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.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
No. I have not had a chance to speak to this recommendation, and I will speak to that recommendation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
There was a point of order raised. Do you want to speak on this point of order?
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes, certainly.
Why is it a recommendation? It says very clearly, “The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage praises the work of the Canadian Television Fund...”. It's very simple, very straightforward, because what was underlying a lot of this crisis that was precipitated were the attacks and the insults that were launched by Shaw and Vidéotron against the industry.
I think it's incumbent upon the heritage committee to say, based on the testimony we heard, that we actually learned that this fund has created a fair amount of jobs, that it has leveraged a number of dollars, as was pointed out. This is the evidence we heard. The recommendation is that we praise the work that's been done. It's very simple and straightforward.
I mean, he might call it a “so-called recommendation”. He might think it's an attack on the Conservative Party. He can think whatever he wants, but it is a recommendation, and I'd like to bring it forward.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I just want to point out that, as far as this recommendation is concerned, we in the Bloc, whether it be in the House of Commons or to the media, have already noted the relevance of some of the criticisms made by Videotron, particularly with respect to the CTF's reluctance to acknowledge the need to adapt to new platforms which, from Videotron's perspective—I'm talking about Videotron because we've been following this issue very closely from the beginning—were arguments that had been made verbally, in writing and substantially for two years. So, we have a bit of a problem with that. I suppose we could “note” the work of the CTF, but to use the term “praise” is really a bit much, as far as we are concerned.
Conservative
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
It may be short, it may not be.
In the text that follows recommendation 2, Mr. Angus has said “this committee heard no reason to believe the allegations of Shaw and Vidéotron that the CTF is poorly structured or operated.” That may be what Mr. Angus heard, but we heard from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which stressed that there were some complaints about the CTF and that they had been expressed for a number of years. In fact, on page 6 of our report there is some talk of that.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
We have to remember what we heard as testimony in this committee. I'm just seeing all kinds of contradictions developing here. On page 6 of our report, it says, “The Canadian Broadcasting Association stressed that the CTF and indeed, all television production funding mechanisms, must keep pace with the challenging realities of the broadcasting environment. To this end, the association recommends that the CRTC be directed to hold a review of matters related to the production funding mechanisms and the first principle of such a review, according to the association, must be the creation of great Canadian programming that attracts audiences from all available platforms.”
All of a sudden our report is saying yes, there needs to be a review, and then following recommendation 2, we're saying that there was no other testimony showing that the complaints of Vidéotron and Shaw were valid. There are already contradictions developing, and I think we have to look at this in the context of what we have in the first part of the report.
I'll just point out, since I noticed it, what looks like a spelling mistake in that paragraph. It should be “a” rather than “as”. It's purely technical.
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
In response to an issue raised by my colleague from the Bloc about appraising the work of the CTF, certainly it's not our job to give a blank rubber stamp to the CTF. I would put forward as a possible amendment that the standing committee “acknowledges the work of the Canadian Television Fund”. The facts are that it does leverage this money, and it has created the amount of television it has. It is something we can recommend. If there are other issues, those are apart from what we're coming forward with now.
I would say, “The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage acknowledges the work of the Canadian Television Fund”. Let's see if my colleagues would support that.
I would call the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Just before that, I've had a little talk with my clerk on this particular issue. Is it a recommendation? The clerk feels it's a weak recommendation, but it is a recommendation.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just for my information and perhaps the committee's, as I indicated previously, I don't really understand the value of this political discussion that we're having right at this moment. That's what we devolved into in camera, and I was wondering what would be involved....
I would like to put forward a motion that we no longer be in camera. That has to be the choice of the members of this committee. I don't know what the procedure is. I wonder if the clerk might be able to advise me of that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
The motion that we move from in camera to public has been put forward by Mr. Abbott. Do we have a consensus around the table that we do that?
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
It strikes me, Mr. Chair, if I may say so, as being in keeping with the discussion we've had to this point that these kinds of things to do with the CTF at the CRTC should not be in camera. It strikes me that this kind of discussion we're having here right now falls completely within the characterization that has been made by my colleagues on the other side of the table.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, just to clarify that issue, are we talking, then, about also moving the discussion we've already had? To move it from in camera to public session now, without allowing the discussion that's already taken place, in isolation, would be difficult. Are we talking about moving the whole meeting into the public sphere?