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.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to point out that, if the committee votes in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendment as amended, it would negate the amendment I was planning to move immediately afterwards. I am entirely in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendment as amended.
If no one else wishes to comment, we could proceed with the vote right away. I'd be glad not to move my amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. I have to apologize. My audio disappeared, so could you repeat the last part of what you just said so that it's clear to me as chair? I'm sorry about that.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No problem, Mr. Chair.
I was just saying that, if the committee votes in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendment as amended, it would automatically negate my amendment, the Conservative Party amendment that would have been moved next. We are glad to support the Bloc Québécois's amendment as amended. If it is adopted, I will withdraw my amendment, but if not, I will move my amendment as planned.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Just to follow up with Mr. Rayes, ours is very similar as well. Of course, this is something that we're all pushing for, and so I also would be willing to withdraw mine if this is positive—or, frankly, if the Conservative amendment is positive if this one is not.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further conversation, we now return to the main motion as amended in BQ-4.
Shall BQ-4 carry as amended?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That eliminates CPC-0.2.
Ms. McPherson, if I get this correctly, you just said—and I think my audio was working—you would be willing to withdraw NDP-3 if BQ-4 were adopted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
For that we need unanimous consent.
Ms. McPherson wishes to withdraw NDP-3 from consideration. Does anyone have any problems with that? Pardon the vernacular.
Okay, done. We will withdraw NDP-3.
We move on to LIB-2.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know Mr. Rayes and Mr. Champoux, fellow members from Quebec, will agree with us on this, as the rest of the committee members no doubt will. Recognizing the minority status of French in North America is extremely important. The purpose of the amendment is to recognize that English-language broadcasting and French-language broadcasting operate under different conditions in Canada because of the minority context of French in North America.
The amendment is pretty straightforward. I hope the committee members will support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further comments, we will now proceed with the vote.
Shall LIB-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
It is so carried.
We will now move to NDP-4.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the current part of the act that requires the Canadian broadcasting system to foster the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming and information and analysis about Canada and other countries from a Canadian perspective is maintained. The bill removes that last point.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I would like the department to help clarify what the impact is, because now we're getting into all of the subsections this bill, and it's a bit more complex here. That would be helpful to me.
NDP
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
I think Ms. Tsui will take this one, Mr. Chair.
Kathy Tsui Manager, Industry and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace , Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question.
I would point out that wording very similar to what has been struck from subparagraph3(1)(d)(ii) has been transported to new proposed subparagraph 3(1)(i)(ii.1).
The main reason for that is that the notion of offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view speaks more about the programming that is offered in the Canadian broadcasting system, so as paragraph 3(1)(i) talked more about programming offered rather than the Canadian broadcasting system writ large, it seemed to be a better place to place that notion.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think our amendment has a bit better clarity for that.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Can I get clarification from the department? This is the place where I'm confused. Is this going to have an impact on ethnocultural content? Could there be a potential negative impact there? I'm literally just trying to make sure I understand the kinds of issues that are being raised. What is the impact I should be worrying about, if I'm worrying about anything?
Manager, Industry and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace , Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question.
Yes, as subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii) does speak to a lot of equity-seeking groups and minority groups, so does proposed subparagraph3(1)(d)(ii.1). There is text there that talks to the viewpoints of indigenous persons and Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. In fact, in that subparagraph there seems to be more reference to minority, ethnocultural and equity-seeking groups.
Liberal