Evidence of meeting #37 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Patrick Smith  Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thomas Owen Ripley  Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Philippe Méla  Legislative Clerk

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Waugh, I don't accept your apology because I don't think one is really required. I thank you for trying, nevertheless.

The latest version has just been sent. Check your inboxes, please.

In the meantime, we'll go to Mr. Boulerice.

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

I just want to point out that the latest version has in fact reached us. I've received it.

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

I'm seeing a lot of thumbs and nodding heads. In the world of Zoom that usually means yes.

I'm assuming that everyone would like to take a quick read and make sure everything is in order. I think the genuine understanding is there.

For those of you who are watching from afar and wondering what the heck is going on—and there are probably a few of you—we have BQ-23. It's a motion proposed by the Bloc Québécois by Mr. Champoux. Now we're working on a proposed subamendment from Mr. Aitchison.

Now that you have a copy of that, I guess it would be safe to assume that we are ready to go to a vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

We now return to the main motion. Once again, we are on amendment BQ-23.

Do I see any further debates?

Seeing none, we now go to a vote. Shall amendment BQ-23 carry?

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

No.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Hearing no, Madam Clerk, we will go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Now we move to amendment CPC-9.

Mr. Rayes.

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe my colleague Mr. Boulerice has his hand up. Could you allow him to speak?

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Boulerice, do you have something to say before Mr. Rayes moves his motion?

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Chair, my question is about procedure and about consistency in the adoption of the amendments.

We think that we should be studying amendment CPC-12 before studying amendment CPC-9, because amendment CPC-12 would change clause 46 by adding some elements. Amendment CPC-9 refers to unamended clause 46.

I humbly submit the following question. Ought we not, out of concern for consistency and ensuring that we are talking about the right clause 46, adopt the Conservatives' amendment CPC-12 before moving on to amendment CPC-9?

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Before I weigh in on that, I'm going to go to Mr. Louis first.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure of the order, but I know that when amendment CPC-9 came up.... I believe that this one is inadmissible. It's not really in the scope of the bill. Can we bring it up now?

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

No, I don't think you're in the right spot right now. I have to make a ruling on whether it goes ahead or not, but I thank you for your intervention.

That being said, this is a motion that's going to be put forward by Mr. Rayes.

I'm sorry, Mr. Louis. Let me explain further. I think Mr. Rayes has a chance to move his motion and talk about it before a ruling takes place. Then, if the ruling is that it is admissible, we proceed. If it is inadmissible, I'll make that ruling, and then the option is not to debate but to challenge the ruling.

Mr. Rayes, you have the floor on amendment CPC-9.

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair for clarifying that.

I think that we're all learning something about procedure. From the outset, I could tell that you have a great deal of experience. I had the opportunity to replace you once and it was quite an exercise for me. I'd like to take this moment to congratulate you and to thank the experts who have have assisted us. I believe that it's important to take the time to thank you for your work.

Here is the amendment I am proposing:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 8, the following: (k) the provision to the Commission, by the Corporation, of any information that the Commission considers necessary to determine whether the Corporation has satisfied the public interest criteria set out in subsection 46(6) and may proceed with the introduction of a new undertaking or activity.

I'm not sure whether you would like me to give my explanations right now. Mr. Louis implied that you might rule the amendment inadmissible. I hope that's not the case and that we will be able to debate it. I'll have further explanations to give afterwards.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Basically, if I make a ruling one way or the other, we can't comment on it afterwards. Have you exhausted your thoughts concerning amendment CPC-9?

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

If you will allow me to, I'd like to make a very short comment. I don't want to drag out my presentation, because you asked us to be brief.

This amendment gives the CRTC—you'll be surprised, because it's unusual for us to ask that the CRTC be given additional power—more power to review the activities of CBC/Radio-Canada “in order”, I would like to emphasize, to ensure that it fulfils its mandate as a public broadcaster very strictly. We're not reviewing the role or the mandate of the public broadcaster, but would like to make sure that, through the CRTC, it observes the mandate entrusted to it. We have seen some instances where the corporation launched new programs that were challenged, even by broadcasting stakeholders. We would like to ensure that the bill takes this into account.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Before we discuss this any further, I would like to ask a question. I get to do that once in a while.

Mr. Ripley, feel free to pass this to any one of your other officials, but again, I'll keep this within the realm of the officials. My question is quite succinct. This goes to the mandate of the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

In the form of the original bill, how does Bill C-10 affect the mandate of the CBC?

2:45 p.m.

Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage

Thomas Owen Ripley

If I understand what's taking place, Mr. Rayes has tabled an amendment that alludes to a future amendment that introduces, I think, something along the lines of a public interest test for the corporation.

