Evidence of meeting #36 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
What I'm going to do, Mr. Housefather, is give the floor to Mr. Champoux, and to the best of his ability I'm sure he can explain or answer your question.
Mr. Champoux.
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
That's right, Mr. Chair, the only thing missing was the change regarding the first part of the amendment. My subamendment's goal is also to replace the term “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs”. I did not include that part of my subamendment in the text I sent. I sent only the proposed addition concerning the interpretation. With your permission, I will send you another email with the missing element right away.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. In the meantime, do you wish to speak to your subamendment right now, and then we'll get on with the debate? I have Ms. Harder next.
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I think that says it all, Mr. Chair.
Paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), as proposed in the amendment, talks about “Canadian creators of programs”. However, that is not a term generally used in the texts we are now reviewing under Bill C-10. It is rather a matter of Canadian content, francophone content or programs, or even of human, creative and other resources. So I felt that the term “Canadian creators of programs” does not refer to something very specific. However, the term “Canadian programs” does refer to what we want to make discoverable for users, in the context of the Canadian broadcasting system. That is my explanation for this part of the subamendment.
As for the second part, the aim is to add wording to reassure people who may be concerned about the act being interpreted so as to infringe on freedom of expression. So this notion is added to the part on interpretation, to encourage the CRTC not to lose sight of needing to make its decisions while keeping in mind that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a fundamental principle, that of the freedom of expression enjoyed by Canadians. As such, this is about the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings.
It is pretty simple and clear.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I just wish to move another subamendment, so I guess I'll wait for debate to conclude on this before doing that.
Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I thank Monsieur Champoux for putting forward the subamendment. The second part, the part that we had in the email, seems like a good addition to me, but I am concerned about the first part that was just added in this last piece that he talked about, with changing what would be discoverability for social media companies. I think that, around the committee, if there's one thing that we all agree upon, it is that the content on social media shouldn't be covered. For me, I have a concern that the amendment on the discoverability piece actually changes it.
I am wondering if perhaps someone from the department might be able to help clarify what they believe the impact would be of the change that is proposed to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1).
May 19th, 2021 / 2:45 p.m.
Thomas Owen Ripley Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin.
If I understand the amendment correctly, it would replace the phrase “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs” or “Canadian programming”. Indeed, that is a change, in the sense that, as drafted right now, the discoverability power that is being provided to the CRTC is explicit about raising the visibility of Canadian creators, so the emphasis is on the individual creator or artist and showcasing them on these services, not their programs.
Mr. Champoux is correct that the act does have a definition of “program”. Changing that power to focus on the program would be a significant change, in that then the obligation on the services changes from raising the visibility of or showcasing the actual individual creators or artists to their Canadian programs. The term “Canadian program”, just so that the committee is aware.... If you look at section 10 of the act, the CRTC has the ability to make regulations defining what constitutes Canadian programming. The committee may be aware that this is what engages the question of the 10-point scale and those kinds of things.
The discoverability power, as it is currently drafted, was really intended to focus on the individual creator or artist, as opposed to getting into the question of what constitutes Canadian programming on social media services. Social media services are obviously a very different kind of environment from conventional broadcasting, so the focus on the individual creator or artist was intentional: It was not to create a situation where you may be asking social media companies to assess what constitutes a Canadian program.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Ripley.
Before I go to Mr. Rayes, we just want to confirm the wording of the text that we have received. I'd like to go to our legislative clerk, Mr. Méla.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just so that we're certain of what we're looking at in the subamendment, what do you have currently?
2:45 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
We all have the second part, proposed subsection 9.1(3.2). We all have that, so I'll just clarify proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1). It would read “in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian programs”. That would be it.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Is this a point of order, Ms. Dabrusin? Otherwise, I have to go to Mr. Rayes.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I hadn't given up the floor yet. I asked a question to the department.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, I apologize.
I tend to do this. When we go to one of the people in the department, I tend to go to the next person. If you want to stay on the subject, please tell me that you're staying. It's not your fault; it's mine. Just tell me that you're staying on the subject, and I'll come back to you.
Right you are, Ms. Dabrusin.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, my apologies. I'll be clearer next time.
I am concerned about the impact of that first part of the amendment to G-11.1, part 2, about proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), which Mr. Ménard was clarifying for us.
I would seek, if I can, to sub-subamend by removing that part from the subamendment, removing the amendment to (i.1) while maintaining—and I apologize because I don't have all the writing in front of me—the portion about subsection 9.1(3.2) that I believe is being proposed by Mr. Champoux.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm afraid we can't get into a subamendment to amend a subamendment. You'd have to wait for another amendment to come about. You're going to have to wait for this to unfold, to be dispensed with, and then we can go to what you'd like to do, which would be to amend it once again.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm just checking, because my understanding was that, if was to revert back and it was severable, I could. That was my understanding.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'll seek clarification, so that way you won't have to go through what you're proposing. Just one moment, everyone.
Ms. Dabrusin has the floor when we come back. After that, it's Mr. Rayes.
Okay, we're back, everybody. My sincere apologies.
I'll tell you what we're trying to do here, Ms. Dabrusin. We're trying to help. You can't amend a subamendment, so we were trying to figure out ways to satisfy your concern. I know all you have is a very simple solution.
There are several ways you can do this, one requiring unanimous consent and so on, but may I suggest we do it this way, as I originally suggested? Why don't we just deal with this subamendment in a total package as is, and then go back? Then you can move your subamendment to take out the word. It's awkward only in the sense that you're voting on the same thing in two different manners, without getting too far into the weeds—maybe it's too late for that now.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the cleanest way to do this is to handle Mr. Champoux's subamendment in total, and then deal with the amendment you wish to propose afterwards.
Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
No, that's your ruling, so we will move along. I see there are a couple of other hands up.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, I apologize, but it's an awkward situation. Nevertheless, I'm trying to get through this as quickly and as cleanly as possible. As I said, it might be too late, but nevertheless, here we are.
Mr. Rayes.