House of Commons Hansard #90 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crtc.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call Motion No. P-29.

Motion P-29

That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all records accounting for levels of public participation in both of Natural Resources Canada's Energuide Retrofit Program and its successor, the ecoENERGY Retrofit program.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-29, in the name of the hon. member for Yukon, is acceptable to the government and the documents are tabled immediately.

(Motion agreed to)

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call Motion No. P-39.

Motion P-39

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all agreements between the Department of National Defence and the Conference of Defence Associations and the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-39, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, is acceptable to the government and the documents are tabled immediately.

(Motion agreed to)

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a procedural point of order. I believe the House leader for the Bloc Québécois was inadvertently distracted when we dealt with petitions. I think he may have a petition to file. I wonder if the House would give its unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of petitions to allow the House leader for the Bloc to file the petition.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it agreed that we revert to petitions for this purpose?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The member for Joliette.

PhosphatesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

This petition comes from citizens in all municipalities in the riding of Joliette, who are calling on the federal government to take strong action against the use of dishwasher and laundry detergents containing phosphates. Detergents containing phosphates contribute to the proliferation of blue-green algae, cyanobacteria, which, as you know, are a major cause of lake pollution.

I am very proud to present this petition.

PhosphatesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

That is the last of petitions for today.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the provision of a locally or regionally produced news service must be part of the operating conditions for general interest television licence holders.

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Honoré-Mercier. I also want to thank the House for proceeding with this debate.

Obviously, this is not the only place this debate has been held. There has been debate in other committees, and there have been question periods as well. I want to recognize and congratulate all the political parties that have worked on this issue with honesty and in a non-partisan way.

As a matter of fact, this is a non-partisan situation. First, it affects the employees of TQS, and we are all concerned when there is a loss of jobs. Second, there have been meetings with the unions. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the minister, myself, everyone has met with the unions. Now it is time to move from words to action.

We made some headway yesterday in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We know that the Bloc moved a motion to this effect. I proposed some amendments, and there was unanimous approval. This is therefore a debate on the substance. It is an important debate. We are talking about the future of our airwaves, the future of our own general interest television. This will have an impact on all the regions of Canada. Nevertheless, the specific objective of this first motion was to discuss, in particular, the future of TQS.

It is not up to us to assume the role of the CRTC. We understand that it is a completely independent agency. We also understand, in the light of the CRTC decision, that after June 2 the government does have one power; the minister has the power to overturn a decision. Our role is to set out a direction and to send a clear message. Our role is to hold a debate on the future of general interest television but, above all, to define the role of general interest television.

For us, general interest television means having a news service in which there is local production and regional impact. In the case of TQS, local means Montreal, Quebec City, Saguenay, Trois-Rivières and Sherbrooke. It may be that, in the future, decisions will be made to that effect and they will have an impact on the rest of the country.

Let me be clear. It has nothing to do with playing the role on behalf of CRTC. It is about discussing it among ourselves and defining the orientation of what should be conventional TV. From the opposition's perspective, it is clear in our minds.

The leader of the official opposition said clearly for TQS, but also for the conventional TV as a whole, that we could not think about conventional TV without having news services and news services means at the same time that we will have local services and regional services.

It is not only about only Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. We need to ensure we will also have a taste on the ground, on the field, of what goes on through that, and we clearly need journalists to make it happen in those regions.

Surely we will all say that we met the unions at some point and supported the people from TQS. For my part, I want to send a very clear message today on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. On behalf of our party and our leader to all the unions and the people of the Trois-Rivières area at an important meeting on April 26, the Liberal Party of Canada, which forms the official opposition to this government, said it thinks that TQS, a general interest broadcaster, would no longer be TQS without keeping a certain amount of news.

It is important to talk about this today. If we were to make a decision, I would want us to define together what the basic direction of general interest television is.

It is also important to us to ensure we send a clear message. When it comes to general interest broadcasters in the field of television and the sale of their licences, we do not think that the news should be considered just another commodity. We cannot allow ourselves, in the name of diversity and the very future of the regions, to send a message that if a broadcaster is losing money, for example, it can get rid of the news to cut costs. It is also a matter of diversity.

This goes back to 1999 and the new television policy. We must ensure that consideration is given to a news service reflecting what is happening in the region or in a community. It is not just a business decision. That is what worries me about all this. I have a feeling that when people talk about the news in those terms, they only think about financial matters.

I myself used to host a radio show on CKVL and I saw the loss of the news service. It is not easy for the journalists and their families but it is also not good for the future of the news itself.

That is why we decided to have a debate today in much greater depth on what general interest television should be. At the same time, we want to send the message that what really prompted all this was obviously the decision about the future of TQS.

Our thoughts are with the employees. What we want is not very complicated. We want Télévision Quatre Saisons to survive. That is important. At the same time, we also think it is important to send a message about the importance of keeping a certain amount of news.

In English it is like a basic level of information. One cannot think about conventional TV without thinking about having news service.

