Evidence of meeting #28 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I apologize. I see Ms. Harder's hand up, and it's first in line, so I have to follow that.
Ms. Harder.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
it's very simple. Since it is 2:30 p.m., I would like us to be able to take a little break for a few minutes, if possible, so that we can get a drink of water, among other things.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I would have liked to ask you that beforehand, Mr. Chair, but the debate was so passionate that I did not want to miss a single minute.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, we were overbrimming with excitement there for a while. We will go on our health break, a well-deserved one, and I did say when you brought it up that we would have one.
Folks, we'll be back within four minutes, so we'll see you soon. We'll suspend for four minutes.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome back, everybody. We're going to resume once again.
I'm going to turn to my speaker's list. I'll go to Ms. Harder.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, believing the motion I've laid out on the table is of utmost importance, I would move that we return to debate, that debate resume with regard to the motion that I have put before this committee, which, of course, asks for a new statement from the justice minister in regard to whether Bill C-10 in its current state does in fact respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Ms. Harder, just so you know, page 1062 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states that if the debate “is adjourned without the committee taking a decision, the committee may resume the debate...at another meeting.” I hope that's clear. We can't resume with the same debate at this point. We have to do it at another meeting. That's quite clear within the third edition.
Seeing nothing further, I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.
(On clause 7)
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The next amendment, the next motion we're dealing with, is G-10. This concerns Canadian ownership, something we had focused on as being a very important issue. This is the power that would allow the CRTC to review changes in ownership to make sure Canadian ownership rules are being properly respected.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. Is there any further conversation? Again, we're on amendment G-10.
Mr. Aitchison.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would actually propose a subamendment to G-10, to add the words “that is not an online undertaking”. In G-10, it reads, “any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking”. Insert there the words “that is not an online undertaking”, and then carry on.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. Proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(h.1) would then say “any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking that is not an online undertaking, carried on under a licence”.
Mr. Aitchison, I'm looking to you for confirmation. You're including “not an online undertaking”. Am I correct?
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I'm sorry. I was nodding. Yes, that is correct.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Does everyone understand the subamendment?
We are now in the middle of the subamendment by Mr. Aitchison, which would amend G-10. Shall the subamendment carry?
Mr. Housefather.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit confused here. What exactly are we moving to a vote on? If we're moving to a vote on Mr. Aitchison's subamendment, I have a question for the department on it.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes. I'd like to understand what the carving out of online undertakings from this section means.
I'd like to just confirm with Mr. Ripley that it would mean that online undertakings that are broadcasting undertakings would not be covered; therefore, the commission would not be able to look at the change of ownership or control of such an online undertaking.
Would that be the sense? It would be a complete carve-out, and the CRTC would no longer have the power to look into the ownership or control of an online undertaking.
2:40 p.m.
Thomas Owen Ripley Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.
The amendment as currently drafted, as members of the committee will note, talks about undertakings that are carried on under a licence. The way that Bill C-10 is structured, as you may recall, is that online undertakings actually do not need to hold a licence, and so the amendment that Mr. Aitchison is proposing is actually already in line with the amendment as currently drafted, because an online undertaking is not required to hold a licence to begin with. The CRTC, as you may know, does indeed review ownership transactions in the conventional broadcasting world—that is, conventional broadcasters, cable and satellite companies—and this is to just ensure that it can continue to review those transactions moving forward, given that we're moving to a condition of a service model instead of a condition of a licence model.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Ripley.
Crave is owned by Bell. Could you speak to that situation? Right now in Canada that would be probably the only one that I can relate to. Bell owns Crave. Would this change anything at all on this?
2:45 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.
The question would hinge on whether Crave is a licensed undertaking or not. It's an online undertaking, but because it's part of a larger corporate family, it would depend on exactly the way it is operated. My understanding is that right now, it does operate under the exemption order and therefore is not part of any licensed activity of Bell. Again, this power would not apply in the case of an ownership transaction involving the division of Crave, so to speak.
Just to confirm that, Mr. Chair, maybe my colleague, Mr. Olsen, wishes to add to that.