Question.
Evidence of meeting #38 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #38 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Coming from the perspective that Mr. Fast just outlined, I have managed to retrieve the precise words used by Mr. Shaw in his testimony. In part, he said, “Prior to our announcement to withhold CTF funding, few decision-makers cared to hear our views.” In the next paragraph, he said, “We are here because the issue is important to us and we want to participate in the process of finding a better way to bring more quality to Canadian television in the future. You may disagree with the methods we used to get attention, but I hope you won't disagree with our goal.”
If we were to proceed with recommendation 1, that would be to call him a liar. It basically is to say that we not only aggressively disagree with the method he undertook—albeit a totally legal method, albeit completely within the law—but that we also don't believe his goal is to make a better system.
At the conclusion of his testimony, he said, “The sincere and cooperative consultations that we have had over the last few weeks and months have reassured us that our message has been heard.” That, of course, is in reference to the meetings that he would have had both with the minister, other people in the ministry, and Mr. von Finckenstein.
The fact is that it took ten years of a constant slow boil on the part of Shaw, and to a lesser degree Vidéotron, to actually get some decision-makers and the minister to finally listen. I should also say, without condemnation of prior committees, that the heritage committee never took this on either until they actually precipitated a crisis.
The most important thing to bear in mind is that they precipitated the crisis within the law. They were fully within the law. They were completely within even the regulations. They did not break any regulations, rules, or law. For this committee to come forward and say we condemn them for doing all of this bad stuff within the law is, I think, really quite immense. I just can't imagine it.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
You have asked for the question, which is on recommendation 1?
(Motion agreed to)
Moving on to recommendation 2, it reads:
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage praises the work of the Canadian Television Fund for reasons outlined by all witnesses appearing before the committee on this matter—with the exception of Shaw Communications Inc. and Vidéotron Ltée—including, but not limited to: a) success in generating more than 23,000 hours of new Canadian television productions in English, French and aboriginal languages, which are crucial to the television industry and to the fostering of Canadian culture; b) helping foster a Canadian television production industry that creates tens-of-thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly, in the audio-visual industry and other spinoff industries; c) leveraging addition investment in Canadian television production at a rate of between $2-$3.30 for every CTF dollar allocated.
You've heard the recommendation. Would anyone like to speak on the recommendation?
Mr. Warkentin.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Again, I fail to see what the recommendation is in this commentary. For the most part, I see this as maybe a recapping of some of the testimony from certain individuals, but I really don't see a recommendation here.
We're recapping the amount of television that's produced and the number of hours. I see that we're talking about the industry, about the jobs that are created, and the dollars that are leveraged with the fund. But quite frankly, I don't see any recommendation in this entire sum of words. I don't know if I'm missing something, but I don't see any recommendation.
Do you see a recommendation, Mr. Scott?
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I have a similar concern, Mr. Chair.
It's certainly apparent, from the first vote that we took, that this has become entirely political and that no constructive work is going to take place here. What we had hoped, as a party, was that through collaborative work at this table, perhaps we could move forward and actually get something done, as we get things done at some other committees I'm involved in.
I sense that there was reticence across the table from maybe one or two members even on the last motion. Now we have a motion that has no recommendations—
10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
On a point of order, is this speaking to the question or is this—
10 a.m.
NDP
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Angus, I am speaking. Thank you. I've been acknowledged by the chair.
This recommendation isn't a recommendation at all. How can we vote on something that is declared to be recommendation 2? It has no recommendation, it's simply a statement. Where you can include that is in the body of the report, presumably. Obviously this committee is forcing the government side to issue a dissenting report, which we presumably will, because we can't allow these kinds of unsubstantiated recommendations to move forward.
I'm looking at a statement in this so-called recommendation right at the end that says, “But this committee heard no reason to believe the allegations of Shaw and Vidéotron that CTF is poorly structured or operated”.
Essentially, we're calling Shaw and Vidéotron liars; they're the bad guys. Again, we're doing the same thing as we did in the first recommendation. We're trying to do a public shaming of the two parties we need at the table, who at all times stayed within the law, who actually raised an issue that was important to be raised, an issue that had been neglected for far too long, and now we're blaming them for doing that. If there's any shame, it should be on this committee for having suggested this kind of a recommendation.
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I ask you to rule on whether this is a recommendation.
10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will allow five minutes after each recommendation to have the same repeated attack and assault on what we're doing here at committee.
10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to the recommendation that was just insulted and attacked by—
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I have asked for a point of order. I've asked the chair to rule on that.
