Jim Abbott

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that my Liberal friend, with whom I agree completely on this issue, would want to be correcting our friend from the Bloc Québécois who referred to the motion that was passed in this House as referring to a Quebec nation. That was not the motion at all. It was the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada.

If we were to make that clarity, for not only that member, not that he will accept it, but for the Bloc Québécois and for the viewers and readers of Hansard, it would be very helpful to understand that in fact the Bloc Québécois is distorting the motion that was actually passed in the House.

[Arctic Winter Games, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the athletes participating in the 2008 Arctic Winter Games, which will be opened by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Sport on Sunday, March 9 in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. This is an extraordinary event, bringing together athletes from circumpolar countries and regions to compete in sport and celebrate their cultural values.

Budget 2008 has committed to invest $164 million every year to support excellence in the participation of sport from the playground to the podium.

For years the Liberal Party ignored sports. We are pleased the Liberals have now decided to show confidence in this government by allowing the budget to pass the House of Commons. This government is restoring pride for our athletes and for Canadian sports in general.

Congratulations and thanks to the thousands of coaches, officials, event organizers, volunteers and parents who have supported the athletes throughout the years in preparation for this competition. Good luck to our athletes.

[March 6th, 2008]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is why we have the government and the opposition. Again I will say that the government, on behalf of the people of Canada, has invested over $765 million in Canadian audiovisual content: $74 million, $96 million, $252 million, $14 million, and $330 million, plus $1 billion for the CBC. I really think that this particular sector is not doing all that badly with way over $1 billion and approaching $2 billion.

[March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, working with the hon. member opposite, I want to say, with the greatest respect, that unfortunately I think he is taking Mr. Roy's testimony out of context. He should remember that when he asked Mr. Roy whether Telefilm's funding was adequate he explained that the answer depends on the perspective.

He said on the one hand that the film industry will always be happy to receive as much money as anyone would care to give, but on the other hand he said that “anyone working in a cultural industry other than film could say that too much money is being allocated to that sector”.

I think the new Telefilm director gave a balanced answer. I would suggest that the member might want to consider some of the following. I would like to look at some numbers.

In 2006-07, our government invested over $765 million in Canadian audiovisual content: $74 million from the National Film Board; $96 million from the Canada feature film fund; $252 million from the Canadian television fund; $14 million from the Canada new media fund; and $330 million from two tax credit programs. That does not include over $1 billion for the CBC.

By any measure, this is a large investment by Canadians for Canadians. In addition to the direct investment in the audiovisual industry, I would remind the member that we also reduced the GST by two full points, which also helps the industry.

The hon. member asked when the government will increase the Telefilm budget. Why is he asking that? I remind him that the 2005 Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, under the Liberal government, issued the report, “Scripts, Screens and Audiences: A New Feature Film Policy for the 21st Century”. The present standing committee under the present government retabled the report.

I would think he would remember that because it was done on Tuesday, May 30. I checked the notes. I see that the member attended that particular meeting, so he would be aware that the report was retabled. This is important, because I would like to remind my colleague that all parties supported the committee's conclusion that existing levels of feature film funding were adequate.

In other words, they recommended this under the committee under the Liberal government. It was retabled not once but twice. It was tabled and the committee unanimously concluded that existing levels of feature film funding are adequate. Our current government agreed with the standing committee's conclusion in its response tabled before the House of Commons on September 29, 2006.

Are we satisfied? No. Our government is in a continuous discussion with the audiovisual industry regarding its concerns. Our government is and remains committed to Canada's film, television and new media industries, and no one can say differently.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather amused by the use of the terms “freedom of expression” by my NDP friend.

Apparently he does not believe there should be freedom of expression for members of Parliament who are representing the views of people they speak to when they go back home. The members for Palliser and Abbotsford were doing exactly that.

I believe that of all places in Canada, there must be freedom of expression in this place for people to express the views, the wishes, the desires, and the direction that Canadians want to go. We should not feel encumbered by the hon. member's ideas of what is politically correct to say and what is not. I say shame on him.

With respect to the guidelines, they do not exist. They cannot exist before Bill C-10 is passed. There are simply no guidelines to provide. When Bill C-10 is passed, we will be holding consultations. As a matter of fact, consultations have already begun.

With respect to the misspeak of the official from the department, he should not have used the word “update”. There is no update because there are no existing guidelines as defined by this legislation. Once the legislation is passed, the minister will direct the department to continue those consultations and the guidelines will be developed.

I have a question for the member. I am sure he must be aware of CAVCO, which is the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, and I quote to him from its guidelines. He will find that there is an echo in this chamber, the echo being the words he objects to in Bill C-10 which are repeated in CAVCO's guidelines. It states that, “production for which public financial support would, in the opinion of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, be contrary to public policy”.

Those are the current--

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his assurance that the Liberals will not be voting for this motion. It means that we can get on with business.

I would also like to assure him that the document to which I referred was printed off on March 4, 2008. It is on the bottom of my page. Indeed, the document does contain “production for which financial support would, in the opinion of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, be contrary to public policy”. I do not know which website he went to, but this is a current document, currently contained on the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office website.

Second, at the risk of rubbing it in, the point still is that in 2003, Minister Copps and Minister Manley came forward with amendments to the Income Tax Act relating to films and video productions, which is the title, and included in that, and I apologize because the wording is a little weird, but it says the same thing, that public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy as it related to the fact that this would be a change in the income tax provisions.

I wonder if my friend would agree with me that perhaps some of the hysteria that has been created, certainly not by him but perhaps by some other members in the House and certainly by the news media, has been created around a lack of information and a lack of knowledge.

The bill is simply the normalization of the rules that apply to CAVCO and would be the same rules as apply to the Income Tax Act. I would think he would agree that there has not been any censorship, certainly of the type that is envisioned by the people under CAVCO.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure, and as a matter of fact I know full well, that the member who was just speaking is very engaged with this particular issue. I recognize that and I probably find a lot of common ground. However, I suggest that questions and comments typically in a debate relate to the topic at hand.

Section 13.(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act has little or nothing, as a matter of fact it has nothing, to do with this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might want to go to a different question that does have something to do with this debate.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

It was your bill, Wayne. It was a Liberal bill.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised at the admission of the Bloc member when she said that nobody pointed out the clause in the bill. I have a news flash for her. It is her responsibility to take a look at the legislation and vote accordingly. There is no excuse for that.

The member also said that she was surprised and flummoxed. I am rather surprised and flummoxed at the fact she does not realize that under the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, which presently governs taxpayer funds that are made available to film producers, the so-called offending clause is contained in its regulations. Let me read it, and it is on its website. It is clause 5, section l, which says, “production for which public financial support would, in the opinion of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, be contrary to public policy” would not eligible for the tax credit program. Those are the words in the bill that the member condemns. It simply brings CAVCO regulations into effect on tax exemption.

Maybe then if she does understand that it is already in the regulations, she could tell us one single solitary example in the history of CAVCO where there has been so-called censorship. I defy her because she knows full well that she cannot name one time. She is making an absolute mountain out of a molehill and she is feeding the lack of information, the ignorance of the fact that this clause already exists in public policy.

[Arts and Culture, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the NDP member is trying to make something out of nothing. The fact is the tax measure is nothing new. The fact is that party, along with every party in the House, passed the bill. She should have known what was in the bill in the first place.

I should note that it originally came to the House in 2003, under the Liberals at that point. There is nothing new. What is the story here? I do not understand.