Whether I am in Sudbury, Winnipeg, Brandon or anywhere in New Brunswick, in Quebec, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Trois-Rivières or Sherbrooke, then for sure when we have what is referred to as general interest television, we would like to have an idea of what is going on around us. I find it hard to imagine constantly having a traffic report about the situation on the Jacques-Cartier Bridge in Montréal when my friends in Roberval are watching television. People want to know what is going on in their part of the world. They are not going to ask the CRTC what the percentage should be and have them give us an exact number of hours. But they are going to say that the principle of preserving this regional aspect and this news service is important.

The government has done several important things. I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour. I also have a news release from the CSN here. The Minister of Labour could have made an exception to the Canada Labour Code and eliminated the requirement that TQS employees get 16 weeks’ notice, but he did not do that. That is entirely to his credit, and it is what someone who is a minister should do: make a decision.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages. She cannot just say that she has written a letter to the chairman of the CRTC, that she went and shook hands with the employees and she thinks this is regrettable. Our role, and I have been a minister in the past, is also to set the direction. We know there is a Broadcasting Act. We know that there are parameters that have to be abided by. But if there is a power to reverse a decision, there is absolutely nothing to stop the Minister from showing what the direction is going to be from now on.

She is being asked to do what our leader called for at the convention of the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec on April 29 at the Quebec City Hilton. We understand that the CRTC has a job to do, but we are asking that the minister take a position immediately. Does she think that a general interest television station should have a news service? That is what we think. Obviously we cannot talk about general interest television without having that service; otherwise, it becomes more and more of a specialty service.

On a more personal note, I hope that TQS will not have 24 hours of Bleu nuit and The Flintstones. First, because it is what it is and I do not agree with it, but second, and more seriously, a lot of young men and young women, journalists and technicians, are not sure at the moment whether they will be able to find new jobs, be it at TVA or at Radio-Canada or elsewhere. We have to think about how TQS has been an exceptional school for the last 20 years. TQS had chosen this regional niche to make sure that this kind of diversity had a showcase.

I therefore ask my colleagues to give this motion their unanimous support and show that we are sensitive to and aware of the future of general interest television, and that this includes a news service. Long live TQS with its news broadcasts.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Bourassa for the tone of his speech today. Certainly he was reasonable, with a possible exception, and I do want to draw it to the House's attention, in that I think his characterization of what the heritage minister did in her interaction was perhaps an interpretation. I would submit that it is an unfair interpretation of what occurred.

As he will well know, as a parliamentary secretary I have been asked questions about this and have pointed out the fact that as a former cabinet minister he of all people would know that there are times and places when she can become involved. She did become involved in sending a letter to the CRTC for it to keep her fully informed and fully apprised of what is going on. She is fully engaged in this issue. At the appropriate time, if further action is required at that time, she will be prepared to take that action. I would suggest that he wants to back off just a little, because I do not think he is being completely fair in his characterization of her.

What I wanted to get from him, though, is a definition of conventional TV for the purposes of this debate today. Does that mean on the air broadcasters? Does that mean people who are at the lower number of the channels that are easier to find on the dial? What does he mean? I need a definition from him so that we all can have a debate around the same concept of conventional television. What does he mean? I would ask him to define conventional television, please.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know he is doing a good job. His role is to represent the minister and to read the documents that are provided to him in order to defend her.

The minister has opted for the wait-and-see approach. When she goes to see people and writes a letter to the chairman of the CRTC, she is in wait-and-see mode. I believe she could do a lot more. Why? Because her role—and she has the power to do so—is to reverse a decision. So this is important to us and I totally agree with all my colleagues who have made this point.

We have to wonder about the definition of general interest television. We know the difference. According to the CRTC, “general interest” means a television channel that provides a variety of services, whereas “specialty” means that the licence is based solely on a particular theme. For example, the Family Channel caters to a young audience.

Therefore, “general interest” means a wider variety of services. However, we are left wondering if a general interest channel has to include a news component. Everyone knows as well as I do, including the Florian Sauvageaus of the world and Mr. Demers, a former CRTC commissioner who said so himself as reported in Le Soleil, it is inconceivable to have a general interest channel without a news service.

The minister has the power to respond and the ability to react. If she has the ability to react, it means to react to something. We want to know what that something is. In short, a general interest television channel has to have a news service.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Bourassa. I have just a couple of questions.

He gave a pretty good description of what a general interest station is, so I assume he means Rogers and the Shaws of the country that provide basic generic programming.

In our smaller communities, we have independent, locally owned stations providing quality programming for our local communities, with local input, and they are owned by shareholders in the community. Unfortunately, we see these larger generic stations coming in and putting them out of business.

Can the hon. member tell us how this bill protects those independent and locally owned and operated stations that provide quality local programming in our communities?

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

I wish it were a bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a motion.

I think we have to be careful when we are talking about Shaw and Rogers. We are not talking about cable distributors. When we speak about conventional TV, like Radio-Canada and CBC, it is TQS and TVA in our case.

Frankly, what I feel about that question from the member for Vancouver Island North is that there will be a time when we have to discuss the future of broadcasting. It is important. The CRTC was created to protect our culture and our sovereignty and those waves belong to the Canadian people, so it is important to have.

