Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[Philippe Méla]

My understanding is that Mr. Bittle moved the subamendment for Mr. Julian, and we have voted on the subamendment from Ms. May. That was defeated. We should probably vote now on the main motion moved by Mr. Bittle and Mr. Champoux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think Mr. Julian was saying that what was moved by Mr. Bittle has not been amended at all. It's the original—not original, but it is the motion or the amendment and does not need to be voted on. This is what Mr. Julian inferred when I was asking for the vote.

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

I completely agree, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, all right.

I think we're going to move now to whether clause 2 in Bill C-11 shall be amended.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm going to have to challenge the chair's ruling on that one. I think we need a vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have voted on the amendment, Mr. Nater, and the amendment was passed. The subamendment was defeated and the amendment was passed—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. We voted on Mr. Bittle's amendment to Mr. Julian's amendment. We haven't voted on the main amendment to the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

When I asked for that vote, Mr. Julian said that, in fact, what Mr. Bittle moved was not an amendment. It was a completely new piece, because Mr. Julian cannot amend his own motion.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. It's Anthony.

I would encourage you, Madam Chair, to consider a different issue, which is that we've had a subamendment proposed after the vote. If there was a subamendment proposed after the original vote, the motion wasn't adopted, because there was a subamendment.

Because we allowed a subamendment to be debated and voted on, I think we would have to come back and vote on the original motion, because—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Mr. Housefather. I cannot understand what you're saying. There is some sort of glitch in your microphone.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let me try again, Madam Chair.

What I was saying is I urge you to consider that after the vote we had, there was a subamendment that was proposed and then voted on. If the motion had been adopted, we couldn't have then had a subamendment, because it was still open for debate.

Because we had a subamendment that was then defeated, we have to come back and vote on the original motion, because otherwise there couldn't have been a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't understand your line of argument.

Peter, I will allow your point of order and then I will go back to Mr. Méla. I think it was pretty clear.

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

I agree with you, Madam Chair, but I will say that both Mr. Nater and Mr. Housefather have made a compelling argument that since we went back to the subamendment, just to clarify everything we should have that final vote and get on with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right, let's have a final vote.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much, committee, for your patience.

Now I will ask Mr. Méla....

We just passed the amendment to lines 24 to 26.

We have Mr. Champoux's motion, in the order in which I have it. I have Mr. Champoux's BQ-2, which amends the definition, I gather, of a decision.

Will you move it please, Martin? Then we can have everyone debate it if they wish.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

With pleasure, Madam Chair.

In fact, it's simply to broaden the scope of the term “decision”. The reason is that the commission publishes a large number of documents under the Broadcasting Act, such as licence renewals or amendments, regulatory policies, and so on. However, it is only possible for Canadians and Quebeckers to appeal to the Governor in Council decisions to grant, renew or amend licences.

The Telecommunications Act is broader in scope. All the measures taken by the CRTC can be appealed to the Governor in Council because they contain a definition of the term “decision”. That's why we're proposing that the definition of “decision” be included in the Broadcasting Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any debate on this?

Chris.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the team of officials from the department what the effect of this amendment would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Are we allowed to have the team comment?

I don't know who the team is. It's Mr. Ripley.

Please, Mr. Ripley, will you answer if that changes anything at all in the bill?

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Chair.

Indeed, we are here for the day to provide technical information to the committee as required on the amendments being proposed.

Mr. Bittle, if I understand Monsieur Champoux's reason for bringing this forward, it's to provide a greater latitude to make petitions to cabinet on certain decisions that the CRTC makes. Right now there is no definition of “decision” in the bill or the act as it currently stands. It would be generally understood in the ordinary use of language. Here the definition that is being proposed, as Monsieur Champoux said, is quite broad.

The bill does not currently suggest that stakeholders should have an ability to petition every single decision that the CRTC makes to cabinet. That is limited to the issuance, primarily, of licences. That's to avoid a situation in which cabinet could begin to substitute itself as the decision-maker for the regulator. If there's a situation in which every single decision that the CRTC makes could be petitioned to cabinet, it certainly creates risks, creating a lot more avenues for those decisions to be overturned politically.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I'd like to say something about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At some point, we have to be transparent and give groups and citizens the power to question some of the decisions that are made. The world of broadcasting has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, which is why we're here.

I think that a definition of the word “decision” should be added. Other amendments that will be proposed later aim to include that word in our amendments.

Madam Chair, I think that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Martin, that is not a point of order, actually. It's debate.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I didn't raise a point of order; I simply wanted to speak to the proposed amendment in response to the information that Mr. Ripley just gave.