Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Méla.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's an internal code that we attribute to each amendment, like “CPC” for yours. For the Liberal Party, it depends on where the amendment is drafted. If it's from the Department of Justice, we attribute the “G”. If it's drafted in-house in the House of Commons by drafters, it's “Liberal”.

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

This particular amendment, then, was drafted by the government, not by the committee.

[Philippe Méla]

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's just interesting to know that the government department and its apparatus are now becoming involved in providing amendments for committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this? Shall we call the question on G-1, please?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will now move to clause 3. The first amendment on clause 3 would be Conservative amendment 2. Again, if CPC-2 is adopted, then BQ-3, which is on page 16, and NDP-1.2, which is on page 17, cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Everyone's clear on that. Therefore, I shall ask Mr. Nater—

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

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I would ask that every time either the legislative clerk or you are listing a number of deletions or amendments you go very slowly. That's the only way for us to track what is going on. Could you repeat yourself, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

If CPC-2 is adopted, BQ-3, which is on page 16, and NDP-1.2, which is on page 17, cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater, will you please read your CPC-2?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is CPC-2. The amendment states that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by, (a), replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 4 with the following:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively

It also would amend the clause by, (b), replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 4 with the following:

(a.1) foreign broadcasting undertakings may provide broadcasting services to Canadians by means of online undertakings provided they do so in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada;

That's CPC-2.

This effectively provides that the Canadian broadcasting system continue to be owned by Canadians but also acknowledges that, in the global and digital marketplace we live in, there will be online undertakings that obviously already are being provided by foreign entities and will continue to be provided by foreign entities, with the acknowledgement and the understanding that they ought to consider and respect the same policy objectives that are outlined for Canadian providers, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Now we will entertain discussion on this amendment.

Go ahead, Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I just want to mention a concern that I have. In the way that this is formulated, proposed paragraph 3(1)(a.1) on lines 11 to 15 disappears. It says:

(a.1) each broadcasting undertaking shall contribute to the implementation of the objectives of the broadcasting policy as set out in this subsection in a manner that is appropriate in consideration of the nature of the services provided by the undertaking;

Essentially, the way this is worded is not as good as BQ-3. I'm against it for that reason.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I wanted to make much the same points. I, too, am going to reject this amendment because I prefer the wording of BQ‑3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on CPC-2?

Yes, Philippe.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to highlight that I forgot that LIB-1.1 would also be affected if CPC-2 were to be adopted, because of a line conflict as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on CPC-2?

Seeing none, we will call the question.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I then will move to BQ-3.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I think the amendment speaks for itself. We wanted to get a bit closer to the definition we had adopted for Bill C‑10. We want to be sure to recognize the presence in our system of foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians.

The amendment proposes that Bill C‑11, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 10 on page 4 with the following:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and it is recognized that it includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians;

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Is there further discussion on this?

Go ahead, John.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd just look for some clarity on this, either from the legislative counsel or from the representatives from the department. The way this amendment is drafted, it's saying that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians—that's one part of the sentence.

The second part just recognizes foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide foreign programming to Canadians, but the foreign undertakings such as Netflix are not effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. I'm just looking for clarity in terms of this clause. How can we square the circle?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding it. I'm not a lawyer. I just feel like including it in the same sentence seems like a contradiction in a way.

I just look for clarity, either from the legislative counsel or from the department, just to set my mind at ease in terms of how this is worded.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Champoux, would you like to clarify that for Mr. Nater?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I believe the question was directed to Mr. Ripley or Mr. Méla. However, I can throw in my two cents.