HERI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 7, 2002
| ¿ | 0905 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)) |
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0910 |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick |
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick |
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
The Chair |
|
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0920 |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, November 7, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0905)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. We can now proceed to the election of the chair. Are there any nominations for chair?
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Clifford Lincoln.
The Clerk: Are there further nominations?
All those in favour? All those opposed?
I declare Clifford Lincoln to be the duly elected chair of this committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Clerk: The next position to be voted on is the government vice-chair.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): I nominate Paul Bonwick.
The Clerk: Mr. Scott nominates Mr. Paul Bonwick.
Are there any other nominations for government vice-chair?
Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like to nominate Dennis Mills.
A voice: He's not running.
Mr. Jim Abbott: He's not running? Okay, that's fine.
The Clerk: Are the nominations closed?
Mr. Scott moves that Paul Bonwick be appointed as government vice-chair of this committee.
All those in favour? All those opposed?
Mr. Bonwick is the duly elected government vice-chair of this committee.
The third position is opposition vice-chair of the committee.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Jim Abbott for that position.
The Clerk: Are there other nominations?
The nominations are closed.
Mr. Solberg moves that Jim Abbott be elected opposition vice-chair of this committee.
All those in favour? All those opposed?
Mr. Jim Abbott is elected opposition vice-chair of this committee.
Mr. Lincoln, I invite you to take the chair of this committee.
The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): If I may, I will ask the members to kindly stay to give us quorum because we have a lot of motions to deal with to get the committee started. We are really late.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your confidence and congratulate Paul and Jim. I hope we continue to work in consensus and harmony in this committee to finish our broadcasting study. I appreciate your support.
We have routine motions to pass. The clerk will give you copies. These, incidentally, are exactly the same motions that we passed already, and are part of the record of the committee since we started, so there's nothing different here. Does anyone have questions or comments?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, with respect to number ten, I trust that Mr. Mills will continue to be the chairman of the sports subcommittee.
The Chair: I would hope so too.
Mr. Jim Abbott: How would that be accomplished?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think we'll just have to appoint him.
The Chair: Yes, we can just put his name in there.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. The only question I have is on number one, which states: “as needed, to assist the Committee in its work at the discretion of the Chair.” Is that what we had last time?
The Chair: I think it was exactly the same.
Mr. Jim Abbott: How, in practice, did we accomplish that? I've forgotten.
The Chair: Actually, the researchers are suggested by the Library of Parliament. If they are satisfactory, they stay on.
I would never use my own discretion without the committee's consent. This is too important for us. But I suppose that's the way these things are worded. I don't know.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, this is why you have the confidence of all of the members of this committee, but I was just wondering about the wording.
The Chair: Madame Gagnon.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Could we say: “That the committee, should the need arise, retain the services of... and the chairman has discretionary power under the agreement...”?
[English]
The Chair: We could have “on consultation with the members”. I don't know. We could say “at the discretion of the Chair after consultation with the members”, but then it's not discretion anymore, so we'd have to change the wording.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Is it necessary?
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That's it.
[English]
The Chair: All I can tell you is that I would like to put on the record that I will not use discretion on a unilateral basis, for sure. I would never do that.
Yes, Madame Gagnon.
¿ (0910)
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We know that, Mr. Chairman, but should you at some point no longer be chairman, things could be different. I know that you have a very collegial approach.
The Chair: I am entirely in agreement with this change.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That is what I would like us to do. Otherwise, the day you are no longer here, we will be completely at a loss.
The Chair: All we need to do is delete the words
[English]
“at the discretion of the Chair”. That's all. If discretion is needed, the chair will ask for it, that's all. We'll just erase those words. That's fine.
Paul.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Just out of curiosity, is the wording not standard for most committees that the chair is empowered by the committee to call upon researchers if he feels they're needed? That is as opposed to what will happen on an ongoing basis, that the chairperson may be required to bring people to the table to accommodate committee a week next Thursday. If you were to lose the discretionary power of the chair, effectively what you're saying is that next Thursday you will then ask for the permission of the group to get an extra researcher to come to the table.
