Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 20, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 11:03 a.m. to examine the current state of Canadian media industries; emerging trends and developments in these industries; the media's role, rights, and responsibilities in Canadian society; and current and appropriate future policies relating thereto; and to consider draft budgets.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the purpose of today's meeting is to consider, and I hope win your approval for, budgets for the remaining two weeks of this year, and for next year for the media inquiry.
The steering committee has approved these two budgets with one small change that I will get to in a minute. Perhaps we could look first at the small budget, the one for $4,400 for the next two weeks.
Honourable senators will perhaps recall that Internal Economy had a small amount of money left over and told committees that they could put in requests for small sums. It is under that heading that we propose to apply for $4,400, which I am fairly confident we will get. The main item that you will see under that is on page 2 of the document under "All Other Expenditures — Purchase of books and periodicals, $2,500.'' In fact, that is to purchase, if we can arrange it, and we think we can, some special reports from StatsCan on media industries — readership, financial data and that kind of thing. It is not that we will rush out to Chapters and give them $2,500 for many volumes.
Senator Day: Would the $2,500 for purchase of books and periodicals allow us to purchase, for example, the transcripts or any documents generated from that recent McGill conference? If that were the case, those of us who could not make it might be able to review the material.
The Chairman: In theory, it would. In practice, I do not think they will be available by March 31. This is money to be spent in the next two weeks. You are aware of the timetable on which universities operate. Transcripts are becoming available for free on the Web. Our efficient staff will pull them out and we will have them circulated to everyone.
I do not know whether this will actually appear in the transcripts, but I should tell you there was a little exchange at that conference involving me. The editor of the Financial Post made, in some ways, a very entertaining presentation, alleging that the philosophy of the Kent commission, and therefore our philosophy, was that freedom of the press belonged to the government. I hope you will be glad to hear that I stood up to inform him that he was completely wrong — to inform everyone there that even in jest, we did not believe that freedom of the press belonged to the government, or ever would or should.
Senator LaPierre: Nor did Kent.
The Chairman: I actually said that, too.
Senator Graham: In Serbia it does.
The Chairman: But not in Canada.
Senator Graham: I can vouch for it from my personal weekend experience.
Senator Forrestall: To protect that freedom is also the responsibility of the press itself.
The Chairman: And of the Constitution.
We did not get that far, but I just thought I should tell you about that.
That would be the main expenditure under the $4,400 item.
Senator Day: Madam Chair, are you ready for a motion?
The Chairman: I am.
Senator Day: I move that the proposed budget of $4,400 for the balance of fiscal year 2003 be approved for presentation to the Internal Economy Committee.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Turning to the big budget, there is a change on page 3 under paragraph (B). We refer to travel to Halifax and Saint John. This morning, our New Brunswick representative on the steering committee, Senator Ringuette, made a strong representation that we should go to Moncton.
Senator Day: We always go to Moncton.
Senator Ringuette: There is nothing going on in Saint John, so why should we go there?
Senator LaPierre: I think Senator Ringuette is right; there is nothing going on in Saint John.
Senator Day: First, I would be very disappointed if we did not visit Saint John. If you want to visit Moncton as well, that is fine. However, every federal initiative goes to Moncton. Saint John and Fredericton get visits from senators very infrequently.
The Chairman: Senator Day, might I make a couple of observations?
Senator Day: Of course, Madam Chair.
The Chairman: Visiting Moncton would mean at least one visit to a minority francophone community. It would be the only one on our list. We have not listed Timmins or any others. It is not that far from Saint John, so people could actually be brought in, if necessary. That is my first observation.
My second observation is that, as you know, it is often the case — not always — that not all senators go on all trips. Thus, I believe it is quite likely that by the time we were actually ready to make this trip, we would be able to do both.
I think there is an appropriate case to be made, for the purposes of submitting a formal budget, for including a minority francophone community, and Moncton is the obvious one.
Senator Day: Moncton is a majority francophone community.
The Chairman: I am sorry; this is my Quebecer's bias. The province I live in has a francophone majority, including Montreal, since the municipal mergers. There are no majority anglo municipalities left in Quebec, to the best of my knowledge.
We have one province that has a francophone majority and nine provinces where there are minority francophone communities. It was in that sense that I said that Moncton was a minority francophone community.
We used to talk about francophone of Quebec. We do not talk about them any more, but the substitute label is so long, I fell back on the phrase "minority francophone.'' I hope you will forgive me. I suspect you want to respond, but Senator LaPierre has had his hand up for a while.
Senator LaPierre: I had hoped that since Saint John is so quaint, we might be able to go there, should we save money in the process. I think Moncton is a must, I agree with you.
