Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, on the point that was made, I may be ruling this amendment inappropriate, because it doesn't make sense.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Chair, the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

May I finish, please, Mr. Noormohamed?

It is beyond the authority of a standing committee of the House of Commons to tell a sector how it will behave, and that's how this reads grammatically. That's what Ms. Thomas is saying. It's not the intent of the motion, but that's the way it's phrased. It needs to be edited in some way. This is what people are saying. It's not about the intent but about how it reads.

Grammatically, it reads that this committee should decide whether it's appropriate for the national news sector to hold a forum. It is not up to us to decide that. We cannot decide that.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm trying to figure out how it is that even though in this committee we have the ability to study whatever we would like within the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and all those matters related, we could not in this group among us have a conversation and engage with the stakeholders to think about having a national forum on the media that is led by the sector. We should not be leading that conversation. The sector should be. We should be empowering them and working with them. The sector should be leading that conversation. The committee should be inviting folks to have this conversation.

If there is a grammatical tweak, I am happy to look at what a grammatical tweak would look like. I think there is an important distinction here between the committee's determining the appropriateness of the news sector's doing something and having the sector tell us what they think. I think Mr. Champoux's comments are bang on.

I am open to working with others, if we agree on the spirit of what we're trying to do, on whether there's a grammatical or a linguistic shift that will get us to the same outcome. Perhaps I'm too close to it and can't see it, but I welcome comments from others who have constructive feedback on how we can improve that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me.

As the chair, I'm suggesting that it's not simply a grammatical tweak. It's about what this motion actually says. I know that it's not what the member intends it to say.

Can you just fix it so that it says what you want it to say, please? That's all we're saying.

Go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We don't want to force the industry people to act. They're the ones calling for a national forum. A report on broadcasting was commissioned a few years ago and prepared under Ms. Yale's direction. It was entitled, "Canada's communications future: Time to act". That report was commissioned by someone. I don't think Ms. Yale woke up one morning thinking she had to form a commission and write a big, beautiful report on the future of telecommunications and broadcasting.

Reports are often commissioned, and the study in question is then entrusted to industry people. I think that's consistent with what's being proposed here. We're requesting a study, and we think it should be done by people from the news industry. However, the project will take whatever shape it takes. We can talk about all that.

So I think we could quite easily come up with something if we could make Mr. Noormohamed's amendment reflect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. That, I think, is what we're trying to get at, Mr. Champoux, that Mr. Noormohamed's language reflects what he's trying to say. At the moment, it doesn't. I cannot say that it's appropriate for us to tell a sector what it can or cannot do, and that's what this amendment is saying.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, and then Ms. Hepfner.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, I support the idea that the federal government is in favour of a national forum being held on the news industry across the country. That's extremely important. We know that the media are in crisis. We've seen that budget cuts have been announced at TVA and, more recently, at CBC/Radio-Canada, unfortunately. I know we'll have a chance to discuss this later. The president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will have to come back and discuss the situation. They're handing out bonuses on the one hand and cutting positions on the other. Our role as a committee is to advise the government as to whether it's appropriate to support that kind of initiative.

If that's our role, it's not having a study to determine the appropriateness of the national news sector's doing that. It's really—and this is the subamendment that I'm going to offer—on the appropriateness of the government's providing support to the national news sector to hold that national news forum.

If they choose to do that, it will take support from the federal government. We're talking about a sector that's in crisis. I certainly understand Mr. Waugh's comments about some of the corporations that own some of the media doing very well and choosing not to invest in the news sector, but the reality is that this is not going to happen unless the federal government says that this is important enough to support.

I would like to offer as a subamendment after the word “of”, “the government providing support to” the national news sector. That adds the words “the government providing support to” between “the appropriateness of” and “the national news sector” as a subamendment, which I think falls within our framework. It allows us to look at the appropriate ways that the government could provide support if the national news sector chooses to do that, as well as encouraging the national news sector to hold that national forum.

Particularly, when I think of my community, the Burnaby Beacon, Burnaby Now, New West Anchor and The Royal City Record are all struggling. The fact that we continue to subsidize Meta and Google with over $1 billion a year and aren't providing supports to those local, fact-based journalists who do such a terrific job is something that needs to be considered as part of that.

That's certainly the framework that I think is appropriate for this committee.

Again, the subamendment would read, after “appropriateness of”, “the government providing support to the national news sector”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I'm going to read out what we're going to be discussing now.

Mr. Champoux, let me read it into the record first.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study to determine the appropriateness of the government providing support to the national news sector to hold a national forum on the media and that the committee invite sector experts and leaders....

That's how the subamendment reads, and I think that it makes sense. I'm going to ask you to speak to the subamendment now.

Speaking to the subamendment, we have Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

“Support”—what does that look like? That's a big word. Does it mean that the government will support financially or in direction? I do have some issues with this, as you heard before, but when I read “government provides support”, does that mean we have support here around the table to hold a national news sector to bring them in and talk to them, or is it financial support? I just want clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right; clarification is key.

We had Mr. Waugh, and now we have Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

It seems to me that the appropriateness of the support the government may provide will be part of the discussion we'll be having. I don't think we're saying that the government has to fund the study, although that kind of discussion will occur around the table at some point. From what I understand of Mr. Julian's amendment, we'll be discussing the appropriateness of the government's support for the national forum that the news media industry will be holding.

I think the compromise is completely acceptable. It really clarifies the amendment's intent, and I agree that we can adopt it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

To both Mr. Julian and Mr. Champoux, I think what Mr. Julian suggested makes perfect sense. It captures the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish. It accomplishes what Mr. Champoux wants to do and satisfies what I am trying to do. Clearly, the language was a bit clumsy.

I think it's a great compromise, and we would be glad to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there anyone else wishing to speak on the subamendment? If not, I'm going to call a vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now, I'm going to ask you to vote on the amendment as amended, which will be the new motion.

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

The amendment to the original motion is still open for debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. We're now going to move the amendment. The subamendment is carried. We're going to vote on the main motion as amended.

Is there any debate on this?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I would like to speak to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Oh, the debate is on the amendment. I understood that Mr. Noormohamed had removed his amendment and was accepting the subamendment.

Okay. We're going to call a vote on it.

Do you want to vote on the amendment as amended?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

No, I want to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For clarification, we added those words in, but the rest of the amendment as presented is still there. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

The rest of the wording is still there. Here's the challenge I have: “Provided the sector initiates a forum, that governments at the national and provincial levels”.

I have a real problem with “provincial” being in there. That's not ours. I object to the word “provincial” being in there. It's not our business.