Canadian Heritage Committee on May 16th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I welcome everyone here today to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

First, I have to make the announcement that the witness we had asked to come today, Mr. Sirman, is unable to attend. He has said that he will attend the meeting on May 30, which is the Tuesday after the break.

At the last meeting we suggested that we would deal with Mr. Kotto's motions that were put forward to the committee. Everyone got a copy of those motions, and I would now like to deal with them.

Yes, sir.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to advise committee members that I'm withdrawing the follow up motions tabled last week with the clerk. This morning, my office received a call from Mr. Lahaie who advised me that it was best to wait for the motion to be worded more conventionally before proceeding. That's fine with me, and I hope my colleagues will agree to wait until they receive the amended motion at a later meeting. I'm referring here to motion number 4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

First of all, it is noted that motion 4 by Mr. Kotto is withdrawn. It states: “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage refer the Lincoln Report to the House for a response.”

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, may I just say how very disappointed I am to note that the prospective appointee to the position of Director of the Canada Council is not here today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister had impressed upon us the urgency of dealing with this matter today, given that the position was vacant.

Moreover, at the last meeting, we discussed at considerable length the fact that we would be holding a very limited number of meetings before the summer adjournment—six in all, if I'm not mistaken. The fact that this person isn't here today is a deep disappointment to me. It shows a lack of respect. I'm an understanding person, but we've not be informed of the reasons for this absence. We were simply told that this person was unavailable. I find it rather odd that a person vying for this position could not find the time to meet with us today, as scheduled.

I just wanted to state my position for the record. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

As I recall, we did that motion on Thursday. He was informed on Friday, asked to come on Tuesday, and was unable to make that arrangement. I don't know if we can read a whole lot into that, other than the fact that it was exceptionally short notice and he could not make the arrangement.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be quite frank.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that this person has nonetheless visited the Canada Council offices and met with staff members. If he can find the time to meet with Canada Council employees, then perhaps he can also find the time to meet with committee members who must endorse his appointment. If members of the party opposite don't like it, too bad for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That might be one of the first questions we can ask the witness when he comes to the next meeting. I'm quite sure his reasons are valid. I couldn't go and twist his arm to have him here. I was only notified today that he wouldn't be able to attend. If I had known yesterday, I probably would have sent a note to every one of you.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Further to that, Mr. Chair, my concern has been that we don't have much time in this spring session. I would like to feel comfortable that at each meeting we have we are getting the most work done possible. I'm feeling a little at a loss now because if we had had a sense that he wasn't coming we would have probably planned other things to do. We certainly don't want to be sitting here scrambling to fill gaps, because we all agree that there are lots of issues.

I don't know what we can do about this in future, but I think particularly in the spring session, since we have so few meetings, we are going to have to have an order of business that we can follow and that we feel we can come prepared to discuss, because otherwise we're losing really valuable time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

With that said, we'll go ahead on Mr. Kotto's motions.

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage ask the Minister of Heritage, before committing herself in the review of the CBC-SRC mandate, to comply with the motion that she herself had adopted during the 38th parliament, the last paragraph of which reads: “That the government, when establishing this independent task force, do so under the advisement of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and that the membership reflect that of this committee;” and that the Chair report this motion to the House of Commons.

My objective in moving this motion was to call to mind the importance of the motion introduced by Ms. Oda during the 38th Parliament, given that we had agreed the mandate of the CBC-SRC was open to debate. The lock-out had just ended and the point had been made that people living in the regions did not have ready access to news and information. We also took this opportunity to discuss programming content, which more closely resembled that of private television networks than that of a public broadcaster. In short, the subject-matter proved very interesting to us.

In light of media reports, we got the impression that it had decided to analyze the facts and question people about the CBC's mandate, leaving our committee to play a minor role in this whole affair. Therefore, I'm pleased to hear Mr. Abbott say that this is not at all the case. Consequently, I urge all members of the committee to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I would like to report that I've had a discussion with the minister, and she is of the same mind now as the minister as she was when she was the critic. There is no change in her position. She did make a suggestion that I would like to propose as an amendment. I think it will, if anything, enhance or upgrade Mr. Kotto's recommendation.

Looking at the phrase “and that the membership reflect that of this committee” as being somewhat of a micromanagement of the establishment of the committee, I can report to you, as I did the other day, that she has approximately, as I understand it, five options at her disposal that she's considering. Considering that, she wants to make it as transparent and thorough a review as possible, but at the same time, she wants to try to make sure there isn't any unnecessary delay. I know she would like to be doing it pretty well on a full-time basis. The phrase “the membership reflect that of this committee”, which is somewhat micromanaging, really isn't of any great value.

She suggested dropping that and adding in.... I'm sorry, I just have one copy, but let me read this, please: “...and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report prior to the consideration of the Minister”, which I think is what people on this committee want.

Having been through the creation of this great red brick--and I know Mr. Scarpaleggia will concur.... I think it was at least a year and a half, and we went around and around, and we then ended up going through quite a drafting and so on and so forth. The involvement I think this committee wants, and which I'm sure all members of the Conservative Party want, is to be afforded a real opportunity to review and comment on the draft that would be in public prior to her actual consideration of the report.

