:
Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to meeting number 68 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.
This morning we have with us, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC news, current affairs, and Newsworld, CBC radio and television; and Alain Saulnier. He is the general manager, news and current affairs, French services.
Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. Burman, you're first on the docket, so we'll let you go first, sir.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Thank you for this invitation. It is a privilege for Alain and for me to appear before your committee.
For the past seven years, as editor-in-chief of CBC's English services division, my role has been to oversee the news and current affairs programming on CBC television, radio, Newsworld, and CBC news online.
[Translation]
For more than 50 years, CBC/Radio-Canada news services have been keeping Canadians informed about their community, their country and their world at large. During that time, the CBC has moved from being a radio-only broadcaster to a multi-platform service to Canadians and to others around the world.
[English]
In the past four years at the CBC we have integrated CBC news and current affairs operations across CBC radio, television, and our increasingly important online service. This has not only been more efficient, it has enriched all of our local and network programming by ensuring that information, ideas, and resources can be more easily shared.
In my opening remarks I'd like to focus briefly on three aspects.
The first point is the CBC as Canada's window on the world. CBC/Radio-Canada has more international bureaus than any other news organization in Canada.
[Translation]
In many of these bureaux, our correspondents report for both the CBC and Radio-Canada. We truly are Canada's Window on the World.
[English]
Let's recall the past year. I think of Afghanistan. The CBC stood out for its efforts to give Canadians the most comprehensive coverage. The National, with Peter Mansbridge, is the only national newscast that has ever broadcast live out of Afghanistan.
Think of Lebanon. In the eleven months since last summer's war, only the CBC has stayed in Lebanon. Only the CBC maintains a full-time bureau in Beirut, with correspondent Nahlah Ayed.
And think of Africa. Our commitment to covering the horrible incidents in Darfur has taken us back to that region in Sudan repeatedly, in spite of the dangers inherent in such reporting. At one point last autumn we were the only network in the world in Darfur.
A second important area is the CBC as a provider of original and unique programming. There may be a multitude of choices in today's ever-changing media world, but many of them in Canada are owned by very few companies. More than ever, we would argue, there is a need in this modern democracy for a strong, public broadcaster.
You'll recall the Ontario lottery story, first told by the fifth estate last autumn. This investigation represented the finest traditions of public service Canadian journalism. Stories such as this--and there have been many of them recently on local and network programs on CBC radio and television--are the product of excellent, diligent, original work.
We sometimes hear it said that there's no need for CBC news because the private broadcasters do exactly what we do, and they do it well. We can agree that private broadcasters do some things very well and we can perhaps debate it some other time whether they do them better than CBC. But there is no debate about the role of CBC news when it comes to bringing Canada together at important times in our history. No other broadcaster comes close in providing live coverage of major events that tell the story of our country.
For the past 12 years in a row, CBC television news has been honoured with the Gemini award for the best live news special of the year. Last summer CBC news provided the world with coverage of the AIDS summit in Toronto and the World Urban Forum in Vancouver.
[Translation]
Just a few months ago, we were the only broadcaster that produced TV coverage of the ceremony at Vimy Ridge for the 90th anniversary of the historic battle there. It was only through CBC Television that Canadians saw our new War Museum opened.
[English]
Surely when it comes time to measure the value of a news service, one of the litmus tests is how the service rises to the occasion when the country needs it, often when no other broadcaster will.
My third and final point is about the CBC as a journalistic organization uniquely accountable to Canadians. Our duty to provide accurate, fair, and high-quality information to Canadians is at the heart of CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate as a public broadcaster.
At the CBC we have several safeguards to ensure not only that this is achieved but that Canadians can hold CBC news accountable.
CBC/Radio-Canada has an extensive code of journalistic standards and practices, a policy book, which I think you have on your desk, that is widely respected internationally by other broadcasters and news organizations. As editor-in-chief, I write a regular media column for cbc.ca dealing with policy issues and inviting contributions, including criticisms, from our audience.
