Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reminding the House that it was the principle of precaution that sparked this debate. We are discussing something that is very important: communications. We are aware of the role of communications in a democracy. We also know that, from the moment we let a public institution such as the CBC television network fall into the hands of private owners in a democracy—in this case, our own democracy—there is a great risk of control of the masses, of communication, of information and of content by ambitions that are far from being the main concerns of the people we represent here.
I would like to remind the House of the motion in question:
That the Minister of Heritage, before committing herself in the review of the CBC–SRC mandate do comply with the motion that she herself had adopted during the 38th Parliament, part of which reads: “That the government, when establishing this independent task force, do so under the advisement of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage”. Furthermore, that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and offer modifications to the terms of reference of the CBC-SRC mandate review prior to the commencement of the review, and that the chair submit a report on the motion to the House of Commons.
That has been done. I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois supports this motion. The context for the committee's motion is the following. On May 16, 2006, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage passed a motion asking that the minister review the mandate of the CBC under the advisement of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This request was in response to a motion put forward during the 38th Parliament by the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, who was a member of the committee and the official opposition's critic at the time. The motion before us is therefore set in a dual context: on the one hand, the review of the CBC licence by the CRTC next fall and, on the other hand, the minister's intention to establish an independent task force to review the mandate of the CBC.
It is surprising to see that this member who used to recognize and call for the expertise of the heritage committee is now contending that it is not part of the committee's terms of reference to review the mandate of the CBC. This must be a side effect of being in power.
In April, the minister's director of communications stated that it was not the role of the parliamentary committee to look at a government entity.
Not only is he wrong to say such a thing, but he is also showing contempt for a committee of elected representatives to which his own boss had faithfully contributed. I think that this desire to preclude the Committee on Canadian Heritage from reviewing the mandate of the CBC speaks volumes. What do they have to hide? What kind of canned conclusions do the Conservatives want to get at? One has to wonder. I think that, even before the committee undertakes its study, the Conservatives have decided what recommendations they are looking for.
Back to the context and the fact that the CRTC constantly has to renew the CBC's licence. Whenever the CRTC reviews the CBC's application for licence renewal, it does so in accordance with the Broadcasting Act.
In section 3, the act sets out the CBC's mandate as part of the broadcasting policy for Canada. The following is an excerpt from section 3 of the act, and I quote:
—(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should
(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,
(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada—
I would like to say in passing that, contrary to the statement by the chairman of the board of the CBC, Guy Fournier, the Broadcasting Act makes no mention of any role in defending Canadian unity. Reflecting Canada as expressed in Quebec also means recognizing sovereignty.
As former Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau said on May 29:
It is wrong to claim that Radio-Canada's mandate is “necessarily” to defend national unity because it is a crown corporation.
And I quote:
This is not necessarily so. For example, Télé-Québec's mandate is not to defend Quebec sovereignty. Radio-Canada does not necessarily have a mandate to defend Canadian unity.
He continued:
If that is the intent, then say so, put it in writing, so that it is clear.
This committee, advocated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, should propose changes to the CBC's mandate and amend the Broadcasting Act at the same time, because the mandate is enshrined in Canadian policy. Not only the representatives of Canadians in this House, but also all Canadians, would find it unacceptable if the committee were unable to intervene in this way.
It was unacceptable to the member when she was in opposition in the 38th Parliament. That was her position in the 38th Parliament, and it was also her position when she defied, in this very Chamber, the former member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
The message she is sending, now that she is in government and no longer in opposition, is that the perspective has changed. We must remember that it is our duty to have this debate, here, because we have concerns that they probably do not share. As elected officials, we must foresee the unforeseeable.
In the 38th Parliament, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage deemed it important to examine the mandate of the CBC.
Given that we are familiar with the Conservative vision for the CBC, we feel it is essential to conduct this review, but in a collegial manner, without exclusions.
Why must we be vigilant with respect to the Conservatives in this matter? I would like to read an excerpt from the Canadian Alliance dissenting opinion on the review of the Canadian Broadcasting Act:
Canadian Alliance notes the historic role the CBC played in the lives of Canadians and the continuing investment made by the Canadian taxpayer.
Canadian Alliance would maintain a long-term funding commitment to CBC Radio.
The Canadian Alliance members said it and repeated it. They were there to support the CBC and that is a good thing. However, a little bit further down:
CA draws attention to Figure 4.13 in Our Cultural Sovereignty. CBC English audience share moving from 34.9% (1969) to 7.6% (2001-2002) is a story in itself.
