Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 102787
View Paul Manly Profile
I would actually propose that we replace “non-profit” with “non-commercial” because that is the original intent of these programs.
Traditionally, the funding for these types of programs was that the cable companies had an agreement to provide access to community television as part of their monopoly. For community radio, it's a similar thing, and some funds come through from different levels of government. With our community radio station, funding comes through certain student service payments as part of the university's agreement with the radio station.
There are different models of funding for it. The key thing is it's not a commercial entity, so it's not driven to sell commercial airtime. When you have programming where the intention is to sell commercial time to advertisers, the content of the program changes.
In community television and community radio, there are professionals who work in these stations, but the intent is not for it to be professionalized and it's not for it to be commercial.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
I would like to thank MP Manly for all his years in community broadcasting.
What I've seen is that you get Access Communications in Saskatchewan. They have the label of community television, but yet they do pay people. They do charge through cable subscriptions. There seems to be a little disconnect here, because I think Rogers and maybe even Bell also own community television stations. It's not really non-profit, because in that case, I would think, Bell or Rogers or Access Communications.... In Saskatoon it used to be Shaw that had the community station.
These are big conglomerates that on the TV end of it look after community television, more so than happens with radio, I would say. You're right on the radio, but I do have some issues on community television. They are owned by well-known companies like Bell and Access and Rogers and so on.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Manly, I see your hand up. Do you wish to speak to that?
View Paul Manly Profile
Not all community televison stations and not all community radio stations are owned by these large companies. Where the community television is owned by these large companies, it's where they have continued on after this mandate where part of the subscriber fees paid for these community television stations. The cable companies had a choice about putting money into the Canadian media fund or into community television, where that was switched up a few decades ago. Prior to that, they had to provide community access television.
I agree that Shaw and Rogers and Cogeco and Bell are not non-profit companies, but the intent of the actual programming is to be non-commercial. I think that's the important point.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Manly.
Seeing no more hands up, we will call for a vote on PV-1 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now move to PV-2.
Mr. Manly, you're up again. My goodness, you're very busy off the top.
View Paul Manly Profile
Thank you.
Again, this is adding to the definition of a community program:
“community program” means a program created by a non-profit community media organization;
This is typically how this happens. Again, we'll probably want to remove the word “non-profit”, because some of these activities take place in Shaw or Rogers or other huge corporations. This just adds the definition. Non-profit community media organizations are an essential component of the Canadian broadcasting system, and they need to be recognized as such. Hopefully, we can just amend this to say “non-commercial” community media, because I think that defines it in the way that it should be defined.
You know, I went into broadcasting through community television. I went to broadcasting school and then worked professionally in the industry for 25 years, producing lots of documentaries and working on hundreds of serious TV shows. This is an entry for many people. I think it's important to keep this aspect of our broadcasting system alive and well defined.
Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Manly.
Ms. Dabrusin.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an important conversation about community broadcasting. I know that when we get to LIB-3, there is in fact specifically a part that goes to supporting community broadcasting.
I have up on my other screen here the original Broadcasting Act. Looking at that, we don't define different forms of programming in our definitions. We're getting in the weeds a bit on the definitions. I don't believe this is actually a helpful addition. We do have specific additions to support community broadcasting and respect the importance of it, but this isn't another definition that we need to add into our definitions section.
I will not be supporting this amendment.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Seeing no one else who wishes to volunteer their thoughts on this, we now go a vote.
Shall PV-2 carry?
Mr. Clerk, can we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
View Heather McPherson Profile
I was a yea, does that...? Oh, I'm the only vote, never mind.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I want to point out—no reflection on Ms. McPherson here—folks, if you want to get in on the conversation, please ask to get the attention of the chair. The reason I say this is, for our lovely folks at Hansard, the world is much easier if I identify who is speaking first. It's bad enough in the real world when we're all in one room, but in the virtual world, it makes it that much more difficult, so thank you very much.
That being said, after our first recorded vote, that leaves PV-2 negatived.
We now go to BQ-1. I have to put this forward before we start debate on it. The vote on BQ-1 applies to BQ-24, as they are consequential, so the result of this amendment will be consequential for BQ-24 later on in your package, for those of you keeping score.
Did I see Mr. Housefather?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, Mr. Chair. It was just a question for you, sir.
Given the way we're voting, would it be okay, when you ask for the vote, for us to simply raise our hands? Then any member can call for a recorded vote if they want to, but we don't necessarily need to go through recorded votes. You can just say it's defeated on division if you see the hands and nobody asked for one. This is so that we can move faster.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
I'm kind of loath to make things up as I go along here. I have instruction on three different ways. Given the fact that we're in this new virtual world and this is a new system for us, I'm reticent right now. I'm going to use the same method as before, but during the first health break, I'm going to consult and I'll see, okay?
Normally, I would say no, but I don't want to make this decision right now until I consult with everyone to see how they feel about doing that and whether it's okay with the technical staff to record and so on. I'll leave it for now; I'll deal with it during the health break.
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
We are now back to BQ-1. I don't see anybody's hand up.
Monsieur Champoux, if you're with us, do you want to go ahead?
View Martin Champoux Profile
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-04-16 13:06
As you said earlier, Mr. Chair, this is a consequential amendment to amendment BQ-24, which concerns clause 7 of the bill and appears on page 86 of the document listing the amendments.
How do you want us to proceed, Mr. Chair? Do you want us to consider amendment BQ-24 right away, so that we can pass amendment BQ-1, or would you like us to come back to it later?
Results: 16 - 30 of 102787 | Page: 2 of 6853

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data