Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2021

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your question, Mr. Champoux.

The current act does not define the value of each component of the broadcasting system. It's made up of private elements, public elements, including CBC/Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and the Knowledge Network, in addition to some community elements. However, the value of each component is not necessarily defined. It refers to the broadcasting system, broadly speaking, and identifies the objectives to be pursued and the requirements to be met by programming. Nowhere does it specify the roles to be played respectively by the private, public, and community sectors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a short question for the department officials. I've noted in this amendment the term “Indigenous community media”. I don't believe these terms appear anywhere or are defined anywhere in the act.

What are the ramification of that, given that we're using terms that are different from “programming” or “broadcasting undertakings”, which seem to be the terms we're using everywhere else?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

You're correct. The term “community media” is not defined.

The question for the committee, if it wishes to support the amendment, is whether something like “broadcasting undertakings” might be more appropriate and more aligned with the overall terminology of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Manly.

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

I thought we had already defined “community media” at the PV-1 level. We agreed to add “community media” to the definition.

If we want to take out the words “Indigenous community media”, because community media is important in small communities.... Northern and remote communities are where cultural expression is expanded upon, where you get elders on television speaking in their indigenous language, and where young children are watching and tuned in to their own culture and traditions.

Supporting this is important. It's important for the government, as part of its reconciliation process, to ensure there are adequate resources for sharing culture and for cultural revitalization, after a long history of cultural destruction of indigenous peoples.

If you want to have a subamendment to take out the word “Indigenous”, so that it's just “and community media, which are uniquely positioned to serve smaller, remote and urban Indigenous communities”, I would be amenable to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the officials.

I believe that the term "community media" is extremely important. Mr. Housefather said that it wasn't used anywhere, but if it's necessary, I would prefer to keep it. I'm not challenging the use of the word "indigenous", which Mr. Manly wanted to use in his amendment, but I think that the term "community media" should be kept, provided that it's defined in the act.

Could the officials tell us whether this is doable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll go to the department, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From what I understood of our work last Friday, the term that was defined was "community element". I would just like to point out that the term "media" is not defined anywhere in the act. If we wish to use the broader term, we use "broadcasting undertaking", which includes online undertakings, broadcasters and cable operators. If the committee wants to use the term "community media", then it needs to know that it is not defined in the act. The definition provided in the amendment that was adopted, if I recall correctly, is for "community element".

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

Could I propose an amendment?

It would read, “carried on by Indigenous persons through the community element, which is uniquely positioned to serve smaller, remote and urban communities.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

If I'm not mistaken, you can't amend your own amendment. I would therefore move a subamendment to Mr. Manly's motion. I just want to make sure beforehand that the meaning of the idea being conveyed is clear.

In view of what Mr. Ripley said earlier, I would suggest that the wording should end with, "through programming undertakings operated by Indigenous persons and community elements".

Do you think that this subamendment is acceptable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, that's where I was going with that. Thank you for filling that in.

Mr. Manly, I think this is put back to you at this point.

Are you moving a subamendment, Mr. Champoux, or you seeking clarification from Mr. Manly first before you do that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I want to make sure that the subamendment I am suggesting is consistent with what Mr. Manly had in mind in moving his amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, I'll allow that.

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

That works for me. I appreciate that. We don't need to go further into the “uniquely positioned” part because I think that is understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, for the sake of our legislative clerk, can you repeat yourself, please?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, would you like me to read the whole thing, including the subamendment, or just the end portion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Actually, could you just tell us what your subamendment is? We'll do that for now.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay.

So the subamendment would delete the wording from "Indigenous community media" until the end, and replace it with "and community elements".

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Does this bear repeating, or is everyone okay with what was proposed? It's not a big change.

Can I just leave it as what Mr. Champoux explained?

I think that is sufficient. Would there be any further discussion on the subamendment from Mr. Champoux regarding amendment PV-12?

Seeing no further discussion we will go to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll move on to PV-13

Mr. Manly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment adds that persons with disabilities should have adequate resources to develop their own community media, and that persons with disabilities can adapt technology and obtain technological support through community media.

Again, you shouldn't be surprised that I do have experience in this area. I've trained people of all kinds of different abilities to work in media, including working with deaf people. I trained them in video production and actually witnessed somebody who is deaf creating a soundtrack by working with vibrations. Just an interesting note, when we did the premiere of that film, he gave everybody a balloon and we listened to the soundtrack through the vibration of the balloon. That's how he learned to go to movies as a child. He happened to go to a movie after a fair, with a balloon in his hand, and that's how he translated the intensity of the sound in the theatre.

With the right kind of technologies, we can have more participation in media by people with diverse abilities. I hope people will consider this, but I do have a little pink note on the side that the chair is going to be talking about this amendment as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, indeed, you're rather prescient.

Again, I said it earlier and I will say it to you now. Given the subject matter and the story you just told, which is a fantastic one, please don't take this in the wrong way, but unfortunately we have to rule this out of order.

This one is a little more straightforward. Actually, it's straight down the middle as to why I cannot...and again, I'll refer back to our rule book that we use here. Specific programming resources to allow for persons with disabilities to develop their own community media is what you're talking about here. Again—no reflection on that—it requires what we call a royal recommendation, and it requires essentially new spending.

The rule book states:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown [which is the government or the executive], it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

The amendment that you bring forward, known as PV-13, is a new concept that appears to require a royal recommendation and is not talked about in the original bill. Therefore, I have to rule this amendment to be inadmissible, but I thoroughly enjoyed the story you brought to it.

Thank you, Mr. Manly.

We will now go to amendment PV-14. Mr. Manly, you are up again.

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

Thank you. I'm on a bit of a roll here.

The purpose of this amendment is to describe the role of the community elements in Canada's broadcasting policy. This amendment replaces the description for “alternative television programming services” in the broadcasting policy section of the act with “community elements”.

Very few alternative programming services of the type described in the act actually exist, and the section is never actionable or used in policy-making, yet the description almost exactly fits what the community elements do, so I am hoping that members of the committee will consider this.

Thank you.