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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Champoux, I said this before, but I think it bears repeating: If NDP-7 is adopted, of course BQ-5 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict. I apologize; I should have mentioned that earlier.
Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a subamendment to Ms. McPherson's amendment. I would like to add the word “production” so that the provision would read “and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming”.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I can repeat it myself, but I'd rather hear it en français. I am going to turn to our legislative clerk again, who is certainly making his dollar's worth today.
Philippe, would you like to repeat to the committee the subamendment from Mr. Champoux?
3:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the proposed wording, the subamendment would read as follows:
f) les entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes sont tenues d'employer des ressources humaines — créatrices et autres — canadiennes et de faire appel à celles-ci au maximum, et dans tous les cas au moins de manière prédominante, pour la création, la production et la présentation de leur programmation;
Proposed subparagraph 3(1)(f.1) would stay the same.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Has everyone heard that?
Is there any further discussion on the subamendment to NDP-7 from Mr. Champoux?
Hearing none, we will now go to a vote. Shall the subamendment to NDP-7 carry?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Hearing no dissent, I declare the subamendment carried.
Now we will return to the main motion, NDP-7.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose that at the end of the first paragraph, after the word “programming”, we would add the words “unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Housefather, I'm loath to interrupt you and I apologize, but can I ask that you slow it down to about half speed there as we frantically try to get this wording?
Go ahead, sir.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I think what you all would need to do, to be helpful, would be to go back to G-2 and look at the wording that was proposed. You have it in writing in both languages in G-2, and after the word “programming”, I propose to insert the following: “unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make use of those resources to the extent that is appropriate to their nature.”
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
Just to simplify things, if you have a copy of G-2 remaining, I think after “programming” the words are underlined. If I'm not mistaken, you just read all that was underlined.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
No, it would continue to go back to the bill, so to the words “to the extent that is” and then, going back to the last line of that clause in the bill, “appropriate for the nature of the undertaking”.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay.
Does everyone understand? Does this bear repeating, or does everyone now understand what has been proposed?
Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I would like the department's assistance on that subamendment and why it is important. What could be the differential impact on different types of undertakings and different broadcasting entities if that were not included?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Right now, the way the Broadcasting Act is structured is that basically undertakings have to make maximum use, in no case predominant use, of creative resources, etc., unless the nature of the undertaking renders that impracticable, and then they have to make.... I just don't want to mislead you here. It states, “shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources”.
That's the way the act is currently structured. The clause that begins with “unless” is important in the sense that you then may be holding a company to a standard that it is not able to meet just given the nature of the business. Therefore, there was always that release valve for the CRTC to say, “We understand the nature of the business. It's not possible for you to be held to the maximum, no less than predominant, use standard, and therefore you shall make the greatest practicable use of all resources.”
My understanding is that the way the NDP's proposed amendment is structured, Canadian undertakings would essentially be held to a standard that would no longer have that release valve, for lack of a better term. In some respects, I believe that what's being proposed by the NDP is setting a higher standard for Canadian undertakings and that foreign undertakings are not subject to that same high standard. The inclusion of that clause that begins with “unless” would, again, just ensure that Canadian undertakings benefit from the same treatment as foreign undertakings.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like some clarity, perhaps from Anthony, perhaps from Mr. Ripley.
In terms of the “nature of the services”, what is the definition of “nature of the services”? I know that we looked at this in the previous amendment, G-2, but it looks like a loophole to me. It looks like an opportunity to provide a loophole, and I'm looking for some clarity.
Anthony, perhaps you could provide that.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before we go to that, since there was a direct question to Mr. Housefather, Mr. Champoux, I'm going to go to Mr. Housefather first for clarification and then go to you, okay?
Mr. Housefather, go ahead.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I think the department has already raised that point. I think that you need to have something to say, but there are going to be some cases in which it won't be possible for them to reach that standard. You need to be able to say that certain undertakings are going to have to do their best but that they're not going to be able to rise to this standard.
I think that one of the problems here, honestly, is—we'll have to get to another amendment—the difference between foreign and Canadian ones. In the other one, the Bloc or the G-2 one, we didn't differentiate between Canadian and foreign; we just said that all broadcasting undertakings have the same responsibilities. If this is adopted, or regardless, I would still be moving to change the two-track tier to a one-track tier by removing the word “Canadian” and deleting (f.1), because I don't know how we say that Canadian broadcasters are subject to standards that are higher than and different from the standards for foreign broadcasters.
I am proposing this to be reasonable on both sides. I guess this is a hard one to amend because it has to be done in a two-track system. However, I'm going to be proposing this amendment, and another one afterward.
Thanks, Heather, for giving me the chance to clarify.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I feel this wording will send a mixed message. On one hand, we are saying undertakings have to make predominant use of Canadian creative resources, and on the other, we are telling them to do what they can when it's not possible to meet the standard.
As I see it, if undertakings can't abide by the rules we put in place, then too bad. The rules we establish set out the requirements we want undertakings to comply with. We can't start making exceptions. As Ms. McPherson pointed out, there is room for interpretation regarding the nature of the services and the reasons why undertaking X or Y cannot contribute to the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming by making no less than predominant use of Canadian creative resources.
I think the wording says one thing and then contradicts itself. I think the current wording is fine aside from a few minor changes. That said, I find it hard to move forward with an exemption for undertakings that determine they are unable to follow the rules we are putting in place.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Chair, seeing that it is past four o'clock Eastern Time, I'd like to move adjournment.
I actually am flying home in 50 minutes. I'm sitting in Ottawa and I have to go to Calgary and then to Saskatoon. I think we've had three and a half hours of good dialogue here this afternoon.
4 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could I just ask for one quick thing?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry, but we can't do a point of order. I have to move straight to the vote as dictated by the Standing Orders.
Clerk, we'll have a vote on adjournment.
(Motion agreed to)
We'll pick it up at subamendment NDP-7 when we return on Monday.
The meeting is adjourned.