And of course there is the CBC ombudsman. Canadians have access to an independent ombudsman at both the CBC and Radio-Canada to resolve major complaints about programming. In addition, CBC/Radio-Canada reaches out to experts and its audience to continually monitor the quality of its news and current affairs programming over the course of a season.
It's important to stress that no other broadcaster or news organization in this country has accountability safeguards as stringent as at CBC/Radio-Canada.
Everyone in Canada has an opinion about CBC, particularly about its news programming, and we wouldn't want it any other way. As we are often reminded, we are not perfect, and we acknowledge that, humbly. That is why we are so focused on improving.
But let's keep things in perspective. Every public opinion poll on the subject indicates that CBC/Radio-Canada is Canada's most respected news organization. In audience numbers, CBC radio news is number one in local and network programming in many Canadian markets. CBC Newsworld is Canada's top-rated news channel, by nearly a two-to-one margin. CBC news online is Canada's most popular Internet news site. And many of our TV news and current affairs programs, including The National and the fifth estate, are at least equal and often ahead of their commercial competitors in audience numbers. So there are accomplishments that should never be overlooked.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to our discussion.
[Translation]
I would now like to introduce you to my colleague from Radio-Canada, Alain Saulnier.
:
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I am very pleased to be with you today to talk about news and information at Radio-Canada. Exactly one year ago today, Sylvain Lafrance, CBC/Radio-Canada's Executive Vice-President of French Services, announced the integration of all Radio-Canada news and information services under a single structure, and entrusted me with the mandate of managing this revamped news department.
The key objective of this restructuring was to allow us to respond even more coherently to the challenges of the 21st century. It was about strengthening our public broadcasters' French services so that they remain a touchstone for citizens looking for references, and seeking to better understand the world they live in. Radio-Canada already possesses many assets enabling it to fully assume its role as a public broadcaster.
First of all, I remind you that Radio-Canada is the only French-language media organization in the country to provide such a broad spectrum of news coverage. How many francophone news operations can boast of having reporters in Toronto, Vancouver, Moncton and Calgary? You know the answer without even asking the question. All media considered, we have the largest contingent of French-speaking reporters in the country.
We are also the only French-speaking media outlet that presents international news reports and analysis. With our 11 foreign correspondents and several hundred regular contributors posted on 5 continents, our international news gathering presence exceeds that of all other francophone media in the country. Were it not for Radio-Canada, French-speaking Canadians would increasingly have to rely on the English media and on international news agencies to get a sense of what is happening around the world. No other media outlet, print, radio, television or web, offers as much content in French about the world, and the world in our backyard, as Radio-Canada does. Unlike others, we are not limited by our national territory. With a presence from coast-to-coast and spanning the globe, Radio-Canada is uniquely positioned to explain to Canadians what is happening in their regions, in their country and worldwide.
For this Fall, we have implemented a regional strategy across all of our services with the goal of strengthening our regional roots and ensuring better reflection of regions on our national networks. In news, for example, this has meant a greater presence in Toronto, as well as the addition of regional Saturday and Sunday editions of the Téléjournal newscast in Atlantic Canada. About a year, we began transforming RDI into a bona fide continuous news service. Given an increasingly competitive media environment and in the spirit of the unique mandate entrusted to RDI, our goal was to simultaneously strengthen our regional presence and develop a more seamless approach, while ensuring greater editorial consistency. Decompartmentalization of our workday 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. programming now allows us to provide better news coverage all across the country, live and regardless of where or when stories are breaking.
Of course, no matter how hard we try, we can't always please everyone. We continually strive to strike the ideal balance of news and information content across all of our networks. Yet we must ask ourselves: What would happen if we were not present and accessible to the largest possible number of TV viewers, right across the country? Would a private all-news network be the solution? What kind of content would the French speakers be given to watch? News from Toronto, Moncton, Vancouver and Calgary? International stories from Canadian reporters posted abroad? Not a chance! What we offer is unique.
In dealing with complaints, we make our responses public, when appropriate we acknowledge our mistakes and take the necessary corrective action. Incidentally, anyone can now view these complaints and our responses, as well as the ombudsman's annual reports, via the CBC/Radio-Canada website.
