Canadian Heritage Committee on April 16th, 2021

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm a bit confused, Mr. Chair.

Our amendment has some very important elements. I'm wondering about a few things, and I also have some questions for my fellow members. Should I, too, move a subamendment to include the elements I consider to be important in the amendment? Wouldn't it be better to just move on to the next amendment, which would be a lot easier to amend?

The Bloc Québécois believes the obligation to make predominant use of Canadian creative resources also applies to production. Words matter. Our amendment refers to the requirement to “contribute strongly to the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming”. Those nuances are very important, and I think it would be much easier to add to the next amendment.

However, if we have to amend this amendment, I will just propose a subamendment as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Mr. Housefather, I'm going to quickly explain why we do this.

The reason I start the debate by saying—and I've used this several times now—“due to a line conflict” is that if this line is amended in the bill itself, then the second one that's being debated is moot. It no longer amends the original one because that's now been changed.

The reason I point that out before the debate starts is to give you the opportunity to subamend to your own liking if you choose to do so.

You're on track, Mr. Champoux, about what you're talking about.

I'm going to go to Mr. Housefather now.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know this is getting very procedural, but I just wanted to give my thoughts.

We have three different amendments that all have slightly different wording. In the case of the NDP, there's an additional concept completely in the amendment. I don't necessarily agree with proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1), the second paragraph in the NDP amendment. That being said, I think there are several ways to do this.

I think we all agree on this subamendment that Ms. McPherson has already proposed. We can vote on that, and then Mr. Champoux or Ms. McPherson can move another subamendment to add whatever it is that they wish to this amendment.

I also believe that Ms. McPherson's proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) is an entirely different subject. Even though her existing NDP-7 could not be moved because of a line conflict, you're allowed to move things from the floor. I believe she would be able to move this paragraph from the floor—I'll ask Philippe to confirm—by simply saying that it would follow line 33 of the amended motion that we're now adopting with paragraph 3(1)(f). She could theoretically separately move in the next line that her proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) by itself amend the clause. I think that's possible, because once we adopt this and she moves that her amendment follow this one, there would no longer be a line conflict.

I know that's complicated, as a former chair. Maybe I got it wrong. I just wanted to give her that option as well, because it's a different subject than this paragraph.

Of course Philippe and the chair can correct me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I totally agree with moving it from the floor.

He might repeat what I'm saying, but I'll let Philippe weigh in on this as our legislative clerk.

Go ahead, Philippe.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, Monsieur Housefather, you are right. The process would be to deal with the first subamendment that's on the floor right now to be able to propose a new subamendment from possibly Mr. Champoux.

Now, for Ms. McPherson, indeed she could move her amendment, basically saying “that Bill C-10 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 3 the following”, and it would be just proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1). We would remove the proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) part, if that's agreeable to the mover.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Right. Would she move that from the floor?

[Philippe Méla]

Yes, she would.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

In the meantime, we do have several steps here. Let's deal with step one.

We are currently on a subamendment proposed by Ms. McPherson, subamending G-2.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, could I speak to that very quickly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do agree with what Mr. Housefather is saying is possible, and I do have to apologize. I didn't understand that proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) was implicated.

Knowing that it is possible to do these sorts of gymnastics to manoeuvre, it is also possible to just go to NDP-7, is it not? It already has proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) with the wording that would be amended in Mr. Housefather's, as well as the clause that I would be amending from the floor, already in the amendment.

I want to get some clarity before I vote. I'm assuming I could vote against my own amendment, knowing that it would then come forward and I wouldn't have to move it from the floor because it would all be within my amendment as it stands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We are currently on G-2. We're currently dealing with a subamendment.

Let me repeat. If G-2 is adopted.... We'll deal with what we're doing right now, the subamendment. However, if the entire amendment is accepted, then NDP-7 and BQ-5 cannot be moved due to the line conflict. I think we can draw together what is defeated and it can be talked about after that, which is your NDP-7. I hope that makes some sense.

In the meantime, we still have your amendment on the floor as a subamendment to G-2.

I gather, Ms. McPherson, you're okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wanted to keep the momentum going, but as a point of courtesy, since I don't know who you can see on your screen, Ms. Atwin has left and Ms. May from the Green Party is here representing them. I wanted to acknowledge that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Oh, very good. Ms. May, welcome aboard.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair. Hands across the great expanse of this lovely country to reach out to you in Newfoundland with a really large hug.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

That's quite an accent. That's good. You're even reading my householder, I see. That's great. It's good to see you, Ms. May.

Let's go back to the subamendment. Do I see any further discussion on the subamendment put forward by Ms. McPherson? Monsieur Méla fleshed it out earlier. I don't think we need to repeat it.

Seeing no discussion, we now go to a vote.

Shall the subamendment put forward by Ms. McPherson, the subamendment of G-2, carry?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I hear a “no”. We will now go to a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to the main amendment, G-2. Is there any discussion? I see none.

Shall amendment G-2 carry?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Hearing “no”, we go to a recorded division.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Can we go to “defeated on division”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, please.

Do you want it negatived on division, Mr. Housefather?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think we can agree that it's going to be voted against. I would propose it be negatived on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I am hearing no opposition to that.

(Amendment negatived on division)

I declare G-2 negatived.

Now we go to NDP-7.

Ms. McPherson, I believe that's you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It is, and I think we all know what's in this particular clause, and why.

The only difference, of course, in our recommendation is that we have:

(f.1) each foreign online undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources in accordance with the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection and taking into account the linguistic duality of the market they serve;

It also as proposed paragraph 3(1)(f), which is similar to Mr. Housefather's, though slightly different, with the inclusion of “no case less than predominant use”, but the amendment also includes the “foreign online undertaking”.