Canadian Heritage Committee on May 8th, 2007

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll have Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'm a little curious about a reference to Radio-Canada radio getting a certain market share. You were recognizing, or noting, that there was a measurable outcome you could judge their performance against.

Given the fact that the exercise is about CBC's performance against its mandate as a public crown, how do you determine an appropriate strategy for a crown to measure it against? In other words....

[Sheila Fraser]

Can I just interrupt, Mr. Chair?

We do not measure. We do not assess the corporation against its mandate. We are assessing whether they have the systems and practices in place to demonstrate, essentially, efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. We expect the crown corporation itself to define how it views its public policy role and what its objectives are, to set measures for those, and to measure itself in its own performance.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

So you're silent on the question of whether the strategy is the right strategy. You're simply interested in whether they have systems in place to measure their performance against it.

[Sheila Fraser]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The last questioner is Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'll get back to the performance indicators as perhaps the most obvious and most important of the criticisms your report contained. Do you follow up on whether CBC is actually addressing the concerns you've raised? I mean, do you follow up before the next five-year review?

It's been a year and a half, at least, since your report was issued. By now we'd have some idea of whether CBC is actually addressing those concerns. As individual members of this committee, we probably don't have the same expertise you have to determine that. Do you conduct a follow-up?

[Sheila Fraser]

We do. In addition to special examinations of crown corporations, of course, we do the financial audit each and every year. There is some discussion with the crown corporation about what they're doing and whether they are meeting the action plan they set out.

In the case of the CBC and others, we also look to what measures they have in place. Have they done an action plan? In this case, they did a very detailed action plan. I think it was some 30 pages or more. We look at the process they have internally to ensure that the action plan is meeting its targets.

CBC has involved their internal audit in tracking this. They also have reports to the audit committee, which also follows that. So that gives us some assurance that the corporation is taking this seriously and is working on it.

When we go back—and a year and a half is still fairly early for some of these recommendations, especially performance measurement and systems—we will look, when we do our financial audit, just to make sure things seem to be progressing as planned. We don't go back in, though, and do a re-audit until we go back for the next special examination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that, and thank you for your answers to the many questions from around the table this morning.

We'll take a short recess, and then we'll come back to our business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I call the meeting back to order.

As we go forward, there was notice of motion by Maka Kotto. He has two motions.

Would you please read the first motion, Mr. Kotto?

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

Mr. Chair, the first motion reads as follows:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), that the Committee on Canadian Heritage, through its chair, call on the Minister of Canadian Heritage in writing and as soon as possible, in the interest of accuracy, honesty and transparency in the management of public funds, to present to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage the draft of the new support program for exhibitions and festivals, including the criteria for selecting events and funding arrangements, and to make this information available as soon as possible so as to allow the Committee to make an informed decision on the program in the interest of Quebec and Canadian organizations that may qualify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Debate?

Would you like to explain your motion further, please?

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

Okay. Mr. Chair, I should remind the committee members that this motion was tabled after we received a request from the heritage minister to provide examples of local activities in our ridings that, in our opinion, should receive federal funding. She also asked us to say whether each one was an artistic activity or an activity celebrating heritage. This request was made to us one week after members of her own caucus received it, according to some sources. Only after this came to light did she feel obligated to invite us to participate.

Since the request did not specify the program criteria or standards, I would like to ask her to provide a draft of the program to the committee, through you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the content of the motion in just a second, but before I do, I want to propose an amendment to the end of the motion: “...to make an informed decision on the program in the interest of Quebec and Canadian organizations that may qualify.” I would like to delete “Quebec” and “Canadian”; that is to say, “...to make an informed decision on the program in the interest of organizations that may qualify.”

I take Mr. Kotto as being an honourable gentleman. I'm sure it wasn't intended on his part, but nonetheless to set the precedent of segregating Quebec and Canadian I think is a very, very dangerous precedent. I am moving this motion and appealing to my federalist colleagues that they would support me in this motion.

Mr. Chair, of course it's up to you how you conduct your meeting, but after we've dealt with that amendment, then I would like to speak to the main motion as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Debate on the amendment?

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Just to be clear, all we're doing is removing the reference: “in the interest of Canadian organizations that may qualify.”

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

“Quebec and Canadian”.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The outcome would be simply to eliminate “Quebec and”. It would include all Canadian organizations.

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

Yes, it would include all...it's not “or all Canadian”. I don't think that's really necessary, because it's only Canadian organizations that would qualify in any event.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

So it's “Quebec and Canadian”, okay.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Any other debate?

Mr. Kotto.

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

As my literature professor would say, we are nitpicking. If we want to be logical, the reality is that there is no reason to exclude the words “Quebec” and “Canadian”. I do not see how this is relevant. I am not convinced that what my honourable colleague is doing is relevant.