Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
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.
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.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Having now heard from the department and having thought about it, personally I would have supported seeing paragraphs (b) and (c) carved out. I don't agree with paragraph (a) being carved out, because I think that doing so creates very extreme possibilities of large undertakings not being included because they have an ancillary business through which they're providing a service to their clients.
I also then worry that, even though I support carving out paragraphs (b) and (c), if we carve only them out and don't list other areas that should also be carved out, the CRTC will assume that because the legislator said these two are carved out, they're not to carve out anything else.
I'd rather stick with a more general exception, then, but I appreciate the intent of the amendment.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one last thing to say, and then, I will trust the committee members to make the right decision as to whether we should adopt the amendment or not.
I appreciate Mr. Housefather bringing up paragraph (c) of the amendment. I had forgotten to read it. Paragraph (c) pertains to concert halls, theatres and other venues for the presentation of live performing arts. It was on my second page, and with all these pages, I skipped right over it.
I want to respond to Mr. Ripley's comment and his Amazon example. Even if Amazon had an ancillary business in the background, I don't think anyone would believe that it was not principally engaged in that activity. The CRTC may have to decide in a case like that.
I think the intent behind my amendment is clear: to ensure that people who transmit content over the Internet and who are not principally engaged in the activity are not deemed to be carrying on a broadcasting undertaking. That would include people who do it recreationally, or students doing it as part of a class or at a teacher's request. It would also include people working in the arts and culture or theatre sector, such as videographers and artists who have podcasts.
That is the intent behind the amendment, and I hope the committee members will support it.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further debate on this issue— again this is CPC-0.1—we will now go to a vote.
Shall CPC-0.1 carry?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing dissent, we now have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6 ; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment is carried.
Folks, this ends quite nicely. That ends clause 1, which brings us to the end of clause 1 and also to our health break, but before we do that, we have to call the question on clause 1 itself as amended.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
Folks, we'll have five minutes for our health break, please. We'll try to get back to this as quickly as we can. We're going to proceed at that point. We will see you in five minutes.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We are resuming after our brief health break.
I want to address one thing first before we start on clause 2.
Mr. Housefather, I had a brief discussion regarding what you requested, which was a show of hands as opposed to a recorded vote. Is that correct?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I was just suggesting, Mr. Chair, that we could do a show of hands, and unless a member asks for a recorded vote, which they have every right to do—any member could do that—you can then go by the show of hands and you can say “carried on division” as opposed to doing the recorded vote each time.
I was only wondering, because I was anticipating so many recorded votes.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It's not encouraged, sir, to be honest with you.
Go ahead, Mr. Shields.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I think how you've handled it, Mr. Chair, has been just fine. It's been going fairly quickly and I think we're used to that, so let's do it.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before I leave that topic, we won't do the show of hands; however, I just want to remind everyone.... I know we say “on division”, and it always assumes that it's carried on division. I just want you to know that the Standing Orders also say that you can negative on division as well. Therefore, if someone says “negative on division”—and make sure you say “negative”—I will declare it negatived if nobody else says anything. When we say “on division”, it's supposed to be “carried on division”, but we just say “on division” as a short term.
Anyway, I just wanted to remind people of that, but if someone calls for a recorded vote, then we have to proceed with it. In the meantime, we'll stick with that for now.
Let's proceed.
(On clause 2)
We're going to start clause 2 with PV-5, and I just want to make one note before I go to Mr. Manly. If PV-5 is adopted, BQ-4 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.
Mr. Manly, the floor is yours.
2:25 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment really keeps the ownership and control of our broadcasting system by Canadians. The bill currently removes the section of the act that asserts that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.
We live beside the largest media conglomerate in the world, the United States, and we have kept our national identity and our cultural sovereignty by maintaining control and ownership of our broadcasting system effectively by Canadians. This amendment has been supported by a number of organizations that I've talked to, and I'll note that the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP have similar amendments to maintain ownership and control of our broadcasting system by Canadians.
I think it's important to keep this enshrined in legislation, rather than just leaving it to the CRTC. Thank you.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact there is also a Liberal amendment with respect to ownership, and it comes through as G-4, which we'll be coming to later on.
What this does is essentially revert us back to paragraph 3(1)(a), the original in the act, and doesn't recognize that what this bill is trying to do is to bring in foreign online streamers as well, which do not pass Canadian ownership.
Just bringing paragraph 3(1)(a) back in its old format, in fact just reverts us back to the old way the act worked without taking into account the new circumstances that we're in. The intent is in the right place, and I think that we're generally in agreement that the intent is in the right place, but this doesn't get us to where we need to be.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I agree.
Respectfully, I think the intent is commendable, but adopting the amendment would prevent us [Technical difficulty—Editor] at proposed paragraph 3(1)(a). I think we all agree on maintaining the idea of Canadian ownership.
We should vote against this amendment, so we can move on to the next one.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Personally, I prefer amendment BQ-4. Since both amendments pertain to the same lines, I am going to have to vote against amendment PV-5 to vote in favour of amendment BQ-4.
2:30 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'll just note that my previous amendment, PV-3, addressed the need to regulate foreign broadcasters and foreign entities in the act, but the wording of it—having one come before the other—makes that a little difficult.
I recognize that the intent of this bill is to regulate foreign broadcasters, but I really want to see us maintain the aspect of our Broadcasting Act that protects Canadian ownership and control of our media.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
This is an interesting one, Mr. Chair. I think that within three years, you will find in this country that there will be no broadcasters left on traditional television. What we're seeing now in North America is all streaming. All companies are going to this.
It's just something to ponder; that's all I'm saying. I see network companies in the United States leaving conventional television at a rapid pace, and I think it will happen here sooner than we think. Within two years, I would think, we're going to deal with this.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Seeing no further conversation on this amendment, we now go to a vote.
Shall PV-5 carry?