Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, before the vote, we have Mrs. Thomas with her hand up in the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I understand the need to define the digital news intermediary. I'm also curious how this legislation defines the eligible news business. If this is an individual, let's say an elder who is highly respected or someone within the indigenous community who is sharing a story, whether that was intended for that digital audience or was perhaps intended for a live audience, but then someone captured it and posted it, regardless....

It seems obvious to me that if it's within the framework of a news business, it fits, but if it was an individual who wasn't functioning from within a news business, I'm wondering whether or not that would be held. How would that be treated if it was to be shared within a platform?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, MP Thomas.

Right now, on the basis of how the act is crafted, no, it could not be a single individual. The eligibility criteria in clause 27 are derived from the key elements of the definition of a qualified Canadian journalism organization under the Income Tax Act. Right now, it requires two journalists or more. I believe there are a number of amendments on the table that the committee will look at when we get to that point in clause-by-clause, so I understand that's a point of debate.

My understanding of what Mr. Julian is seeking to accomplish is.... The previous amendment that he tabled and that was adopted by the committee created a definition for an indigenous news outlet, and it recognized that the news outlet would have to be controlled and operated by an indigenous person or entity. My understanding of what he's seeking to do with this amendment is simply to recognize in the definition of news content that it includes storytelling.

Right now, the bargaining would still have to be between, say, an indigenous news outlet producing news content, which would include indigenous storytelling, and the platform. Again, as the bill currently stands, it's not a question of one individual being able to bargain in that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madam Clerk, is there anyone else with their hand up in the room?

[The Clerk]

No, Dr. Fry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall we then move to the vote?

Shall NDP-2 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

[The Clerk]

There is a request for a recorded vote on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

We'll go to a recorded vote.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We shall now move to clause 3 and CPC-3.

Everyone has CPC-3 in front of them. Does anyone wish to speak to it?

Are there any hands up in the room?

[The Clerk]

I have Mrs. Thomas and Ms. Gladu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

What this amendment does is further clarify the idea or the concept of journalistic independence. We've done our best to do that here, with this amendment. We feel that this is important, and we heard from a number of witnesses who also contend that this is really important, because there's a growing distrust from the general public towards the media. Canadians are finding it difficult to know that media sources are not being politically swayed or influenced. Canadians, I believe in the 50% range, are reporting that they're not trusting the media. They feel that it is tainted or that it is not acting independently because of undue influence.

In order to ensure that there is greater credibility with regard to journalism in Canada, especially when there are dollars being infused in this way, journalistic independence would need to be clearly defined.

Before continuing, I would be interested in hearing an opinion from the officials who are here with regard to whether or not there is a current definition of “journalistic independence” as it's used in subclause 3(2) in line 34.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Through the chair, thank you for your question, Mrs. Thomas.

The clause in question is an interpretive clause. It was put there to clearly signal that the regime should be applied in a manner consistent with journalistic independence. There is no definition of journalistic independence provided for in the act as currently drafted.

My observation on the motion you're moving is that it includes one element of journalistic independence. We did look at how various journalism organizations would define the concept and the idea that it's independence from government, commercial or other interests seeking to subvert content for their own purposes.

My observation on the motion on the floor would be that it obviously includes an element of that, in the independence from government, but journalistic independence I think is broader than just government.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I think we would be open to amending that further, because I do think you raise a good point, Mr. Ripley. I do believe it's not only that journalists should be independent of government and be able to make their own decisions there; they should also be independent of undue influence from large entities, such as platforms like Google or Facebook. Again, this causes further concern with regard to this legislation and the way it could potentially impact journalists.

I guess right now, under the current framework of this bill, a great deal within it is left up to the Governor in Council, which ultimately, as you stated in our last meeting, comes down to a cabinet decision. So I am concerned that this, then, interferes with journalistic independence.

Do you think there's potential for those waters to be muddied? Do you feel that government is completely removed from the process by which eligible news businesses are securing the funds from the DNIs?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The framework as proposed was intended to keep government intervention to a minimum. There were different models that were considered. There was a discussion earlier about the European approach, which has gone the copyright route, but one of the reasons the model on the table was chosen was to leave it to the platforms and news businesses to engage in commercial negotiations with limited government involvement.

Specifically with respect to your question around eligible news outlets, that definition is twofold. If you are a print news business that has QCJO status, you are deemed eligible. Alternatively, the CRTC can look at whether you meet the key elements of that definition, recognizing that, for example, broadcasters are not eligible under the Income Tax Act's labour tax credit framework.

There is no Governor in Council regulatory power with respect to those three criteria. They're in the bill, and then it is to the CRTC to apply them. Specifically on that question of whether there's a GIC power on the eligibility, the answer is no.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

But the GIC is involved in exemptions under clause 11, and the GIC is involved under clause 2 with regard to the definition of DNIs. If the Governor in Council is cabinet, then they would be involved in those definitions in terms of, as you stated in our last meeting, establishing criteria that would be used with regard to determining DNIs, which then impacts the bargaining framework as well as the exemption framework under clause 11.

Is that not correct?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

There is a role for the Governor in Council as it relates to certain regulatory decisions, yes, so you are right that the Governor in Council would set the criteria at clause 6, which is about what platforms or digital news intermediaries are subject to the act, and then there is a power at clause 11 for the Governor in Council to further elaborate on those exemption criteria.

The question, though, of whether a digital news intermediary has met those criteria falls to the CRTC to make that assessment. It's not the Governor in Council who makes that assessment at the end of the day. There's no power for the Governor in Council in terms of assessing whether a particular digital news intermediary has met the criteria or not.

I believe your previous question was specifically about eligibility, and there, again, right now in the bill as drafted, there is no GIC power at clause 27. It's really the criteria that are in the bill. Then there is a regulatory power for the CRTC to specify how news businesses should apply for eligibility, etc., so they have a process-oriented regulatory power there.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sorry, I do understand that the Governor in Council would be responsible for setting the criteria and that the CRTC would be responsible for the enactment. Again, though, based on that, it would be the government having an impact with regard to who makes it and who doesn't in terms of definition or eligibility as well as exemption.

My concern is that the public is not going to take the time to understand the nuances you've walked me through here, and perception matters. We already have a general public that is hesitant to trust the media, because they feel that the government has undue influence or that large corporations have undue influence.

Again, it seems that it would then be beneficial to the general public, and I think to this place, to Parliament as well, to create further definition around this idea of journalistic independence. What I'm hearing you say is that this term is not defined in this legislation. It's simply subjective and left up to each eligible news business to determine. Is that correct?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, MP Thomas.

The idea behind this interpretive provision was that the concept of journalist independence would be understood as it's understood by the news and journalism industry and sector.

Again, there is no definition of it in the bill. The intention was that it would be understood in relation to how the news sector understands it. I provided you with one definition from our review of various journalism organizations.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Julian can have the floor.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, we have Ms. Gladu, Mr. Bittle and Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Gladu, go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I do think there's something to be done here. I think Canadians want to make sure that the content they're getting is not biased either by the far left or the far right. There is a bit of a lack of trust.

Personally, here on the Hill, sometimes I see what happens, and then I see what's reported in various places and it's sometimes skewed. I think it's a problem that there is no definition of journalistic independence. There's no measurement for it, so it's hard to do anything with that.

Is there any role for government in deciding if something is misinformation or disinformation? One of my concerns is really that the government will decide to filter the content that gets to the public. I think what we want is that everybody reports the news and the public decides for themselves what they think about it.

Is there anything in this bill that would allow the government or the CRTC to exclude something based on it being misinformation or disinformation?