Canadian Heritage Committee on April 29th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll call the question on the motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to motion three.

I will ask Mr. Del Mastro to please read his motion.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My motion is quite simple: that the committee hold hearings with officials from the CBC regarding the relationship with Mr. Frank Graves and EKOS Research Associates, and Mr. Graves' relationship with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Obviously, I want to make a distinction here. To begin with, this is not in any way an attack on the CBC. I think the CBC has acted impartially; I think they've contracted an individual to provide services and in no way has the CBC made any of these documents available to a given party, to the exclusion of other parties. They have not asked somebody to do research and then turned it over in a preferential fashion to a given political party.

I do, however, think this is a reflection on Mr. Graves and his judgment. His comments were extremely hurtful to rural Canadians and western Canadians. Frankly, I think they caused significant concern in metropolitan areas too. I know they were a big issue on major metro radio stations in Toronto and in places like Ottawa as well, and throughout the west. I find it extremely troubling that he saw fit to make these comments based on research he had done and been paid for by the public broadcaster. I think his actions are deplorable in this case. I think they were hurtful and harmful. I also think that members of the opposition should also find it concerning that he is utilizing public funds to provide private counsel with respect to the polling he's doing.

I think it's entirely reasonable that Mr. Graves be brought before the committee to talk about his actions, to find a way, as far as I'm concerned, to explain himself.

I think in the CBC's case, I'd like to understand a little bit of the process they go through in contracting individuals. Obviously, the CBC has many people go on air as commentators. The people invited onto their programs are not paid as commentators for the most part. They are free to provide whatever views they wish. I believe in free speech, but I think you cross a significant line when an individual uses public funds from a contract to provide services to the public broadcaster to then provide private counsel to a given political party. I would think that the Liberal Party would want to distance itself from this very quickly.

It could be interpreted, from Mr. Graves' suggestion to invoke a culture war, that Mr. Ignatieff has in fact undertaken that, both with his position to whip his members on the private member's bill on the long gun registry and his comments during an interview on a Saskatchewan radio station just last week, when he suggested that any Saskatchewan lawyers who ever hoped to be on the Supreme Court had better learn French. I think that's insensitive. I think it is invoking a culture war. I would think the Liberal Party would want to distance itself from that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with Mr. Graves, and the Liberal party has distanced himself from his remarks. Furthermore, I see no link with the work of the committee. This is simply a partisan manoeuvre that will derail the committee's work. The committee has all kinds of other things to do at the present time.

That is all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Would anyone else like to speak to the motion?

Madame Lavallée, and then Mr. Uppal.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I do not wish to intervene in a war between the Conservative party and the Liberal party, but I am trying to see in what way such a matter might fall under the mandate of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I do not see how Mr. Del Mastro's motion could fit into our committee's mandate, nor that of any other committee, as a matter of fact.

Let us talk only of our committee. The CBC is a Crown corporation and let us not interfere in its affairs, especially with regard to content. We see that it is particularly useful in a case such as this one. Commentators are entitled to make whatever comments they wish, even if they are paid. The Bloc québécois is sometimes attacked on CBC television, but we respect the commentators. We are often in disagreement, we find that they go too far, but we keep these criticisms to ourselves because overall the Crown corporation does a good job. In any event, we are not supposed to interfere in this type of issue. As a matter of fact, if we did, Don Cherry would have lost his job a long time ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Uppal....

Sorry, Madame.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

The statements that you are criticizing Mr. Graves for were not made on the CBC, but rather to theGlobe and Mail. I feel very uncomfortable, and it is clear that the Bloc québécois will vote against this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you.

As a member from Alberta, I want to confirm what Dean was saying. We did hear from people, not only in my riding but also from other parts of Alberta, about how upset they were with the nature of those comments. Because of that, I really do think we need to examine this situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Galipeau, and then Mr. Martin.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

For the purpose at hand, this is not the first time that we have heard a commentator, who is supposed to be impartial, speak out via the public broadcaster. I remember when we used to hear an experienced commentator named Michel Drapeau, who was put forward as a retired colonel. He would make comments with regard to the administration of the Department of National Defence, and he had a lot of fun sticking it to the government in power, which at the time was a liberal government. Never when this experienced commentator was being introduced did anyone say that he himself was a defeated conservative candidate. I found that the whole thing lacked transparency. People talked about Mr. Drapeau as being a retired colonel criticizing the government, but no mention was ever made of the fact that he was a defeated conservative candidate.

In this case, a supposedly impartial commentator is presented on the air, but he makes mind boggling contributions to a political party. He is, it would seem, in favour of that party, but he is put forward as being an impartial fellow. It does not wash.

In other committees, the majority, under the present minority government, belongs to the opposition, and some would say to the coalition of the opposition. Every time someone wants to bring forward witnesses to launch partisan attacks against the government, the coalition majority that gets its way. In the case at hand, we are asking a witness to come and explain himself; but we are unable to move forward in these circumstances, because we know for a fact that the government does not have enough votes on committees to impose its will.

I believe we are not being consistent when we defend these arguments in such circumstances.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'd only point out briefly that this guy, Kory Teneycke, who was just hired by CBC—and who was the director of communications for the PMO up until a couple of months ago—was on the CBC saying that the leaders of the Liberals and the NDP are a couple of “spineless wets”.

I mean, if you are going to get angry about commentary you hear that's not in favour of your party....

First of all, he should never have been hired, because he didn't have the two-year cooling-off period. But he's also out there knocking political parties with extremely partisan views, and that's what they do on TV.

So I'm going to be voting against Mr. Del Mastro's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Monsieur Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Martin has just reinforced the argument I've just made—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Not deliberately.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

—because the individual he just named is, in effect, known as a partisan person, and so is never presented as an impartial commentator.

So I appreciate the comments that Mr. Martin has made, but they reinforce the point I made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

We have Mr. Del Mastro, and then I will call a vote.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

To Mr. Martin's comments, I was going to echo what Mr. Galipeau said. Mr. Teneycke has never made any qualms about the fact he is a Conservative. His views are made available to Canadians from that perspective, as a Conservative.

The CBC's decision to hire him as a commentator is their decision. The difference here is that the CBC is paying for research, and that research is being provided to a given political party in a fashion that's not being provided to others. That's what's indicated here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

As our meeting is coming to a close and time is running out, I am going to call the vote on Mr. Del Mastro's motion.

(Motion negatived)

With that, the meeting is adjourned.