Thank you, Madam Chair.
My first question is going to be for Dr. Geist and Professor Owen.
I'm a lawyer, and our amendments are due November 10. I am actually interested in the baseball arbitration part of this, both because I like baseball and because I think it's an important part of the equation.
Dr. Geist, you have written this, and I'm going to quote you so that I get it right:
Yet Section 39 gives the arbitration panel the right to reject an offer on several policy grounds. Why would such a provision be necessary in a final arbitration system that encourages submitting your best offer? It is only necessary if you fear one side will examine the evidence and proffer a low offer on the grounds that it does not believe that there has a been a demonstration of compensable value.
I would agree with you, certainly, if this was a baseball-type arbitration where you were throwing out a salary number and the entire proposal was a salary number. However, the way I read clause 39—and this is where I want your take in terms of wording—it says this, and I'll just stick with (a) and (b):
(1) An arbitration panel must dismiss any offer that, in its opinion,
(a) allows a party to exercise undue influence over the amount of compensation to be paid or received;
(b) is not in the public interest because the offer would be highly likely to result in serious detriment to the provision of news content to persons in Canada;
Based on how Facebook came here last week, let's say, for example, that Facebook provided a number that is a high number and said, “However, as part of that high number, you are not allowed to write articles that are critical of Facebook, and you have to publish glowing testimony about Mark Zuckerberg three times a month.” To me, that is the reason you have clause 39. It's taking things that are extraneous to the actual offer, that certainly are not in the news media's best interests, and it definitely could allow Facebook to exercise influence over the other party.
So, can I come back to you and ask you this? Based on that type of approach, wouldn't this then be a reasonable thing to have there if it was limited to things like that?