HERI Committee Report

CHAIR'S FOREWORD

It has been 12 years since our current Broadcasting Act came into force. A judicious document, crafted with both vision and objectivity, it stemmed from the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, and the ensuing examination of that study by the then parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The Act has stood the test of time since its inception, and indeed its objectives are as valid today as they were then.

However, it is clear that even if the principles and objectives of the Act still hold their important meaning today, the broadcasting system and processes covered by the Act need urgent review. Broadcasting in all its forms, and the communications system which underlies it, have undergone an exponential transformation over the last decade. Technology in this field is in a constant state of ebullition, changing ever radically before our very eyes. Twelve years ago, for instance, at the time the Broadcasting Act became law, only a limited number of television channels were available from a few dominant broadcasting networks. Today we face the multi-channel universe, where a myriad of broadcasters compete fiercely for both space and viewer-loyalty. And meanwhile, in these short few years, the Internet has exploded on to the scene, commanding the attention of a huge and ever-increasing public, especially the younger generations. The cellular phone is now omnipresent, and soon the video cellular will become commonplace. Palm computers are another feature of daily life. And so much else in communication technology is happening at break-neck speed.

When our Committee first discussed the possibility of an in-depth study of the Canadian broadcasting system, the Minister of Canadian Heritage had thought coincidentally of assigning a similar mandate to an independent panel of expert advisors. The Committee members felt that a parallel study by outside experts would not only confuse the issue, but also depreciate the work of parliamentarians, subject as they are — in contrast to independent panels — to the inevitable delays and hiccups, as well as the budget constraints, of the parliamentary system.

We pointed out that, as had been the case following Caplan-Sauvageau, the parliamentary Committee would have to become involved in any event. Thus it would be both logical and empowering to involve the parliamentary process from the outset. Further, from the public's standpoint, parliamentary reports hold the distinct advantage of having to be tabled in Parliament, and to demand an official Government response within 150 days thereafter.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage having reacted very positively, it was decided to blend the two options, by assigning expert advisors to assist the Committee in its study. Thus it was that Professors Marc Raboy of l'Université de Montréal, and David Taras of the University of Calgary, joined us to advise the Committee and the team of Library of Parliament researchers led by Dr. Joseph Jackson.

Perhaps another paradoxical advantage of a parliamentary study, in contrast to one conducted by outside specialists, is that members of parliamentary standing committees are rarely expert in the subject at hand. Although this may appear to be a drawback at first glance, yet the parliamentary alternative offers the significant advantage of a diverse group of individuals who bring with them no preconceived notions and judgments as to both the problems and their possible solutions.

Supported by the substantial expertise at their disposal, members are able to probe and question without inherent bias or prejudice — and ensure the credibility of their recommendations by having to be all the more thorough and careful in making them.

This said, it would be unfair to exaggerate the positive aspects of the parliamentary committee process. It is a difficult and often frustrating one. Political parties obviously reflect their respective ideological values, which inevitably surface as issues are debated and reviewed. Even within the membership of any one party, individuals hold differing opinions and ideas, often very strongly. Thus consensus is not easy to achieve, when it is not actually elusive.

However, given these significant constraints and challenges, in the long run, consensus does develop. It may not be a consensus on all issues and recommendations — hence the logical inclusion of minority reports — but there remains an important degree of agreement nonetheless.

It may surprise readers to learn that in spite of the frustrations and delays of a vast exercise such as this one, a continuing atmosphere of harmony and mutual understanding has prevailed throughout. At no point can I recall, during our extensive discussions, anything but a civil and respectful sense of purpose, often laced with humour. It is a fact that parliamentary work in Committee is far more conducive to mutual understanding than the formal context of the House. In committee, we are not honourable members for this and that, but know one another by our own names, a positive starting point. In closed sessions, we call each other by our first names, another step toward a civil and friendly dialogue, despite differing opinions.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my Committee colleagues very warmly and specially for their cooperation and dedication, and for always having responded positively to what seemed impossible demands on their time.

My gratitude, which I express on behalf of the Committee, also goes to all the members of the research team led by Dr. Joseph Jackson, as well as to Professors Raboy and Taras. Their advice and participation were invaluable — indeed, our task would have been an impossible one without them.

I am most conscious that no study of this vast and delicate subject attracts unanimous support. Recommendations which may be viewed favourably by some, may be judged as very unhelpful by others. The intention here was not to seek general approval, but to attempt to be serious and credible, and as reasonably objective and fair in making recommendations as a diversity of human minds and opinions will allow. The individuals, institutions and corporations affected by our recommendations have without exception cooperated closely and positively at our hearings and throughout our study. Their interest has been constant, and keen. My warm thanks go to all of them. Though they represent very diverse viewpoints and often competing interests and objectives, we found in them professional competence and integrity such as to enable us to foresee bright horizons ahead for Canadian broadcasting and all those who serve it.

We have been fortunate as a Committee to count on an understanding and supportive Minister and Department of Canadian Heritage. Although ministry officials were very cooperative at all times and made available to us those reports and documents we sought, at no time did they try to guide or interfere in the slightest way. As to the Minister, she was ever encouraging but sensitive enough to always keep her distance, and allow us that full and essential measure of autonomy in our work. For this we are grateful.

Recognizing as we all did throughout the study, the magnitude and difficulty of the exercise, we were determined to make a sustained and special effort to achieve a credible report with meaningful recommendations. We are obviously not the most objective judges of our work. What we firmly hope is that our recommendations will be treated with the same seriousness with which they were debated, and made.