It doesn't really provide the chair with any spending limits or any authority or anything in that regard or give him any extra powers, other than the fact that if this is eliminated and between now and the next meeting he feels the committee should have somebody sitting there, he no longer has the power to have somebody sitting there. What he would have to do is come to the next meeting and say, “I think we should have somebody here but I would like your approval to do so.” For every committee that I've sat on, it's been at the discretion of the chair. He doesn't have the discretion to hire and he doesn't have the discretion to approve budgets. That's up to this committee.
I'm confused as to why we would lose that. In fact, I wouldn't support it.
For the clerk, I'm curious, Christine: could you give us some background on whether this is fairly standard? Do we not normally give the chair discretion?
The Clerk: This is a standard motion.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes. I've never heard any opposition member raise it as a challenge before.
The Chair: I just want to say that I'm easy either way. It doesn't bother me at all to delete it, to just leave it, or whatever.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: We should read the motion. I think it's important to read the motion and understand it.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): I understand your concern, but I don't think your concern is anything serious, because the chair is quite capable of making a telephone call. It wouldn't hold him up.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: To whom?
Mrs. Betty Hinton: To you, as the vice-chair, and to Mr. Abbott, as the vice-chair and then--
Mr. Paul Bonwick: We're not saying the vice-chairs. What we're saying is that he needs the consensus of the committee.
Mrs. Betty Hinton: I don't think that's what it says at all.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, but if he loses the discretion, then effectively he needs the committee to empower him every time he wants to do something like that.
The Chair: Excuse me. I don't think we'll prolong this. We have so much to do. People will vote one way or another. If you feel that it should be deleted, that's fine. It's okay.
There's a motion by Madame Gagnon. She doesn't have to be seconded. We'll vote on it and people will judge accordingly. If it passes, it passes and we'll just delete that. We are empowered to do whatever we want in regard to motions. If you feel queasy about it, just delete it.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Lincoln, at the risk of prolonging this matter, upon rereading this, I note that it states: “That the Committee retain the services of one or more Research Officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Committee in its work...”. If we were to put a period at that point, who would be making that decision? It would leave a blank. The decision has to be made by someone. It can't be made by the clerk as an officer of Parliament. It has to be made by someone on the committee or by the committee as a whole. Therefore, upon rereading, it seems clear to me that there has to be somebody to make that decision. As you know we all have tremendous confidence in you, but just as a matter of principle the chair is obviously the logical person to be making that choice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, we are going to vote on your motion.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: There is no problem. We will leave it as it is.
The Chair: Agreed.
[English]
So we'll just leave it like it is.
All in favour of the routine motions as circulated?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: With Dennis Mills being chair of the sports subcommittee?
The Chair: Yes, with Dennis Mills chairing the sports subcommittee. Do we have to insert the name now?
The clerk suggests that we can leave number ten until we decide to strike a subcommittee on sport. We can work on numbers one to nine, okay?
¿ (0915)
On motions one to nine, all in favour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I would like to circulate another set of motions, which are again motions relating to our work. The clerk tells me that they are in order without notice because they are administrative motions, but if you feel that some of them, especially in regard to two studies that are suggested, call for unanimous consent, then we'll do that, but it seems to me that all the administrative motions will go before the budget subcommittee.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, are these dollar amounts and these motions fundamentally and virtually, word for word, a carry-over from where we were at the conclusion of the last session?
The Chair: Not all of them. Number one, of course, doesn't apply in regard to our items.
In regard to Mr. David Black, I'd like to ask the clerk to explain what happened to Mr. Black, because with prorogation we actually owe him money.
Maybe you could explain what happened in regard to Mr. Black, Christine.
The Clerk: Yes, the amount of money that was put into the contract for Mr. Black was how much we estimated would be needed until October. Of course, with prorogation, he has been sitting there waiting to be paid, because over the summer he worked almost every day in order to have the modules prepared and we actually ran out of money. There's an amount of $2,400, I believe, that is owed to Mr. Black.
