Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 25th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you mentioned, since a number of amendments would fall if this amendment is passed, because it is so comprehensive, I'll be voting against it. I think we have to address a number of other critical issues in clause 11.

This particular amendment, though authored in good faith, is so comprehensive that it limits the scope of the eligibility that is required, I think, at the same time that it stops a number of other important amendments from being adopted. Therefore, I'll be voting against it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

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

I think Mr. Julian covered it well. This really upends the structure of the bill. We're opposed to it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Is there any other discussion on CPC-13?

Seeing no hands, we'll ask for the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

We'll move on to G-1 with Mr. Bittle.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, we'd like to withdraw amendment G-1. We prefer NDP-7. We will withdraw G-1 and speed things along.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Okay. Thank you.

We can then move on to NDP-5. If NDP-5 is adopted, CPC-13.1 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

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

Oh, gosh, we're proceeding at such speed, Mr. Chair.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Perhaps you could give me a moment while I catch my breath. I've been turning pages here.

Thanks to Mr. Bittle for his intervention.

NDP-5 would modify line 7 on page 5 to read as follows:

local news businesses and all eligible news businesses benefit from them, they con‐

This amendment was suggested by Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, which also provides a great deal of support for workers in journalism and the communication sector. This amendment would provide for more inclusivity, similar to the previous amendment we discussed. For news businesses that are going through the eligibility process, they would be included as part of the process. We want to make sure that all eligible news organizations are included. This is another attempt to do that in a way that ensures that there is maximum bargaining power from eligible news businesses towards big tech. Thanks to Unifor for making those suggestions in terms of amendments.

I'll move that amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

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

Thank you very much.

Before my comments, I'm wondering if I could ask Mr. Ripley a question.

Would there be any constitutional issues if this amendment were to be passed?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Bittle.

Nothing comes to mind from a constitutional perspective. The thrust of it is similar to what we were discussing, that in essence this would result in an obligation to have an agreement with all eligible news businesses in order to benefit.

My observation would be that this muddies the water between the exemption in subparagraph 11(1)(a)(iv), which is intended to speak to the sustainability of the Canadian news marketplace as a whole, and then subparagraph 11(1)(a)(v), which is specifically about independent local news businesses and innovative business models.

In essence, I think this amendment broadens subparagraph 11(1)(a)(v) to be about not only independent local businesses but all eligible news businesses.

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

I won't go over it too much because I discussed it with the previous amendment by Mr. Julian. Again, I think it's really coming from a very good place in terms of Mr. Julian's desire to protect workers, but the goal of Bill C-18 and the reason for the exemption is that the benefit is to encourage foreign tech giants to enter into as many negotiations as possible and to also, at the same time, encourage collective bargaining.

Again, I'm worried about this amendment undermining the regime and jeopardizing the bill. There's a possibility of a trade risk. The amendment is unnecessary and has the same outcomes that could be achieved through collective bargaining, or news organizations can band together and seek deals, which was what we saw in the Australian model.

I appreciate the effort to try to increase the number of deals, but I think that at the same time, the intention may reduce them or may drag things out and highlight what Mr. Housefather said before.

I'm rambling a bit at this point in my own remarks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

We move now to Ms. Gladu.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I noticed that Mr. Bittle didn't use the word “filibustering” but “rambling”.

I want to ask a question further to Mr. Housefather's point. We want to make this as broad as possible so that everybody who wants to participate and get a deal can do it, but we don't want a bad actor to stymie the whole bunch.

Does Mr. Ripley have a suggestion as to how that could be done in the bill?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I believe there have been suggestions put forward. I think it was CPC-12.1, for example, that had the notion of folks who wanted to have an agreement requesting an agreement.

From the government's perspective, though, I think the debate that has been had in this committee is a fundamental one. Is the purpose of clause 11 to incent platforms to try to come to voluntary agreements with a view to obtaining certain policy objectives, or is clause 7 a binding obligation to achieve a very specific comprehensive set of agreements? From the government's perspective, that's a fundamental distinction.

The bill, as crafted, is intended to put in place an incentive to get to voluntary agreements and leave it to the market to a certain extent to arrive at that outcome.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We move to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to repeat everything I've already said, but in my opinion, this is exactly the same issue we have already raised. Here, we're talking about all eligible news organizations, but once again, this would make it possible for a single business acting in bad faith to prevent 99% of platforms from benefiting from an agreement they have successfully negotiated. Therefore, I do not support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to move a subamendment. Because amendment CPC-13.1 would be nullified or would not be considered if NDP-5 carries, what I will suggest is that we move a subamendment there.

In amendment CPC-13.1, we have (a) and (b). I ask that we ignore (a) for a moment. What I'm asking is that (b) would be worked in, and here's how.

On line 13 in the current legislation, it says, “including diversity with respect to language”. Then we would insert, “ideology and opinion”, and then it would continue to say, “racialized groups, indigenous communities, local news and business models.”

On line 13 of the current legislation, my subamendment would be that it would read “including diversity with respect to language”, and then my insertion, my subamendment, would read “language, ideology, opinion,” and then pick up with the current bill, which says “racialized groups, indigenous communities”, etc.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

It's the two words after “language”, then, on line 13.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm simply adding the words “ideology” and “opinion” after “language” on line 13.

Mr. Julian, is that clear?

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

It is clear. Whether I agree to it is another question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mrs. Thomas, you still have the floor.