Canadian Heritage Committee on April 23rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as you see before us. We're also being webcast for those watching us from.... I was going to say around the country, but I suppose you could say from around the world.

That being said, very quickly I want to go over some of the rules that we've put down so far, for those of you who are observing this committee.

We are going to go through clause by clause. Each amendment will be signified by letters and numbers. For example, PV is Parti vert. PV-1 would be the first of the Green Party's amendments. We have amendments from LIB, from the Liberal members on the committee. CPC is from the Conservative members. The Bloc Québécois' will be BQ. NDP is the New Democrats. The final category would be G, which would be amendments coming forward from the government.

Before we pick up with that, there are just a couple of rules. Remember, please no taking any photos of this for distribution. That's for this particular meeting and for all of the meetings, really.

To clarify something on the votes, folks, when we vote on an amendment or a clause, I will ask for it to carry. If I hear silence then it carries. If I hear a “no” I will go to a recorded vote. If I hear a “no” and then someone says “on division” then I will carry it on division signifying that someone is not in support of it, but we'll go ahead without a recorded vote. If you want it to be negatived on division, just say “negatived on division”, or “no, on division”.

I hope that's clear. It was last time, I just thought I'd repeat that for everyone's benefit.

Let's get to scheduling for just a moment. As you know, we passed a motion to see if we can seek out extra hours or meetings for Bill C-10. You've already received the notice. We'll proceed and go ahead and try to find the space where we can. We found an evening of May 3 as a placeholder.

Just so you know, we attempted today to go for three hours, but that was not possible. We know that the Senate is also sitting. We also attempted for next Friday to do three hours. That too was unsuccessful. We were only able to obtain two hours, because multimedia services weren't able to cover it. So far we just have the extra meeting on May 3. I think you have received a notice for that. Nevertheless, we can talk about that later, if you wish.

I think it's time for Bill C-10. We'll go to clause-by-clause. We'll pick up where we left off.

(On clause 2)

We're on NDP-8.

Ms. McPherson, it's your amendment. Would you like the floor?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to speak to it. I think we have discussed the amendment already. I can provide some arguments.

Basically this is to make sure that the Canadian broadcasting policy is innovative, that it supports the development of Canadian creative talent and reflects Canada's indigenous and multicultural culture, while reflecting its communities and regions. There's been an enormous loss of community channel archives and closures of studios. This is something that we've put forward to combat that, to some degree.

If anyone has questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I think we had already discussed the amendment to some degree before we adjourned last time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, we had, Ms. McPherson.

Based on a precedent of the ruling that I did prior, I'm going to have to make the following ruling. For any programming to be made available to the public through archival means such as the Library and Archives of Canada, unfortunately that goes beyond the scope and principle of the bill. It was not covered in the original bill.

For those watching, when we accept the bill in the second reading and send it to committee, it gives us a broadly narrow—if I can use that term—scope by which we can operate. We cannot bring in something from the outside that is brand new. Therefore, in this particular case, to be consistent with the ruling of the last amendment, I have to rule this way.

If you notice, folks, on NDP-8, on page 45, subparagraph (vii). That last one makes reference to that. Therefore, that ties the whole amendment into this.

Ms. McPherson, again, that is no reflection on the content or the intent of where you wish to go. Unfortunately, I have to rule that to be out of order.

We move to CPC-4.

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that the proposed wording is fairly clear:

(u) online undertakings that are not owned by or subsidiaries of undertakings licensed under this Act to provide English language only programming and are subject to an original Canadian programming requirement shall ensure that, as part of that requirement, the proportion of their original French language programming corresponds at a minimum to the proportion of the French-speaking population in Canada.

I'm sure that Mr. Housefather is going to love this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

The intent of making sure we have French representation is something that's come through in a lot of the amendments that we've looked at, and it's great, but tying it to population numbers is not really, I would think, the best way to go.

First of all, that could be a dropping number. It could be.... It creates a floor—potentially a ceiling—for that representation, so I'm not really in favour of quotas, certainly not tied to population numbers.

I do think that BQ-18 seems to do perhaps a bit of a better job at trying to get that representation for French programming. My thought is that the quota system is a little off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have the floor, Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to Ms. Dabrusin's comments, I'd like to point out that there is no quota or ceiling. On the contrary, it is clearly written that the proportion in question corresponds “at a minimum to the proportion of the French-speaking population in Canada”. At the very least, it should be done in the same proportion. It could be a lot more, but it cannot go below this proportion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have to candidly admit that I'm having trouble determining which undertakings are being targeted.

