Canadian Heritage Committee on June 5th, 2007

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

I have a final quick point here and then we can end it. When Alan Johnston stayed in Gaza, it was because he felt that if he left, nobody would cover this story and it would disappear. And we see now places like Chechnya where there are no-go zones for journalists, so anything can be allowed to happen there.

What happens to the news when there aren't people on the ground to be able to provide independent verification, or independent rebuttal, of the claims that are being made about these places?

[Tony Burman]

That is a real challenge. There are two ways of dealing with it. One would be that we do draw on locally based journalists and people, whether it's in Gaza or--a few years ago--in Chechnya, from those places where we are prevented from going. Also, I think what we do is cover the story around the region. For example, we still have covered a lot of Gaza in spite of the fact that we can't for the moment enter Gaza, because one can do that through Israel or through Jordan. It's a challenge for all media, not only the CBC, but we have such a range, as Alain indicated, of experienced field journalists that I think we're still able to cover the story as best we can in spite of the fact that we can't necessarily get into the area as often as we should.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

I thank both you gentlemen this morning for your answers to our questions. We're going to take just a short recess and then come back for some committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

To get to some of our committee business, last week I was unsuccessful at the Liaison Committee. They turned down our request to travel to the U.K. to study the BBC, even though I put up a brave fight for all of us.

Second is a notice of motion from Maka Kotto. He proposes that:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the federal government initiate as a matter of urgency the transfer of Quebec’s share of the subsidies of $60 million over two-years available for festivals, so that these funds can be allocated to existing provincial programs, and that adoption of this motion be reported to the House as soon as possible.

Would you like to speak to the motion, Mr. Kotto?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This motion reflects the will of Quebec's National Assembly, all parties included: the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Action démocratique and the Parti Québécois. Given the current emergency, the organizers of Quebec festivals had hoped, since they had met with Mr. Flaherty before he had even drawn up his budget and had been promised by the minister that new festival funding would be forthcoming to replace the money that had been cut by Mr. Martin, to see this new funding made available to organizations so that they could go ahead with their projects in an appropriate manner this summer.

However, it has become apparent that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has held back the money and does not intend to distribute it at this time, which is already creating problems on the ground. Festivals have been cancelled, others are accumulating deficits. Quebec has established criteria for redistributing the amount of money to which it is entitled. This is a request that was also reiterated by Mr. Bachand, Quebec's Minister of Tourism. He emphasized that this would be an emergency measure. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will have all the time she needs to set the criteria for the program next year, so that it is in line with her vision.

We are therefore faced with this reality. You know what impact the festivals have on Quebec's economy. You also know that, internationally, these festivals have put Quebec on the map, as we say, and they bring in tourists. Indeed, they are Quebec's drawing card to attract tourists from the United States, South America and Europe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate my colleague bringing this forward, because certainly in Quebec and the rest of the country there's a lot of concern about this festivals program.

But I am concerned about this motion. I have spoken with festival coalitions from across the country, and they still believe it's possible to get an agreement in place. If we support this, festivals in every other part of the country will be basically sold down the river. I think that would be improper for us, because there's a question of the inequity of this motion.

There might be smaller festivals in, say, Prince Edward Island that aren't as..... I don't know whether they have criteria or not, but if we simply turn this into a transfer to one region and leave out every other festival in the country, we would be remiss in what we need to do, which is get the coalitions meeting with the minister, get this criteria in place, and get this money out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

I would like to have the opportunity to also debate this, but before I do, I just need a bit of clarification from our clerk.

I'm curious because of my lack of knowledge of Standing Order 108(2). I wonder if we could have information pursuant to what in this order specifically relates to the motion by Mr. Kotto. In other words, if Mr. Kotto's motion is that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the federal government do this, I have no difficulty with that. I'm just wondering what the specific reference to Standing Order 108(2) is. I don't understand that.

This is not a criticism; this is for a point of information.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jacques Lahaie]

Section 108(2) is general in nature and covers all activities undertaken by the Department of Canadian Heritage. According to this section, the committee is authorized to examine any question pertaining to this department. This is a general power, not a specific one.

