Canadian Heritage Committee on May 30th, 2006

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

Isn't that the point the chair is raising, if I understand it?

The previous government, in its various incarnations and various parliaments, ended up issuing, I believe, two responses to the Lincoln report. Is it your request that the current government issue yet another response?

The reason I'm asking is that there's a fairly large bureaucracy at Canadian Heritage, as there is at all the departments. They're all involved in their own jobs. If, in addition to doing or overseeing the mandate review of the CBC, there is your request with respect to Telefilm, your request with respect to the report--everything just gets bogged down with report after report after report. What more can be said about the Lincoln report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

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

If we do not obtain a response from the government with regard to these two reports... The Lincoln report came back to us during the last legislature with Bill C-60 on copyright that died on the Order Paper. It was the beginning of a response. We have the report on the film industry, but if we obtain no response from the minister, what good will all of this work have been? And what good will the work we will now undertake be if there is an election and we move into a 40th legislature? I believe that this is simply follow-up work. The clerk might be able to enlighten us. This is a perfectly normal process.

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

I realize I'm getting things a little mixed up, but I'd just like to respond as well, seeing as we're talking about getting reports back, on the new report on feature film policy. I've written down a couple of things so I'd have my thoughts straight, and if you don't mind I'll just share them with you.

The government is presently considering the two studies. It has done a series of proposed adjustments it would like to make to the policy to improve effectiveness. It's important that stakeholders in the industry have their chance to comment on these proposed adjustments to maximize their impact before they're made and before a government response to the standing committee report is made. The Department of Canadian Heritage must be allowed to complete its process with a final consultation with industry stakeholders this summer. A discussion paper will be released that will present the proposed adjustments to the policy and call for comments.

After this process, the department will be able to provide an enlightened government response to the standing committee's report. A revised Canadian feature film policy would then be ready in early 2007, bearing in mind that I'm suggesting that the first part--that is, something that would be enlightened by further response from the industry, being able to speak to the stakeholders over the summer--would be a more conclusive thing for the committee to consider.

If instead this committee is going to say, “Give us a response to this study that has been done, boom, that's it”, then we'll get that. But it won't be nearly as complete as it would be if the department has an opportunity to take more input from the stakeholders.

So this would really slow things down tremendously and complicate things and serve no useful purpose, in my judgment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had understood from the word go that what this committee wanted was a response from this government to both of those reports--the Lincoln report and the one on the film policy. And if this committee tables those two reports from the 38th Parliament in this 39th Parliament--as it is allowed to do and capable of doing under the rules--and asks for a government response, the government, according to the rules of the House, must respond within five months. If I follow Mr. Abbott's timeline, five months takes us to somewhere in October, and that's after the summer and after the department has had the time to do all the consultation he was talking about. If the government has not totally finished, it can respond at the time, perhaps seek from the committee a delay--or not--file a report, and then file an addendum later on, or a policy.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm not concerned that much right now about bogging down the department. They can handle these requests from Parliament to committee. It is their duty to respond to these reports if the committee so requests it.

So if the department has a difficulty in responding to legitimate requests from the Parliament of Canada, that's entirely another matter, which we can deal with. But that should not be what's driving our desire to obtain responses from the current government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, having come onto the committee after the Lincoln report was done, I can say there was a sense out there that all this work had been done, and now we're in a new government, a new Parliament, and all that work is put by the side. We had reintroduced that in the last Parliament because we felt it did deserve a response from the government, because it laid out a plan, a road map. And it was very important for us to hear from the minister where she saw the Lincoln report fitting into government strategy.

I think at the end of the day we still felt we never did get a really comprehensive commitment on the Lincoln report that was worth the work that had gone into it.

I certainly don't think, from my experience in the 38th Parliament, that making that request ground down the heritage bureaucrats to the level that they couldn't function any more. My God, we'd be in a pretty sad state of affairs if asking the heritage ministry to respond to a document that everyone is very familiar with and asking this government where they're going, how they see the Lincoln report, how they see the feature film study is going to throw all the consultation out the window. I can't see that happening, quite frankly.

Consultations are ongoing. Direction is being taken. I think what we're asking is how do these reports, which involved a great deal of work and effort, fit into that broad picture? That's what we're asking for, and I think it's a fairly straightforward, reasonable request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is not a question but a comment. Is there a middle way of addressing this? I found the Lincoln report to be an intriguing read. There's a lot of good material in there, and given the fact that one report has come back—am I correct in assuming that?

