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.
12:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I am.
Could Mr. Champoux repeat the question? I'm not sure that I understood.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Certainly.
Mr. Shields Was asking for details about the equitable proportion concept for original Canadian content, including French language original content.
I told Mr. Shields that the equitable proportion concept was related to what would be considered in the application of the act to be equitable proportions for Canadian content and francophone content.
Is this a satisfactory answer to the question?
12:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm a legislative clerk, and questions about content and the interpretation thereof should be addressed instead to departmental officials.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Indeed.
I'm looking for a volunteer from the department on this particular issue. I just need a show of hands of who would like to speak.
Mr. Smith.
April 19th, 2021 / 12:35 p.m.
Patrick Smith Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to get clarity on the specific portion we're discussing, so it's the part of subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i) that reads “in an equitable proportion, and”? Is that what we're discussing?
12:35 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Okay.
To a certain degree this will be interpreted by the CRTC. It's not a defined term. It's not indicated elsewhere in the act. It would be up for interpretation by the commission.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Marci Ien Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Champoux pinpointing discoverability, among other things, in this amendment.
I'm wondering if we might propose a subamendment to delete subparagraph (ii), because that seems to be the biggest issue here, “when programming services are supplied to them by other broadcasting undertakings”, and so forth?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just so I'm clear before I go to Mr. Champoux, under proposed subparagraphs 3(1)(q)(i) and 3(1)(q)(ii), you want to eliminate (ii) in its entirety? Is that good, Ms. Ien?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Now we're on the subamendment. I'll going to Mr. Champoux and then Mr. Housefather.
Mr. Champoux.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
This provision has not yet generated any discussion. To my knowledge, it has not been identified as problematic, but I'd be curious to hear Ms. Ien's arguments on this subject.
First of all, I'd like to return to what Mr. Smith said just now. I want to be sure about how things have been understood or might be understood with respect to the concept of equitable proportion. What we really want is adequate and satisfactory visibility for Canadian content and francophone content on online platforms. That's what we had in mind when we drafted this amendment.
So I want to make sure that I understand it. According to the department, even though it is the CRTC that will interpret the act, will it be understood the way we intended?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I think the question was put to Mr. Smith, first, from the department, and then I'm going to follow that with Mr. Housefather.
Mr. Smith.
12:40 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
To answer the question, I agree with Mr. Champoux's statement that it's something that the act is striving towards and something that is obviously reflected in several other objectives of the act, as moved by the members of the committee on Friday, and today as well. The specific wording “in an equitable proportion” is something to be determined by the commission.
I'm not sure what else I could add to that question.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know I'm supposed to speak to Ms. Ien's subamendment, but I actually have a question, if it's okay.
I'm in agreement with what Mr. Champoux is trying to do with the new subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i).
I guess my real question for the department is that I'm not sure this amendment is in the right place in the act. Shouldn't these issues be dealt with under the order- and regulation-making powers of the commission, in which case, maybe Monsieur Champoux would be better placed to try to amend G-8 or G-9, which are coming up later?
If we wanted to achieve this, what would be the best place in the act to include, for example, proposed paragraph 3(1)(q) and proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i)?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry.
Can I go to the department? Mr. Smith, am I returning to you again?
12:40 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
I think Mr. Ripley would like to answer this question.
12:40 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.
There are indeed several objectives that address the importance of Canadian programming and French language programming, including original programs. It would appear that certain items in the amendment that has been put forward are instead addressing the tools that should be used to achieve these objectives. For example, conditions and the requirement for undertakings to ensure content discoverability were mentioned.
So it's likely that it would be through a CRTC order or CRTC regulations that these requirements would be imposed on broadcasters.