Canadian Heritage Committee on April 26th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I guess at this stage we'll go over to the department, before I go back to Ms. Dabrusin.

I see both Mr. Ripley and Mr. Olsen. I'll go to Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

My view is that the spirit of them is the same. As the committee is aware, in the conventional world, licences had to be renewed at a maximum of seven years.

Bill C-10 as tabled did not have a cap on the length of orders and conditions of service, and I am aware that the committee heard from stakeholders who expressed concern about that.

As Mr. Olsen highlighted, the government recognizes that there are certain very important elements that will be done through orders. If you look at the kinds of things that are listed in proposed section 9.1, we talk about presentation of Canadian programming and certain things along those lines, and it will be important that those things have an opportunity to be reviewed on a periodic basis and that stakeholders have an ability to provide input on that.

If you also look, there are more administrative things. I would point out to you, for example, the carriage of emergency messages. The spirit of the government's amendment that Ms. Dabrusin alluded to gives the CRTC some flexibility to, again, tease out the issues that stakeholders want to engage on and let those orders that are more administrative in nature not be subject to a process whereby it will be more burdensome for both the CRTC but also the stakeholder community that would be expected to engage on those processes. The spirit was to tease out those things where there is strong interest in them being reviewed but acknowledge that there are going to be orders that are more administrative in nature.

The amendment before the committee right now would subject all orders to having to be renewed every seven years, regardless of their administrative nature or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

To reiterate, what we're dealing with right now is, of course, PV-19, which would attach to BQ-17 and NDP-11. There are striking similarities to a government amendment later, but this was the ruling that came as we decided how we wanted to proceed.

I'm not seeing any more conversation or debate. Therefore, we will now go to a vote.

Shall PV-19 carry?

[An hon. member]

No.

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

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Can I say it is negatived on division?

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

No, I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

For those of you who are following along on your agenda, since PV-19 has been negatived, we also have to negative both BQ-17 and NDP-11.

That means we now move on to BQ-18.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under amendment BQ-18, we would clarify an aspect that has not often been clarified with respect to francophone content. We would ask broadcasting undertakings to make their contribution, but we want them to do so by creating new material, new programs and new content.

Consequently, in this amendment, we propose paragraph 9.1(1)(a.1), which would follow proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(a) of the bill:

(a.1) the proportion of Canadian programs to be broadcast that shall be French language original programs, including first-run programs;

The objective here is to prevent the broadcasting of previously broadcast content, meaning old translated television series or old Quebec or French Canadian series that are rebroadcast just so they can count as Canadian content. We want to establish a new content percentage that must be produced by broadcasting undertakings, particularly online undertakings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mrs. Bessette.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Champoux's amendment is a valid one. We feel it's wise to include this measure in Bill C-10 rather than in the order. So we'll be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We appreciate the wisdom of the amendment proposed by Mr. Champoux. We'll be supporting it too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madam Bessette, is your hand still up? No.

We will now go to the vote on BQ-18.

(Amendment agreed to)

We will now go to amendment G-8. Just of note to everybody, if G-8 is adopted, BQ-19 and NDP-12 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

This one is actually important to make sure that there is discoverability across the spectrum for programs and programming services. For example, this would ensure that Canadian programming services like apps, which are quite popular, and channels and programs themselves be discoverable or at least highly visible on broadcasting undertakings.

It's a piece to make sure that it is captured as well.

I see there are others who want to speak, so I'll leave it to the others for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will be supporting this amendment. I would like to add one word, make a subamendment, if I could.

I would like to add “showcasing and” right before “discoverability”, just to strengthen and enhance the amendment, if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, I'm sorry, but could you detail again the word you want to use?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'll read the entire clause.

It would say:

the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public, including the showcasing and discoverability of Canadian programs and programming services;

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't think we need to go any further by clarifications or something in writing. I think what Ms. McPherson is doing here is adding the word “showcasing” to this particular amendment. Therefore, now we need discussion on the subamendment as put forward by Ms. McPherson.

Is everyone clear on what she's proposing here?

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I just want to check on the procedure, Mr. Chair. If Ms. McPherson's subamendment, which we are debating at the moment, is adopted, it will still be possible to put forward another subamendment afterwards. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If you want to further amend, yes, but you can't do it within a subamendment. We have to dispense with this subamendment first, and then we can move on.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I need clarification here.

The word “showcasing” is not a word that you normally see in a law, and I just want to understand what the French translation is.

Would we say "mettre en valeur"?

How would we say this in French?

I'm on the floor channel and not the interpretation channel, so I didn't hear.

Mr. Champoux, would it be "mettre en valeur"?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay. Thanks.