Those are their words.
Further analysis reveals unprecedented audience fragmentation. There is every reason to believe fragmentation will increase dramatically in the foreseeable future.
Those are their words.
The position of Our Cultural Sovereignty which continues to see the CBC as the cornerstone of broadcasting in Canada cannot be sustained in light of this fragmentation.
Those are their words.
A recent Compas poll of Canadians shows that Canadians have as much faith in the CTV or TVA networks and specialty channels as they do in the CBC. Canadian Alliance interprets these results to say that the CBC image as protector of culture and identity on television is no longer unique.
Those are their words.
The CBC shares this image with other broadcasters including the specialty channels.
They go on to say:
In recognition of significant advances in technology, the choices available for viewers, and to get the government out of the business of being in business, we would restructure CBC television.
Those are their words.
The CBC's involvement in professional sports and the Olympics is a case in point. If the CBC is competing in the commercial marketplace why should CBC management be subjected to the kind of political interference it has experienced in recent times?
It is their question.
The only way this can happen is because of taxpayer subsidy which simply means the CBC—often through no fault of its executives—can put taxpayers' dollars in competition with private broadcasters.
I will continue to quote them:
Given these realities Canadian Alliance is convinced that the time has come to reconsider the importance of CBC television. The Committee's report may claim that the CBC is essential but the facts do not support the claim.
Those are their words.
Anyone looking at Figure 4.17 can see that the majority of Canadian programming is available on private networks.
Those are their words.
It is true that CBC attracts a large number of viewers to sports programs but these same programs could be offered on private networks.
Those are their words.
If sports is removed CBC's audience share would be less than 5%.
And this is their conclusion—in their words:
We would significantly reduce CBC operating subsidy by commercialization of CBC television.
Canadian Alliance would consider transferring a portion of the current funding for CBC television to new or existing subsidy or tax credit programs to support Canadians creating content for film and television.
This is frightening. This deserves special attention—which is why I mentioned the principle of caution in my introduction—especially given that this dissenting report, dissenting from the report entitled Our Cultural Sovereignty, was signed by the minister's parliamentary assistant, who would presumably sit on the committee that she intends to form.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of adequate funding for public radio and television. Once again, while we support this motion, we would remind the House that the Liberals do not beat around the bush.
Only a little over a year ago, the target was public affairs. Indeed, in early February 2005, we learned that CBC was imposing additional restrictions of $13 million on its French television network, namely, $6 million on general television, $3 million on support and on the regions, $400,000 on regions including Quebec, and $4 million on news.
These restrictions did not result from federal government cuts, but essentially, from reductions linked to advertising revenues and internal shuffles.
The budget for television news was $64 million in 2004-05. The budget cutbacks announced are therefore in the order of 6.5%
In terms of jobs, according to Daniel Raunet, then-president of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada (SCRC), job cuts so far have affected two specialized reporters, five national reporters, one researcher and three production assistants in the television current affairs division. The following excellent programs have all been affected by these cuts: Zone Libre, La Facture, Justice and Second Regard.
These cutbacks have had a major impact on the production of current affairs reporting for television.
They cut 5 of 26 national reporter positions, which is 19.2%, and 2 of 20 specialized reporter positions, which is 10%. In all, they cut 15.2% of journalistic staff in current affairs programming.
Clearly, we deplore these cuts, which are small for the CBC but huge for the news department, and we hope the minister will remind the broadcaster of its mandate.
Part II of the Broadcasting Act shows how these cuts to the news and current affairs budget go against the CBC's mandate.
The Broadcasting Act of 1991 states that:
(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
The position made public during a press conference on Thursday, February 10, 2005, sent exactly that message. Pierre Saint-Arnaud of the Canadian Press wrote:
The CBC's news and current affairs employees denounce cuts to television information programming and are asking the crown corporation to postpone them.
They are also demanding that the federal government provide adequate, uninterrupted funding for the public broadcaster.
SCRC president, Daniel Raunet...referred to the Broadcasting Act, which requires the CBC to offer programming that informs, enlightens and entertains, and deplored the fact that management seems to focus exclusively on entertainment.
If we let this government do as it pleases in this matter, we may find ourselves with a mothership that has lost its bearings and can no longer fulfill its mandate. That is why we support this motion. That is why we will fight to make our point of view heard in this matter.
