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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further discussion on this or clarity on the matter, we will now go to a vote.
Shall PV-20 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
There is a proposal to negative the amendment on division. Are we okay with that?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to amendment BQ-20.
Mr. Champoux.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
The intent of amendment BQ-20 is to clarify an element in paragraph 9.1(1)(e) that the bill is proposing to add to the act.
The English version of the bill states
“a requirement for a person carrying on a distribution undertaking to carry”, and so on.
In the French version the wording is "l'obligation pour les exploitants de ces entreprises d'offrir certains services de programmation".
We want to amend the wording to clearly specify that the term "ces entreprises" means broadcasting undertakings.
That said, if our proposal does not reflect the intent of clause 7 of the bill, then I would ask the departmental officials to make any needed corrections or additions.
Liberal
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.
In fact, paragraph 9.1(1)(e) proposed in the bill refers to operators of distribution undertakings such as cable companies. The CRTC absolutely has the power to regulate under the Wholesale Code, which governs relations between cable companies and programming undertakings.
My understanding is that your amendment would broaden this power to extend it not only to distribution undertakings, but also to all broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
If everyone looks forward they'll see there is G-9, which is about a similar kind of discussion point. My main concern here is about trade risk.
In G-9, rather than imposing, there is a good faith negotiation part that's in the last subclause of that motion. The difference really is the imposition of these requirements on international companies and the potential for a very real trade risk that we would have to worry about. That's certainly not something we would want to bring into this because that would cause all sorts of extra complications for the system to work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further conversation and no further debate, shall BQ-20 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We'll now go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
Now it's off to G-9, briefly referenced before.
Ms. Dabrusin.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I just referenced it, and I won't go too long into the conversation about this point, except that this seeks to cover the same ground that BQ-20 sought to cover, but this time negating the trade risk and taking into account good faith negotiations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before we go to Mr. Champoux, I just want to point out to everyone that the vote on amendment G-9 applies also to amendment G-16, as they are consequential to each other.
Now we'll go to Mr. Champoux.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I have a question about the proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(e.1):
(e.1) a requirement, without terms or conditions, for a person carrying on an online undertaking to carry programming services...
Specifying "without terms or conditions" means that these undertakings—online broadcasters—should also provide Canadian programming services, but would not be required to pay anything, irrespective of any revenue they would derive. I agree with this principle.
My problem is with the fact that our Canadian broadcasters, which are already subject to conditions of licence, have to pay into the Canada Media Fund. In other words, a condition is imposed upon them to finance programming services that they are required to provide. At a time when we are trying to make the system more equitable, they are being told that they have to continue to pay, except for the online portion of their activities, and that other online undertakings will not have to pay either.
So I'm wondering whether the words,"without terms or conditions" are really required. If we can't impose terms or conditions, whether financial or otherwise, there should certainly be obligations tied to the requirement to disseminate and present Canadian programming services.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Champoux, is that a question for Ms. Dabrusin or for the department?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I think that point goes exactly to the trade risk point, which is imposing obligations.
I think, actually, that Mr. Champoux even, when he was speaking about it, spoke about “Canadian” versus “international” and about what we can impose on international actors, taking into account the trade obligations and good relations between countries.
That is the main piece that I would put to this, that even in his question he rather drew the distinction as to where that trade risk would lie.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Champoux, shall I go to you, or would you rather hear from the department?
Let's go to you first.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Well, Mr. Chair, that amounts more or less to the argument I raised earlier in our meeting today.
If I have an undertaking and want to do business abroad, there will be rules to comply with in the countries concerned, whether my undertaking is online or has physical facilities. No matter what I sell or distribute in other countries around the world, I have to comply with whatever rules are in place.
Why do we always argue that there might be a trade war if we impose rules? There will come a point when we have to stop being afraid and decide on the rules we want, and the kind of environment we would like to recommend to broadcasting undertakings, and the kind of equity we would like to have in this market. We need to stop worrying about starting a trade war every time we want to regulate our own market.
My view is that everyone should participate equitably. It should not be up to a single category of undertakings to pay the bills on behalf of the others, and to their own detriment.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I just want to clarify. There is a fair negotiation piece that is part of our motion as well. It's not actually true to say that there would be nothing paid. It's about striking a fair deal, and there is a negotiation part to that amendment, which I wanted to highlight.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
So I would imagine that there wouldn't be a problem in removing the words "without terms or conditions" and replacing them with something like "with terms or conditions", in accordance with conditions specified elsewhere in the act?
