did not like the Canadian television fund in the first place and voted against it.

So we want to be sure that we don't have to have the minister make a decision and speak about it, and then we start throwing rocks at the decision, and saying to her, change your mind, change your mind, we don't like it, we don't like it. We're saying that this is input from the beginning, so the minister is aware of how the committee feels, and when she's making her decision she will take that into consideration for all the political reasons she may need to do so.

Personally for me, as a political move, it gives the minister different room to manoeuvre, and at the same time, when she comes to our report she won't have everybody yelling and screaming at her, people who could have had some input beforehand for her to consider. I mean, if you really want to talk about how we could work together to get things done, I consider this a better way to do it than to throw bricks at her when she makes a decision that we may or may not like. We're just saying here's what we think.

So I would like to add to the amendment, if Ms. Mourani agrees to a friendly amendment, which perhaps some of us could look at and see what it says. I think we could maintain the same percentages allocated to other public broadcasters and educational programmers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The time is getting used up here. I'm going to go to Ms. Mourani for something very short.

My suggestion is going to be, as has been suggested here, that maybe, just maybe, we should have Paul Gratton, from the CRTC, come and explain some of this.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Good idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There have been some assumptions, and maybe we could clarify some things before we come up with a motion.

It will be my suggestion, as has been suggested before, that we try to get him as a witness so that those questions can be asked, and I would commit that debate be now adjourned.

The meeting is adjourned.