By consolidating our TV, radio and web services under a single-management structure, we have sought to clearly position the Radio-Canada mandate as an instrument of democracy and culture. This combined strength is what allowed us to maintain a news gathering presence in Afghanistan for 12 consecutive weeks, with seasoned reporters like Céline Galipeau, Alexandra Czacka and Frédéric Nicoloff filing stories. By the way, I am pleased to announce that we will again be reporting from the front in Afghanistan as of this fall.
On the radio, we are the only media organization to offer such first-rate news content at all hours of the day. And we know that this content is being appreciated by listeners: our radio newscasts, to cite one example, reached record audiences according to the latest BBM survey results, from winter 2007. Moreover, what television network besides Radio-Canada can boast 10 current affairs programs on its schedule, including 6 that air in prime time? You won't find any: current affairs programming is simply non-existent on the private networks. Nowhere else but on Radio-Canada will you find programs like La Facture, a magazine that covers the everyday problems faced by citizens. La Facture is seen by an average of more than 705,000 viewers each week. Then there is L'épicerie, a magazine program focused on food, which each week reaches an average audience of 658,000. Découverte, one of the only French television magazine programs in this country devoted to science, draws an average viewership of 600,000 on Sunday nights, and in recent weeks has even posted audience numbers near the one million mark.
[English]
This fall, having leveraged the combined expertise of our TV, radio, and web team, we will become the only Canadian French language TV network to air a weekly prime time newsmagazine on international affairs. This brand new program will be produced in front of a live studio audience with renowned guests and one-of-a-kind reporting that will enable us to better comprehend the world--the whole world and your world.
[Translation]
We provide Canadians with quality programming as witnessed by the many national and international awards bestowed upon our programs over the past year. Découverte, for example, won no less than four awards, including the Gémeaux for best public affairs program, and the CAID Prize at the International Science Film Festival in Athens. The program Dimanche magazine, which air on the Première Chaîne radio network, won a prestigious Peabody Award in 2006 for a report about climate change. And the series 109, produced in Toronto and aired on RDI, won a Gold Ribbon Award at the most recent convention of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
As we look to the future, Radio-Canada is called upon to create a public broadcasting space that is stronger than ever before. This is vitally important. In a multi-channel universe and given the phenomenal number of different news sources, we must create an "island of trust", where citizens can be secure in the knowledge that the news and information they get from their public broadcaster is reliable and credible. To be able to enrich citizens' democratic and cultural life, and properly pursue its mission as a public broadcaster, Radio-Canada must maintain its ability to promote social cohesion and be a reflection of true diversity.
Thank you.
:
I guess she's deferring.
Welcome to the witnesses.
First of all, I have to apologize. Last Thursday I made some reference that the national CBC didn't give enough attention to the legislature in Fredericton. That afternoon a deer walked into the legislature in Fredericton. I don't know how you did it, but your attention to detail is appreciated.
I have a couple of things. First, we've had an awful lot of discussion about advertising or not in the context of the broadcaster generally. What effect does the advertising that exists on English language television--I'm specifically speaking to that here--have on the decisions taken in the context of news?
I was watching yesterday, fretting over the well-being of Paris Hilton. On the question of distinctiveness, you can rest assured that we can get that other places.
So what effect does the need to have good numbers have on those kinds of decisions?
:
If I may, I would like to clarify one thing.
It is important to consider the CBC's website, whether it is CBC.ca or Radio-Canada.ca, like a set of content proposals. If you visit the site this morning, you will be able to see and hear audio and video reports, you will be able to listen to last night's Le Téléjournal again, and you will also be able to choose from various programs on-demand, which will allow you to re-listen to public affairs programming that was broadcast over the last few days.
