Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #35 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #35 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Okay.
Now that you have it, I think the question that is being asked is, how would that impact? Is this in line? Is this in order? How would that impact any similar amendments?
4:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
It would be up to the committee to decide what they prefer in terms of wording afterwards. There is no line conflict. One amendment would add to the other. At the end of the day, it's up to the committee to decide what the committee wants in terms of wording.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
We will now vote on the amended amendment from Mr. Julian, which is NDP-1.3.
5 p.m.
The Clerk Ms. Tina Miller
Madam Chair, I'm not sure, but I still have Mr. Waugh, Mr. Nater and Ms. Thomas on the list of members wishing to speak.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's an interesting amendment. I mean, we support it, but I do have an issue with “supporting the production and broadcasting”.
Obviously, legacy or traditional broadcasters over the years have not represented Black and racialized persons on television. We have seen social media and these creators now go through YouTube with their content online. They have podcasts. Their voices now are being heard where really the traditional broadcaster has dropped the ball. We heard that from OUTtv.
I'm a little concerned with this amendment. Are we going to put limits now on traditional broadcasters that they must show more Black and racialized programming? I think we have seen over the years that this is one area in this country where they have probably not been represented well enough. That's why they have gone to the YouTubes and TikToks of the world to get their messages out. I just bring this to the committee's attention because of “supporting the production and broadcasting”.
To the department officials, is there anything with traditional television networks that today we are supporting the production and broadcasts of this outside group that Mr. Julian brings to committee? Is there anything in the rules of the Broadcasting Act today that we may not know about that you can bring us up to date on with regard to this group that obviously is trying to get their message across in committee here?
5 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh. Currently in the act there is not language that would specifically emphasize the importance of supporting cultural expression by the Black community. This is indeed a request that they have made to the committee.
I've looked at the wording. In English—I would defer to Mr. Julian, certainly, on what his policy objective is on this—I believe it could be read as seeking two objectives. One is the production by and for Black and other racialized communities, as well as the broadcasting of original programs by and for Black and racialized communities, suggesting that the system should also encourage there to be broadcasting undertakings, such as broadcasters who are controlled or operated by Black and other racialized communities.
There are two elements there. There's the production of content side and the actual business of broadcasting component. I would say, in my reading, that the suggestion is a little bit weaker in the French language, given how it's structured. That's why maybe I would defer to Mr. Julian on whether his policy objective really is on both the production side and the operation of the broadcasting undertaking side of the equation.
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question was from earlier, and I think Mr. Méla addressed it. It was in relation to there being not a line conflict but a “subject matter conflict”, for lack of a better phrase.
Mr. Coteau has G-2 and the Conservatives have CPC-3. CPC-3 reads as follows:
provide opportunities to Canadians from racialized communities and of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds to produce programs and broadcasting undertakings, including programs that reflect the diverse lived experiences of Canadians and that express the cultural and historically significant stories of Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds,
It's getting at a similar idea. It's not the same. Obviously, if we want, we could adopt this one as well as Mr. Coteau's. It's all getting at the same thing. I would seek the direction of the chair or of the committee on this. If we vote in favour of Mr. Julian's, I suppose we could also vote in favour of the other two as well, but we're getting to a point where we have three amendments dealing with the same content, even though they're not on the same line.
Madam Chair, I just seek clarity. I'm happy to and I will vote in favour of Mr. Julian's amendment, but I seek some clarity on that. I don't know what the exact method would be for that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think Mr. Méla could speak to that.
As the chair, I can tell you, because you asked for my comment, that this is speaking to a very specific group, and that this is saying that this group has been under-represented for a long time. The other amendments are speaking to a broader diversity demographic or a diverse demographic.
Mr. Méla.
5:05 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I said earlier, it's really up to the committee to decide. The committee has the choice between a number of amendments, which the committee could subamend to make them its own, really, to decide what the committee wants. I don't have much to add to that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, I just wish to make the point that I believe that the point is noble, in the sense that more attention is desired and more celebration is wanted around those who are part of a minority group in Canada, and I think we should want those individuals to have greater access. What should be noted is that what we heard at committee over and over again from those individuals who were from minority backgrounds, which I would also note for the committee really wasn't a group that was adequately represented here when we heard from witnesses, and it really would have been nice to hear from more, which was a point raised before being forced to this place, where we are now going through this bill clause-by-clause.... Nevertheless, that aside, those who we were fortunate to hear from and who are a part of minority groups did say that their success was found within the new media space.
You'll recall Ms. Roy, who goes by the name of “Aunty Skates”. She is a South Asian individual who, I believe, at the age of 45 started skateboarding and started her own channel and social media platform around that. She tried to take her content and put it out to numerous traditional broadcasters, and the packages she sent out were rejected time and time again, but when she decided to use new media—in particular, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram—she was met with a great deal of success and, within a short period of time, now has several hundred thousand followers. It's incredible.
I do think it needs to be noted for the committee, then, that it is not through greater government regulation and control that the celebration of minority groups is achieved, but rather, the testimony we heard at this committee is that greater freedom is what allows these individuals to access a platform with equality and to be able to make a go of it.
I would encourage this committee, then, if they are serious about wanting to support those individuals who are part of minority groups, if they are truly wanting those individuals to succeed and to have access to platforms, to make sure that we're not hindering the new media arena. Let's make sure that we are actually protecting the freedom that exists there for these individuals to find the success that is theirs to rightfully achieve.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Just for clarity, one more time, supporting this amendment doesn't do anything. Is that right? It doesn't impact G-2.
I would say that they are similar but different in nature.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Peter. I realize that.
Shall NDP-1.3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We have a hard stop at 5:30. We still have about another 14 to 15 minutes to go.
What is the wish of the committee? Should we go to the next motion?
