Go ahead, Mr. Coteau.
Evidence of meeting #93 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #93 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Can we just take a pause for five minutes? Is that possible?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
This is pointless. What we're doing here is pointless. Eighty percent of the time for this meeting has been taken by the member opposite, and we're getting nowhere. Maybe a small break would just change the environment at this point, because it just doesn't seem productive.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think I have explained to Mrs. Thomas that I wish for her to continue to speak to the subamendment and that I do not wish to engage in any debate, but Mrs. Thomas insists on continuing with a debate against my ruling on speaking to the subamendment.
I cannot stop because she has the floor. I could ask her, on a point of order, to go back to the topic at hand, but I don't know that Mrs. Thomas wishes to do that.
I would like to hear from this committee if they wish Mrs. Thomas to continue to speak on the subamendment and not continue to try to make a point and debate the chair, which is what she continues to do.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I'll make a point of order that the member stick to the subamendment.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
The main focus of the subamendment brought forward to this committee that we are currently considering is on Ms. Catherine Tait, the head of the CBC, appearing at this committee for two hours.
The reason this is important is that Ms. Catherine Tait, who is the focus of the subamendment before this committee, is the head or chief of this broadcasting organization, which is fully funded by the Canadian public to the tune of more than $1.4 billion annually. It is appropriate, then, for Ms. Catherine Tait to come and answer questions that members of this committee might have with regard to her conduct, the decisions she has made and the decisions those under her watch have also made.
The purpose of the subamendment brought forward is for her to come for those two hours. We would then have an opportunity to gain clarity or understanding as to what her intentions are with the public broadcaster. More specifically, you'll recall that the purpose would be to ask Ms. Catherine Tait—the focus of this subamendment—questions with regard to her decisions pertaining to coverage around the conflict currently taking place in Gaza. That is the purpose of this subamendment.
The reason this subamendment is so crucial is that Ms. Tait wrote an article for the Toronto Star that was published on October 18. In it, she calls for trust in media to be restored. She says that the best way to do this is by being “fact-based”. She uses that term over and over again in this article.
My question for Ms. Tait would be this: What about the facts her bureau decided to redraft or the facts her bureau omitted altogether? What about the fact that hundreds of Israelis were attacked and slaughtered in the night? What about the fact that women were raped, murdered and paraded through the streets? What about the fact that 40 babies had their heads cut off? What about those facts? What about the fact that the hospital bombing wasn't actually a hospital, but a parking lot? What about the fact that it wasn't an Israeli air strike, as the CBC reported, but actually a missile from Jihad? What about the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization and has been listed as such since 2002 by the Government of Canada?
These are the facts the CBC has the responsibility to put out to the public, but these are the facts it has determined to omit or rewrite. Therefore it is absolutely incumbent upon this committee to hear from Ms. Tait. The reason this is important is that she is the lead of this organization, and therefore responsible for the decisions they have made and the so-called journalistic standards—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
She is, for an hour. This one asks for her to come for two hours, I think.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
No one is disputing that she.... We all.... It's scheduled already.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I have a point of order.
Madam Chair, be consistent in your ruling. This is not a point of order.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I was interrupted by my colleague, who raised what he called a point of order, but it actually isn't. It's a point of debate.
He raises the point that Ms. Tait is scheduled to come on November 2 for one hour. I wonder whether the chair might help us understand the reason Ms. Tait is coming on November 2. Perhaps the clerk could read the text of the original motion and help us understand the purpose—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm not clear at all on how this has anything to do with the subamendment currently being discussed.
Perhaps I'm slow, but I thought the direction and expectation.... We're specifically discussing the subamendment, not providing philosophical points of view on other motions that are already before this committee or that have been passed by this committee.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I believe we are on a point of order from Mr. Coteau, and—
