Canadian Heritage Committee on May 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We haven't voted on the CBC yet.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I know, but I'm just offering my thoughts to move things along.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Shall I call the question?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Chair, there's something I would like to know:

What is the link with the work that we have done up to now? I recognize that it is going to take place, but why, suddenly, is the committee making a decision that is completely off-topic?

If you have any explanation for me, it would help me to decide whether I am going to support the motion or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. There is no link, Mr. Samson, but sometimes, for timely reasons—and this is timely because of when the Olympics are being held—we can intervene in the study at hand and deal with something, like we did with the museums. We're taking this now to take one hour out of one of our meetings to in fact find out what's going on with both the Olympic and Paralympic committees. That's why that's allowable if the committee agrees that it is allowable.

Those in favour?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have a second motion, as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite the CEO of CBC/Radio Canada, Mr. Hubert Lacroix, for a televised two-hour meeting, to update Members of the Committee on the plans and strategies of the Crown Corporation, in light of the most recent reinvestment announced in the latest federal budget, and that this meeting be held before Friday, June 17, 2016.

You are specifying a two-hour meeting, Mr. Nantel. I don't know when we're going to have that, because we're now having one hour out of the seven, and we only have one hour left.

Let us discuss this motion.

Mr. Nantel, will you speak to your motion and why you think we should do this?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Indeed, this is also an appropriate time. I know Mr. Samson has concerns in terms of our study. It is quite appropriate given the challenges that CBC has had to face in recent years. Given all those challenges and the large amounts of money involved, I feel that it is appropriate for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to meet with people from CBC to see how they are going to use the money.

Moreover, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is organizing a major consultation on the issue. Personally, I would like to know which direction the CBC is heading in. As the public broadcaster, it has to champion public radio and television in Canada. That is why I feel it is important to hear from those who speak for the crown corporation. I have seen people raise their eyebrows about the two-hour length, but we can come to an agreement on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I didn't frown. I'm just wondering when we're going to find the time, that's all.

Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Chair, once again, I agree on the need to hear from Mr. Lacroix, but I feel that this is not a good time to do it. I believe that, instead, he should appear at the end of our work, once we have heard testimony on all the various situations. He could appear just before we finish the analysis so that we can work on the final report. I would like us to invite him, but at the right time. I think that time would be closer to the end of our study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I have no problem with having Mr. Lacroix come before us this spring. My concern is the practical issue of the time. If it is a one-hour meeting, we could do it as the other half on the 7th; if Mr. Nantel insists that it should be a two-hour meeting, then I think the best option is to put it on the 21st, when we may or may not sit. There's a good chance that we'll sit, but we have the risk of losing it. I suggest that if it's one hour, the 7th, and if it's two hours, the 21st.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion? What Mr. Samson is discussing is the timeliness of it, or the time. Mr. Van Loan is discussing the length of time.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

To me, that's not the issue I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about receiving.... We will benefit much more from their information at the end rather than now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Samson, that is why I talked to you when I made this request. I do not believe that there is a direct link with our current study, which is very important and on which we are getting a lot of interesting feedback and testimony. There is no link.

The question is: what comes next? Now we know that CBC/Radio-Canada has new amounts of money, what process is the corporation going to go through? Of course, we are hoping that its representatives will be talking to us about regional media and local coverage, but that is not all. This is about all CBC's programming. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage could ask Mr. Lacroix, his senior management and his board of directors which direction they are heading in, what the principal guidelines are, and how they will be linked with the results of the major consultation.

There is no link and I fully understand the concern. We are well aware that the study will go into the fall and we hope to have an interim report. However, I feel that it is really a good time to ask Radio-Canada's management some questions and to get an idea of what they will be doing with the sums of money that they have received this year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I've been listening to the different perspectives, and it sounds like two hours for Monsieur Lacroix because there's a lot of ground to cover, based not only on what we're looking at, but if you're adding other issues. We can see how quickly we go through questions right here. I'd be very reluctant to call a person twice if we can do it in one....

We're dealing with this time pressure, something that we want to do, and with a lot of questions as well. Does it make sense...? As you know, I've always been trying to rush to get through this. I want to keep going through things quickly, but does it make sense to look at this in the fall, the difference being that we have some time to look at it later, because realistically.... We're talking about maybe putting it on June 21, but we won't be here June 21, or we can cut our time in half—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

We may be [Inaudible—Editor]

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We may be. I'm just saying that it sounds like it makes more sense to look at this in the fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would like to point out that, for starters, when you read this motion, you see that it talks about the most recent investment in the latest federal budget. I don't think this has anything to do, therefore, with the study we're undertaking at the moment.

While I think we talked about the Olympics and Paralympics as being extremely timely and about having to get to it before the 17th of June, there is not a timeline set on this. I know that the minister said she was going to talk to CBC about what things would look like.

I think this is an important motion. I would like to see this motion done some justice, so I think one should think about the timing. As Mr. Van Loan suggested, I don't think it would be really fair to hold it on a day when we may or may not be meeting. What we're talking about is not.... I'm not hearing people say that they're opposed to the motion per se. I think what they're speaking about is the timing of this motion and when this should take place, so I will call the vote on this motion as it stands.

However, if you wish, you may say you would put it off to the fall, in which case we don't have to make it sound as though people voted against the motion. That's just a little bit of cuteness here.

What do you think, Mr. Nantel? Comment?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I believe that Radio-Canada is a major player in Canada in terms of culture and information and that this is perfectly in line with the study we are conducting at the moment. You can see the extent to which CBC keeps coming up in the questions we ask ourselves. In that context, I feel very comfortable saying that we will take an hour and proceed as quickly as we can. We will ask the CBC representatives to come back at the end of the study in the fall. This institution is at the heart of TV and radio broadcasting in Canada.

I can amend my proposal so that we only take one hour looking at the corporation's future plans for the new funding it has received. I propose amending the duration to one hour and inviting representatives of the crown corporation to another meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I want to remind the committee that we are meeting with CBC on May 19 on the topic of this study that we're currently doing, so calling them back again so soon after may not be possible. Calling them back again if we can only spend an hour and then calling them back for a second hour.... I want to speak to the practicality of it all.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Absolutely.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You raise a valid point. However, Mr. Cormier, whom Mr. Samson knows well, I am sure, is coming to talk to us about news. He will not be talking about the general direction and the parliamentary appropriation, but about news. Of course, that is a very relevant topic in our study.

I have no monopoly on wisdom here, but I feel that it would be appropriate to meet those people quite quickly so that we find out what shape they want the reinvestment to take. Mr. Cormier's participation is perfectly appropriate when it comes to regional news. However, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Chair, that has nothing to do with this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. So you've amended your own motion to say a one-hour meeting? Therefore, I will reread—

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I was going to propose another amendment. I think we all agree that it's important to speak with them. We're all in agreement on the basic point, and the question we're talking about is timing and how much time. I was going to propose an amendment that we change “held before Friday, June 17th, 2016” to “held before...”, but I don't have our calendar for exactly when we're back. We may make it the end of September or choose a date in October, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Can you give us the actual wording?