However, today the motion is about the definition of conventional TV. I am not playing the role of the CRTC. What I am saying is that Parliament, the House, should provide that kind of decision and that--

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

Opposition Motion—General Interest Television Licence HoldersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on what I consider a subject of very great importance. I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Bourassa for taking the initiative of moving the motion we are debating today.

This debate is important because it is about respecting diversity in terms of the news and promoting the requirement for local and regional content. It is also about strengthening our democracy.

Our society is complex and diversified and our broadcasters must take this into account. Our social fabric is made up of many strands and realities differ from one region to another. Hence the significance of this motion, which states that “the provision of a locally or regionally produced news service must be part of the operating conditions for general interest television licence holders”.

I would also point out that this concept was recognized and reflected during the original discussions that led to the granting of a broadcasting licence to the TQS network.

I would therefore like to spend a few moments on the specific situation of TQS since, to some degree, that is what led to the debate on the present topic.

When it was established, more than 20 years ago, TQS, which is also known as the “black sheep of television,” wanted to handle the news differently. It wanted to deliver news in a different format that focused on local realities. Over time, TQS succeeded in building up its news network throughout Quebec, thanks in large measure to the creation of numerous regional stations. Those efforts, it must be admitted, played an important role in the diversity of news available.

The TQS network has also experienced its share of financial challenges over the years and now finds itself in a critical financial situation. Ownership of the company is changing and the new owner has decided to introduce draconian measures with serious consequences. Indeed, even before taking possession of the station, the new owner has decided to eliminate the news service in order to reduce operating costs as much as possible.

The closure of the news service and of the regional stations will result in 270 employees being laid off. We are talking about job losses in Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières and elsewhere. Quebec, and particularly its regions, is losing an important source of information and, frankly, this is going to have a very negative impact on the local and regional content of the news reports.

The closure of the TQS news service has sent shock waves through the province. I am going to quote a few reactions.

The Union des municipalités du Québec says that “reducing in this fashion the diversity of regional information sources will definitely not allow towns and regions to be better heard and known”.

As for the Conseil de presse du Québec, it said: “This decision jeopardizes the diversity of Quebec's information voices, which is already too restricted by the concentration of ownership in the media.”

The National Assembly of Quebec also expressed its view on this issue, through a unanimous motion which says:

THAT the National Assembly reiterate the importance accorded to diversity of information as well as regional information in a democratic society, and enjoin the Government of Québec to demand that the CRTC maintain the TQS news media services.

This united front shows the importance for a society to have access to various sources of news. We must be able to get our information from different sources. It also shows the importance of having access to local and regional news that reflect regional variations and realities. Finally, it must also be a reflection of who we are.

The case of TQS is important, because it could apply elsewhere. It could apply to the whole country, and that is why today's motion is so critical.

The governments and the bodies that regulate communications and broadcasting have a role to play. We are not trying to get involved or to interfere in a specific market or another. We simply want to ensure that the rights of our fellow citizens and their access to diversified information that reflects local and regional realities are not curtailed.

The new owners of TQS made a cold business decision based strictly on the numbers. This debate, however, is about much more than numbers. It is about democracy, excessive media concentration and the right to objective, impartial, diverse news.

This debate is about the choices we make as a society. We in this House—and very certainly the Liberal members—are here to improve our society so that it reflects our aspirations and values. As parliamentarians, we certainly have a role to play in this regard.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, government is a necessary evil. They think we should refuse to interfere, no matter what, and just allow market forces to rule. We have seen them withdraw from some very important things, such as Montreal International. We have seen them move with troubling insensitivity and on a purely ideological basis to eliminate such things as the court challenges program. A government, though, is never elected just to make cuts. A government is never elected to gag people who do not think like it.

This motion gives us an opportunity today to send a very clear message. Finally we will be saying loud and clear that news is an essential part of our democratic way of life. We will also be saying, as the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec pointed out, that the vitality of our democracy is based on a diversity of views and news sources.

To achieve this, today’s motion is very clear. Its goal is to emphasize the fact that broadcasters who want to get a general interest television licence must provide locally produced news.

It is clear to both the hon. member for Bourassa, who was the architect of this motion, and us Liberals that it is very important in our culture to have locally or regionally produced news. It is also very clear that our culture needs not just protecting but further strengthening.

TV broadcasters play an important role in the dissemination of the culture, language and values of the society they serve. We want to ensure that local broadcasters are up to the challenge of representing these cultures and values.

Of course I understand, as we all do, the challenges our broadcasters face in a market that is ever more competitive and in which television’s share is continually being eroded by the advent of new media. The challenges are substantial, and we are very aware of that.

We should therefore support our broadcasters. We should help them grow, develop and be profitable, but never at the expense of our basic democratic principles. We should always continue to work for a more open society. We should always facilitate access to objective, impartial, diverse news. We should continue to encourage general interest television that takes local realities and the importance of regional diversity into account.

That is the spirit of this motion. That is what is all about.

I want once again to thank the hon. member for Bourassa for taking the initiative to introduce this motion, which will be discussed and supported by all the Liberal members. It is an important motion in our eyes and in the eyes of all Quebeckers and Canadians. I hope that my colleagues in the other parties will join the hon. member for Bourassa, me, and all the Liberal members in supporting this motion.