Evidence of meeting #127 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hours.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to touch on something that Ms. Ashton said. In all of these discussions, one thing that Canadians said loud and clear is that they support a strong public broadcaster and that they believe fundamentally in the idea of a public broadcaster that is supported and does a good job of telling the stories of Canada, of Canadians. For rural communities, indigenous communities and so many who have no other access, the CBC is a critical and essential part of this country, an institution of this country.
A lot of research and polling gets done. Angus Reid did a study, and they said something that's very interesting. They said that defunding the CBC is considered to be “bad” by the vast majority of Canadians. If we want to have a thoughtful discussion in this committee about the CBC, about building a strong CBC and about ensuring that there is a strong public broadcaster—and I think we should—then we do need to ask difficult questions of the executive. We need to ask difficult questions so that CBC/Radio-Canada is not just present in this country but it is a strong, vibrant force for telling the story of Canada.
In a world where corporate interests get to decide what we hear and what we don't, having a non-profit public broadcaster in this country is a critical part of who we are in this country, whether it is telling the stories of rural Quebec, making sure that we have strong francophone content at Radio-Canada for the francophone communities in my riding of Vancouver Granville or telling stories about the north.
It's important that everyone have access to content in French.
That is the role the CBC needs to be playing.
I think our opportunity here in this committee is to have these conversations with the executive and to get beyond the idea of “Let's do everything we can to tear the institution down.” We hear a lot about defunding the CBC and how it is—as the Leader of the Opposition called it—a “billion-dollar propaganda arm”, but really, let's get into the substance of what I think many of us really care about, which is having a strong institution that Canadians can look to and can rely upon and that is, quite frankly, a reflection of who we are as a country.
These discussions with Ms. Tait can be tough. We should be having tough conversations, but I think we should be looking at how we improve institutions and build institutions in this country. I think we're all, hopefully—well, many of us—committed to that work. I challenge all of us, regardless of our political stripe, to make sure that the conversations we have on this topic get us to a good place in the interest of all Canadians, regardless of where in this country they live.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Seeing no other hands up to speak to the amendment, we're going to vote on the amendment.
Mr. Kurek, is it on the amendment? No.
We're voting on Mr. Beaulieu's amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we move to voting on the motion as amended, and I will read the motion as amended.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm sorry, but I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Now that the amendment has passed, should we not see if there's debate on the main motion as amended? I think Madame Lattanzio—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We could if you wish to. I think everybody seemed to be in agreement, but there you go. Go ahead and debate the actual motion if you would like to.
I will read it. The motion on the floor, as amended, is,
Given that,
The CBC paid out $18.4 million in bonuses this year, including $3.3 million to top executives, after eliminating hundreds of jobs,
The committee immediately call the President and CEO of the CBC, Ms. Catherine Tait, to testify for no less than three hours, within 14 calendar days of the adoption of this motion.
This is what is on the floor now.
Now, is somebody's hand up?
Yes. Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We're suggesting to testify for no less than three hours each. I was just wondering if my colleague is suggesting that we do this in two sessions, one session or one extended session. How are we going to do this in three hours?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
This may depend on whether we have resources to go for three hours or not, but it's a question that perhaps Mr. Kurek can answer.
Liberal
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To the member, when this has been the case in other committees I've been at, I know that for the clerk and the folks who make these meetings happen, three-hour meetings are not uncommon. I'm on the Canada-China committee. We meet for three hours on a regular basis, and I have no doubt that the administration folks here, who do the good work that they do, can get that sorted out.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
Of course, the clerk will inquire about whether we have resources to do that, because we need to have resources, interpreters, a room, etc. The clerk is instructed to find that out.
Does that answer your question, Ms. Lattanzio?
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
It does.
Where it says “to testify for no less than three hours”, could it be a total of three hours so that we can ensure that it gets done in a time slot of three hours, Madam Chair?
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I think it's functionally the same thing, but yes, I think that would be certainly the spirit of the motion, for sure.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes.
Is that it? Are there any other hands up? Is there no more discussion?
Go ahead, Kevin.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Chair, Ms. Tait knows the procedures of the House of Commons, and I do believe that she would agree to come for the three hours. It's not two hours and 51 minutes. She knows that when we say “up to”, it is three hours.
Liberal
Liberal
Anna Gainey Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Would it be possible to have the new motion in writing in both official languages so that we can read it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
The original motion just removes the third paragraph and the “and” at the end of the second paragraph.
Liberal