Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 55 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Of course, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House of Commons order of Thursday, June 23.

I have a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating on video, there is a little icon at the bottom to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen—

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

Dr. Fry, I'm sorry. Ms. Gladu has raised a point of order.

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

There's a problem with the audio. I don't know if anybody else is having this problem, but it's very hard to hear. Perhaps we could turn the volume up, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Do you need me to start over, Marilyn?

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

No, Madam Chair, thank you so much.

Whatever they've done to adjust it has fixed the problem. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Again, for those who are virtual, you know by now how to get the interpretation. It's that little globe thing at the bottom. Again, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses are present; therefore, no connection tests in advance of the meeting were required.

I want to welcome the witnesses who are present to answer any technical questions about Bill C-18 that the members of the committee might have.

We have the Department of Canadian Heritage here. We have Thomas Owen Ripley, associate assistant deputy minister of cultural affairs; Michel Sabbagh, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch; Joelle Paré, acting director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Frederick Matern, manager, marketplace and legislative policy.

Now we're going to begin. If you recall, at the last meeting, we went through three amendments. One was not carried, and two others were carried.

(On clause 2)

We will begin with amendment CPC-2. We didn't vote on it, I don't think.

[The Clerk]

Excuse me, Dr. Fry.

Mrs. Thomas has her hand up in the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I did have a question for the officials. I see that Mr. Ripley isn't here, so I'm not sure who to point the question to. Perhaps one of the three who are here would be able to answer.

My question is this. I'm wondering if the bill, in its current state, would allow for hyperlinks to be compensated for when copyright content is not present. If the links are not accompanied with an image or text from an article and it's just the link, can that be compensated for under this current legislation?

[Michel Sabbagh, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright, and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for your question, Mrs. Thomas.

The bill provides that platforms must negotiate over all ways in which news is offered, including hyperlinks. If a company were to use just hyperlinks, then the negotiations could effectively be about hyperlinks.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, may I ask a follow-up question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Of course.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Currently under copyright law there is a certain amount of text that can be taken from a source and shared or made public. For example, professors in a university can copy part of a textbook and share it with their students if it's within a certain percentage. Here within Parliament we often do this when we might want to take from a source and share a paragraph, or a sentence or two, and under copyright laws we're permitted to do that.

I'm wondering, then, under this legislation, are those copyright provisions that are currently made kept intact by this legislation, or is this creating a different set of rules for DNIs?

[Michel Sabbagh]

This regime does not create any new copyright and is complementary to the existing copyright framework. The limitations and exceptions that are available in the copyright regime still apply, and nothing in this bill restricts the limitations and exceptions that are existent under copyright.

What we're talking about here.... If we're talking about hyperlinks specifically, there are decisions that show that hyperlinks are not protected by copyright under the current law. But since this regime is not about copyright protection specifically, those two regimes can coexist. The limitations and exceptions that are under the copyright regime can continue to apply, and this is the bargaining framework that exists in complementarity with the copyright framework.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Marilyn, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think I heard you say that hyperlinks could be compensated, then. Does that go against the 2011 Supreme Court decision that said hyperlinks couldn't be monetized?

[Michel Sabbagh]

Again, the Supreme Court decision was in relation to copyright. This is a different matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Just for further clarification then, actions such as sharing a headline or a certain portion of text, a snippet, a quote, a short summary, a hyperlink, these types of things are currently permissible under copyright law here in Canada. They don't require compensation, whereas of course if you exceed that allotment, then compensation is required and you need to pay for that source material.

This bill would seem to change it. It would intend to require platforms to compensate news organizations for actions that are legally permissible under copyright law. Is that not correct, that this bill would be requiring compensation for something that is currently legal under our copyright framework?

[Michel Sabbagh]

The requirement on platforms is to bargain with news outlets. That's the obligation that's being put on the platforms here. It's a requirement to bargain on the whole scope of the ways in which news is being made available by platforms. That includes, yes, snippets, hyperlinks, pictures and other ways for platforms to make that content available to users, but there is nothing in the bill that requires specifically compensation for a hyperlink or a paper clip type of scheme.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I understand that there's nothing in the bill that requires compensation for these things, but at the same time the use of links and compensation from links is not excluded from this legislation. Is that correct?

[Michel Sabbagh]

That's correct. It's one of the ways in which platforms make available news content. Hyperlinks are part of the scope of the ways in which platforms make news content available to their users. Then they are part of the scope of the bargaining process.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you for helping bring some further clarification to that. I think you're outlining why we feel it's so important to amend this.

Interestingly enough, the other day my colleague across the way made a comment with regard to Spain. I have since done a little bit of research on that, in terms of their legislation. Originally, they actually admitted that they made a mistake with their legislation, and they had to go back and fix it. My colleague forgot to mention that part. In fixing it, they actually went back and had to make a change with regard to hyperlinks and making sure that they alone were not reason for compensation. That is consistent with other European legislation as well.

The reason for the amendment on the table today, CPC-2, is to also be consistent with those other entities that learned from their mistakes. I think we can do likewise and get this right the first time. I think the amendment on the table, then, would be that we don't include a hyperlink as something that can be expected to be compensated for. It would be excluded from the scope of bargaining, which then means that, of course, copyrighted material would still be permitted within that framework of bargaining. It would bring us into greater consistency, as I said, with Spain and the EU, but it would also make sure that we're in line with the Supreme Court decision from 2011, which says that links do not have monetary value in and of themselves.

For those reasons, we would wish to move the amendment, which is CPC-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

My question to the committee is this: Shall CPC-2 carry?

Are there those who are opposed?

[The Clerk]

Yes, there are those who are opposed in the room, Dr. Fry.