Evidence of meeting #26 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.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I have one more question for the department so that I better understand.
Are there indigenous broadcasters, for example, those who produce only in indigenous languages, that also have an original Canadian programming requirement for broadcasters, where the broadcasting language is other than English?
For example, I presume some broadcasts that are coming in Hindi wouldn't have an original Canadian programming format, but is there anybody else, other than English broadcasters, that provide programming in English that would have a requirement to original Canadian programming that would fall under this provision, such as an indigenous broadcaster?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
There were two hands up at once.
Mr. Ripley, how about we go to you first?
1:20 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Chair, perhaps I'll pass the mike to Mr. Olsen.
1:20 p.m.
Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you.
Mr. Housefather, thank you for the question.
Yes, there are indigenous broadcasters that have requirements to broadcast in indigenous languages and/or in other languages such as English or French. As I read it, this amendment would basically say those types of undertakings are not ones that are providing English language only. I believe the way this is worded those online undertakings that were owned by, say, indigenous broadcasters would be subject to the requirement that is proposed in this amendment.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay.
Seeing no further comments, we will go to a recorded vote.
Shall CPC-4 carry?
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Aimée Belmore
Mr. Waugh's connection appears to be frozen.
I think Mr. Waugh dropped off.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Madam Clerk, we'll have to proceed.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to amendment G-4.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I would just like clarification on something before moving on.
My colleague Mr. Waugh was probably disconnected because of a technical issue. We nevertheless carried on and voted, without waiting for him to reconnect. In this instance, it did not have an impact on the outcome, given the significant gap between the yeas and the nays. However, proceeding in this fashion could jeopardize a closer division in the course of studying this bill.
We should rule now that when something like this occurs, we have to make sure that the committee member can reconnect to vote. It's very important.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Dabrusin, I'm assuming you want to talk to the amendment and not to what was brought up by Mr. Champoux as a point of order? Is that correct? Okay.
Mr. Champoux, in considering what you just said, I'm going to rule that you're absolutely correct and just say, as an admission, that it was a bit insensitive for me to do that. I sincerely apologize to the entire committee. Maybe in the back of my mind, yes, I was thinking about expediency and also the fact that it wouldn't have made much of a difference, and that would be a prejudice of the vote and result.
Mr. Champoux, thank you so much for pointing that out. I accept that and offer my sincere apologies to Mr. Waugh, who now has joined us.
Is he there?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Yes. For some reason I got bumped off.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will vote yes, if you agree to that, but I am sorry I got bumped off. I did get back on fairly shortly after, but hopefully that won't happen again as I'm working from home.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I reiterate the same as I said earlier. I will not make that same judgment again. You have my sincere apologies.
Now we move on to G-4.
Ms. Dabrusin, I believe you want to talk.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, can I just have some clarity? This goes to Canadian ownership again, which is something that we've dealt with in other amendments. Just as a first question, I'd like to see if this is something that is still debatable. If it is, I'm happy to do that.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
No, I'm asking you, Mr. Chair. We've already talked about and dealt with amendments on Canadian ownership, so I'm just checking, before I launch into the importance of Canadian ownership, whether this is still debatable.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
At first blush, yes, I think this is fine. We can certainly go ahead and debate this as an amendment. Otherwise, I would have ruled, but it's still there. Do you wish to move it? You don't have to move it if you don't wish.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'd say no. I think we've covered this ground.
Thank you.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We'll cross off G-4.
That brings us to the end of clause 2, which begs the question....
Sorry, I see some hands going up. Ms. Dabrusin, I see yours. I'm assuming you're okay.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to ask my colleagues.... My understanding was that there had been some conversation around proposed subsection 4.1(1). There was some interest in having that removed from the government side. Is that still being proposed? If so, can we see what that amendment would look like?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry. Is it within the bill structure itself you're talking about? Okay.
Since you put the question out there, I'll open it up to the floor if someone wants to respond.
Ms. Dabrusin, I see your hand up. Go ahead.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just to clarify, this was a question about whether I would be recommending that we vote down proposed section 4.1. The answer is yes. That goes to CPC-5 because that would be amending a proposed section that I'd be suggesting we pull down entirely.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Moving right along, it now begs the question of finishing the clause.
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 3)