Canadian Heritage Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to Mr. Fast, and then we're down to Mr. Angus.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, the reason I wanted to ask for a point of order was simply that we're dealing with a motion that's on the floor, and the honourable member is addressing a totally different situation. It's really inappropriate.

I could respond to that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Oh, do you still have a question?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Oh, absolutely.

You didn't accept my point of order, Mr. Chair, so I just wanted to lay that on the record.

I will say this, though. I agree with Mr. Bélanger. He's entirely consistent with the position he took at our last meeting, when Mr. Sirman was here to be examined as the new director appointee for the Canada Council for the Arts.

Mr. Bélanger in fact asked Mr. Sirman that very question: are you prepared to defend the autonomy of your crown corporation? In fact, he want so far as to ask, are you prepared to resign if there's interference? Of course, we didn't get an answer, quite appropriately.

In this case, Mr. Bélanger is consistent. I agree with him, crown corporations are supposed to have a great degree of independence from the government. There are two functions that the government performs. One is the appointments to the board; the second is to approve budgets. Beyond that, there should be a significant degree of autonomy. For us now to interfere in what are day-to-day management issues is inappropriate. I certainly intend to vote against the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, then Mr. Kotto.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully recognize the issues being brought up here, and I am more than willing to put on the record that I believe it is a slippery slope when politicians intervene in decisions.

I believe there's an issue here that's unique. Perhaps it's a question of language, then, and how we phrase it. The decision to shut the design team down means the end of in-house production at the major centre, in Toronto. It means that if the review is done and it comes back with a very different sense of where the mandate of CBC should go, we can't suddenly bring it back. It's lost.

My concern would be to try to find a way to ask the minister, perhaps, to seek assurances on this, because there is a major issue here. We are seeing the end of the ability of the CBC English network to do in-house production. It's gone because of this. It's gone because of the funding limits on CBC and the problems they've faced.

I would not normally have a position on other issues in terms of the management structure, but when CBC cut regional broadcasts across this country, Parliament felt it was an issue. Parliament asked for an intervention. Parliament agreed around this table that we wanted a strategy to address the fact that they had taken the decision to make those cuts, because we felt it wasn't in the national interest.

At this point, perhaps my colleague from the Bloc or someone would like to talk about some alternative language. I've thought about it a lot, and if we can find the language, I think we need to ask the minister to seek assurances just to wait and to let this review go through. Then CBC is more than able, and will have a clear mandate given by the government, to make that radical change.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had reservations as well. The Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State provides at page 63 that:

[...] neither the minister nor the minister's staff shall intervene in the day-to-day activities of the corporation.

And on page 9, it states:

A Minister's degree of control and responsibility for a non-departmental body is defined in the Act that establishes that body. While a Minister's relationship with a non-departmental body is at arm's length, the Minister shall provide the organization with general guidance on the government's objectives and expectations.

That has inspired me to write an amendment which I'm going to introduce and which reads as follows:

That the committee should call on the Minister of Heritage to intervene in the scheduled layoffs and closure of the English-language design team at CBC Toronto, and that she should also require that this decision and other significant structural decisions be deferred until the renewed mandate of the CBC is established following the full review that is expected to take place this fall.

I believe that, with this kind of proposal, we could find grounds for agreement, without getting all worked up.

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

Mr. Kotto, I'm going to ask you a question.

I'd be much more comfortable if the motion asked that the committee invite the minister to share with the management of the CBC/Radio-Canada the committee's concerns about...

However, to ask the committee to invite the minister to seek assurances or some certainty is to ask her to intervene. I don't want to split hairs here either, but it seems to me that could be interpreted as ministerial intervention. I don't believe we should put any minister in that kind of situation.

The motion could state instead that the committee calls on the minister to share with senior management — which is perfectly legitimate — committee members' concerns about certain decisions, and asks that the CBC consider deferring this decision until after a review of its mandate. That kind of motion would suit me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin, please.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I just need some clarification.

Mr. Bélanger, I was agreeing, and then I was just curious as to the exact wording you had suggested. I'm very concerned. Maybe we can talk about that. I don't want to split hairs, because obviously this is an important issue. I actually met with some representatives from the Canadian Media Guild. I understand this is a very important issue, and I think all Canadians should have their say on this issue.

I am concerned, however, that if we do ask the minister to intervene in any way, shape, or form, if we ask that there be action taken by the minister on behalf of this committee, we probably will have gone too far.

I do think it's very important that we put on the record our beliefs about this situation here in this committee. If individuals from this committee feel it is important, I think we should lobby from our position as members of Parliament. I don't know if we should be asking the minister to intervene in any way, shape, or form. If we ask for assurances or whatever, I think it's all the same. It's just semantics, and we're really asking for the minister to do something.