This is clearly not a newspaper. It is quite simply a format that allows people to understand what audio and video content is being offered on these sites. It is from that perspective that we really must try and appreciate what we call the multimedia universe in its entirety. We will no longer be able to listen to radio and watch television as we have done over the last few years. You will be able to see programming on your iPod, on the web or also on your telephones, to such a degree that the CBC absolutely must go in that direction so that the wealth of its contents—and I'm also thinking about the content that the Radio-Canada side has to offer—can be accessible to the greatest number of people. Those under the age of 35, in future, will get more and more of their information from the Internet.
How can we make sure that the CBC's contents, in which we invest a great deal of money and for which we have all the necessary expertise, is accessible to the greatest number of people? That is more or less what we are gambling on.
:
Yes, but he's still an incredibly valuable reporter for CBC news.
You characterized the challenge accurately. I don't think there's any organization, really, that was as conscious of the BBC scandal as CBC/Radio-Canada was. We really learned from that, both in terms of how the BBC approached the issue and how the government responded, imagining how that same situation could play itself in Canada.
I think there has been, over the years, a dogged determination on the part of the CBC to maintain its independence of government. The tensions between the CBC and the government over a variety of issues, including news and current affairs, are quite well known. It's something that comes with the territory.
I think you're right about the financial instability of the CBC. That's worrisome to everybody, including many of us as Canadians, not only as CBC employees. We try to provide, and I indicated some of them in my opening remarks, through our policy book and through our different kinds of safeguards, enough mechanisms so that at least the Canadian public can be confident they're getting the straight goods from the CBC--flawed on occasion, but the straight goods. Our hope is that we'll be able to maintain and endure any kinds of pressures we get, not only from government but from any side.
:
I think the answer is in different ways. Again, in reference to our earlier discussion, I think providing a news and current affairs service that's not unduly influenced by commercial and advertising concerns is very important in a democracy. I think there are many instances, both in Canada and the United States, where the commercial advertising influences within the media have had a material impact on the kinds of editorial choices that viewers and listeners are exposed to, and I think that's negative.
Again, as I tried to indicate in my opening remarks, there's a range of programming that the CBC and Radio-Canada provide that, quite frankly, our commercial competitors don't--the breadth of our international coverage, for example. And we do that not because it necessarily will have a direct impact on our “ratings” that night. We do that because we know a lot of Canadians rely on their public broadcaster to understand their connection to the world.
Again, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I think a lot of special events deal with the story of this country historically in terms of anniversaries, in terms of what could be described as mandate programming. We know through the audience response that these are very meaningful things.
So I think there's been on all our networks and our platforms the range of CBC radio programming across the country, the incredible importance of local programming across the country, that's, as I indicated, number one in many markets and number two in many other markets. It's a reflection of the distinctive place of CBC radio in communities from coast to coast to coast.
I think the success and the popularity of our online service is another example of why a lot of people are drawn to CBC, are drawn to Radio-Canada, a lot of younger people, for the kind of online experience and services we provide that, in their view, are far more relevant to their lives than some of the commercial competitors.
So if you collect it all together, a country can make a decision as to whether or not it wants to follow the American model, which is essentially to let the news media survive or not within a commercial environment, or it can do what has happened in Canada, what is happening in Britain, what is happening in every modern democracy in Europe, and that is to try to create a vibrant, unique public broadcaster to exist in a complementary way with its commercial competitors.
:
I think it's so successful on the radio side just because it really speaks to a lot of issues and concerns that are important across the country.
I would challenge, with respect, your characterization of television. Television is not simply the supper hour program at six o'clock; television is The National, television is the fifth estate, television is CBC Newsworld. Television is a whole multitude of programs. I think, again, as I indicated in my opening remarks, that if one looks at audience levels, we're dealing with many television offerings that are more than competitive with our commercial rivals, and in many cases, in audience numbers, exceed them.
In terms of the CBC television experience with regional programming at the supper hour, that has been a challenge for the CBC for many years. I think as this committee realizes, there's an initiative called MyCBC, which is focused around Vancouver, where there's a real effort to build some sort of renewed connection with our audiences at six o'clock through CBC television, and that's something we're working on.
My gentle response would be for us not to focus on one time slot as the sole determinant as to whether CBC television matters to Canadians.
