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.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, what Bill C-10 would add to the act concerns me less than what this amendment would remove, in other words, the importance of making use of Canadian talent and artists, and offering the public information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries.
Basically, I can't see what the proposed amendment would add to the bill. I think the act's current wording does a good job of addressing this.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I basically wanted to go back once again to this question. I understand that Bill C-10 would add a section that is relatively similar and adds greater context, but that section will not disappear if we amend the law to return the section amended by Ms. McPherson.
I'm trying to understand why that would be an issue. Can the department clarify whether, by amending this, we don't remove the other section that was also added to Bill C-10?
Perhaps Ms. Tsui could do that.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I have Ms. McPherson next, but before that, Ms. Tsui, would you like to respond?
2:55 p.m.
Manager, Industry and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace , Department of Canadian Heritage
I'm not sure I'm well qualified about the process for what happens if this amendment is accepted or rejected and what that would mean for the text in subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii.1).
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
My understanding would be that it wouldn't have any impact on it. Why would it?
I think that this is ensuring we have that analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view intact. I'm not sure why it would affect the other areas. We would need to depend on those from the department with the expertise to answer that.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I see hands from the department here.
Ms. Dabrusin, before I go to you, I'm going to go to the department, given the conversation we've just had, unless you really feel compelled and you have to get in right away.
Mr. Smith, go ahead, please.
April 16th, 2021 / 2:55 p.m.
Patrick Smith Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The intention with respect to the existing paragraph 3(1)(d)(ii) was not to remove anything relating to information analysis. It was actually to create a more robust provision in what is now proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii.1), which relates to news and current events ranging from the local and regional to the international, reflecting “the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of Indigenous persons and Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds”.
Our intention there was to not make it a tail end of the existing clause, but rather to build it up into something that could stand on its own as a news, current events and analysis provision.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's seems like there's all sorts of positive in this amendment. I understand a lot of the other conversations we've had and where we're trying to go, but when I look at this amendment, it seems to be actually trying to—I thought—support racialized communities and economic status groups.
I'm a little bit confused as to where we're trying to go. The main thing is that I see other places where we're trying to deal with harms. I'm not sure I'm getting the harm that we're trying to address with this amendment. That's my main comment.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I think have Ms. McPherson next, but Mr. Housefather, your hand is up. Did you want to—
3 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'm fine if Ms. McPherson wants to go first. I basically want to clarify. Perhaps she can answer me.
The entire intention here is to revert back to the original wording of 3(1)(d)(ii) in the act, which means that the wording after “entertainment programming, and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view” is reinserted in the act.
I believe that is her entire intention. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'll let her speak, then.
3 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That is my intention. Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for articulating it. I will call on you regularly to articulate my intentions for me.
No, don't understand why this would not be a positive thing that we would want to also include.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further discussion, I'll call for the vote. Shall NDP-4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That now brings us to LIB-3.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This amendment actually has four parts.
First, we heard from a number of groups about the importance of supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs in French, so we are proposing that the following be added to the act under new subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii.2).
We are also talking about enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities and their particular needs and interests. That is added in proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii.3).
Proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii.4) deals with an issue that has come up many times. It started with Mr. Manly's first amendment, “the importance of supporting community broadcasting”, especially in ethnocultural and indigenous communities. That is included in proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii.4).
Proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii.5) addresses the importance of Canadian independent broadcasting undertakings. We've also heard that from a number of groups.
While this probably wasn't worded perfectly, I think it gives voice to a lot of the different groups that we heard and deals with a lot of important issues. I think it reflects a consensus among those groups that this is good wording, and I would naturally appreciate the support of my colleagues on it.
3 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
With all due respect to Mr. Housefather, it should come as no surprise that I have a reservation about proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii.3). I'm not sure it's necessary to specify that French is a minority language in Canada and that English is a minority language in Quebec.
I think the broadcasting reality as it relates to the minority status of French in Canada is different from the broadcasting reality as it relates to the minority status of English in Quebec. I think we saw that quite clearly when we were studying the impact of the pandemic on the cultural sector. We heard from representatives of Quebec's English-language cultural sector, and I think that we really listened to what they had to say and that we were quite open to their requests and needs. When it comes to broadcasting, however, I don't think the circumstances are the same.
I agree with the overall amendment, but I must say that part makes me uncomfortable. What's more, removing it would not take anything away from the act because the act already addresses the importance of promoting official languages in a broader context.
I am inclined to support the amendment, but I have to say that part bothers me a bit.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to address Mr. Champoux's comment.
First of all, the committee just unanimously adopted an amendment I proposed to recognize the difference between French and English in Canada, as well as the importance of taking into account the French reality in the North American context.
Second of all, we also heard from English-speaking groups in Quebec who explained that the proportion of original English-language programming produced in Quebec had dropped. It used to make up nearly a quarter of Canadian content but now accounts for less than 5%, so it's also important to recognize the English-speaking community in Quebec.
We're a minority in Quebec. Francophones are a minority in all the other provinces. Francophones are a minority in Canada. I think this amendment gives voice to that. If you use an amendment to change the wording and it's passed, the wording is there.
I appreciate his comments, but at least in my view, the English-speaking community in Quebec is an official language minority community in Canada, the same as French-language minority communities. We are a million or more people who deserve to be recognized as well in the context of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I realize it's a sensitive subject, so I want tobe careful what I say. In no way am I standing against Quebec's English-speaking community, quite the contrary. They are full-fledged citizens, but we have to look at the reality. When it comes to the wording in a piece of legislation, it's appropriate to say certain things and unnecessary to say others.
I don't think this wording will provide the CRTC with any more clarity than the act as a whole already does. If the production of English-language programs in Quebec is an issue, the act clearly stipulates that recourse is available and that the necessary adjustments can be made.
We can ask the department officials for clarification. Nevertheless, I don't think we lose anything by simply removing that part. The spirit of the act remains intact.
I'd like to hear what Mr. Olsen or Mr. Ripley has to say on the matter.
3:05 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for asking, Mr. Champoux.
I don't really have much to add, other than to say the definition of an official language minority community clearly encompasses both the English-speaking community in Quebec and the French-speaking community outside Quebec.