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

In English, what I was saying was that the committee call on the minister to share with CBC management the concerns of the members of the heritage committee. That is perfectly legitimate, because the minister is the liaison between Parliament and the CBC. For her to share concerns of the committee is a perfectly legitimate thing, and it is not an intervention. In that sense, I'd be comfortable. To ask the minister to seek assurances--that's almost asking her to intervene, and I think we should be careful about that.

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

Without wanting to justify myself in Mr. Bélanger's opinion, I have moved this amendment which has been toned down from the original version first because CBC/Radio-Canada is no longer carrying out its mandate. The current structural changes will only worsen the situation. Once she realizes that its mandate is no longer being carried out, as the minister responsible for that Crown corporation, she can intervene and give her opinion. However, conciliatory as I am, I'm going to support Mr. Bélanger's proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're working out some details up here.

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

Can we put this forward? Then we can say whether I've made a dog with six legs here or whether something is actually workable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just one second, Mr. Angus.

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

It is that the committee should recommend the Minister of Heritage share with CBC management its concerns that the currently scheduled structural changes be held off until the review mandate of the CBC is established, following the full review that is expected to take place this fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Boucher.

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

In my view, the word “recommend” involves the minister too much. No one should feel uncomfortable in this situation. Action has to be taken, of course, but recommending that the minister do something is still intervening.

I'd like to change the word “recommend” because recommending means intervening. We shouldn't get the impression this is interference.

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

We ask the minister to share our concerns—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I would just like to explain “recommend.” “Recommend” is a word used by parliamentary committees quite a bit. It suggests; it doesn't demand. It recommends. I have been advised by the clerk that it is a word used quite frequently in these committees.

Just a second now. I think Mr. Angus had his hand up again.

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

I was responding to that clarification. I feel the question is, is this what the committee feels is important? Do we feel this, yes or no? At least we have a clear sense we're not overextending our mandate. This is our right as a committee: to ask the minister to share that with the CBC.

So the question is, do we vote yes or no? I think it's fairly straightforward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get caught up in procedure, but there is one called “substitute motion”. I think it may be helpful, and if it's not helpful, I'll withdraw it, if I may.

The wording I suspect we may be looking for would be more along the lines of the following: that the committee ask the Minister of Heritage to share with CBC/SRC management its concerns vis-à-vis significant structural changes before the currently scheduled structural mandate review is completed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple of very serious principles that we have to be taking a look at here, and I'm going to offer a suggestion as to how members of this committee could fruitfully engage themselves in this issue if they wanted to.

First, I know that Mr. Bélanger and I, from time to time—perhaps more on my part than his—end up crossing swords. But the fact still is that I can't agree—and I'm not saying this in a barbed way at all—that the minister is the go-between between this committee and the CBC. I would suggest that this committee has every right in the world, if the committee should decide to do so, to write directly to the CBC. There's no reason to engage and potentially compromise the position of the minister, as she may or may not see it. That's suggestion number one.

Suggestion number two is that I think there is a more constructive way to do it. There are many of us—myself very much included—who would agree that anybody has to have a tremendous amount of respect for the position that the workers are in individually and collectively, and for the concerns of the union; we wouldn't be human if we didn't have that concern. Nonetheless, there is again the principle that it becomes interference from parliamentarians if a formal committee is interfering with what is supposed to be an arm's-length organization. The whole purpose of the CBC being an arm's-length organization is so that the government can determine what the corporation's mandate is, can provide the funds for them to do the job, and then it's up to the management on a day-to-day basis to do that job. If the management, at the end of the day, is doing an inadequate job, or whatever the case may be, then at that point the minister or the committee has every right to call them on the fact that they clearly are not carrying out their mandate.

I have a suggestion, and this is based on my own experience when the CBC was planning on shutting down The House. Some of you may recall that The House is on CBC radio from 9 to 10 o'clock every Saturday morning. I thought that closing it down was the stupidest idea in the world, because for the people in Canada who are concerned about politics, it is one heck of a vehicle. As a member of Parliament, I happen to have a title, but I chose to speak up individually; it had nothing to do with the committee. Well, I got a little bit of heck from one or two people in my party, but that's an aside. I just thought it was a crazy idea.

If the members of this committee want to be effective, if they were to campaign on it or to do whatever they wanted, this is a free democracy and we can do whatever we want—and it may well be effective. But again, if I may circle back to the question of passing a motion on the part of the committee, I would really quite insist, within whatever the motion is, or within this motion being portrayed to the CBC—should this be the decision of the committee—that I be counted and identified as not supporting the motion, because I think the committee is getting far outside of where it should be going.