However, I will also point out that around Vancouver, in Mallardville and places like that, there are newspapers and communications in the French-speaking communities. The same is true in Calgary, Regina and St. Boniface, of course. We will be able to access these people one way or another. We can bring them here, if we need to.
The Chairman: It is my hope that in Montreal we will hear from minority anglophones. I would hope that everywhere we go, members of official language minorities, and other minorities, notably Aboriginal people, will be appearing before us.
Senator LaPierre: Why do we not take a risk? Why do we not say Ottawa-Halifax-Saint John-Moncton? Let us take a risk. We will save somewhere else.
Senator Day: We do not have to take a plane from Saint John to Moncton.
The Chairman: We just have to hire a hall. It would add one day's worth of hotel and meal expenses.
I have a born diplomat at hand here who suggests that we say Ottawa-Halifax-New Brunswick.
I think I see a consensus building that we will go to Moncton and Saint John. This will cause some grief when people realize that there are two provinces and three territories that we are not planning to visit at all, but if it is the will of the committee, that is what we will do.
Senator Graham: Wait until you hear from the Cape Bretoners.
Senator Forrestall: I hesitate to remind distinguished senators of this, but Moncton has a rather unique position east of Quebec in that it represents the Acadian element in Nova Scotia. Thus, going to Moncton carries a slightly different understanding, certainly among the Acadian people.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly agree with that. We also have to understand that the University of Moncton offers a bachelor degree in journalism, and is probably the only French university outside Quebec that offers such a program. It would be interesting to have their perspective also.
In Moncton, we also have all the New Brunswick media, both francophone and anglophone. I rest my case.
The Chairman: I think you have won your case for Moncton. The counter-argument has been should we not re- insert Saint John? I think that has carried the day, Senator Ringuette.
Senator LaPierre: With a lot of these Acadian communities, we will use teleconferencing, will we not?
The Chairman: We will, yes.
Senator LaPierre: It is a beautiful system. When I was in Vancouver to speak to the students at one school, the talk was made available by teleconference to all the high schools in British Columbia. The system costs only $7,000 to install. Therefore, there are systems that we can use.
The Chairman: I have been entranced by the possibilities of teleconferencing, but remember also that, as a committee, we can bring witnesses in. Someone from Bathurst or Cape Breton can be brought in. Senator Graham, you do not have to tell me how important Cape Breton is.
Senator Graham: I was speaking in jest.
The Chairman: Also, more substantively, someone from Charlottetown or St. John's can be brought in. We will have to do our best to hear as broad a cross-section of Canadians as we can within our budgetary limits.
Are there any other questions about this vote?
Senator Graham: There is the question of St. John's. There will be a lot of noise made if we do not go there.
Senator Day: Our Atlantic caucus friends will not be happy.
Senator Graham: Yes, they will be very unhappy.
The Chairman: If you draw this to their attention.
Senator Graham: If you are doing something that involves the media, you do not have to bring it to their attention, it will be on their minds.
The Chairman: Senators, I have been heavily influenced, in working with the staff to draw this up, by the knowledge that there is a significant shortage of cash, at least on this round. We can put in supplementary requests later, if necessary. If our inquiry is extended beyond the end of the coming fiscal year, beyond March 31, 2004, then we must put in a whole new budget. For the time being, we all know that Internal Economy already has budgetary difficulties. All committees are being asked to be careful about the amount of money that they propose spending. It was in that context that, with a heavy heart, I proposed striking St. John's off the list. If it is the will of this committee to put it back, I will be glad to do so, because it is a long way from St. John's to Halifax. It is a different society a, different culture, different people, different imperatives. We are not going to Yukon or Nunavut or Northwest Territories, either.
Senator Graham: What I am doing, Chair, is alerting you to the sensitivities of the situation. If we visit, for instance, both Saint John and Moncton in New Brunswick, we will have a difficult time as it is over the fact that we are not going to Charlottetown and the North, but I really think that it would be a grave and serious error not to go to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chairman: Given the budgetary constraints that we discussed earlier, can I ask how other committee members feel about this?
Senator Day: I agree.
The Chairman: With Senator Graham?
Senator Day: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I agree.
Senator Forrestall: I hesitate to speak for Senator Johnson, in whose place I am fortunate to be today, but it would be my hope that the committee would be able to reach all of the territories and each of the provinces for the very reasons I had discussed. To avoid doing so is to reject out of hand this assembly's regard for the communication capacity of that region. The indigenous Black community and my community in Halifax have a very vibrant press. The number of poets, for example, is growing. Their appearance in publications and their capacity to speak in the media is growing. That is true right across our nation. Their capacity for dissemination is so much greater today than it was when last this committee dealt with this enormous undertaking to which you courageously committed yourselves. I am not speaking, as I said, for Senator Johnson or my colleagues, but I hope that, before the end of your hearings, you would find it rewarding to visit each province and the Northwest Territories, however they may be divided at the time.
