Canadian Heritage Committee on May 19th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to propose something similar to Ms. Dabrusin's proposal.

I would propose to Mr. Champoux to move two different subamendments—one for the first part and another one for the second part—so that we can vote separately on each part. Perhaps he wants to make a connection between the two, but I don't think there really is a connection between them. I may be wrong about Mr. Champoux's intention, but I think it is a good one. If he agreed to do this, it would resolve the issue for everyone.

Ultimately, these are still significant amendments. Once we finish discussing these amendments, Mr. Chair, I would like you to give us five minutes to allow colleagues from each party to discuss amongst themselves and to decide how to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, that's fine.

Yes, we did discuss that as well. However, the way we have to do this.... I have to have unanimous consent, first of all, to withdraw Mr. Champoux's subamendment. If he so desires, he can do it on two separate movements, as it were, two subamendments.

Just so that everyone is clear, there are two things we're trying to do here: change the word in one part and add proposed subsection 9.1(3.2) in the other, which was discussed.

That being said, Mr. Champoux, obviously, in order to proceed I have to have some permission from you. I'm jumping ahead of the queue—I apologize, Ms. Harder—but, Mr. Champoux, would you like to tell me very briefly whether that's how you'd like to proceed?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I completely agree with dividing the subamendment into two parts.

First, I propose replacing the words “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs”. Second—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Champoux, but I have to put this horse before the cart. I need unanimous consent to withdraw your subamendment.

Is there anybody who is against the idea of withdrawing the subamendment?

(Subamendment withdrawn)

That being said, Ms. Harder, with your permission, because you are next in line to speak and I'd like to be close to the speaking order, would you allow Mr. Champoux to proceed with his subamendment, the first one, and then we can go to you to speak? I'm giving you a veto, essentially.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have no problem with that.

Just to be clear, then, Mr. Champoux has removed his original subamendment and now he's choosing to put forward a different subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, what he's doing is this. If you recall, we had two parts to his subamendment. He's going to do each of those individually. The first one will be the first part, proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), changing the word. That's the first one. We'll dispense with that, and you can speak to it following him, because I have you on the list.

Once we dispense with that, we'll go to the second subamendment that he is proposing, which is about proposed subsection 9.1(3.2).

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, if I may—I'm putting the cart before the horse a little bit here, I suppose, because he hasn't given it yet—could we get that in writing, and then could we pause for one moment, just to take it all in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We can pause, Ms. Harder. You already have it in writing, but we can pause, certainly, if you wish. We can take a moment.

What we can do is allow him to move his subamendment. If you wish, and I'm looking at all squares here on the board—I'm not calling you square, don't get me wrong—following that we can take a break so you can have a discussion with your caucus.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As agreed, I will propose two subamendments. I have no issue with pausing to discuss them.

The goal of the first subamendment I am proposing is simply to change a few words in order to end up with the following:

(i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian programs;

As far as I understand, Mr. Chair, we will take a break and deal with this subamendment, and then I will be able to propose the other subamendment. Is that right? Can I propose both subamendments right away?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No, I have to dispense with the first subamendment first. I guess first things first, as it were. We'll deal with that—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think we should rather take a break after the next subamendment. The first one is fairly simple. We could debate it quickly and put it to the vote. Unless I am mistaken, it is rather the second subamendment that requires colleagues' reflection, but I will let you manage this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If that's your interpretation, I'll accept it, but at this point, I did mention to Ms. Harder that we'd take a break.

Ms. Harder, what's proposed is that we dispense with the first subamendment. I'm not trying to steer the debate in any way, shape or form, but it is one simple thing. What Mr. Champoux is saying is that the second part may be more contentious. Would you like to take the break now or after the second one?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm happy to take a break after the second one.

For clarity purposes, I wish to speak to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do you mean this one?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The floor is yours.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I wish to seek perhaps Mr. Owen Ripley's response to this. I'm just wondering if the significance of this change can be explained to us, changing “discoverability of Canadian creators of programs” to simply “discoverability of Canadian programs”. Perhaps that nuance could be explained to the committee so that we better understand the effect of that change.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I don't mean to to offend anyone, but I feel that Mr. Ripley has already answered Ms. Dabrusin's question. Am I wrong in saying that it was about the same issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I realize that, but I think it's certainly Ms. Harder's right to ask again if she so desires.

Let me fix this first, because I should have done it a long time ago: Mr. Ripley, is it Mr. Owen Ripley or is it Mr. Ripley? I'll let you start with that.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I go by Owen. Thank you for asking.

The big difference is kind of the unit to which the discoverability power would apply. As it's currently crafted, the obligation or the power is in relation to the individual creator or artist, so if the CRTC were to exercise that, it would be limited in requiring social media services to raise the visibility of the creator or artist, as opposed to their programming.

With the subamendment by Mr. Champoux, the unit of analysis, so to speak, would shift from the individual creator or artist to the idea of “Canadian program”. Mr. Champoux is right that it is a concept that is well known and exists in the broadcasting system.

As I mentioned, there's a power that the CRTC has to kind of specify what constitutes a Canadian program, so it would then be given the power to impose obligations on social media services to raise the discoverability of the programs, as opposed to the actual individual creators or artists.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, may I just shed greater clarity on the question I'm asking?