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.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much to the committee for suspending briefly while Zoom took me around the country.
(Clause 26 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 27)
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Marilyn. This is where you come up. This is CPC-15.2.
I would like to tell everyone that if CPC-15.2 is adopted—
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Do you want to speak before I let everyone know what happens? No.
If CPC-15.2 is adopted, then NDP-12, PV-4, CPC-16, BQ-3, CPC-17, CPC-17.1, CPC-18, NDP-13, CPC-19—are you all taking notes?—CPC-19.1, NDP-14, NDP-15, PV-5, NDP-16, CPC-20, G-2, CPC-21 and CPC-22 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Go ahead, Ms. Gladu.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
As tempting as it would be to keep my motion and eliminate the scads of other motions on this topic, I actually like some of the other ones better, so I withdraw CPC-15.2.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
There you go. Thank you very much, Ms. Gladu.
Now we're going to go to NDP-12.
Once again, I will reiterate that if NDP-12 is adopted, PV-4 and CPC-16 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Also, if NDP-12 is adopted, CPC-16 becomes moot, as they are identical—my goodness. Finally, if NDP-12 is defeated, so is CPC-16, for the same reason.
Now it's NDP-12.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Just to clarify.... It has an impact on PV-4 and CPC-16.
That's a question, Madam Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry. I thought you were just going to wax eloquent on your amendment, Peter.
What was the question, again?
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It's just to make sure that I have the line conflicts clear. It's PV-4 and CPC-16.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, but if it's adopted, then CPC-16 becomes moot, as we know, because they're identical. If NDP-12 is defeated, so is CPC-16.
That's just so you know.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Now it's my time to wax eloquent and talk about the national campus and community radio fund. These are community broadcasters across the country that provide a great deal of local news and information, but they're not defined in the QCJO definition, the qualified Canadian journalism organization definition. This is an issue we've even had within the tax framework, because these are non-profit stations. They've applied for QCJO status and have been rejected because this is defining broadcasting through the Income Tax Act.
The NDP-12 amendment is simply adding that news media either be defined by the QCJO definition or be “licensed by the Commission under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act as a campus station, community station or [indigenous] station as those terms are defined in regulations made under that Act”.
What this would do is simply allow for the non-profit sector to have a place within Bill C-18. You'll recall, Madam Chair, that we've already adopted amendments that apply to both for-profit and non-profit entities.
In terms of news media, we need to support community broadcasters. I think the committee, as a whole, has already indicated that direction in the amendments we've adopted so far.
I'd like to thank national campus and community radio for the work they do right across the country every day. What this would do, without creating a free-for-all, is slightly broaden the categories of entities of news media organizations that could benefit from Bill C-18.
With that, I move NDP-12.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Is there any discussion on NDP-12?
We'll go to Mr. Bittle and then Mrs. Thomas.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
We have a subamendment that would be made after “are defined in the regulations made under that Act” at the end of the amendment: “or other categories of licensees established by the Commission with a similar community mandate.”
We believe this helps future-proof this—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It's right at the end, Madam Chair.
I do have a few extra copies of it. I don't think I have enough for everyone, but I do have a few extra copies.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is everyone aware of that subamendment?
Can we have a look at it, please, Chris?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Please note that this is to be added after the words “under that Act;” in NDP-12.
Mr. Bittle, you've already discussed your subamendment. Is there any discussion on this subamendment?
Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I have a quick question for the officials, if it can be answered.
In the original case, before the subamendment, the only difference is the use of the word “or”. CPC-16 says “or is licensed by the Commission” in the second line of our amendment. PV-4 says “is licensed by the Commission”. NDP-12 says “or is licensed by the Commission”. I'm just looking for some clarification as to whether or not these little words make a difference.
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.
Perhaps I can characterize it like this. The clause 27 eligibility right now has two doors you could knock on. Either you are a QCJO under the Income Tax Act, in which you are automatically deemed eligible, or, if you're not eligible to be a QCJO, the best example is that it's because you're a broadcaster and you have to meet the criteria at paragraph 27(1)(b).
My understanding of the amendment is that it's essentially creating a third door, which is that if you are licensed by the commission as a community station, as a campus station or as a native station, then you would also automatically be deemed eligible. From where I sit, if that is the intention of the amendment, then “or” would be appropriate, but I also look to the legislative clerk.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Are you fine with it? Yes, Mr. Méla is fine with it.
Mr. Bittle, on the question of “or” or “and”...?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I think the key point is that community radio stations and all those other sorts of things didn't meet the other definition and so they are licensed. It has to be “or” because it's this group of people that qualify, and then, for the ones that don't qualify, it's those that are licensed, so it's this or that.
