Evidence of meeting #37 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 broadcasters.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
We'll have a beer on that, and I'll explain to you how the CTF works and what they were talking about with the reference.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
So that's gone.
Now we go to the amendment from Ms. Fry. It would be after “funding”, and would read:
The envelope of public funding allocated traditionally to the other public broadcasters and to educational programs must also be maintained and similarly indexed.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Chair, there is just one thing I wanted to add to that. Mr. Siksay just asked me if I would, and I think it's a good idea. It would say “to the other public broadcasters, not-for-profit, and educational programs”. So he wanted to put in there “not-for-profit”, because if you look at the Canadian Television Fund's objectives, they do include not-for-profit.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, so that's in there. So after “public broadcasters” it will include “not-for-profit”—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
So take out “and” too. Would the sentence then read: “The envelope of public funding allocated traditionally to the other public broadcasters, not-for-profit—”?
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Take off “broadcasters”, Mr. Chair, so it would read, “to the other public, not-for-profit and educational broadcasters”.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, what I have here now is:
The envelope of public funding allocated traditionally to the other public, not-for-profit and educational broadcasters must also be maintained and similarly indexed.
Mr. Abbott.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Does such a thing exist?
I think we're in general agreement that 37% is a number that has traditionally been going to the CBC. So that's an absolute percentage we're talking about.
Does this other thing, which we're saying has traditionally existed, in fact exist? I don't know. I'm asking the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Just to answer that—and I hope I'm not out of line—I understand that the whole fund right now increases about 7% every year. What they're talking about is a cost of living increase indexed not only on the private side, but also the public side.
Am I correct?
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I understand that, but my question still stands. If I deduct 37% from 100%, I know what percentage is going to other places, including the not-for-profit, educational broadcasters, and so on and so forth, including the commercial broadcasters, and so on and so forth. So that percentage, the 63%, is distributed from all of them, but I suggest that the amendment presumes that 10%—to pick a number—of that 63% goes to these educational broadcasters. But whether there is a traditional envelope, I don't know that to be a fact.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
In case it is split in two, there will be envelopes for both. We said that we'd like the CBC to continue with the 37% of the total fund. But there has to be an average of what, over the last few years, has been given to the not-for-profit aboriginal, educational, and other public broadcasters. We need to know how much they have been getting. That's why you develop traditional averages. We want to make sure that the traditional average doesn't drop and that it is also indexed. This is what the people who were here said they would like to see.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Pardon the absurd argument for just a second. Let's presume for the sake of argument that during the entire life of the CTF, 2% has gone to the category you're talking about—
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
—and last year, 20%. So the average therefore is 10%. What does that mean? It's totally indefinite, and I don't know that such a thing actually exists.
