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.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Can we do it as negatived on—
Oh, actually, I don't think that the Greens have a vote. I'm sorry.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I don't know that anyone was in favour, but yes, if it makes it go faster, I would say negatived on division, if there's someone who wants it.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no call for a recorded vote....
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to amendment BQ-4.
Just for information, by the way, for those of you who are keeping track, amendments BQ-4; NDP-3, which is on page 14 in your package; and G -4, on page 47, all deal with a similar subject, as was noted by the legislative clerks. I just thought I would let you know.
One thing to note, however, is that if amendment BQ-4 is adopted, amendment CPC-0.2 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
That being said, we now go to amendment BQ-4.
Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment deals with the issue of Canadian ownership, which currently appears in paragraph 3(1)(a) of the act. The vast majority of the organizations we met with want the bill to recapture that idea. Basically, we believe it is extremely important to somehow include the participation of online undertakings.
The wording of the amendment was inspired by one of the recommendations in the Yale report. From the current act, we took “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians” and we added “foreign online undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians”. Then, we kept the proposed paragraph that begins with the words “each broadcasting undertaking shall contribute to” but renumbered it as new paragraph (a.1).
I just want to make clear that, in light of the discussions we've had, we realize foreign online undertakings could be problematic.
I'll let Ms. Dabrusin talk about that, because I think she was planning to address the subject.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
No, no, I'm sorry.
This is hard to do virtually.
I quite like Mr. Champoux's amendment. I just have a subamendment in relation to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a).
It is to remove the word “online” between “foreign” and “undertakings”.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay. I'm changing screens on my computer again.
I would like to propose a subamendment to remove the word “online” from paragraph (a). It appears between the words “foreign” and “undertakings”.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
For clarification, we're on BQ-4, on page 13 of the English version.
Paragraph (a) will say,
the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and foreign undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians;
The subamendment removes the word “online”.
I'm looking for a thumbs-up, Ms. Dabrusin.
Okay, the synopsis I put forward is correct. We now move to discussion on the subamendment as put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.
Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Sorry, Mr. Chair. I forgot to un-raise my hand, so to speak.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
I see no hands up.
We are still discussing the subamendment as put forward by Ms. Dabrusin. As a reminder, she wants to remove the word “online” from paragraph (a) of the amendment.
We now go to a vote.
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, would it be possible to hear from Mr. Ripley or Mr. Olsen on the rationale behind the motion. I'm not necessarily closed to the idea, but I would just like to understand the concern behind the subamendment.
2:35 p.m.
Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Chair, the logic here is that with the way it's worded, there's a concern that if the word “online” is left there.... It says “foreign online undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians”, but it doesn't say anything about traditional foreign undertakings that are already providing programming to Canadians, such as TV channels like CNN that are authorized for distribution in Canada by the CRTC.
We believe that the spirit of the amendment is to make sure there's no potential implication that those types of services would need to be withdrawn from the broadcasting system in Canada.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the word “online” should maybe not be replaced with the word “broadcasting”, so it would read “foreign broadcasting undertakings”. That would be more in line with the wording throughout the document.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I appreciate that, Mr. Aitchison. I'm not trying to disagree with the content of what you're saying. However, the way to deal with this now, from the perspective of the Standing Orders, is that—as chair, I have to lay down the law—if you're proposing a change, we have to vote on Ms. Dabrusin's subamendment first. Once that is done, you may propose another subamendment, if you so desire.
We have to deal with the subamendment from Ms. Dabrusin first.
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, we call for a vote.
Shall the subamendment from Ms. Dabrusin carry?
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hearing a “no”, we will go to a recorded vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now return to the main amendment as put forward in BQ-4.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say I'm slightly confused on that, given the comment from the department about the concern that was raised.
I would like to ask if Mr. Aitchison's suggestion of replacing “online undertakings” with “broadcasting undertakings” would resolve that question for the department, meaning that if it said “online undertakings” instead of “broadcasting undertakings”, it would be more consistent with the rest of the act.
I'd like to hear from Mr. Ripley or one of the other people from the department on whether that would then cover CNN and the concerns that they raised.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You brought up two people. I'm assuming you'd like to go to Mr. Ripley first.
