Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a question with regard to this.

In the phrase, “recommends to the government to make any decisions”, the word “any” is pretty broad. If we took that word as it stands, would it therefore mean that the department, the minister, are not able to do changes that, for instance, may affect policies that aren't major, that aren't changing the direction or whatever? It really hamstrings any department and any minister in terms of doing their jobs.

So I'm asking, would you like to clarify the word “decisions” in some way such that we know exactly what you mean by that? Are they going to be substantive decisions, change in policy decisions, etc.?

I think I could support something that's clearer. It's the word “any” that's bothering me here.

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

I understand completely.

The idea is simple. It is everything that directly affects the Canadian telecommunications policy and the broadcasting and innovation policy.

This motion was inspired by the debate we are presently having about the Canadian Television Fund crisis. The framework is the debate about the impact of new technologies—essentially the new platforms—and the debate that will take place concerning the future upheaval of the entire audiovisual landscape because of these new parameters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, did you have something?

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

Yes.

I'm very interested in the motion. I do believe we need a little more research to clarify it. I think it is very broad at this point, and it would make it impossible for any minister to carry out their work.

There are certain key areas that I think would come before Parliament. For example, a change in foreign ownership restrictions on domestic broadcast carriers would be a substantive change. Shaw and Vidéotron, when they were before the industry committee, were talking about wanting major deregulation changes in terms of broadcast policy.

If the minister was directing changes to the overall structure of broadcast that would affect a number of key sectors, but just to say “any”.... Directives are given all the time. I know I can't keep on top of most of the directives that I see coming out of the CRTC and so on. So to put it to a vote....

I'm very supportive of this, but I think maybe we need to sit down and talk about exactly what we think needs to come back before Parliament. I believe there are certain areas where the parliamentary vote is crucial, but if we're not clear enough on that, we're not going to be successful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, how can Mr. Angus be supportive of this? It doesn't address one specific issue that would have to come forward to Parliament. This is a blanket removal of the right to make regulations. I'm not aware of any government in Canada that has ever ceded that on a blanket basis.

If it's a specific issue, as you've mentioned, we could have a good debate about it. But how can you state that you're supportive of this when there's no reference to any specific issue other than this general removal of the right to make regulations for “decisions directly affecting Canada's telecommunications policy”?

I have a struggle with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I would apply the chair of the CRTC's confidence in good faith to my colleague and say that I think I know what he's trying to get at, and I can be supportive of that. I would agree with Mr. Angus that we may have to bring more clarity to this.

I think there is language that exists in law that would speak to distinguishing between certain levels of decisions in terms of whether it's a broad public policy as against a transactional thing that happens from time to time and day to day.

What we're trying to get at are the broader issues, the ones that would profoundly affect the industry. Just the confusion between whose job it is to deal with the issue that we've had for the last couple of months really does speak to this fact. I would argue this is a broad public policy issue that we're dealing with. The CRTC stepped in because somebody was withholding funds and so they've taken it upon themselves to do this.

Now, that's a different issue, but it speaks to the same thing. I think there's a way we can find language that would capture the idea that Parliament should be engaged in those broad critical issues without necessarily being drawn into transactional things within the government.

I think there's a place that we can find support for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I just want to reflect and to reiterate what Andy and Angus are saying. I understand what it is that Mr. Kotto is trying to say. I think we all get the sense that somewhere along the way there has to be an ability for Parliament to intervene.

By the way, Parliament can intervene with the CRTC. The minister cannot, but Parliament can, because it exists at the will of Parliament. The statutes that govern the CRTC come from Parliament. So if we believe that sometime we need to make some sort of directional change because we are concerned about a direction, then I think Parliament has to have, through this committee, the ability to do that.

Also, I agree with the intent. I know exactly what he wants to do. But with his permission, perhaps we could withdraw this and all work on it with language that would be supported by all of us.

I would like to make the suggestion that we do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Thibault, did you want to say something?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Very quickly; I'm not a regular member of the committee.

I understand the purpose of this and the reason for reluctance. What I might ask members to commit to in the redrafting is that the committee can play a role. Any of these things don't have to go directly to the House of Commons. It can be to the committee with reference to the House of Commons if deemed necessary to report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I think it's very clear that a profound issue is raised by this motion. My interest is on how to make this motion work so that we get to the heart of the matter.

For example, at the GATS hearings in Geneva, Canada is a lead nation on the telecom deregulation. What it's pushing in Geneva would run contrary to numerous areas of domestic law here in Canada. These are areas where if there are changes that Canada's advocating in terms of deregulation of foreign ownership restrictions, domestic broadcast content quotas, those have profound implications for maintaining our cultural policies that have been brought forward by Parliament. So certain regulations will affect the cultural fabric of this country, as has been identified and brought in by Parliament.

My only concern is that if it's too broad, we're going to technically bury ourselves and not deal with the substantive, key areas where Parliament needs to step in. It's not very often, but at those times, we have to be there.

So I'm looking to work on this motion. I think it is a very important motion, but I think we need to make sure we're precise enough that we're not tying ourselves into a bureaucratic role but are speaking about broad policy issues that we have a right to speak on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to say respectfully to my friends from the Bloc and the NDP that if we take a look at it from the point of view of the party that presently has the responsibility for these issues as the government--and I would appeal to my friends in the Liberal Party who also have had the same capacity, have historically been in a position of government--this motion and even the amended motion being discussed would say that Parliament should be able to supersede, oversee, and micromanage what a minister is doing, and I just cannot see that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to take one more question, because we could go on and on.

We'll have one more response from Mr. Scott, and then I'm going to make a decision on what we're going to do here.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

As a matter of fact, as a minister who on many occasions...and at Indian Affairs in particular gave up a lot of authority to first nations, etc. So yes, absolutely and categorically.

Having said that, if Mr. Abbott would call upon the 13 years of history, I find it incredible, as a member of Parliament for the last 13 years, that the people opposite are not talking about the supremacy of Parliament the way they did for the 13 years they were in opposition, and much more aggressively. It's an amazing turn of events, frankly.

Mr. Abbott asked the question, and I can say, categorically, that as a minister I was in fact responsible for giving power back to communities, back to Parliament. I can give you examples. At this point--you can deny it, but it's true--the issue here is that at some level there is a broad public policy. Micromanaging isn't what we're talking about. Because it's changing rapidly, it would be very tempting to the executive council to confuse the management of a situation or a crisis or an issue. This committee is a parliamentary committee. We're here as parliamentarians, protecting Parliament to some extent against that temptation, that possibility.

This speaks specifically to that, and it speaks to it too generally. In fact, as it reads right now, I think you're right. But I think it can be made to read in a way that would allow this committee to play a larger role than perhaps is the case right now in protecting Parliament and the industry from decisions made in good faith by governments at a level that is beyond what I believe to be their area of responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This is a very important issue, as we sit here. On this motion, rather than just striking out a word or two or changing this and changing that, I would suggest that the people involved may want to get together, sit down, and take some time to determine how you're going to come forward with something that's going to address what Mr. Scott just said. You could take some time and come back with a new motion.

If it's that important, it can't just be a couple of scratches with the pen, scratching out a couple of words and adding a couple of words. I think we have to give it good thought.

So let's hold this motion over to our next meeting and, I suggest, get the wording the way that you feel it should be.

Okay? That's my ruling here today on that particular issue.

Now, I go to one more thing....

Yes, Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I ask a question? Is it possible for us to ensure that this comes back at the next session of this committee, so that we don't drag it out again for weeks?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I think only if you give us-—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Due notice.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

If there's notice, yes, because of the amendment to the amendment—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Essentially, Tuesday gives due time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes.