Canadian Heritage Committee on May 16th, 2006

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

Well, however.... Then at the end of the day we get to see the report before it goes to the public. That is the same as pretty much any parliamentarian gets at the end of the day.

I would suggest that Mr. Kotto's motion speaks to the need for when the terms of reference are being drawn up. I don't think we're talking about eight to ten hours a day for weeks to draw up terms of reference. We want to be there when the terms of reference are drawn up so that we can talk about them. Do they fit the needs? Do they respond to the issues our citizens need to have addressed?

When the team is chosen, certainly I want to be at the table to talk to them. How do we know what their criteria for choice are? Do we even know why the minister chose them? We need to have a say at that point.

This isn't micromanaging; this is so that, at each step of the way before they go off to do their work, we can go back and say to our citizens, yes, this is an open and transparent process. If it takes a little bit of time to do that, I think the public is certainly going to want us to be sure we take that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

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

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I just have a quick point before we go to Mr. Kotto.

We talk about the collective knowledge we have here based on the past, in you, sir, and in Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Kotto, Mr. Angus, and me over the past while. I think that could be a positive input to the terms of reference when the task force is set up.

I understand your concern about getting into the machinations each and every day of what this committee or this task force will do. It is certainly not my intent—I can only speak for myself at this point.

The terms of reference by which the task force gets started could certainly be something that is helped by the collective knowledge we have—and that is a compliment to us all—and we can provide it to the task force before it gets started. It could take a little bit of extra time, but as Charlie pointed out, not to the point where it's going to affect my position as a member of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Would it help matters, Mr. Abbott, if we set a limit on how much time we would spend looking at the terms of reference, so that we don't get bogged down and so that the process can move forward expeditiously?

I agree; if we have five or six meetings on the terms of reference, this thing will never get off the ground, and that doesn't serve anyone's interest. But if we gave ourselves a time limit, maybe that would allay any concerns members opposite might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Given the fact that I wasn't here in the 38th Parliament, I have a question for Mr. Kotto. He made reference to establishing the independent task force. Was it the intention—Mr. Abbott may be able to clarify this as well—that this task force be composed of members of this committee?

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

Presumably that's one of the five options. We don't know that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If we're talking about a motion here.... We don't even know what kind of independent task force we're referring to. It's a little difficult for me to make a decision on the motion. If we're talking about what's essentially either a subcommittee or a committee of the whole of this particular committee, that's one issue; if in fact we're talking about an independent task force consisting of community members, that puts a different flavour on it

Perhaps Mr. Kotto could clarify that for me before I make one other comment.

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

First of all, let me remind you that we're talking about Ms. Oda's motion, not mine.

My purpose in calling to mind this motion was simply to remind you that, despite what the media reported before Parliament reconvened, there had been some discussion about setting up a task force to examine and re-evaluate the mandate of the CBC-SRC with the help of the committee. Hence the reference to the seek the committee's advice. The rules governing this study would still need to be defined. I think we're at liberty to define all relevant rules.

The motion was recalled today because in light of certain media reports, we were concerned and thrown off balance, and left with the impression the minister was planning to set up a task force and completely exclude the committee from this democratic exercise. The CBC is a public, not private, broadcasting network. As such, the committee cannot be kept in the dark about its operations. We are the people's elected representatives and we are entitled to review the corporation's activities, given that the CBC-SRC reports to the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are entitled to express our opinion and this motion is a reflection of that reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

I have three things, Mr. Chairman. The first is that we're dancing here because we haven't received the response from Mr. Abbott in terms of the willingness to have the committee review the terms of reference. So I would be prepared to move a subamendment, if I may.

First of all, in the motion in English, I believe there's a mistake, Mr. Chairman. I think we meant, if I may: “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage ask the Minister of Heritage”--I'm missing a “Minister” there--“before compromising herself in the review of the SRC-CBC budget...”. Should it be “mandate”? We have to make sure that the translation is accurate, because en français c'est le mandat.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You're right.