The Chairman: All of your points are important.
Senator Forrestall: It is the provinces that are important.
The Chairman: You talked also about territories and minorities. These are all important points. Under the terms of reference voted yesterday in the Senate, we are faced with a deadline of March 31. If it becomes apparent, as we move forward, that this committee really needs more time to do some of these admirable things, to do the job properly, we will have to go back and seek an extension. I do not think I need to explain that any further, but for the time being, we must put in a budget referring to a study that we have been instructed to complete by March 31. In addition to this study, we also have some important transportation legislation coming before us. There are limits, not only in dollars but also in time, as to what we can do. Given those constraints, we have tried to put together as reasonable an estimate as we could. I simply do not see how we could also visit the North in addition to all the rest of the work we are trying to get done by the end of March next year. If I am wrong, and if it works out that way, that would be tremendous.
Senator Gustafson: If you look at the provinces of the West, they all have the same problem. You have included Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, and that is fine. That is one stop in each province. There will be problems in Kelowna that they do not have in Vancouver and problems in Saskatoon that they do not have in Regina. If we start travelling to that extent, we will likely not receive a budget. My suggestion would be to try and visit every province and work on bringing people in, using the telephone or whatever works best within that given province. Otherwise, it becomes almost impossible. That does not solve the problem, but I think it is realistic.
Senator LaPierre: It has always been my view that March 31, 2004, is an unrealistic deadline for the depth and breadth of the study that is being envisaged. Time in the spring and the summer will be needed, if for no other reason than to write the report and so on. This is an important document, and we must bear in mind that there are three others with which it should be compared, particularly that of the Davey commission. There is also the Kent commission and the one by O'Leary, back in antiquity. I am sympathetic to the idea, and I always thought that we would, of visiting every province at least and also the North.
The North tends to be a forgotten place, but it represents an astonishing amount of activity in various forms of media that we have decided to look at. It is the only way that these people communicate with each other, and they have an inordinate amount of trouble in doing so. I was able to raise $25,000 or $50,000 to get kids moved around. It takes three hours to download a page 25 kilometres north of Whitehorse. Therefore, we must do this. That is the first point.
The second point is that when we issue the press release announcing this — and it would be foolish not to — we should say at the beginning that we intend to make every effort to visit every province and the North. It probably will have to be Yellowknife, I suppose.
Third, it seems to me that we do not all have to travel. At the end of the day, some of us will not be able to go to all of these places because there will be other demands on our time. Furthermore, some people will have to stay here to work on this astonishing railway material that will come down the pike sooner than we think, before March 31, 2004. It may be necessary to create two interchangeable teams so that everyone has experience with both matters. We will have to arrange our work accordingly.
The point is that we will save money on the expenses of 20 individuals, and therefore, that money can be used to replenish the empty places.
As you know, I firmly believe that you must take risks to get anywhere, and that is one for us to take, but I do not think that we will, at the end of the day, have a deficit.
The Chairman: Senator LaPierre, of course you are right. We will almost certainly save money on travel. Unfortunately, we are bound at this stage of our work by a couple of Senate rules.
First, the only mandate we have takes us to March 31 next year. If we want to go beyond that, we will have to get further authorization from the Senate. I am sure that if we were to demonstrate that it is in the public interest for us to do so, the Senate would agree. However, at the moment, we do not have that mandate. We have to submit a budget that will attempt to do as good a study as we can within a year.
The second point by which we are bound, even though in practice it frequently is not realistic, is that when you budget for travel within Canada, you must budget for every senator to go on the trip. In practice, it is often the case that not every senator does, so money is saved and is available to be put to good use elsewhere. Does that meet your point?
Senator LaPierre: I understand these matters, but as you know, I am not guided by rules in my thinking.
The Chairman: I have to be.
Senator Graham: I have been reflecting on this carefully. We must visit every province and take risks. If we announced that we were going to distant places and did not include Newfoundland, Labrador and Prince Edward Island, we would be in serious trouble.
The Chairman: I think we had agreed that we would include St. John's. I thought I saw consensus building there. We have added two cities. We do not have a dollar figure for that.
Mr. Till Heyde, Clerk to the Committee: For St. John's, the additional cost, if I remember correctly, was about $30,000 to $40,000, and the committee may wish to give the chair or deputy chair the authority to finalize the figure in the budget application.
The Chairman: Do you wish to give us that authority? We are assuming that a trip to St. John's will cost in the order of an additional $30,000 or $40,000.
