Evidence of meeting #37 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was broadcasters.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
It's the total funding of the Canadian Television Fund, which is indexed to privates so that the share allocated is always at least 37% of total funding. The actual noun there, the subject of the verb, is “Canadian Television Fund”.
Mr. Chair, I think it is traditional to speak to your amendment first to explain it to people.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Mr. Abbott, I think you want to make your point. Could you make your point again?
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I don't know that I have a point as much as I have a question. It's not really a point. I don't understand, with no disrespect to Ms. Fry, “total funding”, the 37% of “total funding”. I don't understand the wording. Maybe we've gone from French to English, and the English isn't at all clear. I don't get it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'm going to go to Mr. Coderre and then over to Mr. Chong.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
You're sneaking in, but we'll let you go first, and then I'll go to Mr. Siksay.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
We asked Mr. Gratton questions, and I am sure that you will remember that I specifically asked—it was exactly along the lines of your question, Jim—what was meant by “historical access“ and whether we were talking about total funding. We must make sure that we really mean 37% of total funding.
In my opinion, something is missing, but it could be handled with a friendly amendment. We would add the words "historical access" in parentheses after the word "total". If we do not refer to historical access anywhere, the problem remains. In French, if we say "fonds global", meaning public sector funding, that means all the funding contributed by Canadian Heritage. Under those conditions, saying 37% of the public-sector envelope would reduce the amount.
But in English, when we're talking about “total funding”, we should refer it to the total envelope from CTF. What you are looking for is the percentage of what it will represent in the future, even though it will split between private and public.
That's why I was asking the question regarding historical access. It's not 37% of the public envelope, because if that's the case, we'll now eventually have a decrease. You want to make sure that you keep that $96 million. What we have to do is add “accès historique”—“historical access”—because you have a reference.
I will talk about the amendment later on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We're going to talk about the subamendment.
Just before we go to Mr. Siksay, because I've overlooked him—I'm sorry about that—I would think, if I didn't hear it said by witnesses today, that 37% would represent 75% to 80% of that, if it were split in half. It would be 75% to 80% of the public fund that would be then CBC's.
Am I correct? Did we hear that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. That's just for a little clarity. But it is a little ambiguous here, when you see—
I have to go to Mr. Siksay, but we have to talk about Mr. Coderre's subamendment.
Is that what you want to talk to? Okay. Mr. Chong.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. I've been advised that we can all smile and everything, but there isn't such a thing as a friendly amendment.
I'll take a friendly amendment anyway. I don't always go by the rules.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the problem is that the French version says indexé selon, and in the English version it says “increases so”, and that's logically not correct. What that word should be replaced with is the word “and”. So I'm suggesting that in the English motion we replace the word “so” with the word “and”, and in the French version selon with the word et. It doesn't follow that just because you have indexation, the CBC's going to get its 37% share. It doesn't make logical sense.
I'm suggesting that it read as follows:
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government commit to allocating to the Canadian Television Fund long-term funding that is indexed to private sector increases and that the share of the Canadian Television Fund allocated to the CBC/SRC productions is always at least 30% of total funding.
That logically makes sense. As it's currently proposed, it doesn't.
In French:
Le Comité permanent du patrimoine canadien recommande au gouvernement de s'engager à accorder au Fonds canadien de télévision un financement pluriannuel et indexé selon les augmentations de la part du secteur privé; ...
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Michael, as a matter of fact the English represents totally what's written right now in French, so keep the French.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Okay, so forget about the French part, but I think the English part is more correct that way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Hang on. I have to listen to Mr. Siksay before I go to anybody else.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
All of a sudden I looked at the list and I've taken everybody else.
Go ahead, Mr. Siksay.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think Mr. Chong's English version is helpful. If we could agree to that as a reasonable translation of the French, then I think that we'd be on to something. That's what I'd like to say about that aspect.
I would also like to speak to Madam Fry's amendment, but this isn't the time to do that. I support the suggestion by Mr. Chong.
Conservative
