I'll translate it.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mandate.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mandate.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
If we confine ourselves to the notion of reviewing and commenting, then that excludes any kind of positive suggestions.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
In any event, Mr. Kotto, you have to understand that the government is free to establish the terms of reference it wants. The committee, for its part, is also free to make comments and to propose amendments. If I were seated opposite, I would be hard pressed to agree to allow the committee to amend the terms of reference of an entity that the government is about to set up. However, I would gladly agree to let the committee make comments and propose amendments, as would appear to be the case.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I have no objections to proposing an amendment. The French version would read as follows:
“and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and comment and to offer modifications to the terms of reference”. So it would be “offer modifications to the terms of reference”.
The English version, on the other hand, would state the following:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and offer modifications to the terms of reference of the CBC-SRC mandate prior to the commencement of the review.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to get bogged down in terminology. I fully accept Mr. Bélanger's amendment. I think it's helpful; it's going to move us forward.
I had referenced the terms “independent task force”. I think there was some agreement that we don't know exactly what form that's going to take; it may not be an independent task force. I noticed Ms. Dhalla referred to “review process”. Is there any objection to replacing “independent task force” with the words “review process”? A review process is broader; independent task force is very specific. We may hire consultants, right? That wouldn't be a task force.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
There are no flowers in this carpet to trip over. We have to be careful here.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The second thing, Mr. Chair, is that in the second line we see reference to “compromising herself” in the review of the budget, translated directly from the French. Is that what it means?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
“Committing”, all right. Do we have that revision in the motion?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
My concern about changing Mr. Kotto's motion too much is that it was a heritage committee focus in the 38th Parliament. We asked CBC to report back to us on their plan for regional broadcast. We never really did come up with a satisfactory answer. We asked CBC to bring forward issues on domestic drama content. This committee has established a clear stake in CBC reviews, because we've been carrying them out. We were reviewing Mr. Rabinovitch's mandate; we brought him forward. So we are part of a CBC review, however it's structured.
My concern with changing this too much is that there might be wild speculation in the media. But I have no reason not to believe that wild speculation at this point because I haven't heard how this, whether it's a review or an independent task force, is going to be mandated. We have to be able to meet the people who are going to do the work, whether it's a committee or a group, and there's no reference to that. If there are three people being chosen—or five, ten, or fifteen—why are they being chosen when it has been an area of special interest to this committee and an area of this committee's expertise?
I'm wary about moving too far from Mr. Kotto's motion. At the very least, I'd say that regarding input into the terms of reference, we have input into the membership of this review team, or at least have the chance to cross-examine or meet them.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
To be crystal clear, I am manufacturing a “for instance” here. This is not a statement about anything. I manufacture the “for instance” that the minister, for reasons best known to herself, chooses a highly qualified individual to do this review. During the course of the review, the individual intends to hire experts on particular aspects of the review. Are you suggesting that after interviewing this one individual, before he or she could hire these experts, they would have to be referred back? This is what I'm referring to as micromanagement.
For all the reasons that Mr. Angus just stated in terms of the expertise, the background, certainly the desire to move forward and do what is in the best interest of Canadians, this committee has a responsibility, and the minister wants that responsibility to be carried out by this committee. I suggest that Mr. Bélanger's motion accomplishes that without getting into the micromanagement.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Angus' remarks are relevant. Without minimizing Mr. Bélanger's sub-amendment, I wish to remind members once again that the invitation implicitly extended to us as committee members when Ms. Oda's motion was tabled and unanimously adopted during the 38th Parliament was made very openly.
At the time, we felt that we were working together, as we have always done. The Chair was also a member of that committee. Without wanting to be paranoid—and it's not because one is paranoid that things don't happen—I believe that everyone is fundamentally affected by the government's decision to set up an independent body or task force to review the CBC's mandate.
Therefore, no one, be it the government or the opposition, should be excluded from this democratic exercise. I repeat, the CBC is not a private entity, but rather a public broadcaster. Therefore, if there's even a possibility that somewhere down the road, its mandate will change, we have a duty, as elected officials, to take constructive action from the very outset of the review process.
This is what prompted me to move this motion. I have absolutely no desire to be excluded at any time from the various stages of this review of the CBC's mandate.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. We've had quite a bit of discussion on this issue. Maybe it's a good thing we didn't have a witness here today, because we wouldn't have had enough time to debate this very important issue.
Before us we have a subamendment, so we do the subamendment first?
And what about the other amendment here? Oh, that was agreed to.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
For clarity, Mr. Chair, I wonder if it would be simpler if I simply withdrew my amendment and we used Mr. Bélanger's amendment as the amendment.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Then we will vote on the amendment by Mr. Bélanger.
The motion would read:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage ask the Minister of Heritage, before committing herself in the review of the SRC-CBC 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 Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and comment and offer modifications to the terms of reference of the CBC-SRC mandate review prior to the commencement of the review.