Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I certainly agree with the spirit of PV-2, but I would suggest that NDP-7 does a better job of providing the opportunity for people with disabilities to develop their own content and voices, so I will be voting against PV-2, not because I disagree with the spirit of it, but just because NDP-7 is a more effective way of ensuring that people with disabilities, who we know have been profoundly disadvantaged, have the opportunity to develop their own content and their own voices in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any further discussion?

I would like to tell everyone that if PV-2 is adopted, NDP-6, which is on page 43, and NDP-7 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

We'll now put the question.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

PV-2 does not carry.

We'll now go to NDP-6.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair. I already withdrew NDP-6.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. You withdrew NDP-6. Thank you.

Did you withdraw NDP-7?

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

I did not withdraw NDP-7. Quite the contrary: I'd like to move it so that we give the opportunity for people with disabilities to develop their own content and voices in this country. I think it's a spirit that we all agree with. The wording now, hopefully, will have a consensus around NDP-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. Is there any discussion? Shall NDP-7 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're on CPC-7.1.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This would go immediately after the section we just discussed. It gives some form of specificity, for lack of a better word, to some of the options. It's in two parts. The first part would be adding the following:

(p.1) the Canadian broadcasting system should, whenever possible, make available programming services to assist persons living with a hearing impairment, including closed captioning services;

The second part would be adding the following:

(p.2) the Canadian broadcasting system should, whenever possible, make described video services available to assist persons living with a visual impairment;

I think both of those clauses are fairly self-explanatory, so I don't think I need to explain them any further other than to say that it may be assisting those living with a disability here in Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any discussion on CPC-7.1?

Go ahead, Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Maybe I'm confused, but in reading this amendment, it looks like it's actually diminishing the requirements of broadcasters to provide descriptive video and closed captioning services, because right now it's mandatory. This legislation looks like you're making them provide those services whenever possible.

Maybe you can clarify, but to me this looks like it actually takes away from what people with disabilities already enjoy in terms of rights in Canada. I would not support that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Bittle.

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

Through you, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask the officials what the effect of this amendment would be.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Bill C-11 has a policy objective in proposed paragraph 3(1)(p) about providing “programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities” and that it is to be “provided within the Canadian broadcasting system”.

In the current act, there is language there that talks about “as resources become available for the purpose”, which the government is proposing to strike, so there is no longer a resource qualification, but the aspiration is set very high. To that end, the CRTC already engages with broadcasting services about closed captioning, described video and audio description. There are discussions around trial periods for persons with disabilities.

The comment I would make with respect to Mr. Nater's proposal is that these two elements that he has identified are indeed things that the system can do to support persons with disabilities, but there is a broader range of mechanisms, and we expect that there would continue to be a broader range of mechanisms. We had proposed leaving this level of detail up to the CRTC and providing that flexibility for it to work out what makes sense as technology evolves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Bittle, does that clarify the question?

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

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to clarify a couple of points.

This suggestion comes from a brief we received from the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians. Part of the brief talks about some of the hesitancy of some broadcasters to provide descriptive video, for example. I'll read a very brief part of it:

During a consultation with representatives from Bell Media, Rogers and Corus Entertainment, industry reps indicated that it was not possible to provide DV—

That's descriptive video.

—of game shows as the content would be too difficult to describe. However, recently, we have noticed that the program Family Feud Canada is being aired on CBC TV with DV.

Since the CBC has demonstrated that live sports and game shows can be aired successfully with DV, we believe that exemptions to the provision of DV on any type of program are no longer warranted, and that the existing exemptions to the full provision of DV must be removed.

That's just one example of the efforts that I think we all should make, not only from this angle but more generally, to ensure that all persons living with disabilities are able to fully participate in Canadian life.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this?

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I thought it would be difficult to reject an amendment like this one. Indeed, it is obvious to me that this accessibility should be a given. Considering the progress of technology over the years, no one can say that it is not accessible or that we do not have the means to offer this service to the clients who need it.

In fact, I wonder why it says “whenever possible” in the amendment proposed by our Conservative friends, when it should be an obligation. Offering these services should indeed be mandatory.

No matter how the wording turns out at the end of the discussion, I think we need to make sure that it is mandatory. Any undertaking that claims to be serious enough to be in the broadcasting business in Canada must, at the very least, provide that accessibility to the people who need it.

I personally want to support this amendment, but I do want to make sure that the final wording is as strong as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I am also very sympathetic to this amendment, but I see the limitations in the way that it's drafted. I was wondering if Mr. Ripley could advise.

As opposed to the way this amendment is drafted, if in paragraph 3(7)(p) on line 40 you left the wording, “programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system” and added “including, without limitation, closed caption services and video services available to assist persons living with a visual impairment”, would that fall within the existing framework to a point that the department would believe it was within the intention of the law?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As a point of clarification, the CRTC is currently engaging with Canadian broadcasters about progressively expanding described video across all their programming. Those conversations between the CRTC and Canadian broadcasters are ongoing.

I believe what you have described, Mr. Housefather, would be consistent with the spirit in which I believe Mr. Nater proposes the amendment, although I look to him in pointing out that these are two very important measures that can be taken to make programming more accessible for persons with disabilities. To that extent, they are illustrative of the kinds of things that would be consistent with the spirit of paragraph 3(7)(p), yes.

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

Could you repeat that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is Mr. Julian's hand up, after Mr. Housefather's?