Canadian Heritage Committee on April 26th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, could we ask a departmental official to tell us whether these two amendments are redundant? It's true that we addressed the matter in amendment BQ-18, but perhaps the lines being addressed in both are not exactly the same. Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in both.

I'd like to hear what the department's officials feel about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I see Ms. Tsui.

[Kathy Tsui, Manager, Industrial and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for the question.

I agree that the wording is quite similar. BQ-18, however, speaks to French language original programs, whereas PV-20 speaks to original programs to be broadcast in both official languages.

I will also ask about BQ-24, which I believe passed on the first day of study and also had a similar element, but I'm a bit confused about the process there. There may be some connections to be made to BQ-24, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do you mean BQ-24 that is coming up?

[Kathy Tsui]

If I remember correctly, BQ-24 may have passed as a result of carrying BQ-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I can seek clarification on that.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, you had ruled when we adopted the definition in BQ-1 that it was ancillary to BQ-24 and that BQ-24 was also adopted.

Again, I just want to come back to the question Mr. Champoux just asked. I'm not against the concept in PV-20, but it seems to me that we've dealt with this concept in a broader way already with respect to French language original programming in BQ-18, in exactly the same area of the bill where we're seeing that the CRTC can already make regulations on how much original French language programming, including original programming, should be carried.

I understand that this one adds English programming to it, but it doesn't include the same words. I'm just wondering, if we wanted to deal only with French language original programming, does PV-20 add anything to BQ-18 or not. I guess that's my question.

Is there something about this being in a different location that adds something or, as I understand it, isn't it in exactly the same place, and essentially, can't that regulation already be made by the CRTC? I hope that was clear enough for the department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.

If the intention is to ensure that the CRTC has an order-making power to require that there be a proportion of French language original programming, BQ-18 covers you. If that is the intention and the spirit behind PV-20, I do not believe it adds anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now we have Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

According to Mr. Housefather, It would appear that we have already covered this element in another amendment. I'd like the officials to confirm this, because what my colleague has just mentioned leaves me very puzzled. I don't mean this in a nasty way. I simply want confirmation that the two amendments are redundant and that amendment PV-20 doesn't add anything more

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your question, Mr. Rayes.

We discussed the intent of amendment PV-20. The two amendments are not identical, because amendment PV-20 adds the idea of giving the CRTC the power to ensure that a specified percentage of French language programs, and also English language programs, is broadcast. If the intent of amendment PV-20 is to ensure that the CRTC will have this power for French language original programs, then I'd like to point out that the committee has already adopted amendment BQ-18, which gives the CRTC this power.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, do you wish to speak again?

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

No. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I was just going to suggest that perhaps we could have a health break if you needed more time to think about this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Your suggestion is to go to a health break before we deal with PV-20.

I see a lot of thumbs up on that. How about we go to our health break?

I appreciate your doing that, Ms. McPherson, in many ways, as most people are aware. Thank you.

Let's break for no more than five minutes, please, until we come back. We'll see you shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I was going to ask this question before, but with the health break, it's fine. This is a first for this particular session on Bill C-10, but I would like to ask the department a question, if I may.

Just so we're all clear, there has been some discussion about amendments BQ-18 and PV-20 and the remarkable similarities between them.

I think, Mr. Ripley, you may be prepared for this.

In amendment BQ-18, it seems to me at first blush that what we are looking at is a distinct way of describing the presence of French language as one of the official languages. Amendment PV-20 covers both languages.

In amendment BQ-18, is it the case that, when adopted, the English aspect would be covered as well—meaning that you've only identified that part, but does it follow logic that the rest would be covered under this particular bill, in the department's interpretation?

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

The answer would be no, amendment BQ-18 as drafted only covers French programming. It adds a new order-making power for the CRTC.

I would point the committee to new subsection 9.1(1), paragraph (a) of the Broadcasting Act, which already in Bill C-10 has provided the commission with the ability to make orders with respect to

the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be Canadian programs and the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs;

Then it continues in paragraph (b) with “the presentation of programs for selection by the public”, etc.

Bill C-10 had already provided the CRTC with the ability to make orders with respect to Canadian programs, which would include English, French, third language and indigenous language programs. In some respects, amendment BQ-18, which includes a new proposed paragraph (a.1), is putting a special emphasis on the importance of the CRTC having special order-making power with respect to French language.

You are absolutely correct that amendment PV-20 is broader, in that it speaks to both official languages. My question with that would be for Mr. Manly, in the sense of the intention or spirit of the amendment. Was it specifically a concern rooted in French language? If so, amendment BQ-18 may already have covered you off. Is the intention to be broader?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for answering that.

Ms. McPherson is next and then Mr. Manly.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I had some very similar questions. I'm sure Mr. Manly will be able to answer them. I'm wondering what the impacts would be for indigenous or non-official languages.

If you could provide that clarity, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Manly.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Originally, this was to ensure that the French language was included. They said my original draft was inadmissible. That's why we went for both official languages.