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

Okay.

I won't belabour it. I still don't see the necessity of the reference pursuant to that. In any event, that's neither here nor there.

Mr. Kotto has heard me in the House and has heard the minister talking about the fact that the $60 million over two years is in addition to the funds that have already been flowing. She and I have enunciated the number of dollars that are flowing. There has been an emphasis within our dialogue to point out that the idea of the $60 million over two years is particularly to fund smaller events. And this must be Friday and frosty, because I happen to agree with Mr. Angus today, but the point still is that in addition to his eloquently stated position, this was never, ever, intended to be a transfer from the federal government to provincial governments, from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction.

The intent of this, as described in the budget documents...and all the narrative that has occurred, either from the minister or from me, clearly has stipulated that this is to flow from the federal treasury directly to the people who will actually be using the funds. This motion is completely foreign in every respect to the intention of the minister and the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We'll go to Mr. Scott first, and then to Mr. Kotto.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

It gets better, Jim, in the context of these. I'm agreeing with both Charlie and Jim, although I will say this.

While I don't think this is the appropriate remedy, I share his concern about the problem. I think the minister responsible for the summer jobs program has demonstrated the ability to respond to the mistake and try to remedy it quickly. So I wouldn't let the government off the hook completely for not being able to respond quickly and to remedy this in the same way they are attempting, at least, to remedy the problem with summer students.

As far as this particular remedy goes, I can't support it. I think there is a role for the national government as a national government to support these kinds of events and so on. I have no assurances that if it's given to the province--and this isn't about Quebec, this is about any province--they wouldn't just simply replace their own spending on the same events or finance a tax reduction, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Kotto.

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

I would point out, once again, paraphrasing Quebec's Minister of Tourism, Mr. Bachand, that this would be an emergency measure and not a permanent one. Given the stakes involved for Quebec, we would be showing a lack of understanding of the cultural and artistic reality and the associated economic benefits by disregarding this urgency and the fact that Quebec's National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of such a measure.

I think that everyone, on all sides, has given his or her opinion. Consequently, I do not believe that we should dwell any further on the issue. I am therefore asking for a recorded vote on the issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I declare the motion defeated.

Mr. Fast is not bringing his motion forward at this particular time. It stays on the record as a notice of motion, but there needs to be more clarification.

We have two more things I'd like to get through first.

Order in council appointments is number one.

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the National Film Board, pursuant to section 16 of the National Film Board Act, hereby appoints Tom Perlmutter of Montreal to be government film commissioner.

Is it the wish that we interview this gentleman?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Can I get a consensus that we would call him here?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

What's his name? I didn't hear you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Tom Perlmutter, of Montreal, Quebec.

The one other thing we have is a bit of luck, or what have you. CEO, deputy minister equivalent, Martin Matthews, from the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage, will be meeting with officials in Ottawa on June 11 to 13. He is in charge of public broadcasting in New Zealand, and we have an opportunity on the 12th to request him to appear before us, though he would request that meeting be in camera.

After my getting shot down at the Liaison Committee...and we can't travel to the U.K. When this gentleman is here, it would be a tremendous resource, I think. I'm told that New Zealand public broadcasting and Canadian broadcasting emulate each other.

So I'm going to make that suggestion. Is that good for everyone here?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, then, on the 12th we will have some great questions.

Just wait one second. Before we adjourn, there is one thing before our meeting next Thursday.

[Marion Ménard, Committee Researcher]

It is very important that we get your feedback during next Thursday's meeting, on the way we are to draft this report next summer. I would invite you to send me your proposals, recommendations or directions. We could use the same themes covered last Thursday during the round-table, namely the mandate, governance, accountability, new technologies and financing. In a nutshell, I would like to hear your thoughts on Thursday; the floor will be yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. One other thing. Thanks for all the great work in that round table last week. I thought it was great.

The meeting is adjourned.