Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This meeting draws to a close. I must thank our witnesses very much for appearing today.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

You said we'd go until a quarter to eleven.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Well, we can't go another full round. This is the schedule.

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

Mr. Chairman, you said at the start of the meeting that this would go to a quarter to eleven. I understand we can't do another full round, but we can start one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

In fairness, we never have before. We've always gone on even rounds.

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

Well, split it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, I'll go one quick question each, and we can't go.... I'm looking at my watch here. I have to turn around to look at the clock. I'm going to give two minutes, then, to each person.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I appreciate what Mr. Fast said about his support for the charter, but I think this goes beyond or above Mr. Fast, given the fact that the Prime Minister clearly articulated that he doesn't believe in the process that is represented by the court challenges program when he said, “Trust me, I don't intend to introduce laws that violate the Constitution.”

As a lawyer, Mr. Fast must understand that it isn't for the government to determine whether or not the Constitution is violated by its laws. That's for the court to decide. That's the whole purpose of a charter.

So notwithstanding his support for the charter, I think this is a bigger problem than Mr. Fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rather than a question, I have a comment to make.

I am very disappointed that the Court Challenges Program has been abolished for ideological reasons. Nonetheless, I agree with some of the ideas which have been shared. To a certain extent, we should have been able to meet with the program's managers and point out to them what was not working, or what could potentially cause a problem. That would have been one way of showing some degree of civility and decency.

I find it shameful that a program that has been so useful to women, linguistic minorities, and individuals who are in need, has been abolished. I will be inviting all BQ members to do what I will be doing in my riding, that is condemning the cavalier fashion in which this government has treated democracy in Canada, and those who were of service to those in need.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I think we've discussed most of the issues of relevance today.

I'm going to end on a perspective that I bring from my region. The francophone school boards were not given the right; they had to fight, and there were bitter fights for years about those rights.

In my region, both school boards represent a new level of leadership that has benefited all of our communities. I know personally the grandchildren and some of the grandparents who fought bitterly against the extension of the school system, who are now proudly watching their children being assimilated into the francophone system, because it creates leaders.

It's important to have a program to ensure that in other parts of Canada, our francophone communities are able to access the same rights, which we now have in northern Ontario.

Instead of talking about the negative aspects of rights, we need to see the value of what it means for the Canadian context when rights are fully realized and we start to move forward.

Thank you very much for coming today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to state again--and I appreciate Mr. Scott's comments--that Canada is very fortunate to have a Charter of Rights. We are held up around the world as a role model, and it's up to us to defend those rights. How we do that is usually and often up for discussion.

Mr. Scott did mention that the Prime Minister “doesn't believe in the process”. Those were his exact words.

If the process is flawed—as we and witnesses have certainly suggested—then it's not surprising that the Prime Minister wouldn't support the process. I don't believe this Prime Minister would ever support a process that is flawed. Why would he perpetuate that kind of a process and pour public moneys...?

You either cancel the program or fix it. But you're not going to carry on same old, same old—business as usual—doing things that are in essence flawed.

That's been our contention at this table. Cancelling the program was the right decision to make.

Perhaps in the future we'll come up with other ways of providing assistance to those who can't by any means access the courts to defend their charter rights.

But the program was flawed; many Canadians agreed with us.

I'll leave my comments at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

For the second time, I thank our witnesses so much for being here today and giving us their answers.

Thank you.

[Guy Matte]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate that this committee has taken the time to hear us.

All members of this committee seem to agree on the need for the program. This is comforting to us. I hope a similar program will be reinstated, despite the fact that the government has abolished one of the best programs to have ever been established, the Court Challenges Program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll have a two-minute break, because we have another committee coming in and have to vacate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could I have everyone's attention, please?

Fortunately or unfortunately, we have another committee following us, and we have one more piece of business to do. If everyone could take their places, we can be brief.

This is a motion put forward by Mr. Angus. We discussed it a little bit on Monday. The motion reads:

Due to the ongoing uncertainty of the future of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) as precipitated by recent announcements from Shaw Communications Inc. and Vidéotron Ltée that they will no longer live up to the terms of their license by withholding contributions to the fund, this committee will investigate the impacts of the CTF's potential elimination on the health of Canada's domestic television production and make recommendations to the House of Commons based on our findings.

You have heard the motion.

Would you like to speak to the motion, Mr. Angus? Be brief, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had held off on this motion, at the advice of Mr. Abbott, in that we were expecting a clear response from the minister. That was fully my sense of what would be coming out of the meeting with Vidéotron Ltée and Shaw.

However, given the position that's come out from Vidéotron Ltée and Shaw following the meeting with the minister, I am much more concerned about the situation in the CTF now. The message we are hearing from industry is: “It's dead. Done. Gone.” That's a direct quote.

The effects of that will be profound both for domestic television and for anything we look at on CBC. I am asking that we make it a priority to look at it immediately.

I think that within four sessions we can adequately address it. But given the crisis that we are in right now, I don't believe we can afford to wait on this. People are very concerned. I think it is up to us, as the heritage committee, to step into the breach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Abbott.

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

In keeping with your admonition, Mr. Chair, I will be very brief.

The only caveat is that we have to give some thought to what this does to our CBC review and the scheduling, if we therefore instruct the clerk to do some rescheduling with respect to the CBC review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I've been advised by the clerk that we could work it in. Some of the witnesses who are coming forth on the CBC issue or public broadcasting are still getting their briefs together. We could look into it very quickly. It could happen.

Very briefly, Mr. Angus.

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

I certainly don't think it will throw things off. The main people we need to talk to about CTF have already been identified, mainly as witnesses within the context of our CBC, by and large. They would have been scheduled to speak. Clearly, if they spoke, they would have been speaking about CTF.

Given the nature of this and the need to get some clarity around this, I'm suggesting that we move it up to the front and deal with it now. If we do not deal with it, anything else in terms of the CBC study becomes very problematic. If we have uncertainty at CTF, we will be in the dark on any further discussions that we have on how the CBC is going to maintain its programming and how it does stuff.

I'm asking to move it up front. I believe within four meetings we could fully address it, and that would be a good jumping point for the CBC study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Chair, I agree there is an urgency. I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Angus that we move the CTF review up in front of the CBC. We feel domestic television production may be in a crisis. I think this requires our immediate attention.