Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Welcome to meeting no. 35 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Again, I want to remind everybody that, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, and to government motion number 16, adopted by the House of Commons on Monday, June 13, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

As you all know, today's meeting is—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I'm just seeking clarification. It sounded like you opened a new meeting when you started this, but I remember your suspending the meeting earlier today. I'm just seeking clarity if this is a new meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thanks, John. I was informed by the clerk that we are starting a new meeting, so I then adjourned that meeting with the clerk and he has that listed at the time I adjourned it. I did not realize. I thought we were continuing. I gather that this is a new meeting. The next one is going to be a new meeting as well. Thank you.

Again, the meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as you all know. For those attending virtually, please ensure that you mute your microphone when you are not speaking and open it when you intend to speak.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy, again, everyone who is in the room is required to wear a mask. Again, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Once again, please use your icon—you all know that now—for interpretation.

Finally, for those on Zoom.... Mr. Uppal knows that so I won't repeat it for him.

We are now moving into C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, clause by clause.

(On clause 2)

The last time we left I think we were entertaining a subamendment from Mr. Champoux. Does everyone have that subamendment?

Yes, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I took advantage of the lunch hour to go over my things, and I'd like to get unanimous consent from the committee to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, I know you did. I just want to make sure everyone has it, Mr. Champoux, before you start speaking to it.

Is there anyone who does not have Mr. Champoux's subamendment? Okay.

Monsieur Champoux, go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry to rush you. I just wanted to save everyone some work by asking for unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment I moved at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I will ask if there's unanimous consent for Mr. Champoux to withdraw his amendment.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

As I had said prior to, we are looking at amendment CPC-1.01. As I reminded everyone, if it is adopted then CPC-1.02, CPC-1.04, immediately following CPC-1.01 in the package, become moot, as the question would have already been decided.

Are we prepared? Have we discussed CPC-1.01 sufficiently? Is there anyone who wishes to discuss this amendment? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

No one is speaking, so I think we'll call the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think, then, that means we need to go to CPC-1.02.

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a sneaking suspicion that CPC-1.02, CPC-1.03 and CPC-1.04 may have a similar fate. Obviously, my commentary on this is going to reflect what I said earlier for CPC-1.01.

I'll re-emphasize that this is a matter that would ensure that the large foreign streamers are caught within this bill and small entities are not. Simply leaving it to the CRTC may have been sufficient if we had seen a policy directive but, in this case, I feel like we need to have guardrails and parameters in place.

This amendment states, “This Act does not apply to an online undertaking whose revenues in Canada from paid subscriptions and embedded advertising do not exceed $100,000,000”.

Again, we have the challenge from before that there's not a qualification of what it would mean annually. The intention of the amendment when we made it was that it would be an annual revenue threshold. I leave it to the committee to make its judgment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on this, committee?

Go ahead, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I would offer a friendly amendment that the word “annually” be added after the monetary amount.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think Mr. Nater mentioned that was taken for granted in all of the subsequent amendments on this subject, so “annually” is already there.

Thank you, Ms. Thomas, for ensuring that it is so.

Is there any further debate? If there's no further discussion, I would ask the clerk to call the vote on the amendment, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, as a matter of procedure, in order for the amendment to reflect the intention of the mover, an amendment is needed. I would ask that you accept my amendment to add the word “annually” to the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Thomas, I think when Mr. Nater read the motion, he added “annually” to it. However, if you would like us to vote on your amendment, we will.

Ms. Thomas has an amendment that adds “annually” to the end of CPC-1.02.

Please can we call the vote on the amendment?

Yes, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think it's important for us to note that when he was at committee, Mr. Menzies brought up the need for a financial threshold. One of the reasons why his words should be considered quite heavily is that he actually is a former CRTC commissioner. During his testimony when he was before this committee he encouraged us to consider putting in place boundaries around who would be captured by this bill and who would not, and he suggested that this could be done by establishing a financial threshold.

I'll quote him directly. He said:

A lot of risk to investment and innovation can be mitigated and a lot of uncertainty can be avoided if you were to just make it clear in the legislation that it applies only to streaming companies with annual Canadian revenues of $150 million or more. The CRTC could then debate with them whether they are reinvesting in Canada and its cultural and industrial goals in an appropriate fashion. In other words, if the government's goal is to, as was initially described, “get money from web giants”, then go get the money from web giants and make it clear that everything else will be left alone to continue the innovation and investment that have defined Canada's creative sector in the past decade.

Madam Chair, to the rest of the members of this committee, through you, I would contend that it is due diligence for this committee to consider a financial threshold in terms of who is in and who is out, who is captured and who is not, so I would ask us to give consideration to my colleague's amendment, which has been granted here today, and that we support our digital-first creators by ensuring that they will not be captured and, in fact, that this legislation will only go after large streaming companies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Thomas.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak? If not, I will call the question on Mrs. Thomas's subamendment with regard to the word “annually”.

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, we unanimously consented to this change earlier, as we had previously on another proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I am sorry, on the actual amendment CPC-1.02, which is what we're dealing with right now, I know that Mr. Nater read “annually” into it and that we were going to vote on it. Mrs. Thomas was very clear that she wanted it to be a subamendment and not taken into the main motion as Mr. Nater had read it.

Now, as far as I'm concerned with Mr. Nater reading it in, we did not have the desire to have a subamendment or there was no need for a subamendment, but now we have a subamendment on the floor, and we need to vote on it. I'm sorry.

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

Madam Chair, I think we can just pass it on consent. I don't think there's any objection in the room around the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Does the room want to pass the subamendment on consent?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will go to the vote on the amended motion.

Before we vote, I would just like to remind everyone that, if this amendment is adopted, then Conservative amendments CPC-1.03 and CPC-1.04 become moot.

(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will now go to CPC-1.03.

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We were just having a quiet discussion in the room about whether or not this will say “annually”.

Mr. Housefather is nodding vigorously about amending it to include “annually”, but—

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall I suspend while you have that discussion?