Evidence of meeting #27 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 crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before I go to Ms. Dabrusin, are you proposing a subamendment, Mr. Champoux?
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'll wait to hear Ms. Dabrusin's answer before putting forward a subamendment.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I guess I'll presuppose that subamendment, but the answer would be no, I wouldn't be in agreement with it.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose a subamendment, but I haven't drafted it yet. I might need Mr. Méla's help to find the appropriate wording. I'd like proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(e.1) to say something like " a requirement, with certain terms or conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, for operators of online undertakings". The idea is to replace the words " without terms or conditions" by " with terms or conditions", but I'm open to any suggestions that might improve my wording.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Champoux, I'm going to proceed. The subamendment that you're asking for here is quite straightforward and simple in both languages.
12:30 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll propose this to Mr. Champoux.
If we wrote, "a requirement, in accordance with terms or conditions specified by", would that work for you?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
No, it's fine. I thought we were adding more. I thought your microphone was cut off, but apparently not.
Mr. Champoux.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Your suggested wording, Mr. Méla, namely "a requirement, in accordance with terms or conditions specified by", strikes me as perfectly acceptable.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Now that we have agreed upon wording in French and through the interpretation, seeing no further comment, is everyone comfortable with the wording that's been talked about thus far?
Let's go to a vote on the subamendment by Mr. Champoux to G-9.
Shall the subamendment carry?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hearing no and only no, we now go to a vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
We now return to G-9, which is the main amendment.
Mr. Shields.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Chair, could we have the department explain the role that the CRTC would have with this change that's being proposed?
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.
To clarify, what is on the table through this amendment is an extension, with some changes, of what we call mandatory distribution in the conventional system.
Right now the CRTC has the ability to require cable and satellite companies to carry certain TV channels, such as APTN, CPAC or your provincial legislative channel. The CRTC has the ability to impose terms and conditions on that, requiring Canadian cable and satellite companies to, in some instances, not only carry APTN but also actually pay a per subscriber fee to APTN, for example.
The committee heard from certain witnesses who felt that it was very important, as Bill C-10 moves forward, that the CRTC have a lever, as it has in the current system, to require online undertakings to carry certain channels.
The amendment that you have before you would allow the CRTC—and yes, it would be the CRTC that would make this kind of order—but it could allow, for example, such services as the Amazon channels or Apple or something like that, to carry APTN, for example, as part of their lineup. The difference—and this is where the debate has been focusing—is whether the CRTC should have the ability to require terms and conditions for that contractual arrangement.
The amendment before you proposes that the CRTC not be granted that power, but rather that the parties be required to negotiate in good faith and that the CRTC be equipped to facilitate those negotiations when appropriate, and if ever you had a party not negotiate in good faith, the CRTC would have the ability to levy administrative monetary penalties against the party acting in bad faith.
The reason for this is that the context and the marketplace are quite different between the conventional system and the new system. In the online world, there is less of an issue of shelf space. In many circumstances right now, in the commercial arrangement between services like Amazon channels or Apple, they'll come to a revenue-sharing agreement.
The goal here is to require those services to potentially carry certain Canadian services and require them to negotiate in good faith to come to a reasonable revenue-sharing agreement, which typically these days looks like being approximately fifty-fifty, in most cases.
I hope that helps to clarify.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, first of all I'd like to propose a subamendment. One other option would be to take “without terms or conditions” completely out. That might be a possibility.
I guess that would be treated as a subamendment. I have that and another subamendment that I'd like to put forward.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It's definitely a subamendment, but I think you're seeking clarification from the department as well.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
The delay, Mr. Chair, is because we were organizing our thoughts on this.
What I would—