:
I'm going to start by saying that I believe today as much as any time since the beginning of public broadcasting there's a tremendous need for you. I believe that despite the challenges you've faced, you've done a great job, both on the English side and on the French side.
I represent a riding in northeastern Ontario, as you may well know, the riding of Sudbury. I'm a francophone, so I listen to many programs, both in French and in English. I hope the financial challenges you face will not prevent you from continuing some of the great things you've done.
On the other hand....
[Translation]
I often watch RDI at the same time as CBC Newsworld. I like to watch French television. It is important for me to be able to hear the news, especially in the morning, because you know that as politicians we need to know what is going on. Yet, I don't see myself reflected in the news, I don't see Ontario nor Alberta there. Honestly, the program is mainly focused on Quebec. It is wonderful, but I would like more to be done for francophone communities.
I firmly believe that democracy is ill-served when people cannot be better connected throughout this country. That is essential to me. I know that you are trying, but I would ask you to try a bit harder, if possible. The same applies to radio.
[English]
These are criticisms, but they're more demands that you try to do more. I listen to CBC radio; I listen to Radio-Canada. When I drive home from Ottawa there are vast areas of this country that I drive through and the only service that's available on my car radio--and I don't have Sirius--is CBC or Radio-Canada. It's very important for those of us who drive through vast areas. But what happens is any kind of local programming ends at six--and it's not all local programming; it's mostly regional programming.
I'll give you an example. Last year as I was driving home CBC radio reported that they thought there was a fire at a seniors' home in Sudbury. They weren't sure. They couldn't get any facts to back it up. You have to understand that the CBC radio offices in Sudbury are about four blocks away from where this fire was. As we got closer to six o'clock--and this was on the English as well as the French side, nobody could get any information--and I was trying to find out what was happening, at six o'clock they signed off and said, sorry, we weren't able to get any information on this and our programming ends now, so they went to international.
So I ask you, can you somehow bump up some of that regional service? We have no other source of news up there. The other broadcasters don't give us anything. CBC and Radio-Canada are the only things we have. To me, it's wonderful that you do such a great job internationally, but you have to do a better job within the country as well.
Thank you to both of you for attending today.
When we got here this morning we were given a copy of the handbook of journalistic standards and practices for CBC and Radio-Canada. I've had a quick chance to review some of the points in there. What jumped out at me was, first of all, on page 99, under personnel standards, where it states, “The CBC must not only be impartial, it must also project an image of impartiality.” So the whole issue of how the public perceives CBC...it's going beyond actual objectivity. It goes right to the root of what do Canadians think of CBC Radio-Canada.
As you know, there are many Canadians who are very supportive of CBC, but there are also many Canadians for whom CBC either has become irrelevant or it no longer reflects their particular values. Quite frankly, I've never bought into the myth that reporters can be completely unbiased. We're all human. We bring a package of values to the table and a package of perspectives that inevitably colour anything we do. I think the best we can hope for is to achieve a standard of objectivity that CBC, for example, would have credibility with the people it's supposed to be serving, which is the Canadian public.
I'd like to ask a couple of questions about hiring and firing policies. You have a pretty comprehensive set of journalistic standards that your staff has to comply with. I hearken back to an unfortunate incident where one of your employees was alleged to have doctored a photograph and enhanced it to make an environmental site look worse than it really was. Do you recall that particular incident?
:
The selection process for the hiring of any staff, including reporters, is quite rigorous. When a position is open we post it, it's publicly known, people compete for it, there are various processes of elimination, and then there's a short list. There's usually a panel of four or five of our senior people who are then empowered to choose the best person.
Generally our hiring would not be at the entry level. We hire people who have experience as reporters. I think in that case we have a track record with these individuals. We're very conscious of whether or not an individual reveals or has revealed in his or her past some sort of bias. I think it's unusual if that is the case. That usually kind of eliminates the person from journalism pretty early on.