Because of the need to finish the report as soon as possible, this motion for $600 a day for $68,400 is based on him working six days a week until the end of the fiscal year. The contract would be dated beyond the fiscal year to June, at which time it would have to be renewed anyway in case we still need his assistance, but up to the end of the fiscal year, this would cover Mr. Black working six days a week and the amount owing to him before prorogation.
The Chair: But it's based on exactly the same amount that we have paid him so far. The same is true for Professors Raboy and Taras.
The Clerk: If I may, Mr. Chair, again because of the need to try to have the report tabled by the end of the fiscal year, Professors Raboy and Taras will be working, instead of five days a month, seven days a month, and at the standard rate of $600 a day.
The Chair: Now in regard to the three other items--
Mr. Jim Abbott: Four items.
The Chair: Now, in regard to the four other items I would like to explain as follows. The two items covering a request for two contracts are at the suggestion of our expert advisers. We feel that it would be extremely important for us to have some reference point in addition to the panels we're going to conduct from a most reputable centre, the Centre d'études sur les médias, on the whole question of ownership and concentration of ownership and so forth. You will have read that the Minister of Industry actually has commissioned a report for March 31 on the same issue.
The next one relates to the regulation of broadcasting in selected countries, including governance issues, appointments processes, conflict of interest rules, etc., to see what happens in other countries, because we have no point of reference to know what happens in Britain or Germany or France or Sweden. I think it would be extremely important for us to have this information for a study.
Finally, there are the last two motions. We have discussed travelling to Washington, D.C., to the FCC and to the PBS network to have a look at them, and to the U.K. to contact the BBC and also some parliamentarians there, because the whole of the Communications Act in the U.K. is now part of a huge study and white paper that they're producing.
What we have suggested is that we include a motion that we travel there. The clerk will give you amounts and so forth. If you look at the schedule of the work of the House, you can see that the House will stop its work on December 13. What we suggested was that on the 4th we would travel to Washington, stay there a couple of days and then travel on to London and come back by the 12th, and also that in the week of January 23 during the break, we would have that retreat we have been speaking about to look at the report.
I had a meeting with the researchers and the clerk the other day. So that you understand what the gist of this last motion would be, if you look at your calendars, what we suggest is that we spend between now and the end of November and beginning of December in finishing our hearings. There are four panels that are still to be done. There's one panel on foreign ownership. There's one panel on concentration of media, one on native broadcasting and one on cultural diversity. It happens that the aboriginal stakeholders that are involved in broadcasting happen to have some sort of a convention taking place in Ottawa. We don't know the exact date yet, but we think it's going to be around November 25 to 27.
¿ (0920)
What we would suggest is that we ask them to stay on another day so that maybe on the Thursday of that week we could use their presence here to have a panel with them, because it would be impossible to travel to the north. They will all be here in Ottawa so that would take care of it.
So if we are diligent and can finish these panels by the end of November or the first week in December, on the first Tuesday in December, then we have a suggestion. The researchers have prepared modules. There are three that are translated already and ready to be distributed to you. There will be eight in all. Some of them will have to wait for the panels to be terminated, but all the same, we will have all of them to you by the time we break and some of them will be distributed in between. You would have the whole of the second half of December and most of January to look at and study them, so that if we were to have a retreat in the last week of January, we could go over the reports. We could look at them. There would be suggestions for recommendations. Then we would keep the month of February and part of March for review of drafts and for preparation of a final draft and allowing time for printing, etc., so that all in all we could be ready to issue the report by the end of March.
I've forgotten to ask, as per our motion, if we could proceed in camera to discuss business, because we don't want to give out the dates and everything, aside from to the committee itself and the people who work for committee. Is that all right?
¿ (0925)
Mr. Jim Abbott: Is the request to go in camera?
The Chair: Yes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]