Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make two comments. You speak of independence. I would like to remind you that the law that governs your organization—particularly section 7, for these purposes—limits this freedom because under this section, the minister may, by order, intervene to give direction on the policy or the vision you may have on a given file. That is what happened with Mr. Bernier with regard to telephony. In his case, he relied on section 8.

We have spoken of confidentiality. However, the main points have practically been debated in public. I do not know what remains confidential and justifies having the task force conduct its business behind closed doors. That is another comment.

Furthermore, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Fund, as it exists today, is the former Liberal government's baby, created by Ms. Copps who was the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If changes are made to the Fund, they will have to be reflected in the policy. I am pleased to hear you say that you are prepared to discuss in this place, with us, the findings of these consultations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you very much for coming today. I really appreciate your frankness.

It seems to me you have been put in a very difficult position, because this power play was made very publicly when there was no leadership at the CRTC. I think it was done very deliberately by Shaw and Vidéotron.

But when I'm reflecting on the issues here, your role is really to enforce the regulations, so whether the circular is a custom or whether it's a piece of law is the issue for the CRTC, it seems to me. However, as my colleague pointed out, the CTF is the child of the heritage ministry. So I'm perplexed why you have had to step in between the concerns of the producers, the creators, the broadcasters and cable companies, because this, clearly, is very much under the jurisdiction of the heritage minister. This Canadian Television Fund is not a child of the CRTC; it belongs under the heritage minister.

I'd like to ask once again, why are we having to go to these closed-door hearings to deal with something that should have been dealt with through the minister and her department?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

As you know, we mandate payments into the CTF. As I mentioned before, since the payments weren't done on a monthly basis, we felt we had to step in because the convention was being broken, and this caused disarray in the industry. But over and above that, the criticisms levied at the fund are very clear and very serious.

We mandate too because we hope that the fund will produce Canadian content and add value to Canadian broadcasting, which is directly our responsibility. If the fund didn't do that any more or if the fund wasn't functioning properly because of internal dissent or lack of rules, or conflicts of interests, or whatever—there is a whole host of allegations—it would concern us very much, because it would have a definite impact on the quality of Canadian content produced, which leads to increased Canadian viewership and exposure on TV.

So that's why we step in and why we're doing it. We want to make sure this vehicle, which has worked in the past, will work in the future. Or, if it needs reform, it will be reformed so that it achieves its purpose and won't be driven by dissent, making it therefore ineffective in achieving the full purpose for which it was set up.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

I must say, we've welcomed you here today. Thank you for your candid responses to the questions.

Thanks to the committee for your questions this morning.

We'll take a short recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Welcome back.

We have three orders of business that we're going to talk about. First of all, we have a notice of motion from Ms. Keeper, That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage request from the government a copy of the review which led to the conclusion and ultimately cancellation of funding to the Court Challenges Program.

Would you like to speak to that motion?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to add that it was indicated to us, during our sessions in which we heard witnesses, that it was assumed from the government side.... Mr. Abbott had mentioned that he believed there was most certainly a review done. This is a request to have that review tabled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Would anyone else like to speak to the motion?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to put a question.

As we vote on this, what would be the timing of their making this available? Just for the record and so that we can get some clarity, we're asking for this to be provided, but is there anything...? Because I wasn't here for much of this.

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

I have no idea.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

That was at our meeting on—

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The notice of motion was on February 5. I guess the only concern I have is that we can all agree that something should be tabled, but then it seems never to be tabled. We wonder why: oh, it's coming, and different things like that.

So I just wanted to get a sense of the expectations of the committee as we vote for this--or “on” this; some of us “for” this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Mr. Scott, your having been a minister, you could probably give me a better idea. I haven't discussed this with my minister. For the edification of the committee here, you could probably give us a better idea of what you would have done, as Solicitor General.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

If I'd done a review of a program and my parliamentary secretary used that review as justification for its elimination, I would have presented it already. So if it were me today, in this circumstance, I would say it would be this afternoon.

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

Okay, well, I simply have no idea.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I wasn't here, so I want to make sure I'm fair to everybody. But I understand, as Ms. Keeper said, that you used the word—

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

No, let's be precise. I said I did not know about what had occurred. I suspected that if there was a review, that...and it would be a cabinet document. That's how I recall my testimony.

As I say, I haven't discussed this with the minister.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Then you don't know if there's been a review or not.

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

No.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

We'll find out, I guess, won't we.

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

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'll put the question, members.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The second order of business is a notice of motion put forward on February 9, by Maka Kotto,That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends to the government to make any decisions directly affecting Canada's telecommunications policy or Canada's broadcasting policy subject to votes in the House of Commons before they can take effect, and that the Chair so report to the House as soon as possible.

Ms. Fry.