Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I sense from the discussion around this table that at the very least there's a consensus that at the very most this motion would be a wish expressed to the minister that we be involved in additional scrutiny.

I note that Mr. Scott actually referred favourably to additional scrutiny. Yet I do find it passing strange. I say this without wanting to be combative, because that's not the intention, but I do find it passing strange that in the previous four terms of the Liberal government, it never welcomed additional scrutiny in this way. Now it seems to be a new thing that is desirable.

I believe there's a reason why it wasn't done earlier. If you look at the wording of this, it refers specifically to the minister amending the interpretation of the broadcasting policy. The problem is, virtually every decision or directive that the minister would make could be construed as affecting the interpretation of broadcast policy in Canada. So we haven't confined the scope of this in any way. In fact, this motion is so broad it would compel the minister to refer to this committee, or to the House, virtually every directive that he ever issues, whether it's to the CRTC, the CBC, or whatever other crown corporation there may be.

So I believe this motion is ill-advised. First of all, it's ultra vires; we don't have the power to do this, so it becomes a wish to the minister. Secondly, it would open up such a huge can of worms and such a large scope of directives that could be caught by this, we could be flooded with these kinds of referrals to committee.

I would suggest we abandon this motion. I don't think it's well thought out. Again, I'm certainly going to be voting against it, even as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to something that Mr. Abbott said, because the first two or three points he was making would indicate that essentially what the motion is recommending already exists. If the Governor in Council wishes to issue a directive, that directive is given to both houses and is referred to the appropriate committee, who can do what they want with it—either ignore it, or report back to the House, and so forth. That is the way things are currently, and I don't dispute that.

I may not share the conclusion he reached, but on those points, if I apply them to here, I would therefore conclude that when what I'll call the Bernier directive, for want of a better term—I forgot the exact number of it, but I think we all know what I'm referring to—was issued, when the notice of it was given to Parliament, both houses, it was referred to the industry committee. I don't recall it having been referred to the heritage committee. And there lies a problem, if I may say.

I suspect that because it was directed at telecommunications, it was sent to the industry committee. What they did with it, I don't know, but if it had been sent here, I expect this committee might have had something to say about it and the government could have amended its directive or not, according to the input. So there is merit in the motion in the sense that this committee, because of its work in broadcasting, writ large, has something to say perhaps in other areas that may be sent to another committee.

In that case, I would support a motion—it would have to be somewhat rewritten—that would say that directives that are sent to the House for consideration or opinion or input, if they can possibly touch on broadcasting, be referred to this committee, because that is indeed the impression out there, that the current directive on telecommunications is having an impact on broadcasting and it's not just the telecommunication side.

So there is merit in the motion, and I'm not contradicting what Mr. Fast said in the sense of whether it's ultra vires or not. I think the committee should express that it wishes to deal with it. I don't know if we need to do it in this format, or just, whenever there's a directive issued, that we ask our clerk to make us aware of any notice of directive being published in the Canada Gazette. I think there's merit to that, and as a committee we should be made aware of directives that we may or may not be following because we're caught in something else.

That brings me to how we should end today's session. Perhaps—and that would depend on Madame Mourani—there would be another attempt at crafting it and coming back in a way we can all be comfortable with.

Just an idea, that is all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

On Mr. Bélanger's last comment, I think that Mr. Siksay moved an amendment to the amendment that does what my colleague wishes.

I would just like to come back to Mr. Fast's comments. He said earlier that saying “amending the interpretation of the... policy for Canada” might be going a little too far beyond our jurisdiction. It is not really too far. When new directives are issued and we hear back from the artistic and communications world that the interpretation has changed, we know that it the case.

I am convinced that the people in the department are sufficiently well-informed about what is happening out there and sufficiently well equipped to see that new regulations will amend the interpretation of the policy. Up to a point, we can trust them on that. I do not think that we are going too far.

When new directives are issued in order to amend the interpretation of the policy, they know that before they do it. I think we could debate this for hours. That is it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, we could vote on the amendment and then on the proposal as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The question has been called. First of all, I want to be clear on this.

We're going to vote on the amendment that was put forward by Mr. Siksay. I've jotted it down here. I hope I'm right. Correct me if I'm not.

That, in the opinion of the committee, any new directive to the CRTC from the Governor in Council amending the interpretation of the broadcasting policy for Canada or the Canadian telecommunications policy be first put before the House through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its consideration.

Am I correct on that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Could I ask for a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're voting on the amendment with a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Now we vote on the motion, as amended. Do I need to read it again? This is a recorded vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Chair, before you move out of the public part of the meeting, may I ask a question of clarification? I know that this committee has not used an agenda and planning committee model in the past and that decisions about the agenda are made in committee of the whole, as we did earlier this morning. I'm wondering, since the decisions were made in a private meeting, if you could report those publicly when we go into open sessions so that those who are interested in what the work of the committee will be can have that information available to them. I'm wondering if you or the clerk could go over those decisions that were made earlier in closed session so that it's on the public record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Maybe the next time we deal with this, we'll take that into consideration. But what was done in camera was done in camera and we'll look forward to.... Next time, we'll make sure we don't go in camera until we have those things considered, if that's what the committee wishes.

Yes, Mr. Abbott.

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

Just for clarification, I recall one time when my colleagues on the other side of the table were rather upset with me, and understandably so. I admit that I was wrong in bringing up or referring to things that had been said in camera, and I think that if we make it a common understanding that any decisions that we make in camera will stay that way, and if we want to make those decisions in public, that they would be made in public....

It's just that I understood why my colleagues were upset. It was an honest mistake on my part and they accepted my apology. But it's something that we understand that when we are in camera, even if we arrive at a conclusion, that conclusion remains in camera as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Chair, I don't want to belabour this, but surely the agenda of the committee is something that needs to be public information. I understand why we would have a discussion in camera on how we set our priorities so that different members can talk frankly about what the priorities of the committee should be. I don't think that discussion should be public. But once the decision is made, I would like to see some reporting of that publicly, so that people who follow this committee have access to that information readily, and as soon as possible after we've made the decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

As I've explained, what we'll do at the next meeting is to make sure those parts of the meeting.... What was held in camera today stay has been held in camera today, and that's the way it is.

Yes, Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I just have a question. If I understand correctly, you're going to have Mr. Rabinovitch on November 27. Is that correct? Will he be in public or in camera?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

We're in public now.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, it's in public now.

My question simply was if that meeting were to be taking place in public, shouldn't that fact be made public prior to that meeting?

I've just done it, I'm sorry. I did a Jim Abbott.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Anyway....

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

Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's a very simple way to do this: whenever we adjourn the meeting in camera, the motion would include that you report decisions. It's quite straightforward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you for that.

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to know if the meeting with Mr. Rabinovitch on November 27 will be in camera and not televised. If so, we will not be able to ask questions.