Evidence of meeting #56 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was exemption.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I believe the legislative clerk and the officials should have CPC-13 in front of them.
What I'm asking is that we take paragraph (b) from CPC-13 and add it to the latter part of NDP-4.
It's of course up to you, Chair, but if it's of benefit, I would entertain a quick suspension and have a quick conversation with my NDP colleague.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
I will resume the meeting.
I will ask Mr. Méla, the legislative clerk, to go over the subamendment.
Mr. Méla, can you inform us of the new text?
1:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As Mrs. Thomas was explaining, the subamendment would simply add paragraph (b), located in CPC-13, which contains the instruction to replace line 32 on page 4 to line 17 on page 5 with the text that's provided in CPC-13.
That comes with the following consequence. If NDP-4 is adopted, then CPC-13, G-1, NDP-5, CPC-13.1, NDP-6, NDP-7, PV-2, NDP-8 and CPC-13.2 could not be moved due to line conflicts.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
I see no other hands up.
Shall the subamendment proposed by Mrs. Thomas carry?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
We will go back to NDP-4.
On the speaking list we have Mr. Housefather.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I hope I will have the opportunity to convince my dear friend Mr. Julian that this is not the best-advised amendment. I think it comes from a very good place, in the same way that I think CPC-12.1 came from a good place. I was actually more inclined to support CPC-12.1 than I am to support this one. I think both, in a certain way, would have caused problems with respect to the regime, but this would cause many, many more problems.
We have to look at this holistically. What is the definition of “eligible”? In relation to a news business, “eligible” means that the business is designated under subclause 27(1). A “news business” means an individual or entity that operates a news outlet.
Let me just move to subclause 27(1), Mr. Chair, which states:
At the request of a news business, the Commission must, by order, designate the business as eligible if
Then it comes out with various criteria.
If we pass amendment NDP‑4, it's tantamount to saying that all businesses must enter into agreements with platforms. However, for whatever reason, a business might be reluctant to do that. A business might decide not to negotiate an agreement. Businesses could object to doing it, but use subsection 27(1) to be recognized as eligible, then say they won't bargain.
A business owner acting in bad faith could take advantage of all this and asked that their business be recognized as eligible, but then block everyone from entering into agreements or from being recognized because they won't bargain in good faith.
I don't believe we can pass amendment NDP‑4 if we don't substantially amend the act to ask or require that everyone bargain in good faith, and that no business may ask to be recognized under subsection 27(1) unless they intend to enter into agreements that currently do not exist.
Legally or judicially speaking, I'm not even sure we can say there will be businesses recognized in the
tax act or the Canada Revenue Agency Act as a non-profit or journalistic body that would not fall there. Then you would be saying that they would have to also get an agreement, even though they never voiced their intention to get an agreement.
The word “all” scares me a lot. I don't know how that could be modified or whatever, but I think it would require many other modifications to make it work with the regime in the form that it is now, because we certainly don't want one bad actor to block the desire of the platform from reaching agreements with everybody at the DNI and have everybody negotiating in good faith. If they come to terms with 90%, well, they should be recognized, I think, because it probably means that the other 10% weren't negotiating on fair terms or in good faith, so that scares me.
I understand the desire to have all small businesses captured and taken care of, but I don't think that saying “all” is the way to go.
I'm hoping that perhaps I convinced my friend Mr. Julian.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Respecting what Mr. Housefather just said, I'd like to propose a subamendment so that NDP-4 would be “all eligible news businesses that want to negotiate in good faith and operate news outlets that....”
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Okay, we'll just check with Mr. Méla here as he's writing it down.
Do you want to repeat that again, please, Ms. Gladu?
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes.
NDP-4 would become, “all eligible news businesses that,” and we would add in the words, “want to negotiate in good faith and,” and then continue with NDP-4, “operate news outlets that....”
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I see the good place that my dear friend Ms. Gladu is coming from on that, because she's trying to fix a problem in the section.
I'm not sure that the fact that they just want to negotiate in good faith.... They would have to negotiate in good faith, but even then I'm not sure, because it would have to be fixed in other places in the bill too. I haven't had a chance to look at it to see where else it would need to be fixed, so I don't think that solves it by itself, but I appreciate the attempt, because it certainly would make it better. I just don't think it solves the problem.
2 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'm not speaking specifically to the subamendment; I'm coming back to the amendment itself. I have enormous respect for Mr. Housefather. I feel he's a tremendously learned member of the committee, but I do not buy his argument, despite that it is very effectively put forward.
In the examples we've seen—for example, in the Australian example—you don't have news organizations working in bad faith. What we do see is a real attempt by big tech to look for exemptions.
I don't want to filibuster this. We have so many other amendments to work through that I'm not going to intervene again on this one, but I would say that the amendment that was proposed in the testimony from the independent online news publishers of Canada is an effective amendment. I do not buy the argument that somehow news organizations will operate in bad faith. That's certainly not the track record we've seen from the Australian model.
I think the online news publishers of Canada are making a huge difference in my community. I'll just mention this, Mr. Chair. We went from four community newspapers to two, devastated by the amount of ad revenue that was taken by Facebook and other digital news intermediaries. The independent online news publishers of Canada have re-established two of those, so we've seen a doubling of the local news that is produced.
I'll give a shout-out to the Burnaby Beacon and the New Westminster Anchor, two publications that are making a difference in our community.
I think that the idea that big tech has an incentive to negotiate with all eligible news businesses is a good one. There are a wide variety of subamendments we could propose to solve a problem that I don't believe is a legitimate one, certainly based on the Australian model. I think this is a legitimate amendment, but we will see how the committee feels, and I think we should move fairly rapidly to a vote.
I did not intend at all that this become an amendment that we would spend a lot of time on. I think the positions of each of the parties is already well known.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Is there any other discussion on the subamendment by Ms. Gladu?
Seeing none, I would like to call the vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
We will go back to the main amendment, which is NDP-4. I will give Mr. Julian the final word.
Again, if we adopt NDP-4, CPC-13 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Julian, go ahead and address NDP-4.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a couple of times, Mr. Chair. I don't intend to do it a third time.
I do want to thank the independent online news publishers of Canada for their valuable input in the testimony they gave to this committee.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you very much.
Shall NDP-4 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
We'll move on to CPC-13. Before we get to Mrs. Thomas, I will inform you that if CPC-13 is adopted here, G-1, NDP-5, CPC-13.1, NDP-6, NDP-7, PV-2, NDP-8 and CPC-13.2 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.
The floor is yours, Mrs. Thomas, on CPC-13.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
Essentially, CPC-13 tries to take NDP-4 and combine it with a few other things. Basically, the deal is that clause 11 deals with exemption orders. With this amendment, we're wanting to ensure that digital news intermediaries have to enter into negotiation with those who wish to without certain eligible news businesses being left out.
Basically, it's a mechanism of inclusion and wanting to ensure that those smaller entities that were left out by legislation such as Australia's are not left out by Canada's legislation. Essentially, it's fighting for a fair playing field for all news outlets.
That is it.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
