Evidence of meeting #24 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
As a question, does this, in addition to what we already have, add confusion or add clarity? That's really what I'm trying to get to here.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Madam Clerk, we will have a vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Folks, I would ask that we try to get through this as quickly as we can with a simple vote. I appreciate the spirit in which it was done, Ms. McPherson, but for the sake of expediency I'm going to have to remind everyone about the yes and the no and whatever it may be.
Let's move on now. Again, we'll break in about six or seven minutes.
We're now going to LIB-1, and if you are listening from elsewhere, “LIB” means it's a motion put forward for consideration by Liberal members of the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.
I'm going to be relatively brief. This is the first in a number of amendments being brought forward by representatives of all parties to do some things.
The first recognizes that French is a minority language in North America and in nine of the 10 Canadian provinces.
It also recognizes that English is a minority language in Quebec. The amendment states that we have two official languages that we're very proud of in Canada and that we should be promoting them, and that the act should be interpreted and applied in a manner that supports the commitment of the Canadian government to enhance the vitality of both official languages—English and French—throughout Canada, and the official language minority communities in Canada.
We heard from representatives of francophones outside Quebec, francophones in Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. I believe that we must ensure that the act reflects Canada's priority goal of supporting both language communities and both official languages across the country.
I hope that the committee members will support this amendment. I'm ready to support the various amendments regarding the language issue that all parties will be introducing today.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to CPC-0.1.
For those of you following along, this is a Conservative Party amendment, from the Conservative members of our committee. This is CPC-0.1.
Who do I see to move it? Monsieur Rayes, is that you?
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment is clear. It seeks to amend the bill by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:
(2.2) A person does not carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act whose transmission of programs over the Internet is
(a) ancillary to a business not primarily engaged in the transmission of programs to the public and is intended to provide information or services to clients;
(b) part of the operations of a primary or secondary school board, college, university or other institution of higher learning, a public library or a museum;
...
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Did everybody hear Mr. Rayes? The volume was a bit low for me.
By a thumbs-up, did everyone hear that?
Okay, great.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Since this amendment was submitted a little later than the others, I haven't had the opportunity to study it in depth. I'd like to ask the departmental officials to explain the impact of this amendment so that I can have a better understanding.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
I can respond, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.
I gather that Mr. Rayes' amendment appears to propose exceptions, to clarify that certain undertakings aren't broadcasters within the meaning of the act.
However, the bill already specifies that the CRTC, when implementing the regulations, “takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which this Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1).” This is reflected in proposed paragraph 5(2)(h). There's already some leeway so that the CRTC can avoid imposing regulatory obligations on undertakings that aren't really in the broadcasting business.
I have one final comment. Would the committee like to include a list of exceptions? The committee must consider this. Would the list be comprehensive? Would we forget any? If so, that could cause issues.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question, which Mr. Rayes or the departmental officials could answer. It's about proposed paragraph 2(2.2)(a): “ancillary to a business not primarily engaged in the transmission of programs to the public and is intended to provide information or services to clients; ...”
One case comes to mind. I'm thinking of undertakings involved in redistribution or a broadcast service in establishments such as hotels.
Based on your understanding of the intent of this paragraph, would these undertakings be excluded from the regulations or would they still be subject to the Broadcasting Act?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Monsieur Champoux, can I ask one or the other department, or is it Monsieur Rayes?
Bloc
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll let the officials answer Mr. Champoux's question, since it concerns technical details.
I just want to address Mr. Ripley's first response. The amendment states as follows: “A person does not carry on a broadcasting undertaking...” For example, proposed paragraph (b) would exclude situations where students transmit content over the Internet while doing schoolwork. This amendment specifically focuses on education. It seeks to ensure that a student who must complete an assignment over the Internet isn't subject to the regulations. This situation doesn't involve the student's primary activity or a business that wants to make a profit.
I don't think that the CRTC needs to legislate. It's a no-brainer for us. This falls in line with the access to documents given to universities, primary schools, secondary schools and other institutions. We would like to exclude this group from the entire bill. It's very clear to us.
We aren't talking about an undertaking. We aren't talking about a situation where the CRTC would be asked to legislate and determine whether an undertaking has the right to transmit content. Instead, we're talking about cases that shouldn't be considered activities related to the operation of a business.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before I go to Mr. Louis, let us have a response from the department, please.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
I'll answer Mr. Champoux's question.
I gather from the proposal that we'll need to determine when broadcasting constitutes the primary activity of an undertaking and when it constitutes a secondary activity. There are several possible scenarios. I'm thinking of Amazon, for example. Does Amazon's streaming service constitute its primary activity or a secondary activity? This raises issues. We'll need to determine under what circumstances we can consider broadcasting the primary activity of an online undertaking and under what circumstances we can consider it a secondary activity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I wonder whether we might hear more from the department.
With your educational institutions or your venues, would this legislation be able to keep up with changing technology? In this last year, people are becoming more resourceful and doing more online broadcasting. Is this something this legislation could keep up with, with this amendment, or could it fall behind? Is this something we might leave to the regulators?
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Louis.
What I would say is that, as I highlighted at the outset, we have already included under subclause 5(2) an indication that the CRTC should avoid regulating enterprises, businesses, organizations when they not do contribute in a material manner.
That was precisely, I think, to speak to the spirit of what I understand Mr. Rayes' amendment to be, which is that there isn't a reason to subject, for example, educational institutions to being considered a broadcaster. The way Bill C-10 currently goes about this is by giving the discretion to the CRTC to work through when certain types of organizations should not be subject to being considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act.
Indeed, I query whether the list is as complete as the committee would want it to be in order to be future-proofed or whether these questions are better left up to being worked out through regulatory proceedings that can evolve as time goes on.