Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have the same concern about amendment CPC-7.

I must admit that the proposed subparagraph (vi) suits me. Indeed, one cannot be against this provision, which seeks to prevent pornographic material from being produced under reprehensible conditions.

However, I have a serious problem with the proposed subparagraph (v). Where exactly is this line being drawn? It seeks “to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content.” What does that mean? Who determines what constitutes sexually explicit content? Today, around this table, we might determine that this or that content is sexually explicit; another assembly might determine that a mother breastfeeding her child constitutes sexually explicit content. To me, the definition of sexually explicit content is problematic, because that's where opinions are going to differ and it's going to be extremely difficult to draw the line.

In that sense, I would be very much in favour of what CPC-7 suggests if the proposed subparagraph (v) were removed. While I understand that the intent is good, I believe that this provision does not belong in a bill like this one. It is too slippery a slope, closer to censorship, I believe, than to the actual protection of children's health and welfare. I do support proposed subparagraph (vi), however, so I would be quite prepared to support the amendment if, for example, someone would venture to remove proposed subparagraph (v) from the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I totally agree with what Mr. Champoux just said.

Essentially, I read this, “preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”, in a bill in which we have Conservatives reticent to give powers to the CRTC, as giving unlimited powers to the CRTC to determine what is sexually explicit. How do we stop children from seeing this? Does this mean that a 17-year-old, who is not an adult...is a 17-year-old not allowed to watch Game of Thrones?

I find this to be absolute censorship. I don't agree with it at all, and I don't agree with giving the CRTC those powers. Much as Mr. Ripley may minimize what the CRTC would do, I don't agree with that. I think we're giving it effectively wide open powers to determine what is sexually explicit, which is not its mandate or its role or its expertise, and then to figure out how to somehow stop children from seeing this. Then we're going to restrict adults from seeing materials that are not illegal but are simply sexually explicit.

I don't agree with how this is worded. I also question whether or not the CRTC is the one, because there are other means to stop pornographic material that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion, which is illegal in Canada. It is an illegal activity. I don't believe the CRTC has the means to know what material was produced that way.

If anything, in a bill where we've been talking about all of the draconian powers we could be giving to the CRTC, this is the first amendment that gives real censorship powers to the CRTC, a body that I don't think is equipped to do this. I think there is an online harms bill that is coming. If stuff like this should be anywhere, it should be in an online harms bill, where you create a regulator that has expertise and knows how to do this. I don't think the CRTC is the right body at all.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just reject the entire premise that this is censorship. Again, we don't consider it censorship when we keep pornographic material out of the hands of children in any other venue, whether that be at the corner store or whether that be on the airwaves when it comes to your television in your home.

That is what this amendment seeks to do. We don't consider it censorship when we don't sell underage children pornographic material at the corner store. We don't consider it censorship when we don't allow certain channels to be broadcast into homes at certain times of the day. That is what this amendment seeks to do. The terms “sexually explicit content” and “pornographic material” are quite interchangeable and are well defined in Canadian law. That's something Parliament has been dealing with going back 60 years, and the courts as well, so that's not something that's a major issue.

I'm looking forward to having my colleagues' support on this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What's the definition of a child? Does anyone know that? What age? Are we talking about zero to 12?

To go back to Mr. Housefather's point about whether a 17-year-old should be told, through an amendment like this, not to watch Game of Thrones, I think that's a very good one. Does the act define a child? I don't know at this point.

Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The bill does not provide for a definition of a child, so I'm not in a position to advise on what age range that would include in this instance. I'd look to Mr. Viersen to clarify what his intention would be in that respect.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Chair, I agree with the spirit of the amendment. I honestly do. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. The problem is that if we pass something like this, it will be challenging to define age.

I have a 16-year-old daughter. She watches things that a 16-year-old watches, and I don't know if this would prevent her from watching something that's innocent enough but could be considered sexually explicit. I don't know what the definition of sexually explicit is in this bill, so it's hard for me to support, even though I agree with the spirit of what the member's trying to achieve.

It just opens up too much to interpretation. To go back to the Conservatives' point, we haven't seen regulations that would define some of these pieces, so I'm a bit hesitant to support the proposed amendment, even though I agree with the spirit of what the member's trying to achieve.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Seeing no further debate on this particular amendment, could we call the question on CPC-7, please?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

CPC-7 does not carry.

We'll now move to NDP-3, and Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I won't take a lot of time to talk about this.

Many witnesses came before the committee and were concerned about ensuring that we use “Canadian creative and other resources in the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming” and that broadcasting undertakings “contribute to the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming to the greatest extent that is appropriate for the nature of the undertaking”.

I propose this amendment in that spirit, which is to maximize Canadian employment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Julian, could you just read it for the record?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. Does it have to go on the record every single time? Can we just let people decide if they want to read it or not, just to save time? Can't they just move—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think there is no other way of putting it on the record, unless the mover moves it.

It shouldn't take a lot of time. We're going to take more time debating whether people move it or not, so Mr. Julian, can you please read your motion quickly?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, could I ask the legislative clerk if it has to be read, Madam Chair, just for process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, I can ask the legislative clerk, and I will give you his answer. We will suspend while I ask the legislative clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Coteau, Mr. Méla informs me that there is no need to read them every time, so thank you for pointing out that ability for us to be more efficient. I appreciate it.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Clerk, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

Dr. Fry, just to clarify, the speaking list was Monsieur Champoux and Monsieur Coteau.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that, if we adopt the amendment we are discussing now, BQ-5 will automatically be cancelled.

I fully agree with Mr. Julian's amendment. In fact, I think it is an extremely important amendment to ensure that we make maximum use of Canadian resources, whether human, creative or other resources, to produce and create Canadian content.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

I also want to say that, while adoption of NDP-3 makes BQ-5 moot because they're identical, if NDP-3 is defeated, so will be BQ-5 for the same reason. If NDP-3 is adopted, BQ-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

This is so that everybody's clear. I usually tell you this before you vote—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the legislative clerk's opinion on this. BQ-6 deals with proposed paragraph (f.1). The amendments do not affect the same lines at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Méla.