Evidence of meeting #57 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay. Just for further clarification, the subamendment that's been made to me seems quite broad. I want to understand what “or other categories of licensees” could potentially include.
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, MP Thomas.
I don't want to speak for the mover, but the original amendment is static in the sense that it speaks to “campus station”, “community station” or “native station” as they are currently defined.
My understanding is that the subamendment seeks to recognize that those categories may shift over time as the CRTC updates their regulatory framework. It's simply not to be caught in a situation where, because the language is static and references specific terms, suddenly those stations would be excluded. It is bounded by the concept of “similar community mandate”, so it again refers back to the concepts that are here—“campus station”, “community station” or “native station”—but recognizes that those categories may shift over time or be defined differently.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Can you just give me an example? Is there an example beyond this list that is here right now? Is it purely just theoretical and in the future, or is there already an example of an entity that would fit outside of this list of three?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
From time to time, the CRTC updates certain policy frameworks. For example, they do make changes to their community broadcasting framework, so you could see them change the categories of licensees in that context. The CRTC is currently engaged in the process of updating its indigenous broadcasting policy, and so you could see, for example, changes to terminology. You could see changes to the way that those stations are classified. The amendment as drafted is just very static and based on how those things are defined currently.
Again, I don't want to speak to the mover's intention, but I think it's to recognize that those things may shift.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Good catch, Mr. Waugh, thank you.
I just wanted to say that Mr. Bittle was kind enough to give me a heads-up on the amendment, and I support his subamendment. I think it does allow for some scope in the future around these non-profit entities of community radio and campus radio. It does allow some ability for them to be incorporated into Bill C-18, which I think is the objective of all of us, and that's why we adopted the language around non-profit entities.
I thank Mr. Bittle. I support his amendment.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Peter.
I'm going to call the question on the subamendment as moved by Mr. Bittle.
Do we have unanimous consent? Is there anyone opposed to the subamendment? No. We have unanimous consent.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we will go to the amended amendment.
I would presume, but I don't want to take liberties. Do we have unanimous consent on the amended amendment?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to see that PV-4 will no longer be done and CPC-16—
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Sorry, Madam Chair. I just recognize that we're a few minutes from the end.
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I did want to ask something of you and the clerk.
We've been working now on amendments for two weeks. This is important legislation that needs to be improved, and I think everybody has been working co-operatively to do that. I also realize that if we are not able to complete our improvement of the bill and it delays over the Christmas break for three months, the provisions of Bill C-18 could take up to nine months, so we're basically putting off for a year the supports that local media organizations vitally need.
I would ask you if it's possible to schedule double meetings in the coming weeks so that we have more time to consider amendments and to work through the amendments. I think it's an important legislative process, but we need to have more time. There's also a certain urgency, as we've heard from many media organizations around us.
If it's possible to put in place extra meetings, I think it would be warranted and welcome, given all of these things.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Perhaps we could hear from the clerk about whether that is possible or not. I don't know that she can give us the answer right away.
1 p.m.
The Clerk
If the committee adopts a motion seeking further meetings, I will certainly put the request out there, but it will be up to the services and their ability to support those meetings.
1 p.m.
The Clerk
It's possible. If the committee is agreeing to seek further meetings, I can certainly put that forward and see if there are other time slots available.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
It is now three minutes after one o'clock. I declare this meeting adjourned.
