Canadian Heritage Committee on April 26th, 2021

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

On division?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Can I proceed on division?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, do you want a recorded vote?

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

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll go to a recorded vote. My apologies, sometimes I forget that the interpretation needs to catchup.

We're going to go to a recorded vote.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Before we go to clause 7, I believe our legislative clerk, Mr. Méla, has a comment.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to point out that in amendment BQ-16, if you look on the second line in the French version, there is a duplication.

The word "la" appears twice. The text reads, "sans conséquence importante sur la la mise en œuvre".

Can we understand the amendment being adopted without the duplication of "la”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I think you could probably get acceptance for that. I'm seeing a lot of nods in the room, so yes, please do fix as necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Méla, for pointing that out.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you.

(On clause 7)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Without further ado, if you're as excited as I am, we're going on to clause 7. We're just moving right along.

We are going to start with amendment PV-19. It's deemed moved, as it is from the Green Party. If amendment PV-19 is adopted, BQ-17 and NDP-11 cannot be moved, as they are identical. If PV-19 is negatived, so are BQ-17 and NDP-11 for the same reason, that they are identical.

Let's proceed with debate.

Mr. Manly, this would be you, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The bill introduces conditions of service, and this amendment applies a seven-year maximum on conditions of service, the same term that currently applies to licences under the existing act.

Conditions of service should be subject to periodic mandatory review. The organizations that supported this were the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expression and la Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma.

I hope the committee will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

First, I'd like to apologize for the confusion before. I'm working on three screens and every now and then that becomes a bit confusing for me, so I apologize for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, let me interject.

Trust me folks, if you are having technical problems, there is a fair bit of leniency on this, simply because we're in a virtual world, which is new to our system, not envisioned by the Standing Orders that we have in the House of Commons, or at least by most of them.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Amendment PV-19 would end up having the impact that all of the orders, even non-controversial ones, would have to be reviewed every seven years, which is quite a burdensome approach to take.

I want to direct the committee's attention to amendment G-15, which would impose a duty on the CRTC to, at least once every seven years, engage with parties to figure out which ones should be reviewed and then publish a plan for conducting the reviews. It is an approach that would be able to direct attention to what needs to be reviewed without requiring every single piece to be reviewed by the CRTC.

My recommendation is that this is not a strong way to go, but I am not opposed to doing it. I'm just putting this out as a thought. I would agree with it. It just seems like a lot of review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I have a quick question, perhaps for the department.

I'm just curious to see, then, whether amendments BQ-17 and NDP-11 are similar enough that they would not be consequential. Is my understanding correct?

I just want to get clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to the department, if they wish to comment, this is a ruling from the table about the similarities.

I know what you meant, Mr. Louis. I just want to make clear to everyone that the ruling is not from the department. Nevertheless, you asked that the department give further clarification.

I'm looking for a volunteer once more.

Mr. Olsen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In answer to Mr. Louis's question, you answered it.

Indeed, amendments PV-19, BQ-17 and NPD-11 would all have the same impact of requiring the CRTC to review the conditions of service every seven years—that's every condition of service that it might put on every broadcasting undertaking. It would require the CRTC to do a full review of all of it.

As Ms. Dabrusin indicated, I believe there's an amendment coming later that would have a slightly more flexible approach, should this committee choose that approach. The CRTC would then be able to consult with stakeholders to determine what conditions of service need to be reviewed and review those ones, setting out its plans so that stakeholders would know what the plan is and be able to prepare for it, rather than requiring that every single condition of service be reviewed every seven years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I want to clarify. I have no strong opposition when I put this out there, but I just want to be clear that there's G-15 coming up that covers similar territory. It's just so we know that it's there and everybody is aware of it. I think sometimes we're voting on things that have pieces that are coming up later, and it's good to see what the options are.

Regardless, I'm not voicing any strong opposition on this one here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I would've liked to ask the legislative clerks whether the adoption of amendments PV-19, BQ-17 or NDP-11 would nullify amendment G-15 or whether this last amendment might be complementary.

As Mr. Rayes has already said, you can't be too careful. It's not the end of the world if you have amendments that share a single objective, provided they don't contradict one another.

Some say the provisions we're introducing are too restrictive. We're creating regulations and setting rules, but I think we get gun-shy when it comes to establishing the tools we need to put them in place and enforce them. Seven years is an eternity in the digital world. We already know that. Personally, I don't feel the period for reviewing conditions is excessive.

In short, I'd first like to know whether we'd wind up with duplicate amendments if this amendment were adopted or whether it would conflict with amendment G-15. Then I'll give others a chance to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You most certainly can. Since you referred to Mr. Méla, I'll let him take the floor.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's hard for me to comment on the contents. At first glance, I would say it might be related, but maybe the department would be better suited to answer that question.