Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back, everyone.

This is meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, which we started on Friday and will continue today in a two-hour format.

As a note, as you know, we had a motion passed a few weeks ago in regard to seeking out extra time, if possible, for the consideration of Bill C-10. In terms of advance notice for this coming Friday—if we have to carry this over to Friday—I'll be scheduling a three-hour meeting once again.

All right. We'll do the same timing as last time. Of course, we're still in a hybrid format. I forgot to mention this the last time, by the way, but screenshots, taking photos of your screen, are not permitted. I know that you may already know this, but I just thought I'd add that.

Also, we've been good so far, but please don't speak until I recognize you by name. It's not because I want to feel intoxicated with all the power of being a chair; rather, it's to allow our committee Hansard the opportunity to make things all right in their world. As I said before, it can sometimes be confusing enough in person, so you can imagine it in this hybrid format. I shouldn't even say “hybrid”, because we're all online, with the exception of staff, so I guess we're going completely virtual.

I want to say just one other thing. We made a slight change last time in the voting on how we proceed on carrying—or not—each individual clause or amendment. To recap how this works, I will ask if it carries. I'll say, “Does the amendment carry?” If I'm met with silence, then it will carry. If you want to support it or oppose it, but you don't want to go to a recorded vote, you have two options. You can say “on division” or “carried on division”, or you can say “negatived on division”. If you say that, if you say “negatived on division” or “carried on division”, and someone else says “no” or “yes”, I will automatically go to a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. I think you helped us out there last time.

I think that's a fairly good system. We've used it only once. In case you don't want to go to a recorded vote and you want to move on, you now have the option of—remember—“carried on division” or “negatived on division”. Thank you.

For the folks who are watching this from outside our virtual room here with those of us on the webcast, I'm going to do one explanatory thing. When we do the clauses, within the clauses most everyone has submitted possible amendments for consideration. Whether they're ruled in order or not, that's something else. We're going to go in order from number one up to the end of the amendments that are coming in. We have amendments by six different groups. We have amendments by “PV”. You have PV-1 from the Parti vert, which is the Green Party. We also have LIB-1 or LIB-2, and these are amendments by the Liberal members on the committee. “CPC” represents the Conservative Party members on this committee. “BQ” represents the Bloc Québécois member on the committee. NDP-1 or NDP-2 are amendments by the NDP member on the committee. The final category is G, and yes, we do get to do government amendments. We have a few of them here. They will be G-1, G-2 and so on.

(On clause 2)

That being said, let's get going. When we last left off, we were at NDP-7. Is everybody ready to go on that? We were dealing with the subamendment by Mr. Housefather.

To pick this up again, Mr. Housefather, can I call on you to start?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, but I believe there have been some discussions that may just.... Can I withdraw the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, you can, by all means.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'll withdraw the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm seeing no dissension about that.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

We now go back to the main amendment, NDP-7.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to propose a subamendment to NDP-7. The first part of this subamendment would be to proposed paragraph (f). It would insert the word “production” after “and other human resources in the creation” and then it would say “, production and presentation of programming”.

Then after “presentation of programming”, I would add “unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impractical, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources”.

The subamendment would go on to proposed paragraph (f.1) of NDP-7 to add, after the words “and other human resources”, “and shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You certainly have had a discussion. That's quite an amendment.

I'm going to have to slow things down a bit, because I can only imagine that there are several pens and perhaps keyboards tapping feverishly to get in what you just said.

Was there something submitted in writing, Ms. Dabrusin?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No. I wish I could say yes, but this is Monday morning, so no, I do not have it in writing. I am happy to read it again if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm turning to either our clerk or legislative clerk to see if they need a bit of time. I know what I can do in the meantime.

Let's talk to our legislative clerk. Do you have any questions?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Usually, it is required to have a written version of all amendments and subamendments, particularly in this case, where it's such a long one, unless you're willing to repeat it several times, so that we can make sure we have it at the right place and with the right wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Just before you do that, Ms. Dabrusin, is there any way that you can communicate with Philippe in writing with that? I say that, because I can actually buy some time.

I forgot to introduce our special guests from Canadian Heritage. While I do that, how about you, in the middle of a subamendment, have a subconversation about passing on some of this material, so that we can ingest it as we now take it from the floor. We don't have it in writing at this point.

Ms. McPherson, should I go to you first, or would you rather wait until the text is in?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I can send the text if that's necessary. If Julie has it and can send it, that would be fine too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I can send it if I could have Mr. Méla's appropriate email address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Méla, do you want to send your email address to her?

[Philippe Méla]

Yes, I was going to suggest that. I could send it to Ms. Dabrusin's P9 account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

In the meantime, as I mentioned, I overlooked doing this, and to our special guests, that's no reflection on the service that you provide this country. You have my apologies.

If you're watching our webcast, I want to welcome once again Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace; Drew Olsen, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy; Kathy Tsui, manager of industry and social policy, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace; and Patrick Smith, senior analyst, marketplace and legislative policy. He did a smash-up job last Friday, and here he is again doing much of the same.

We welcome all of you once more, as we call upon you at this important time.

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we're waiting for it, perhaps Ms. Dabrusin could clarify her rationale for the changes. As we don't see it in front of us, maybe she can do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's probably difficult for her to type and talk at the same time, I would imagine.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

There are a couple of reasons. The first part was to add “production”. That's a pretty simple one. I don't think that needs much conversation.

The other part was to not have an unintended consequence. The wording that we're actually bringing back in is already in the original Broadcasting Act. We're bringing that back. It's to make sure we're not having an unintended consequence on services that do not produce in French and English—like in third languages—so they wouldn't be able to fit with these rules. Those are the primary ones.

The part about strong support for the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming is just strengthening the importance of Canadian stories and music and making sure we're supporting that.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for that, Ms. Dabrusin.

We'll wait for confirmation on receiving the text.

Does everybody have a genuine understanding of what's being proposed in this subamendment?

Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you said on Friday, NDP-7 would replace the BQ-5. Is that right? We also had G-2, which was not carried on Friday. If this subamendment to NDP-7 passed, we would not look at BQ-5. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for that question. Let me clarify.

If NDP-7 is adopted, BQ-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

On Friday there was a proposed subamendment, but that has been withdrawn by Mr. Housefather. Here we are now with Ms. Dabrusin's subamendment for NDP-7.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

The other thing that I was hoping to highlight—and someone who is francophone might be able to help me more with this—is that my understanding is that the choice of words in the French part of NDP-7 does not reflect the strength of the English language chosen in the translation.

I'm trying to zero in on the exact words, but I wanted to highlight that. Maybe someone else can speak to it. If the English language translation can be given prominence or precedence, then the French can be translated from that.