Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Are you clear, Mr. Méla?

[Philippe Méla]

Sorry, I was looking at the first “matters”. There is one on the third line.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think it is the first “matters”, if I understand correctly, Mr. Bittle.

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

It's the second “matters”. It will be between lines 4 and 5 of this paragraph, “in public dialogue on those matters, including through the community element; and”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you for explaining that subamendment.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, should the subamendment carry?

[An hon. member]

There is consent, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

(Subamendment agreed to)

Should PV-1 as amended carry?

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next one is BQ-8.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, this amendment suggests that we “include the greatest possible contribution from the Canadian production sector, whether it is independent or affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting undertaking”.

In fact, with this amendment, we want to make a change to the current act. It's not an amendment to what Bill C-11 proposes. We want to add this wording to correct a situation, so to speak.

When the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1991, independent producers were a developing industry. It was not yet a force in the industry, but it was developing. At that time, the intention was to encourage self-employed people in the production industry by means of a provision in the act that encouraged the greatest possible use of their services.

Today, it is somewhat the opposite. Independent producers and self-employed cultural workers, particularly in the production field, are an important part of the industry and are often the reference and the first resource that broadcasting undertakings call upon for production.

In this context, it is entirely appropriate to amend the wording of the Broadcasting Act, 1991, by adding the following after line 22 on page 6 of the bill:

(5.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(i)(v) of the Act is replaced by the following: (v) include the greatest possible contribution from the Canadian production sector, whether it is independent or affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting undertaking;

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

Yes, Mr. Bittle.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

This comes from our earlier arguments with respect to previous amendments brought by the Bloc, and we appreciate where it's coming from. There are foreign players already spending billions in Canada, employing thousands of Canadians across the country, and they are a vital part of our industry. Requiring the greatest possible contribution would challenge the successful business models and could lower activity in Canada. We are committed to ensuring that foreign players make a significant contribution, the most possible, and to incentivizing them to do more.

Unfortunately, therefore, we have to oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. Is there any further discussion? I see none, so I shall go to the question.

Shall BQ-8 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Next is amendment G-3.

That is Tim Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a simple clarifying amendment that harks back to what we said earlier, ensuring that official language minority communities are supported in Bill C-11. It clarifies changing the language from “needs and circumstances” to “needs and interests”.

I believe this is a positive change, not a contentious one, and that it actually will strengthen the agencies of these communities within our broadcasting system.

I hope this one will see support.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, on NDP-4, go ahead, Peter.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have more delightful news.

Really, NDP-4 and NDP-5 were, I think, earlier versions, because we sent in a revised version more recently, a few days ago. They aren't really touching what the NDP amendment is, so it has been distributed under NDP-4, which I will offer instead.

It is that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 6 with the following:

digenous persons—within community elements which are positioned to serve smaller and remote communities and other elements of the Canadian broadcasting system;

This has already been circulated in English and French, and it replaces NDP-4 and NDP-5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I hope that somebody will send that to me, but let us go ahead.

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

[Philippe Méla]

Madam Chair, I just need clarification from Mr. Julian, if I may.

Mr. Julian, I just want to make sure that the amendment you just moved is the one we sent earlier by email.

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

Yes, it has been distributed.

[Philippe Méla]

Does the one we sent by email replace NDP-4 and NDP-5?

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

Yes.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right, seeing no discussion, shall NDP-4 carry? Is there consensus on the floor?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

NDP-5 is no longer on the table. I am now going to move to PV-2.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This amendment comes from testimony the committee heard from various organizations representing people with disabilities, and from the community perspective. Concerns were brought forward that services such as closed captioning and described audio and video make our media more accessible to people with disabilities.

In addition to that, this amendment serves a dual purpose, because it also proposes that people with disabilities have the right to self-expression. There should be opportunities for them to express themselves through the community element and other elements in our Canadian broadcasting system, so it is both to be provided with access and to develop their own content and voices.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.