Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

It is 2:58 p.m., and I would like to ask the clerk if we absolutely have to stop the meeting at 3 p.m. on the dot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The clerk has given me information that we have until 3:05.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The reason for the amendment that has been given here with regard to clause 2 has to do with lines 13 and 15. The purpose for this is to confirm that only copyrighted content can give rise to compensation and that hyperlinks alone would not be included in that.

It would also be our intent to ensure that user-generated content is not in any way captured by this legislation, thereby shaping the scope of this bill to a greater extent.

With that, I have some questions for the officials but, again, I'll allow others to ask their questions or make their comments if they wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

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

Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

I understand where Mrs. Thomas and the Conservatives are coming from, but we're concerned about the enormous loopholes that this is going to create. Bill C-18 requires the parties to bargain over all the ways that content is made available, and restricting that only hurts news organizations.

Eliminating hyperlinks risks cutting out an important way in which news is shared. We saw what happened in Spain when they eliminated hyperlinks in their legislation. It provided foreign tech companies with a giant loophole to drive a truck through and just show news as hyperlinks, avoiding payment.

I think the intention is good. I hope the intention is good, even though I believe this is something that the foreign tech giants are calling for. We've seen the CPC act as a cheerleader for the foreign tech giants to this point, but this amendment risks gutting the entire bill. It's disappointing, again, that we're seeing the Conservative Party cheerlead for Facebook and Google.

We'll be opposed to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak, other than Mrs. Thomas?

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would ask the officials to further clarify, then. Because the amendment that we're bringing forward has to do with copyright, I'm wondering a couple of things. I'm wondering if the phrase “making available of certain news content” in this bill, the way it is right now.... Perhaps you could clarify if that includes links.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

On the concept of “making available” news content, paragraph 2(2)(b) talks about “access to the news content...including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content”, so that would include linking to it.

The concept of “making available” news content, though—and I recognize there's been a lot of debate about this—is the trigger for when a platform is under an obligation to bargain. It does not speak to a necessity to bargain over hyperlinks at an individual level, but it recognizes that dominant platforms are a key way in which Canadians now access their news and information. The concept of “making available” is intended to ensure that there is an appropriate triggering of that obligation to bargain when platforms make news content available. As was pointed out on the floor, it's an exhaustive concept and would include linking.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Ripley, I would just offer a brief comment with regard to my colleague on the floor earlier, and that is with regard to France and the EU. They excluded hyperlinks presented alone.

What we heard from a number of witnesses at the table was that there was concern with regard to treating links as an item of value. There was a Supreme Court decision in the past—I believe it was in 2011, but don't quote me on that—with regard to links and whether or not they held monetary value, and it was found at that time that they did not. These concerns have been raised by experts who study the legality of these things and understand them quite substantially. I think of—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Bittle.

I want to point out to the committee that it is now 15:07, and we are two minutes over.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead with your point of order.

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

I am moving to adjourn. I don't consent to continuing any further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

The motion to adjourn is accepted, because we are out of time and have no more resources.

Thank you very much.

I now consider this meeting adjourned.