I think journalism is a team game. We have editors, we have assignment editors, and we have producers. Part of the safeguards that are inherent in a journalistic policy book like we have here is that we feel there are enough levels that if somebody either malevolently or innocently starts revealing a kind of passion or bias in certain ways, it's caught before it goes on air. I think that's why we're able to control these potential circumstances.
In terms of your second question, we have no patience for people who violate our journalistic policy book. We hold them accountable. There are various ways that we do that. Again, I don't think we have that problem as nearly as often as perhaps your question suggested, in the sense that I think we're blessed with a wide choice of people who want to become CBC journalists. In that sense, the ones who are chosen are really of quite high calibre.
I accept your earlier point that we all have personal views and personal passions in these things. I think what one learns as an experienced journalist is to park those things at the door. I think generally, and certainly with my CBC and Radio-Canada colleagues, is that we do that effectively.
I appreciate your efforts to clarify this, and I think it speaks to the point. I guess the point for Canadians who are watching and listening to us today is the fact that it was a doctored photo, and the photo not only was a misrepresentation of actually what happened, but it was a misrepresentation because it was such an outdated picture that in the duration of time from when the photo was taken to the time it was published on the website, the smoke stacks were torn down. So it was a complete misrepresentation.
I think it speaks to the sensitivity that you have to engage in at CBC, yet it wasn't intended, you assure us, to mislead Canadians. But in fact it did mislead people because it was there to support an opinion that was being brought forward with the article it was published with.
I think that's the concern that many Canadians have, that you're a broadcaster, but you have a public trust to maintain, because, of course, Canadians expect to trust their national broadcaster. Obviously, there was major sensitivity around this, and unfortunately for CBC, this isn't the first and maybe won't be the last. But I think it's important that there be a strong statement after these types of things are done, as to the fact that it won't happen again.
So I'm wondering if you can clarify as to what type of statement was made and what assurances you can provide us with to ensure that this kind of biased type of reporting doesn't continue in perpetuity.
:
Let's talk about things that maybe aren't so inadvertent.
I'm wondering if you could explain to me the process through which stories are covered in Canada. Obviously, in any given day you have hundreds of stories that you could run on The National or CBC radio, and obviously there's a decision-making process as to what will be brought forward as a news story.
I find it interesting, actually—I'll just use it as an example, and you can go into your explanation as to how news stories are chosen for the day—that recently there was a sanctity-of-life rally on the Hill. In fact, I had the opportunity to walk by it, and I understand the numbers were about 7,000 people, so there were thousands and thousands of people here on the Hill. I understand there was even a press conference--one of my colleagues across the table was there--and I understand that CBC not only did not cover the rally, but they didn't cover the news conference of the different parliamentarians who were bringing this issue forward.
I'm wondering how the decision is made not to carry a feature involving 7,000 people on Parliament Hill, as opposed to, you know, we see sometimes 20 protesters somewhere and all of a sudden that's the news story that leads out. I'm wondering how you make the decision to ignore 7,000 people on Parliament Hill one day, and then the next day, if there are 20 protesters, the determination is made to make that the lead-out story.
:
This is a very interesting discussion for me. As an independent broadcaster and journalist, I've always had a very odd relationship with the CBC. I ran afoul of this little blue book many times, and I'm glad to actually see it in print, because I always wondered why some of the stuff I was delivering was.... I was getting my wrists slapped.
In fact, just for the record and because I think it is instructive, I was not doing news for CBC because I was known as someone fairly opinionated, but I did a lot of cultural coverage in the north, and I had done a 10-part series on pioneers of the north. It's about as innocuous as you could get, but I was involved in a very controversial battle in the north, and one day I was quoted on air. That morning I got a call from a very good friend of mine, a respected CBC journalist, who said, “You know you're done here.” I said, “Yeah, I could see that.” They pulled my 10-part series that morning and said, “This will not air on any CBC station because you are seen as politically active, even though you're not one of our journalists.”