We may be able to manage the trip to Saint John without serious impact here. However, for the purposes of getting this to Internal Economy, I wonder if I could ask you to approve this budget, giving the chair and vice-chair the authority to insert a sum in the order of $30,000 or $40,000 — not more than $50,000 — for a trip to St. John's. Can we have that? The reason is we need to get a document to Internal Economy as fast as possible.
Senator Graham: Well, I honestly believe that in doing a study on the mass media, you should include all the provinces and territories.
The Chairman: Are you arguing now for Prince Edward Island?
Senator Graham: Yes, I am.
The Chairman: Can I have senators' views on Prince Edward Island?
Senator Day: I think Senator Graham is correct. We must visit St. John's, Newfoundland, and in looking at the $4,600 to send two people to Toronto, I think that that is much less important, politically, for this kind of study than visiting each of the provinces. My inclination would be to drop (D) to save money. If you want to save money, there is $5,000. If we visit St. John's at the same time as Halifax, it will not cost as much as going from Ottawa. My guess is we can do it for quite a bit less.
The Chairman: We budgeted initially to go to St. John's. That is why we are fairly confident of the numbers we are discussing here.
Senator Graham: I would suggest that if we are going to Moncton — we should go to Moncton for the reasons that Senator Ringuette gave — that staff look at the possibility of busing from Moncton to Charlottetown instead of flying there. With the new fixed link, we could do it in a day.
The Chairman: Senator Graham, because we have to do this in one trip, at the moment we are talking of St. John's, Halifax, Saint John, Moncton and Charlottetown in five days, in a working week. I am not entirely certain, given transportation in the Atlantic provinces, that we can get all this done.
I wonder if I could ask the committee to give an instruction to the steering committee to make every effort to include a visit to Prince Edward Island, but not a firm budgetary commitment to do so.
Senator Ringuette: For the purposes of budgeting, do we have to identify the specific locations? Or can we say that, for the purpose of public hearings, we will be visiting all the Western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces?
The Chairman: I had suggested something like that earlier. At that point, the committee was not particularly interested, but I think that that is a very good suggestion. Instead of setting out the specific cities, we say that we will be visiting the Western provinces, Central Canada — Ontario and Quebec — and the Atlantic provinces, and we will govern our affairs accordingly.
I must tell you that when I go to Internal Economy for the private meetings, the committee will want as much detail as possible. I will explain to them exactly what we have in mind, exactly what our constraints and our objectives are.
Senator LaPierre: What about the North?
The Chairman: Senator LaPierre, I really do not see how we can get to the North unless we get an extension of our mandate. At the moment, we do not have an extension, although we can go back and ask for one.
Senator Graham: The extension of a mandate is a very common practice around here, and has been in the past. If there is evidence that the committee is doing essential and very good work, there will not be any difficulty in getting an extension. Therefore, I suggest you move ahead with the timelines you have and make your announcement, or whatever you have to put before the Internal Economy Committee, general rather than specific.
The Chairman: Senators, have I then seized the sense of this meeting when I say that we will remove the travel to the conference in Toronto?
Senator Graham: We will remove the registration fees as well.
Senator Day: That is another $2,000.
The Chairman: The conference is gone.
Senator LaPierre: I have a point.
The Chairman: Please let me finish first.
We will remove the conference in Toronto. We will re-label our travel plans so that they refer to provinces and regions rather than to specific cities, but I will, in discussions with Internal Economy, explain to them how we got those numbers, what they represent and what our plans are.
Senator Graham: Yes.
The Chairman: We will increase the budget for travel to the Atlantic provinces by an amount that the vice-chair and I will determine within the next few hours, but not to exceed $50,000. Could I have a motion to that effect?
Senator LaPierre: So that I am clear, what did we do with the North? Will we forget it?
The Chairman: We will not forget the North, Senator LaPierre. We will find a way.
Senator LaPierre: I do not mind the association of journalists.
The Chairman: You will be there anyway.
Senator LaPierre: Yes I will, and other people will probably go anyway. Thank you.
Senator Day: I do not mind the idea of it. I am trying to find money so that we can participate. I think politically it is much more important to go to the provinces than to a conference.
The Chairman: To be blunt, any senator who wishes to go can use one of his or her travel points.
Senator Day: I just wanted it on the report that I did not object to this association in any way.
Senator LaPierre: I will so move.
The Chairman: It is so moved by Senator LaPierre. Senator Gustafson and Senator Graham are in agreement. Everyone is in agreement. May I have those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Those opposed?
Carried. That was the vote on the amendment to the budget. Will someone propose the adoption of the budget?
Senator Day: I thought we were adopting it as amended.
The Chairman: If everyone agrees that we adopted it as amended, I will assume that that was a motion and that it carried.
Senator Day: Whatever you need, we agree.
The Chairman: We will now have discussions on future business of the committee. We will go in camera.
The committee continued in camera.