Could you tell us, Mr. Rayes, which specific undertakings or types of undertakings you are alluding to in this amendment?

Besides which, we have always tried to avoid floors that reflect the number of francophones in Canada, precisely because what is generally requested and required is higher than the proportion of Francophones in Canada. It's usually between 30% and 40%.

I would like to know what the underlying intent of this amendment is, and in particular, at whom it is being specifically addressed. If it came to that, would we be open to an amendment saying that all the requirements placed on broadcasting undertakings should represent a more equitable proportion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have the floor, Mr. Rayes.

Monsieur Rayes, I'm sorry, but before you start....

Don't forget, folks, when you're not speaking, can you please help us out by putting your microphone on mute? Thank you.

Monsieur Rayes.

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

I heard you, Mr. Chair. I'll make sure I do that.

For the first question, regarding the ceiling, I'd like to repeat that it is clearly indicated that at minimum, it should be in proportion to the Francophone population. There's nothing to stop it being higher. I don't see how this is ambiguous or contrary to everything that's been done. We're simply making sure that the country's French-speaking population will be properly served in French.

As for determining which undertakings are at issue, I wonder whether one of the clerks, analysts or officials with us today could help me. I find that the wording clearly indicates that we're talking about all of the following undertakings: “online undertakings that are not owned by or subsidiaries of undertakings licensed under this Act...”. I don't know how to put it any more clearly. We're lapsing into the jargon of resolutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further comments, we will go to a vote.

I'm sorry. I do have comments.

Back to you, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Rayes was asking for clarification from a departmental representative, and I too would like to have that. Would it be possible to ask one of the officials here to comment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll now go to the department. I'm looking for a show of hands, as we normally do, for someone from the department who wishes to address Monsieur Rayes' comments.

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for the question. I could perhaps ask my colleagues, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Smith, to help me out.

Our understanding of the amendment's intent is that it targets undertakings that are not owned by undertakings licensed under the act to provide services in English. For me, this indicates that it is meant for online services, whether Canadian, or in some instances, foreign. I believe that the intent is to target the major online undertakings, like those that offer streaming services, except for those owned by a Canadian undertaking licensed to provide services in English.

I'm not sure whether Mr. Olson has something to add.

[Drew Olsen, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Ripley.

That is correct. That is my interpretation of the amendment as well. It would be “online undertakings that are not owned by or subsidiaries of undertakings licensed under this Act to provide English language only”. There are a number of those undertakings in Canada that are licensed to provide English-only content, so that is what I believe this amendment would do.

Given that French is not my first language, I'm just looking to see whether there's a difference in the French and the English between the phrase “entreprise autorisée” and “undertakings licensed”, because a licence and authorization to broadcast are not exactly the same thing under the Broadcasting Act. I'm trying to check that right now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Mr. Housefather, do you want to proceed while Mr. Olsen is...?

Go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question also for the department.

I'm very sympathetic to Mr. Rayes' proposal, and understand the importance of having a percentage of French, but I preferred the Bloc Québécois' amendments on this matter, because they allowed flexibility.

My question for the department was this. Given the different nature of the amendments, this one, as I understand it, would require each and every online undertaking that is not licensed to only provide programming in English to provide exactly the same hours of French-language programming equal to the percentage of French-speaking people in Canada at any particular time. It would not give flexibility to the CRTC to have different rules for different online undertakings, depending on their own unique positions.

Is that a correct interpretation of this amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm assuming this is for Mr. Olsen.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It's for anyone in the department who can answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I see Mr. Ripley first, and then I'll go to Mr. Olsen.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.

Yes, based on what I understand the amendment to be, that is accurate.

What we understand this would do, as currently drafted, is to subject, again, all online undertakings—so all streaming services—that aren't owned by a Canadian service that only offers English services.... We can imagine that this would capture both non-Canadian services such as Netflix, but likely also services owned by, say, Bell Media, which has both French and English services, so a service such as Crave. They would all be subject to that base minimum obligation, irrespective of, for example, their penetration in the French market or other unique characteristics that they might have.

I think Mr. Rayes is certainly correct in stating that this is being framed as a minimum, and indeed, it would always be possible to go above it. This base minimum, however, would indeed apply across the board, regardless of the nature of the service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Olsen, go ahead, please.

[Drew Olsen]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Normally when we discuss “authorized to broadcast”, it says it's both authorized currently under a licence or under an exemption order, and this amendment only talks about “licensed under this Act”. I think there's a slight difference in this. There are programming undertakings that are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence from the CRTC now. They're typically some of the smaller undertakings, and they operate under an exemption order under section 9.