I'm asking my question because I've dealt with this code of standards. It seems to me that there is a real set of standards right across regional stations across the country; there is the insistence that CBC has a voice and that it maintains that standard. How do you ensure, not just at central command in Toronto and Montreal, but in Yellowknife and in Sudbury and in St. John's, that the standard is applied and that your producers have a good sense of what a CBC voice is and what isn't?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This motion reflects the will of Quebec's National Assembly, all parties included: the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Action démocratique and the Parti Québécois. Given the current emergency, the organizers of Quebec festivals had hoped, since they had met with Mr. Flaherty before he had even drawn up his budget and had been promised by the minister that new festival funding would be forthcoming to replace the money that had been cut by Mr. Martin, to see this new funding made available to organizations so that they could go ahead with their projects in an appropriate manner this summer.
However, it has become apparent that the has held back the money and does not intend to distribute it at this time, which is already creating problems on the ground. Festivals have been cancelled, others are accumulating deficits. Quebec has established criteria for redistributing the amount of money to which it is entitled. This is a request that was also reiterated by Mr. Bachand, Quebec's Minister of Tourism. He emphasized that this would be an emergency measure. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will have all the time she needs to set the criteria for the program next year, so that it is in line with her vision.
We are therefore faced with this reality. You know what impact the festivals have on Quebec's economy. You also know that, internationally, these festivals have put Quebec on the map, as we say, and they bring in tourists. Indeed, they are Quebec's drawing card to attract tourists from the United States, South America and Europe.
I appreciate my colleague bringing this forward, because certainly in Quebec and the rest of the country there's a lot of concern about this festivals program.
But I am concerned about this motion. I have spoken with festival coalitions from across the country, and they still believe it's possible to get an agreement in place. If we support this, festivals in every other part of the country will be basically sold down the river. I think that would be improper for us, because there's a question of the inequity of this motion.
There might be smaller festivals in, say, Prince Edward Island that aren't as..... I don't know whether they have criteria or not, but if we simply turn this into a transfer to one region and leave out every other festival in the country, we would be remiss in what we need to do, which is get the coalitions meeting with the minister, get this criteria in place, and get this money out.
I won't belabour it. I still don't see the necessity of the reference pursuant to that. In any event, that's neither here nor there.
Mr. Kotto has heard me in the House and has heard the minister talking about the fact that the $60 million over two years is in addition to the funds that have already been flowing. She and I have enunciated the number of dollars that are flowing. There has been an emphasis within our dialogue to point out that the idea of the $60 million over two years is particularly to fund smaller events. And this must be Friday and frosty, because I happen to agree with Mr. Angus today, but the point still is that in addition to his eloquently stated position, this was never, ever, intended to be a transfer from the federal government to provincial governments, from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction.
The intent of this, as described in the budget documents...and all the narrative that has occurred, either from the minister or from me, clearly has stipulated that this is to flow from the federal treasury directly to the people who will actually be using the funds. This motion is completely foreign in every respect to the intention of the minister and the government.
(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Mr. Fast is not bringing his motion forward at this particular time. It stays on the record as a notice of motion, but there needs to be more clarification.
We have two more things I'd like to get through first.
Order in council appointments is number one.
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the National Film Board, pursuant to section 16 of the National Film Board Act, hereby appoints Tom Perlmutter of Montreal to be government film commissioner.
Is it the wish that we interview this gentleman?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Can I get a consensus that we would call him here?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
:
Tom Perlmutter, of Montreal, Quebec.
The one other thing we have is a bit of luck, or what have you. CEO, deputy minister equivalent, Martin Matthews, from the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage, will be meeting with officials in Ottawa on June 11 to 13. He is in charge of public broadcasting in New Zealand, and we have an opportunity on the 12th to request him to appear before us, though he would request that meeting be in camera.
After my getting shot down at the Liaison Committee...and we can't travel to the U.K. When this gentleman is here, it would be a tremendous resource, I think. I'm told that New Zealand public broadcasting and Canadian broadcasting emulate each other.
So I'm going to make that suggestion. Is that good for everyone here?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, then, on the 12th we will have some great questions.
Just wait one second. Before we adjourn, there is one thing before our meeting next Thursday.