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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Sorry, Ms. Atwin. You're certainly right about the fact that you have a bad connection, it seems.
Can I see a thumbs-up from everybody to make sure that it's not me? All right. Okay.
Ms. Atwin, sorry. You froze on the screen again. How about you try it once more?
Green
Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB
This amendment is to [Technical difficulty—Editor] in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 3 the following: “the public and community elements of the Canadian broadcasting system shall be provided [Technical difficulty—Editor] to contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of....”
Liberal
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, could I suggest that she turn off her camera?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, Ms. McPherson, that's probably a good idea.
Ms. Atwin, try it again. Thank you, Ms. McPherson, for that.
Ms. Atwin, try again.
Green
Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB
Thank you. One more time, I move that in clause 2, there would be an amendment, adding after line 27 on page 3 the following:
the public and community elements of the Canadian broadcasting system shall be provided with adequate resources in order to contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming.
This amendment would ensure that public as well as community-owned and community-operated media are adequately resourced.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, there you have it.
Ms. McPherson, thank you very much. That was a nice suggestion.
Is everyone okay with that?
Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
There are two parts to this.
First of all, public broadcasting is not just a federal piece; it is also funded by provincial governments, and this legislation cannot cover on that. It is also just that it is not part of the Broadcasting Act to include the extent to which each broadcasting undertaking should be funded. That is not a part of what this bill, or even the existing act, covers.
I was wondering if I could ask for clarification, particularly on whether there are any specific pieces in the Broadcasting Act, as it exists and as it is proposed, that go to funding and resourcing. Maybe Mr. Ripley might be able to help me, or Mr. Olsen.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
No, there is not currently anything in the act that prescribes a certain level of funding for an element of broadcasting. Indeed, our understanding is that what is being proposed here would have the effect of imposing an ongoing and undefined funding obligation to fund both public and community broadcasting. Again, public broadcasting includes CBC/Radio-Canada, but it would also include provincial broadcasters like TéléQuébec, Knowledge Network, and others, and then community broadcasting would obviously include a number of smaller players across the country.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further debate, I'm going to call for the vote on PV-6.
Shall PV-6 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I hear “no”. Madam Clerk, we will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now move to NDP-6.
Before we go to conversation, if NDP-6 is adopted, BQ-6 on page 26 cannot be moved due to line conflicts. Please bear that in mind.
Ms. McPherson has the floor.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is making a change. The effect of our NDP-6 is to maintain the current version of the act, which clearly states that the Canadian broadcasting system should ensure that licensees of broadcasting undertakings have responsibility for their programming. The current bill, by adding “and over which they have programming control”, risks creating a loophole in favour of social media. We therefore propose to delete this addition.
For more context, broadcasting companies that do not have direct control over programming—social media, for example—have significant control over the content that is suggested to users. On these platforms, the vast majority of content consumed by users is the result of algorithm-driven suggestions, with the vast minority—the rest—resulting from specific user choices. More and more platforms are also making editorial choices through policies against false, misleading or hateful content.
That is the intention. That is why we have put this amendment forward.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
That is interesting, because my understanding of what the application of this amendment would be....
This is where I am going to need more clarification again, because my understanding is that this actually limits the provisions to licensed undertakings and would limit the scope of the provision. I am a little confused, because my reading is that this actually has more of a limiting effect on its scope, which is not what I would be seeking. Perhaps I can get some clarification.
Mr. Smith, we haven't heard from you yet. This is very exciting. I will have to leave it to the chair to go to you, but I'm just....
Liberal
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Dabrusin is correct in that by reverting back to paragraph 3(1)(h), the motion would, in fact, circumscribe the provision to license broadcasters. As a result, it would not apply to online undertakings. If the committee is not in favour of that outcome, I not sure whether the motion as written would accomplish the intent.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hearing dissent, we will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are on PV-7.
If PV-7 is adopted, G-2 , NDP-7 and BQ-5 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.
Before we move on, there is something I forgot earlier when we were trying to connect with Ms. Atwin. If Ms. Atwin is unable to connect....
The PV amendments are in a unique situation due to the standing orders adopted in the last few years. In the case of the Green Party, because it is not officially on the committee but has the right to propose amendments and discuss them, any amendment its members want to bring to a bill is deemed moved from the beginning. That takes a bit of pressure off your Internet service, Ms. Atwin, because obviously you could proceed, but if we cannot get a clear connection, the discussion and debate about your amendment will continue.
Ms. Atwin, you have the floor.
Conservative
