Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2022

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

If the bill stays as it is and there is still the reference to a diversity of news outlets, and if we have the language that I spoke about earlier—“including diversity with respect to language, racialized groups, Indigenous communities, local news and business models”—I believe what Mr. Julian is proposing is essentially additive. There would still be an obligation on platforms to bargain with those other news outlets that I mentioned, such as the racialized community groups, with respect to language.

Again, it underscores the importance of news outlets, but there is still the existing obligation—if the bill stays as it is—to have agreements with news outlets from those other communities listed in clause 11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I think there's a simpler answer. I want to reflect what I understand.

This is adding a new definition of “indigenous news outlet”, which will then allow that definition to be incorporated into “news content” in amendment NDP-2, which then allows for indigenous storytelling to be included in what news content is. I think that is the end result of this amendment, and that is the purpose of defining this term, so Mr. Julian can then incorporate this term into “news content” in his further amendment NDP-2.

I think that's the simpler, clearer and shorter answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather.

Shall NDP-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is unanimously carried.

I would like to inform everyone that Mr. Patzer is now replacing Mr. Shields, so when his name comes up you will know why. Thank you.

Now we go to CPC-1. CPC-1 has been moved by Mrs. Thomas.

We have Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

The reason for this amendment being moved is that right now the legislation as it reads is quite broad, so my concern is that it is.... Well, I'll start here. The minister intended or has stated that this bill is intended to help smaller news businesses here in Canada. Interestingly, originally this bill was touted as something that would help local newspapers. It's been expanded to include broadcasters as well, but the point is this. In this definition that we have in clause 2 on line 11, with regard to news businesses, I do believe that it's necessary to further clarify that it is those news businesses that operate in Canada.

There have been many witnesses who have come forward and expressed concern with regard to news businesses that are foreign-funded, or even operating outside Canada but then pushing their news into our country. There is concern that those individuals would have the legal right to demand bargaining with platforms.

For further clarity, I would ask that we amend this bill to make sure that it is restricted to those news outlets that operate in Canada. That is the amendment I am bringing forward here.

I wish to ask some questions, but I'll give others an opportunity to speak should they desire to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I see no hands up.

Madam Clerk, are there any hands up in the room?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Bittle has his hand up, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Very quickly, we think this is an excellent amendment by Mr. Nater. It doesn't really change anything, but it clarifies things, so we support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Now, Mrs. Thomas, you wish to speak further to Mr. Nater's amendment.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I wish to just ask a quick question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I just want to seek further clarity with regard to the amendment that has been brought forward.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, go ahead.

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

All parties are supporting this amendment. I don't understand why Mrs. Thomas is filibustering her own motion. It's their own amendment, from the Conservatives. All parties are supporting it. This is a classic case of utter time wasting, a filibuster that has no point. All of us are supporting this amendment.

Let's have the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I see a call for the vote, so—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I don't think that was a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas will decide that she needs to continue to speak.

Speak, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. I'm just curious; perhaps we could seek the clerk on this.

If there's a point of order raised in the middle of a point being made by a member, does the floor return to that individual?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, it does, but I would like to say that Mr. Bittle's point of order is very well taken. He's on point.

Mrs. Thomas, we know that you will wish to speak, so go ahead and speak.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The point of order was raised by Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry.

I would like to ask everyone on the floor, if you're going to raise a point of order, to let me know who you are. Just state your name first. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I was elected by the people of Lethbridge—