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

Two reports have come back.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I thought one died.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

One was very big.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

One wasn't big? Perhaps we could simply request that the minister confirm whether those responses reflect her present views on the report. If not, she would have to go beyond that.

What we don't want to do is plough new ground. But at the same time, we should have a response to that report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I know I'm the chair, but I think if there was a regurgitated report, and most of what's there is the way the government feels right now, it wouldn't take terribly long to get a response, with a bit of copying of those responses.

I do understand that it costs a lot of money and time—a year and a half, I think—and speaking as a former member of this committee, I know it was our intent when we brought it back last year that it not be wasted.

My suggestion would be that we call a vote on this, and if the ministry is bogged down and can't get the report back by October, it could ask for an extension. There's nothing the matter with that, if there's too much work.

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

Mr. Chair, I want the committee members to be clear on what they're asking for. If it's the wish of the committee, clearly the committee has the ability to do that.

If the committee decides to retable the scripts, screens, and audience report, the ministry will then develop a response to the report as tabled—period, full stop, end of statement.

Alternatively, if the committee does not ask for this, there will be further consultations with the stakeholders over the summer months. Those consultations, along with the process, will then be able to be tabled. It will not be the response to the scripts, screens, and audiences. It will be a combination of that, together with the consultations with the stakeholders.

So if I may, and I apologize if this sounds a bit harsh, but what we're basically saying is: here is a document; report on it, and by the way, don't bother with the further consultations over the summer.

I am making a statement that this will happen, which doesn't make any sense to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, you have the last question. Then we're going to vote on this.

All we seem to be doing is debating motions here. We haven't accomplished too much yet this year.

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

I want to put on the record—because I do find this offensive—that what's being said here is that if we ask to table this, as is our right as a committee, then this consultation will not happen. I want it to be made very clear that this is what's being put forward on the table, and it's something we cannot accept.

We have a job to do. We put together a report and it has to have a response. If the minister decides that she doesn't want to bother meeting with any stakeholders because we've put this forward, that's her business. I can live with that, and I'll sleep very well at night. But I would like to think that Minister Oda, having been part of the process with us, understands the value of that and of ongoing input from stakeholders from all arts groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, I'm going to call the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Now that was the motion with respect to the film. Is there another motion with respect to Lincoln?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

No, it's for both.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We now have a motion from Mr. Angus. It's dated Tuesday, May 16. We won't get into that argument, because it said 48 hours.

It's in both official languages:

That the committee should examine the impacts of GATS negotiations on the Canadian television industry, and specifically: the impacts of GATS negotiations over stripping foreign ownership restrictions on Telecom that could have major implications for broadcast policy given the convergence of broadcast, telecom and cable distribution; the impacts of GATS negotiations on Audio Visual services, which are underway and could strip domestic content quotas, favourable tax regimes for film and domestic rights for language and other restrictions; that we request the presence of senior members of the negotiating team and senior heritage and industry officials to face questions on the file.

This is moved by Mr. Angus. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Abbott.

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

It seems to me that we've had a very interesting debate in Parliament today, the initial interchange between Mr. Bélanger and me over the UNESCO agreement.

As I indicated to him in a previous incarnation when we were in opposition, I was representing the official opposition at that time and was fully supportive of that UNESCO agreement. I was fully supportive of the minister's efforts. I don't think anybody on the committee will have heard the current heritage minister say anything to the contrary.

The Prime Minister, having taken specific action with respect to the place of Quebec at the UNESCO table...I can't imagine there's any question about the fact that our government is completely, utterly, and fully, in every conceivable and possible way, committed to treating culture as culture and is very sensitive to it within the general agreement on trade in services.

The situation at GATS right at the moment, as I understand it, is that the whole thing is bogged down. The Doha round is all bogged down as a result of discussions over agriculture. We have no idea if the nations are going to see themselves as successful when coming out at the other side.

However, I am having a little difficulty understanding the necessity or value in this motion, which is to presume that foreign ownership restrictions will be stripped. To quote the motion, “could strip domestic content quotas”, and so on and so forth.

I don't really understand what the value of this motion is, but I do understand that in negotiating, if I were a negotiator, I would be very interested in reading the transcripts of any of these hearings at this committee, should the committee decide to do it. We would do a very good job of washing our domestic laundry and weakening the position of the Canadian negotiators.

We know where the Canadian government is coming from on this issue, as stated. I am therefore not really sure what the value of washing our domestic laundry would be in handing those Hansard copies from our committee hearings and our testimony to the other countries as they negotiate against us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.