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.
2:45 p.m.
Drew Olsen Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
It's no. That was what I would have said. Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, great. Thank you, folks.
Seeing no further discussion, again, we are on the subamendment from Mr. Waugh regarding amendment G-10.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Actually, Mr. Chair, it will be from Mr. Aitchison.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It's Mr. Aitchison. I apologize. You were right there, sir. You were top of mind, except it should have been Mr. Aitchison.
That's no reflection on you, Mr. Aitchison.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
We share a name, Mr. Chair. My goodness, I would think you would be less dismissive of me.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, I know. You would think so.
We are on the subamendment to amendment G-10 put forward by my fellow Scottsman. Shall the subamendment carry?
(Subamendment agreed to)
We will now go to the main amendment, G-10.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
April 30th, 2021 / 2:45 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As another Scot, I'll jump in with another subamendment, if I can.
I would like to subamend the wording to say, instead of a “broadcasting undertaking carried on under a licence”, “a Canadian broadcasting undertaking”.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just so I get this right, it would be, “(h.1) any change in the ownership or control of a Canadian broadcasting undertaking”.
Did I get that right?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. You are simply inserting the word “Canadian”. I don't think we need anything more formal than that.
Does everybody understand? I see common comprehension.
I see Mr. Rayes.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Can the senior officials with us tell us about the impacts of this subamendment?
2:45 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.
The answer is actually similar to the one I gave Mr. Aitchison and Mr. Waugh. Currently, as you know, there is a directive stipulating that only Canadian enterprises can hold licenses in Canada. I would say that the amendment is much in the same spirit, because it is impossible for a foreign company to obtain a license to operate a broadcasting enterprise in Canada.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair. I would just want Ms. McPherson to consider, based on that answer, that this may create confusion. I don't know where else in the act we talk only about Canadian broadcasting undertakings, and by referring to “Canadian” here, we might imply that those broadcasting undertakings other than Canadian may be eligible to get a licence, which under the act they are not. I would be a bit concerned about doing that, because then we would be saying that somebody other than a Canadian broadcasting undertaking could perhaps be eligible for a licence, but I leave it to her to consider.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to my colleagues.
What I see with this subamendment is that this will protect Canadian ownership of Canadian online companies. It's just going to strengthen it, and I think that's important. It provides that additional coverage. That's why I put forward the subamendment. I don't think it causes confusion. I think, if anything, it strengthens the bill.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I have to get a clarification here. Let's take TSN, owned by Bell and partially owned by ABC/ESPN in the United States. How would this affect them if they decide some day to pull TSN off conventional television and just go like they are right now in the United States, doing a lot of streaming?
I guess maybe I'm asking department officials for a clarification on this, because TSN is partially owned, I believe, in the United States by ESPN/ABC. They have agreements. I am concerned that when you come to Monday night football or Thursday night football, all of a sudden TSN Canada has the rights, and they've decided to not put it on conventional television and instead just stream it. Does adding the word “Canadian” bring anything into effect here?
Maybe Mr. Ripley or Mr. Owen can answer.
2:50 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Again, to the extent that a broadcasting undertaking was to migrate to being an online undertaking—i.e., does not require a licence to operate—there would be no.... This power, this amendment, for the CRTC to make orders respecting changes in ownership or control would not apply to that online undertaking.
The reason for this amendment is that right now, when there is an ownership transaction, there is typically a change in licence, and that change of licence provides an opportunity for the CRTC to assess whether there needs to be any changes in condition as part of that ownership transaction.
What this is doing is seeking to ensure that if there is an ownership transaction in the conventional broadcasting market—a cable or satellite company or something like that—the CRTC continues to have the ability to impose conditions as part of that transaction, so if you want to sell that business division to this other company over here, CRTC will look at whether it authorizes that or not, but it may decide to impose conditions as part of that transaction for a variety of reasons. This power makes sure that the CRTC can continue to do that.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would actually like to add a comment to all that.
First of all, I appreciate the work of the senior officials with us in clarifying things for us each time that a an amendment or a subamendment is proposed.
Then, and this may seem partisan, but I would like to acknowledge Kevin Waugh's work. Thanks to his great experience, when he asks questions, he manages to provide very concrete examples, especially the last one. I have to admit that I sometimes get lost in legislative jargon. Mr. Waugh gives examples of Canadian companies, one part of which may be controlled by foreign interests and could possibly lean towards digital media rather towards broadcasting. That allows us to better understand all the details in this bill that we are working on together. May I highlight all the years of service in this field that he celebrated not very long ago.
The meeting is coming to an end, and I also want to highlight the expertise of the people who have been with us all through the process. The skills of each and every one have greatly helped us to make the best decisions possible.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Rayes, for those great sentiments.
Go ahead, Mr. Waugh.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
One other point is that because we have seen Rogers and Shaw talk about a merger, I wonder if this plays to Shaw. They're kind of out of the business now, although they still have community television stations. How would this amendment affect Shaw if they are sold to Rogers?
I know that's maybe a year away, or whatever. I'm just throwing it out there because all of a sudden now Shaw would own the local community stations across the country. They own several right now. Would this be affected by the change proposed here today by Ms. McPherson?