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.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. It will read, “(a.1) takes into account the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry and their contribution to the implementation of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives and any other characteristic that may be relevant in the circumstances.”
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'll let that sink in for a bit.
Folks, I don't want to race on without full comprehension of what's being proposed here. It's very important stuff, which is why it would be great if you could email a subamendment in advance. It would be okay if you can't; I understand. Those are our rules as well. You can do it from the floor. I appreciate that also.
I'm looking around, however, to see whether we have comprehension or a request for a copy.
Can I proceed?
Ms. Dabrusin.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm sorry. I'm just trying to process what all of that was.
I don't know whether the department has that wording. If they have, can they share their thoughts on what the impact is of the subamendment?
1:55 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
If I understand it correctly, the subamendment by Ms. McPherson would have the impact that, as part of regulatory policy, the system should be regulated in a way that takes into account the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcast undertakings. It's asking the CRTC to look at the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcast undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry, and their contribution—i.e., the contribution of the broadcasting undertakings—to the implementation of the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives.
The impact of it is that one of the factors the CRTC would consider in looking at the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings is their impact in essentially giving effect to the policy objectives of the act.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Ripley.
I'm just trying to gauge the comfort level of comprehension once more amongst all of our colleagues here. Shall I proceed with a vote on the subamendment by Ms. McPherson?
Seeing no questions and no further conversation, we will go to the vote.
(Subamendment agreed to)
We go back to the main motion, BQ-12, as put forward by Mr. Champoux.
Mr. Louis.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment that I would like to propose. It is a change of one word in new proposed paragraph 5(2)(a.2).
To save everyone time, I will read the last two lines as they are currently:
programming to contribute to these Canadian resources in an equivalent manner;
In the last line, I would like to change “equivalent” manner to “equitable” manner.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay.
Folks, I think that's pretty straightforward. He's asking for a subamendment to proposed paragraph 5(2)(a.2) that would change the word “equivalent” to the word “equitable”.
Mr. Shields.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
Whether it's “equitable” or “equivalent”, could we have the staff respond to how this would be evaluated? Would the CRTC then have to evaluate what's equitable?
1:55 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Yes, Mr. Shields, it would be left up to the CRTC to determine, whether it's equivalent manner or equitable manner, what that means in practice.
That said, there is a difference between “equivalent” and “equitable” in the sense that “equivalent” really means like for like. One of the challenges that Bill C-10 seeks to address is the greater diversity of broadcasting services that we all subscribe to now. One of the challenges the CRTC will have moving forward is that it has to think about our traditional TV channels, like Global or CTV or TVA, and now it has to think about online sports streaming services or online third-language broadcasting services.
Bill C-10 seeks to establish a framework whereby we want all those services to contribute to the policy objectives of the act, but it starts from a premise that how they do so may not look exactly the same. Depending on the nature of the service, the CRTC could say that this service may need to spend a certain amount of money each year on Canadian programming. For this other service, given the nature of the service, maybe it's more appropriate that it contribute to cultural production funds like the Canada Media Fund.
If the term “equivalent manner” is used, it suggests that, notwithstanding that a sports steaming service looks very different from, say, TVA or CTV, they should contribute in exactly the same way. My view is that “equitable” manner seeks to send the message that they should make a contribution that is of equal importance in terms of contributing to cultural policy objectives, but understanding how they go about making that contribution may look different at the end of the day.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Ripley.
Mr. Shields, your hand is still up. Would you like to respond? Do you have anything else to add?
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Shields.
Seeing no further conversation, we'll go to a vote. This is on the subamendment by Mr. Louis regarding BQ-12.
(Subamendment agreed to)
We are once again back to BQ-12.
Seeing no further conversation, we will go to a vote on the main motion by Mr. Champoux.
Shall BQ-12 as amended carry?
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I am seeing no push-back on that.
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
BQ-12 is adopted. You will notice that the next one is G-6, but G-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
According to our schedule, we are now on LIB-5.
Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I see that great minds think alike because LIB-5 is essentially identical in a lot of respects to Bloc Québécois-13, PV-17 and CPC-6, so it looks like almost all the parties had the same idea, which is that we want to facilitate the provision of Canadian programs created in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities as well as in indigenous languages to Canadians. The only difference between LIB-5 and the others is that I've added, “including those created and produced by official language minority communities”, because we've included earlier in the act the reference that we want to encourage programming in both languages including from those communities.
I would hope that we have unanimous support on this because, again, it is equivalent to what we said before and it's an idea that I think all parties heard expressed from many witnesses.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
It was substantially covered by Mr. Housefather. It bears repeating from a technical perspective. If LIB-5 is adopted, BQ-13, PV-17 and CPC-6 become moot as they contain, of course, the same provisions as LIB-5, as was just pointed out.
Is there any further conversation on LIB-5?
Seeing none, we are going to proceed to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go on to NDP-10, and before we do, just a note, if NDP-10 is adopted, CPC-7 and BQ-14 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Ms. McPherson.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the CRTC's supervisory and regulatory duties are not relaxed to the point of creating regulatory loopholes on the basis that a company does not make a significant contribution to Canadian broadcasting policy. The later condition is not clearly defined and for this reason we're proposing that this provision of the bill be deleted as it may constitute a regulatory loophole that could be used by broadcasting undertakings to circumvent their potential obligations, which would also constitute unfair competition to undertakings that are subject to the act.
April 23rd, 2021 / 2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to ask the departmental representatives what impact this change will have on small broadcasters. Will it result in more barriers for them?
2:05 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your question, Mrs. Bessette.
As the committee knows, Bill C-10 would add this paragraph to the act by creating a new class of broadcasting undertakings: online undertakings. Many undertakings are thus concerned here. Since the definition of online undertaking includes undertakings that provide audio and audiovisual services, if the provision is adopted, it will therefore embrace a large number of businesses.
In recognizing that Bill C-10 is enlarging the responsibilities, enlarging the scope of the act and the responsibilities of the CRTC, this provision of the bill was included to signal that the default stance of the CRTC should not be to regulate every little online undertaking that's in the business of offering audio or audiovisual services to Canadians, but rather that the goal here is to capture those services that are in a position to make a material contribution to the policy objectives of the act.
In the current conventional world there's a finite number of services that are offered either over the air or on cable or satellite, so there was a very closed environment. We're very mindful that in Bill C-10 what we're doing is enlarging the CRTC's responsibility to include Internet undertakings and the government's view on that is that there should be a judgment call made about when those services are subject to the regulatory requirements that come with Bill C-10. That's why this provision is included then in Bill C-10.
