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.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
All right. We are on clause 11, to be clear. Clause 11 has to do with granting an exemption order. It establishes criteria that have to be met by the DNIs in order to be exempt from having this legislation further apply to them. Here we see a number of criteria established. Our attempt here, then, is to clarify and simplify. It is also to, I suppose you could say, set some parameters with regard to this exemption order or these criteria.
I'll draw people's attention particularly to paragraph (b), which is to delete lines 16 and 17 on page 5. Those lines were about any condition being set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council. As Mr. Ripley pointed out a number of meetings ago, the Governor in Council essentially refers to cabinet, so what this is saying is that if there are any conditions whatsoever that are set out by cabinet in regulation, then those can be used in order to grant an exemption.
Stakeholders have said that this is quite vague. It's leaving them with significant uncertainty. There are concerns on both sides, from DNIs and from eligible news businesses. They want to know those terms up front. Obviously news businesses are interested because they want to make sure that they get a fair shake. DNIs are interested because they want to know to what extent they have to bargain and at what point they can reasonably apply for an exemption.
There's clarity desired on all fronts. Further, from us, clarity is desired just because we believe it's good public policy.
To leave this so vague with regard to any condition set out in regulation made by the Governor in Council just seems far too open-ended and therefore problematic for stakeholders. It's very difficult then for them to form a business model or any sort of anticipation with regard to this legislation and what it would fully mean for them.
We are looking to bring about further clarity there. I can probably leave that there for now.
Thank you, Chair.
November 25th, 2022 / 1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you so much, Mr. Bittle.
I have just a couple of questions. I'm having a bit of trouble following this. As I read the amendment, it says:
(a) by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 4 with the following:
“requests the exemption and the operator has entered into agreements with”
and it basically changes the words “and the following conditions are met” to be “and the operator has entered into agreements with”, but then the rest remains the same. There's nothing I see that says they're deleting line 25 and what follows. I'm just a bit confused as to how that actually works.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Of course. I just want to understand how you see the wording actually working and flowing from one to the other.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
You're right in pointing out the first change there, to lines 22 to 24. We've made a small change there. Then if you keep going, it's on the next page—page 5—in the legislation. There's paragraph 11(1)(b) under clause 11. That paragraph 11(1)(b) is the one that allows for any condition to be set out by the Governor in Council. We're striking that.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'm sorry for the back-and-forth. I understand that. I'm just wondering how the words flow from one to the other.
Does “(a) the operator has entered into agreements with” stay, or does paragraph (a) in the amendment somehow takes part of that first line? That's what I don't understand.
The way it is worded now, we're taking away the words “and the following conditions are met”, so in paragraph 11(1)(a), subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) would stay. Now, as I understand it—but I'm probably wrong—it would say “requests the exemption and the operator has entered into agreements with” and then “(a) the operator has entered into agreements”. That's what I don't understand. How do they flow together?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
—maybe could address some of the concerns we have with amendment CPC-12.1.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I understand what you're saying, Mr. Housefather. It's more a drafting question than a legislative clerking question, so to speak.
There is the end of the top part of subclause 11(1), which says, “the following conditions are met”, and there's a colon there, and then there are paragraphs 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b). Those would disappear.
It would then read, “if its operator requests the exemption and the operator has entered into agreements with news businesses”, and then it would go on. So the paragraph 11(1)(a) disappears completely there—the colon and the “met”. There's no paragraph 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b) anymore. It would be just one full paragraph.
I'm not sure if that was your question.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
If that's how it would be worded, I understand it better. Thank you. I still don't think it's good, but I understand it better.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
We heard from experts like Professor Owen that the exemption criteria set out in the bill are the primary policy tools in play for Bill C-18. They ensure that smaller players would benefit and they ensure that the deals would not allow corporate influence over news coverage.
This amendment takes away from that, and once again we see the Conservatives presenting what seems like a reasonable amendment but one that again takes the side of big tech over Canadian news organizations.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I couldn't make out the very first premise of Mr. Bittle's statement, so I lost the context for the entire thing.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Can he just clarify? He said that the entire legislation was subject to something and therefore....
1:25 p.m.
Conservative