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 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I was a yea, does that...? Oh, I'm the only vote, never mind.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I want to point out—no reflection on Ms. McPherson here—folks, if you want to get in on the conversation, please ask to get the attention of the chair. The reason I say this is, for our lovely folks at Hansard, the world is much easier if I identify who is speaking first. It's bad enough in the real world when we're all in one room, but in the virtual world, it makes it that much more difficult, so thank you very much.
That being said, after our first recorded vote, that leaves PV-2 negatived.
We now go to BQ-1. I have to put this forward before we start debate on it. The vote on BQ-1 applies to BQ-24, as they are consequential, so the result of this amendment will be consequential for BQ-24 later on in your package, for those of you keeping score.
Did I see Mr. Housefather?
1 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair. It was just a question for you, sir.
Given the way we're voting, would it be okay, when you ask for the vote, for us to simply raise our hands? Then any member can call for a recorded vote if they want to, but we don't necessarily need to go through recorded votes. You can just say it's defeated on division if you see the hands and nobody asked for one. This is so that we can move faster.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
I'm kind of loath to make things up as I go along here. I have instruction on three different ways. Given the fact that we're in this new virtual world and this is a new system for us, I'm reticent right now. I'm going to use the same method as before, but during the first health break, I'm going to consult and I'll see, okay?
Normally, I would say no, but I don't want to make this decision right now until I consult with everyone to see how they feel about doing that and whether it's okay with the technical staff to record and so on. I'll leave it for now; I'll deal with it during the health break.
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
We are now back to BQ-1. I don't see anybody's hand up.
Monsieur Champoux, if you're with us, do you want to go ahead?
April 16th, 2021 / 1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
As you said earlier, Mr. Chair, this is a consequential amendment to amendment BQ-24, which concerns clause 7 of the bill and appears on page 86 of the document listing the amendments.
How do you want us to proceed, Mr. Chair? Do you want us to consider amendment BQ-24 right away, so that we can pass amendment BQ-1, or would you like us to come back to it later?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
They are of consequence to each other, obviously because of the similarities, but I would prefer that you debate BQ-1, assuming that you just moved it. Therefore, I'd suggest that you continue debate on BQ-1 for now.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
The amendment simply adds, to the definition of “control,” a reference to proposed new paragraph 9.1(1)(m), which concerns continued Canadian ownership and control by broadcasting undertakings.
If you have any questions, we can talk about this.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
All right. Ms. McPherson is next. Then I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson, please.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just want to get some clarity from Mr. Champoux on the intention of this, so if he could explain that to me a little more, that would be great.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Dabrusin, I have you next. Do you mind if I go to Mr. Champoux on the question that was put forward, so we keep it fresh? Thank you very much.
Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, the legislative drafters added this amendment specifically because it relates to amendment BQ-24. Perhaps a member of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel can provide an explanation. This would be more enlightening than if I tried to justify the new amendment myself.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before we go to Ms. Dabrusin, I just got clarification on something, Mr. Champoux. I apologize for my wording, but you can speak to both amendments right now. I was sort of clumsy in my wording—I apologize—because I gave you the impression to speak to only that one and not the other one. Because they are consequential to each other, you can certainly speak to both of them, so I apologize if I have led you down the wrong path. I'm sorry about that.
Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a question. I don't know if Mr. Champoux wanted to speak about that part as well right now, because I'm happy to give him that opportunity to speak about his other amendment, and then we can talk about how this piece fits in.
Does that makes sense, Mr. Chair?
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment in question, which you'll find on page 86 of the package of amendments, refers to the following proposed subsection 9.1(1) of the bill:
9.1(1) The Commission may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions ... that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting
...
Amendment BQ-24 adds the following after paragraph 9.1(1)(j):
(k) the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be original French language programs, while ensuring that these programs represent a significant proportion of Canadian programs;
(l) the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres in order to ensure the diversity of programming; and
(m) continued Canadian ownership and control by broadcasting undertakings.
The last paragraph may be the one to keep in mind. As a result of this proposed amendment, the legislative drafters suggested that we add the other amendment, since it affected the definitions, including the definition of “control.”
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I appreciate that Mr. Champoux clarified what the full purpose of this amendment is, because we have heard from stakeholders about the importance of the Canadian ownership part, and that's something I've seen raised by a number of different parties in different ways. I think there are a lot of people who are trying to sail that ship in that direction, and it's a question of how we do it and what the right words are.
I thought it might be helpful for this one if I could get the department's assistance, because it seems to me like a technical piece as to the right place and way to deal with this ownership question.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
We're going to go to the department, and I'm going to have a show of hands as to who would like to respond to Ms. Dabrusin's question.
Mr. Ripley, go ahead, please.
1:10 p.m.
Thomas Owen Ripley Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will likely call on my colleague, Mr. Olsen, as well.
Just to give the context, the government included the definition of “control” in Bill C-10 as it currently exists to provide some context in the case of how it should be interpreted in certain provisions so that the definition of “affiliate”.... It's relevant when thinking about the relationship with social media companies, which we'll have an opportunity to talk about later, I'm sure. It's important in that context to have an understanding of what it means when an affiliate is under the control of another corporation.
Then, in the context of proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(i)(i), I think perhaps Mr. Olsen can indicate why we felt it was important to have a definition of “control” in that context.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no other hands raised and that the debate has collapsed, I'm going to have to call for the question.
We are on BQ-1.
Shall the amendment carry?
With silence, the amendment is now carried.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I think it was a no. Sorry.
I was waiting for Mr. Olsen, actually. I thought Mr. Olsen was supposed to speak. I might have been confused.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I apologize. I didn't see his hand.
Let me back up a bit.
Mr. Olsen, perhaps you'd like to weigh in as well.
1:10 p.m.
Drew Olsen Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The reason we added “control” in paragraph 9.1(i) was just to make sure it was clear that the ownership and control transactions would be not just the control of the legal shares, but also any potential control in fact of the company by somebody else.
When the CRTC processes ownership transactions it typically looks at this. We just wanted to make it clear that “control” in this context includes the “control in fact” situation, as opposed to just legal control of the number of shares and voting shares, for instance.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much.
Something just happened and I wanted to clarify it to everybody. Because we are in this virtual world, and sometimes Internet connections can drop and come back in and so on and so forth, I'm going to be lenient. If I say that a clause or an amendment is carried and you try to interrupt me within a reasonable amount of time to say that something happened technically, I will, under the chair's prerogative, go back and deal with it again.
However, I won't be in a position for you to say, “Chair, can we go back three pages and an hour ago to this amendment?” For that I'm going to have to rely on the older way of doing things.
I will provide some leniency, given the fact that we are in a virtual world.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a question for the department, if you'll permit me.
As I understand it, this is changing the definition of control from juridical control to de facto control and incorporating it. I also understand that you've ruled that it's relevant to Bloc Québécois amendment 24, which has three different parts, (k), (l) and (m).
I'm wondering two things from you, Mr. Chair. The Bloc Québécois amendment, BQ-24, is relevant to this in the sense that if (m) goes through you want a definition of control that you're applying here. Would you be ruling that BQ-24 would thus not be able to be debated for (k) and (l) in the event that this definition were defeated? I ask because (k) and (l) are entirely different from (m).
I would like to ask the department: Because we're changing the definition of control in terms of an affiliate, does this impact other parts of the act? What is that impact, besides the change that would be made in BQ-24?