Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, go ahead, but be brief, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I certainly will. The Conservatives have indicated they're going to spend an hour and half on each one of their amendments to block this with a filibuster. It's tragic, because the Alberta and Saskatchewan community newspapers, the papers that serve their ridings, are saying Bill C-18 needs to be adopted and it needs to be improved.

This amendment proposed by the NDP is an attempt to improve the legislation. As you recall, Madam Chair, it was suggested by APTN and Dadan Sivunivut that for the indigenous peoples, it's extremely important that it be recognized in the legislation that news media is central to the identities and well-being of indigenous peoples. Legislation like this, designed to support the news media hemorrhaging that we've seen in communities across the country, should reflect the rights of indigenous peoples to operate their own media and should reflect the languages and cultural characteristics of indigenous peoples.

What this amendment does is add a new definition for indigenous news outlet. For the purposes of the act, the definition specifies that an indigenous news outlet must be operated by an indigenous person and produce content for indigenous peoples.

To support the definition of indigenous news outlet, a definition for indigenous peoples is included, and the definition for news outlet is amended to specify that it includes an indigenous news outlet.

I so move NDP-1, reference number 12021983.

[The Clerk]

We have Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Waugh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. Sorry, I'll come back.

I'll give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was wondering, for indigenous news outlet, why does it have to be owned by an indigenous news outlet? You know, there are groups out there in the news business that would fund indigenous news outlets, and you're excluding them in this motion here, this amendment.

There are partnerships in this country that we've seen every day in news media, as we all know every day we're seeing strange bedfellows in news media. I would like to bring this to everyone's attention, that you're excluding a group here that wants to work with indigenous peoples. When you say that it has to be owned solely by indigenous groups, I think you're missing the point here. Partnerships are formed every day in this country with indigenous groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, your hand is up.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My observation with regard to this amendment is that it would create a new category of “indigenous news outlets”. I'm wondering if the officials can comment on the impact of this.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The impact is that the bill is structured in such a way that the obligation on digital news intermediaries is to bargain with news businesses, but there is a secondary category of news outlet that sits below the concept of news business, and that's to, again, recognize that certain media groups own both news properties and non-news properties. The concept of news outlet was to allow the news business to identify the news properties with which they would engage in bargaining.

To make that real, for example, if you have a company like Quebecor, which owns a number of different news assets, Quebecor could come forward and say that they wish to bargain with respect to TVA Nouvelles. TVA Nouvelles is the news outlet.

The impact of this recognizes that it would create a definition for indigenous news outlet, as Mr. Julian set out, and then would have the purpose of including that new definition of indigenous news outlet into the existing definition of news outlet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

We have a definition of “eligible news business”, and then this would further define it within that broader context. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Yes. Essentially, it would create a new concept, a new definitional term within that context, specifically related to indigenous news outlets and indigenous peoples.

I certainly don't want to speak with regard to Mr. Julian's motivations, but I think the follow-through of this amendment is to have an obligation for digital news intermediaries to include digital news outlets in their bargaining, to specifically ensure that digital news outlets would be included in that, but I certainly defer to Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

That's a fine motivation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

Yes, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Ripley. I didn't follow that. You're going to need to clarify this. What I'm hearing you say is that there would be an obligation for the eligible news business to enter into negotiation with the DNI, but I don't believe that's correct. I believe it's the obligation of the DNI to enter into negotiation with the eligible news source if the eligible news business is asking for that.

I'm sorry. Can you please clarify that?

I also have a second question subsequent to that. I am curious. When we begin amending a bill in this way.... I guess I'm wondering this: If there's a specific category made for indigenous news outlets, what about other ethnic groups, then? Does that disadvantage ethnic media groups in any way by showing deference to one and not another?

I'm asking for further clarification on that just to make sure that there are no unintended consequences with this.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The motion that is on the table simply creates the definitional concept of “indigenous news outlet”. However, part of what the motion does is then modify the concept of “news outlet” to specify that it includes indigenous news outlets.

If you look at how the concept, the existing defined term, of “news outlet” is used throughout the bill, you'll see that it's used in various places, including, for example, in the exemption criterion that specifies that digital news intermediaries must sign agreements that do a variety of things in order to obtain that exemption.

My interpretation or understanding of the effect of this or the motivation behind this amendment would be to be explicit that the concept of “news outlet” includes indigenous news outlets, which would have the effect, then, of requiring digital news intermediaries—or the platforms, in short—to bargain with and include indigenous news outlets in their bargaining, in their agreements. That's my understanding.

With regard to your second question, the amendment would create a specific, defined term for “indigenous news outlet”. I won't speak about whether, in my opinion, that has the effect that you put to it. I would defer to the members to speak to that issue.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Ripley, I'm just curious, then, where I would go to get that question answered. That seems like a legal question. I want to understand whether, if one specific category is made, it is to the exclusion of other specific categories—for example, other minority groups. I need to understand that in order to be able to vote in an informed manner on this motion.

Up front, it appears reasonable to me. However, if there are unintended consequences that I am not aware of or repercussions that this would have on other minority groups or ethnic groups, then that's something those of us around this table need to be aware of.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

What I can say is that, if you look at, for example, subparagraph 11(1)(a)(vi), the bill already contemplates or would require bargaining with a range of news outlets, and the government has put down a marker that there has to be a wide range of news outlets reflecting the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace. You will note the reference to “language, racialized groups, Indigenous communities, local news and business models”.

My answer to your question as to whether this amendment would come at the exclusion of others is no, but it would explicitly include the concept of indigenous news outlets in news outlets, which then has a follow-through effect through the rest of the bill. My read on the amendment would be that it heightens the importance that must be paid to indigenous news outlets throughout the bargaining process.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Ripley.

You used the term “follow-through effect through the rest of the bill” and you said it would “heighten” the awareness around the bargaining process. In using a word like “heighten”, if you're heightening to raise one, automatically some have to be lowered. Again, I have to ask for further clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Not necessarily.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Do you wish to interrupt?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No. You just made a comment, and I just said, “Not necessarily”. That's all.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I believe that's not normally how we practise at this committee. I could be wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Please, Mrs. Thomas, continue with your question.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

There's some loose language being used, and I just need greater certainty. Will this result in one group being given preference over others in any shape or form?