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

So we'll make sure we're talking about the same thing, and I thought we were talking about the mandate.

So to the motion that is before us, we're adding an amendment proposed, presume, by Mr. Abbott, to which I would propose a further subamendment as follows: delete everything after “advisement of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage” and replace it with the following: “and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and comment on the terms of reference of the CBC-SRC mandate review prior to the commencement of the review”.

The reason I'm not referring to the draft report--and that's my second point--is that if we've commented and had some input on the terms of reference, then I wouldn't want to be boxed in on the final report by having had a look at the draft report without being able to influence the changes in it. That's asking too much, I suspect, because if it's not our report, I wouldn't want to have that. I'd like to keep the liberty of throwing rocks at the final product, if I want to.

The third thing is that I'm going to take you up, Mr. Abbott, on your offer. If your minister wishes to appoint me to the review panel, or whatever is going to be structured for CBC/Radio-Canada, I'm prepared to accept that,because I believe the CBC is an important enough institution in the firmament of culture in Canada that it is worth our time, as parliamentarians. And if it requires eight hours a day for a period of time, so be it. I'm prepared to step up to the plate, as you were kindly looking for volunteers. So please register my name at the top of your list of volunteers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Dhalla.

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

Simply to build upon what's been said by some of the other colleagues here, I think in terms of actually having a defined composition, the rules, who's going to make up the committee and also the procedure that will be entailed, are of paramount importance. The CBC holds a very near and dear place to many Canadians across this country. I think as parliamentarians, and especially as parliamentarians on this committee, we have a responsibility to our constituents and to other Canadians to ensure that the review that is carried out does have accountability and transparency, and also is a fair review. I think to comment on an end product when you haven't been involved from the beginning wouldn't do the report justice and wouldn't do the whole review process in itself any type of justice.

I don't think you were able to comment on what the five options are that the minister is exploring, so perhaps we as a committee could also look at bringing the minister to our committee and having her elaborate on what her intentions are in regard to those five options, and the direction in which she hopes to see the review proceed.

I think it's important for this committee to be involved right at the initial stages, especially in terms of composition, in terms of mandate, and also in terms of defining the rules as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott, go ahead, please.

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

I think Mr. Bélanger has something really workable there, and I'm looking forward to hearing the precise wording again.

Just before I do, perhaps I could inform Mr. Kotto that the various reports that were circulating in the media contained very creative fabrications--highly creative fabrications. What the minister was or wasn't going to do never left her lips; what I was or wasn't going to do, or be involved in or not be involved in never left my lips. During that particular week, as a matter of fact, I was tied up at an international conference with 20 different countries at Whistler, B.C., and I told my staff that I was not interested in commenting on anything to do with the CBC review. People who read through the various news reports were quite shocked to hear that I was going to do this, and I was going to do that, and I was going to trash the CBC, which I would never do. All of these things that were in the press were some of the most highly creative fabrications of so-called news that I have ever seen in my entire life.

We're starting where we're starting.

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

Starting in The Post?

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

They were absolutely amazing.

What I'm saying is, going back to what I mentioned before, we as a committee, and certainly I as a parliamentary secretary hoping to be a positive contributor to this committee, have always had differences of opinion and shared different perspectives and even suggested we go in different directions, but we are trying to do so constructively on behalf of all Canadians and with goodwill.

With that in mind, I wonder if I could hear the wording of Mr. Bélanger's motion. I think what we would do is simply, as you've suggested, Mauril, delete this draft report business and go with your motion. Could you give us the wording again, please?

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

What you have in bold would read as follows: “that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and comment on the terms of reference of the CBC-SRC mandate review prior to the commencement of the review”.

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

I like that. That covers everything that has been raised on the other side, I think, does it not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to come to you second.

Mr. Kotto, go ahead, please.

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

With the consent of the mover of the amendment to the motion, I'd like to go with the amended motion. Could you possibly read the motion? I don't have the text here in front of me.