Evidence of meeting #25 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I would just like to say that proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) is meant to reflect paragraph 5(2)(a)(1) in subclause 4(1) of Bill C-10, which says that the CRTC must be fair and equitable in regulating as between broadcasting undertakings.
So I think that it's altogether consistent to place it in that location as well.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just so that everyone is still aware, we're at the subamendment as proposed by Ms. Ien. Straightforward, as part of the subamendment, she proposes to eliminate proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii).
Seeing no further conversation, we'll go to the vote.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
You can determine whether or not it's a good reason, but thank you.
I just want to point out that if the subamendment is adopted, there will be a problem with the French version. There would be a problem altogether, but more likely with the French version.
The French version would say "radiodiffusion devraient à la fois".
That includes (i) and (ii). Since you eliminate number (ii), you need to remove “à la fois”.
Then you would need to remove the “(i)” in English and French.
The wording would therefore be as follows: "...radiodiffusion devraient assurer la découvrabilité des services...".
In English, it would be “undertakings should ensure”, and then the “(ii)” would go as well.
This is just to make sure we do this part at the same time, if it were the case that the amendment were adopted as amended.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
Because I've heard the conversation going back and forth, I want to clarify that we have from the department the answer about the “terms for the carriage” part of proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) and whether that presents any challenges.
12:45 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii), this is a fairly heavy requirement that would involve some intervention from the commission with respect to the packages, contractual arrangements and terms of carriage. If the committee is in support of an approach that would allow that, then it should be aware that this is what would come with proposed subparagraph (ii) as well.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay.
To recap, as Mr. Méla, our legislative clerk, pointed out, eliminating proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) in the English version would require changes to both proposed subparagraph (i) and proposed subparagraph (ii) in the French translation.
Mr. Méla, did I get that correct?
12:45 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I can recap, if you want, to show what the changes would be.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, please.
I'll get Mr. Méla to recap, and then we can go to a vote if there's no further discussion.
12:45 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In French, we would have to remove “à la fois”.
So there would be the words "radiodiffusion devraient".
We would remove “à la fois” and the full colon there. Then we would remove the “(i)” and the sentence would be one sentence.
And it would read as follows: "...radiodiffusion devraient assurer la découvrabilité des services...".
Then, in English, we would have to remove “(i)”, so that it would all flow as “undertakings should ensure”. Then, at the end, we should remove the “and” because there is no subparagraph (ii) anymore. The “and” would no longer apply at the end of subparagraph (i).
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Now you have the language cleaned up, but the intent is still the same.
Ms. Ien, I don't see any outright objection from you. I'm assuming you're okay with the explanation as put forward by Mr. Méla for your subamendment.
Seeing no further discussion, we now go to a vote on the subamendment of BQ-10 from Ms. Ien.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We now go back to the main motion. This is the main amendment, BQ-10.
Mr. Housefather.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I think this is an amendment where a lot of these things are reasonable. I repeat that I don't think this is in the right place in the act. I also have one more question, which is with respect to the way the proposed paragraph 3(1)(q) is now worded. It says:
(q) online undertakings that provide the programming services of other broadcasting undertakings should
(i) ensure the discoverability
Does that not then lead to only online undertakings having this obligation and not other broadcasting undertakings? I'd like to ask the department, because I'm very confused about that wording. I don't think it creates an equilibrium anymore.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. You are correct. Currently in proposed section 9.1, which I'm sure we'll get to in a couple of days, there is a condition of service power relating directly to discoverability, and this is not circumscribed to any particular types of broadcasting undertakings. Therefore, introducing this objective in section 3 of the act could create a perceived conflict between those two sections.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have another question for the department, which is whether this amendment poses any trade concerns and what they would be.
12:50 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin. I think I would reiterate the point that Mr. Smith made earlier. Proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) indicates that the government's intention here is that, generally, in contractual arrangements between online undertakings and other programming services that they're distributing, the CRTC would play a very active role in the economic regulation of those contractual relationships.
Our understanding would be that there's not to be a heavy reliance on market forces, but that the CRTC would play a role with an active supervision of those contractual relationships. It's fair to say that, for certain online undertakings, their business model is obviously very much weighted towards free market forces and they would certainly have concerns, it's fair to say, about the CRTC being empowered to play that active role in the regulation of their contractual relationships.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, we'll have a vote on the main amendment, which is BQ-10.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr.Chair, once again, we are here trying to promote Canadian programming in both official languages and in indigenous languages, and to make sure that the various ways of controlling programming will generate results that enhance its discoverability.
I think that it's an important addition, particularly if we want to place an emphasis on the discoverability of our content.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It might be just my reading of the wording, but I'm a little unclear as to whether what is being suggested by this amendment is the promotion of Canadian programming or that the programs themselves should be in both official languages as well as in indigenous languages.
I am just wondering if maybe the department can clarify what the wording would do.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I am looking for someone from the department to answer.
Go ahead, Mr. Smith.
12:55 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could I please have the language of the amendment again?