The changes with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10, as it was tabled, were very limited in the sense that the government acknowledged that there were recommendations in the Yale report with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada, but that it was not including CBC/Radio-Canada within the scope of Bill C-10 for the most part and that the role and mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada would be looked at in a future phase of reform.

The only change that was made that affected CBC/Radio-Canada flows from the expansion of the CRTC's jurisdiction over online undertakings. Right now, the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada refers specifically to radio and television. There is a limited change being made in that context to talk about broadcasting services more broadly, to reflect the fact that CBC obviously operates as CBC Gem and ICI TOU.TV, and those are online undertakings. To ensure that the CRTC would have jurisdiction over those was the only change we proposed that affects CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10.

Flowing from that, Mr. Chair, indirectly of course, CBC/Radio-Canada would also be subject to the AMP regime, the administrative monetary penalty regime, that's been put in place. All broadcasters, for example CBC/Radio-Canada, would be subject to that.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Ripley, I want to thank you very much for that.

I wanted to put the cards on the table on exactly what we're doing here. I want to continue further if you will indulge me for just a moment.

What this amendment does is that it adds a condition that the commission may impose by orders. It adds that the CBC shall provide information demonstrating that the corporation, the CBC/Radio-Canada, has met public service criteria set out in proposed subsection 46(6) of the act, which is in CPC-12.

Let me go back to what was mentioned earlier. Of course, yes, they tie in to each other: CPC-9, CPC-10 and CPC-12, which would be proposed later. In other words, we're getting into the main part of it. Yes, it was mentioned earlier that CPC-12 is the main instigator. That is true.

Right now what I'm dealing with is CPC-9, which is a part of that, and my ruling will encompass all three: CPC-9, CPC-10 and CPC-12.

If you look on page 770 of this.... You have my apologies for using a prop, but this, of course, is the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Page 770 states quite simply that we cannot go beyond the principle and the scope of the bill, because we've already voted yes at second reading.

Therefore, it is my ruling that this particular amendment does go beyond the scope and principle of the bill regarding the corporation.

Once again, I'd like to remind everyone, if you'd turn to look at your hymn books once more, you'll see that this is a ruling on CPC-9, which is inadmissible. This also applies to CPC-10 and also CPC-12, which go beyond the principle and the scope of the bill.

I see a lot of hands up. Unfortunately, I can't go into a debate on that. However, there is one option that you have. Is everyone okay with that? All right.

If you look at your song sheets, we would normally go on to BQ-24, but because BQ-1 was carried some time ago, BQ-1 also applied to BQ-24. Therefore, that brings us to BQ-25.

On BQ-25, we have Monsieur Champoux, please.

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here is the wording of amendment BQ-25:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 8 the following: (1.1) The Commission may amend the term or conditions of any order made under subsection (1). (1.2) The Commission may also suspend or revoke any order made under subsection (1) or renew it for a term not exceeding seven years and subject to the conditions that comply with that subsection.

We are clearly not talking about requiring the commission to review all of the orders it has issued every seven years—not at all. This would be an absolutely painstaking task to which an organization like this ought not to be subjected.

However, we would like to give the CRTC the ability to do so. For example, if there were an undertaking whose name came up frequently in complaints or which was suspected of non-compliance with respect to some of the CRTC's orders, we would like to allow the commission to review the term of these orders and have this weapon in its arsenal to be able to monitor the organization's regulatory compliance.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Ms. Dabrusin.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Looking at this, it looks like it just adds another bureaucratic element without its being necessary.

I was wondering, though, if I could get some clarification from the department as to how this would interplay and if this is a necessary addition that would add those teeth.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Ripley, go ahead, please.

2:50 p.m.

Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage

Thomas Owen Ripley

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question.

One observation I would have is—I heard Monsieur Champoux express that this wasn't his intention, but the concern would be—that this potentially imposes a seven-year cap on all proposed section 9.1 orders.

I certainly understand that the spirit of this is to ensure that the CRTC reviews orders from time to time. I would remind the committee, though, that there are a number of different kinds of section 9.1 orders, which will vary in importance. Obviously, some may be quite important in terms of their impact, but there will be others that are more minor. The question becomes whether the intention is really to impose an obligation on the CRTC to review every order on its books.

That would be one observation. The second one would simply concern the language about “conditions” of any order.

I believe the spirit there is to say “may amend any order”, rather than the “term or conditions” of it. I think Monsieur Champoux was just speaking about the ability to change an order.

Those would be my two observations, Mr. Chair.

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Waugh.