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.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Can I have a hand from the department? Let me just address that one first.
Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.
1:15 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
The current scope of the definition would apply only to the definition of affiliate and then the paragraph in 9.1 that Mr. Olsen spoke about.
If I understand correctly from Mr. Champoux, the amendment being referenced in BQ-24 has a reference, it seems, to Canadian ownership and control. I think the relevant question in that context is whether the definition of control here makes sense in light of that other amendment that he is proposing.
What I would highlight in the case of Canadian ownership and control is that, as the committee is aware, there is a very detailed direction that sits on the books to the CRTC. It actually, in a very prescriptive way, indicates when a Canadian broadcaster, cable or satellite company is under either direct or indirect control and has percentages of voting shares and whatnot.
The only thing the committee may want to consider is whether that would change some of the legal threshold for what constitutes control indirectly, by subjecting it to this definition for control as opposed to leaving it up to the Governor in Council—as is currently the case—to set those thresholds for when something is considered to be under Canadian control or ownership.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Ripley.
Mr. Housefather, I hope this clarifies what you were asking. In the case of this, the consequence of the consequential amendments will be this. If BQ-1 is accepted, passed and carried, then so would BQ-24, but if BQ-1 is defeated, then we will still discuss BQ-24 when the time arrives.
I see you're nodding. Thank you.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to make sure that I fully understood your last comment. If we pass this amendment, amendment BQ-24 will be deemed adopted. Is that right?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, that is correct. If you would like further explanation, I can call on the legislative clerk.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes, please. After that, I'd like to ask the question that I originally intended to ask.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rayes, if amendment BQ-1 is passed, amendment BQ-24 will also be passed, since there's an internal reference between the two amendments. That's why.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
After hearing from the experts, I'm reminded of the following expression: you can't be too careful. We think that Mr. Champoux's amendment is very good.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We will now proceed to a recorded vote on BQ-1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings] )
The amendment is carried.
As a consequence, as I mentioned earlier, BQ-24 is carried as well.
Folks, we are now on G-1. Before we start debate, just a note of interest: If G-1 is adopted, BQ-2 cannot be moved. It would create two definitions of the same term in the act.
Let's now proceed with G-1.
Ms. Bessette, you have the floor.
April 16th, 2021 / 1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
At this point, Bill C-10 doesn't define “indigenous peoples.” It would be good to list them: first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like some clarification with regard to Ms. Bessette's explanation. When I read the amendment, I can see that it refers to the content of the Constitution Act, 1982, without identifying the indigenous peoples. Does this mean that she would prefer that they be included in the bill?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
To answer Mr. Champoux's question, I think that we should recognize first nations, Inuit and Métis people in this bill, since they have three distinct cultures. The amendment proposes to add the definition of “indigenous peoples” found in the Constitution Act, 1982, to clause 1 of Bill C-10. However, I'd like the indigenous peoples to be listed, if you agree.
Thank you.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I gather that Ms. Bessette is proposing that we withdraw her amendment and instead vote on amendment BQ-2, which proposes a definition that specifically addresses and identifies first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
Is that right?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One moment, please
I'm going to go to Ms. Bessette, and then I'll go to Mr. Rayes.
Ms. Bessette, you have the floor.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
The definition in the Constitution already refers to them, Mr. Champoux, so it amounts to the same thing.