Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do I see any discussion?

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate defining the role of the community elements, which I think is what Mr. Manly is trying to do here, I would point out that I don't believe that the act or the bill actually define any of the elements of the broadcasting system, whether public, private or community. There are some elements in here... For example, in subparagraph 3(1)(q)(iv), we're talking about “non-profit participative structures”, but we, in the definition of “community element”, removed the term “non-profit”.

I would just like to ask the officials what their sense is of how this would intertwine with the rest of the bill and whether they have any comments about it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I am just looking to the department for who would like to....

Ms. Tsui, you have the floor.

[Kathy Tsui, Manager, Industry and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Yes, that's correct. We spoke about the concern about “non-profit” on Friday. You're absolutely right. In no place in the act does the act provide a definition or define a role for any of the elements of the broadcasting system. You're right that the roles of the private element, the public element and the community element are left undefined.

The non-profit element we discussed. The community element of the broadcasting system does include some for-profit organizations, so this would be a significant change to the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just have one additional question for the officials.

With respect to proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(v), “be made available throughout Canada through all platforms available”, would this impose a requirement on companies that simply distribute to include community programming? Does this mean that it would be an obligation on everything? I don't even know how we could impose that.

[Kathy Tsui]

The term “platform” is also not defined in the act, so we are left unsure about how to interpret proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(v).

It's not clear to me whether this means all platforms, as in any kind of broadcasting undertaking that provides a distribution service, or if this is to refer to any type of platform. Is this meant to mean that community broadcasting should be made available online, over satellite systems, over cable systems? That part of the definition is unclear.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just wanted to check with you, Mr. Chair. Assuming that we vote on PV-14, does that mean that NDP-8 would be withdrawn and/or taken away?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would not presume to question your answer to Ms. McPherson, but this amendment is very similar and appears to address the same content in the act. Amendment NDP-8 looks to me like a copy and paste operation from the amendment we are currently discussing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Our ruling is no. It's not, entirely. I understand where you're coming from. I truly appreciate it. This is one of those times where I use the expression “we're dancing on the head of the pin”. Nevertheless, as we move on I should be able to provide some more information on that.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In culmination of my previous questions, I'm going to vote against because I find a lot of uncertainty is introduced by this amendment. I do believe this would make NDP-8 almost impossible to introduce because of the conflictual terms. I don't know how you would reconcile the two because some things are different and some are the same and written differently.

I'm going to vote against.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I would be open to subamendments to this because I do understand that the word “non-profit” needs to be removed, because we have already discussed that with earlier amendments. I could see how proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(v) would be problematic, but I'm hoping there are parts of this that the committee does see as worthy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We are still on PV-14, folks.

Seeing no discussion, I'm going to call for a vote on PV-14.

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on PV-15.

Mr. Manly.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment adds that programming provided through community elements should be made available for archival purposes to Library and Archives of Canada as well as local cultural institutions that represent public interest.

Archiving community programming is very important. Forty years of audiovisual archives for over 200 communities have been destroyed since 1991, where there is no other audiovisual record.

I have seen this happen personally without any notification when Shaw took over for Rogers in Victoria. I was over working in Vancouver after doing hours and weeks of programming. It all just went to the landfill. Parts of that were really important chunks of the community record, which had been documented. People were looking for that years later and they were nowhere to be found.

I have a little pink note on this one as well. I have talked to ministry officials about maybe other avenues for dealing with this. I will let you bring up that pink note that I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You seem to be catching on quite well, Mr. Manly, to how this works.

Indeed, I have to make a ruling on this one. I want to point this out to members.

This, of course, is specific to the passage in PV-15 that says, “made available to the Library and Archives of Canada for archival purposes and to local cultural”.

It turns out that “be made available to [the public through archival means such as] the Library and Archives of Canada” is an amendment that would go beyond the scope of the bill. Again, I refer back to the parent bill, which doesn't provide for that. Therefore, according to our rules and regulations, it's beyond the scope and it certainly is beyond the principle of the bill to proceed any further on PV-15. It does propose a new concept that is beyond the scope, similar to rulings in the past.

Unfortunately, I have to rule that to be inadmissible. That being said, I have to call my dear friend over—the legislative clerk.

Clerk, could I suspend for one minute or less just to clarify one thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you. We're back.

I was just seeking some clarification, folks. Thank you for being patient. That, of course, was PV-15, which we ruled inadmissible.

We now go on to BQ-10.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With amendment BQ-10, we want to make sure that online undertakings that provide programming services from other broadcasting undertakings should ensure their discoverability. We therefore want Canadian programming services, original Canadian content, and French- language original content, to be promoted and discoverable in an equitable proportion compared to anglophone and foreign content. We also want to ensure that reasonable terms are provided for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services provided to online undertakings by other broadcasting undertakings under contractual arrangements.

We want to give our industry this additional assurance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

For clarification, when you have the words “equitable proportion”, can you define what you mean, Mr. Champoux?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

How about we go to Mr. Champoux first, and then we'll go to Ms. Ien.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

As for the expression "in an equitable proportion", what we wish to maintain here is the proportion in which we will generally make way for francophone content and original content. I believe that it's simply a reference to what will be determined as an equitable proportion within the overall application of the act.

Mr. Méla could perhaps give us more details about the subtleties of the language, but that at least is what I understand it to mean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Ien, thank you for your patience.

We're going to Mr. Méla first, since the question was put to him, and then we'll go to Ms. Ien.

Mr. Méla, are you there?