It's offered in the spirit of upgrading this and in the spirit that this is a continuation of where she was coming from as the critic, making sure there is an open, transparent, and thorough review of the mandate of the CBC. She will be making detailed announcements before the House rises in June as to which of the options she has chosen. I would suggest that this is probably an upgrade of this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Is that in both official languages?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I have both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With all due respect, I don't exactly see that as a friendly amendment. When I read this, I see that the committee wants to have input on the terms of reference for this study and input on who is being invited to partake and take this study on. We should have the ability to make sure that all witnesses are heard, and then have the ability to vet the final document. To just see the final document and be able to comment on it I don't think is the same as what this motion is asking for, which is more involvement throughout the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go in the same direction, if you will. I can infer from the comments that Mr. Abbott has made that the minister has pretty well decided not to use the committee of the House to have the mandate of the CBC reviewed; otherwise, she wouldn't be concerned about the makeup of that committee. I respect the prerogative of a government to initiate reviews as it sees fit, but that's not the issue here.

If the minister is serious about involving the committee, I would have to go along with Mr. Angus and seek an amendment to what you're proposing, Mr. Abbott, that offers the committee an opportunity to review and comment on the terms of reference of whatever vehicle the minister chooses from the five options she's considering. If the government was serious about involving this committee, then the terms of reference of whatever mechanism is chosen to review the mandate of the CBC might be much more acceptable from where we're sitting.

To review the draft report in public is an interesting proposal, because even this committee doesn't review its draft reports in public. I was wondering if you could be a little more explicit as to what you have in mind there. If there is an offer to review a draft report and comment on it, I would presume that it should be in camera. The confidentiality of these reports, since they are only draft, should be respected, as we've respected the draft reports of this committee when they've been reviewed in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Do we have a response, Ms. Dhalla?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I want to build upon what I think Mauril said, and Charlie as well. I think it's important for the members of this committee to be involved in the actual process.

You mentioned that there are five options the minister is looking at. If you have knowledge of what those five options are, I think it would perhaps be of great interest to all of the members. But if we look at a draft report upon its end stage, I don't know what changes could be made at that particular point. I myself would like the committee to be involved and engaged in ensuring that the terms of reference are defined and also to make contributions as to the dynamics and the makeup and perhaps the mandate of what that review process is going to entail.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

These are all valid questions. I'm looking forward to my motion coming back so that I can read it, and we'll have a quick debate on that aspect of it.

The point I would like to make, and the reason I brought this big red brick, is that if we truly want to have a mandate review and have it in a timely manner, and if we as parliamentarians are prepared to live in Ottawa and work on the mandate review eight to ten hours a day from now until it's complete, then please volunteer. I myself happen to be a member of Parliament for a constituency with 100,000 people and I have other things that I'm involved in.

In order to do this particular review, we met well over and above the normal scheduling for the committee—well over and above, and we did it in a couple of weeks off as well—and it still took a year and a half.

This is not a rhetorical question. Have we really thought this thing through? Mr. Angus, would you like to take time out from being a member of Parliament to become a member of a committee that is reviewing the CBC mandate on a full-time basis? If so, then fine; I rather think not. Certainly I wouldn't be prepared to be.

Secondly, with respect to the concern about setting the terms of reference and the process at the beginning, who is going to be on the committee setting the terms of reference?

I'm anxiously waiting for the motion to come back, because I would like to be able to read from the motion.

The intent of the motion is not to say, here is the final draft. That is not the intent as expressed to me by the minister at all. I hope you would be able to take my words totally at face value and understand that in the position of being the minister she's taking exactly the same position as he took as the critic and is saying there is a place for this committee, absolutely. There has to be a place for this committee in this process. If, at the time it's reported to this committee, the committee says the terms of reference suck, or this was bad, or that person shouldn't have been there—whatever the case may be—then fine, that's a process. What we're trying to do is to expedite it in the most transparent, accountable way possible. That's the entire process.

One of the things Mr. Schellenberger and I have had a discussion on—and between Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Scarpaleggia as an assistant to Clifford Lincoln, and myself have—is a collective and corporate memory that this committee has always worked in cooperation. Although we may have different goals and objectives and may see the world differently, nonetheless we have had a tremendous amount of respect in moving forward.

As I say, the motion that has been proposed by the minister is proposed with that in mind and with the attitude of getting on with the job, instead of waiting into the next Parliament after the next election before we have the mandate review in our hands. To have the mandate review as expeditiously as possible is the objective here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm glad to know he's concerned about where we're going in our job as members of Parliament. I'm not taking time out from my job; I'm doing my job as a member of Parliament. My job is to ensure that if a mandate review of CBC is taking place it's done in the interests of all Canadians. If that means taking extra time, well, yes.

I guess what I'm trying to get my head around is that we're being offered a proposal where the minister picks three people—we don't know who they are or how they're going to be chosen—

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

It's three, five, seven, or nine. I don't know the numbers.