Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Would it be possible, Madam Chair, to have the unanimous consent of the committee to combine clauses 15, 16, 17, and 18, to which no amendments are proposed? We would then have one vote on those four clauses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't, since the Conservatives have indicated that they would vote “no” to all of them. Would you like to call a vote on clauses 15, 16, 17 and 18, please, Clerk?

[The Clerk]

You would need unanimous consent to regroup the clauses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Would the Conservatives agree to unanimous consent to carry the vote as it is?

No? All right. We're going to have to vote on each of them, then. I'm sorry.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I am sorry, Madam Chair. I must have misunderstood, but I heard the other deputy chair of the committee say that they were going to vote against each of the clauses. I mistakenly assumed that there was a desire to group them together.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Begin, please, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

We're on clause 15.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, it's clause 15.

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall clause 18 carry?

(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 19)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Now we go to clause 19.

If NDP-10 is adopted, BQ-2 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

What NDP-10 sets out is a bargaining process in terms of timing. It closes a potential loophole within Bill C-18. Right now, the amount of time that it would take for each step is uncertain. What that would lead to is a modification on page 8, lines 2 to 11, starting off with:

(a) negotiation or bargaining sessions over a period of up to 90 days;

(b) if the parties are unable, within the negotiation or bargaining period, to reach an agreement, mediation sessions of up to 120 days, beginning on the day after the end of the negotiation or bargaining period; and

(c) if the parties are unable, within the mediation period, to reach an agreement and at least one of the parties wishes to initiate arbitration, final offer arbitration for a period of up to 45 days, beginning on the day after the end of the mediation period.

This amendment also foresees that “the Commission”, upon “request of the parties” can extend any of the periods that are set out. Basically, it pushes big tech to reach agreements. They can't skate around the ice and rag the puck. Because it does go to final arbitration after each of these periods is completed, it does compel that level playing field. I think so many of our small media across the country are looking for timelines that push big tech to negotiate those agreements.

That is the intent around NDP-10. I believe Mr. Housefather has a technical amendment that I believe I'll welcome. Hopefully we can pass a vote on NDP-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. I have Mr. Champoux first.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My NDP colleague's amendment is almost perfect. Obviously, Amendment BQ‑2 was perfect, but I think my colleague Mr. Julian's amendment is very good.

Subclause (1.1) that he proposes reads, “On request of the parties, the Commission may extend a period provided for in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c).” I propose to replace the words “of the parties” with “of both parties”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I recognize the good faith of Mr. Champoux in proposing this amendment, but our amendment already provides that the commission can extend the period with the agreement of both parties. I understand his proposal, but that is already covered in our amendment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would like to make a clarification.

In the English and French versions, it says “the parties” and “les parties”, but for clarity and precision I would have liked to see “les deux parties” added.

Indeed, if this were to be a matter of dispute, the debate would not be very long. It is a suggestion. If my colleague accepts my friendly subamendment, we could adopt his amendment quickly.

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

I have no objection, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also have what I think will be a friendly amendment to Mr. Julian's very good amendment. It is basically to remove the words “up to”.

The other option is to remove the word “maximal”, “of up to”, from all three paragraphs. I think it will create confusion if you have a period that goes up to a certain time, or a maximum period. It would mean that there could be a different period of days. I don't see how the parties are necessarily going to know when to switch to one or the other, or whether it can be 45 days rather than 90 days.

The end result is the same. The only reason you won't get to 90 days is if the parties are able to reach agreement before 90 days or if they both agree that they want to move past it, but if you have one party that's still in and one party that wants to move past it and says, “Well, it's 'up to' ”, then you'll have a confusion.

I think it's simpler just to say “a period of” 90 days, 120 days and 45 days. Obviously, if the parties agree to do something different, the parties agree to do something different.

At any rate, that was my thinking. I think it creates confusion to have “up to”.

Thanks, Mr. Julian, for considering that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We have an amendment and then a subamendment.

Mr. Champoux, is your amendment being removed, or has it been agreed on by Mr. Julian? I don't know; that's fine—

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

Madam Chair, I believe that in both cases these are technical amendments. I have no objection because it improves and clarifies the amendment. I have no objection to either.

I do not think it changes things profoundly. It simply clarifies the language in both cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I still have to call the vote on them.

Does anyone oppose these amendments?

No? Everybody's good? Therefore....

Yes, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I believe as a committee we are only able to consider one subamendment at a time. Each needs to be voted on before we can proceed to the next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I realize that. I got the sense that everyone seemed to be in agreement, but I am wrong with that sense, because obviously you are not in agreement, so let us call the vote on Mr. Champoux's subamendment. The subamendment is on proposed subclause 19(1.1), that it be on request of “both” parties.

Do I hear any opposition to the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to the subamendment from Mr. Housefather, which removes the words “up to” in proposed paragraphs 19(1)(a), (b) and (c).

Is there any opposition?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the motion as amended carry?

Yes, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sorry. That's one subamendment, but then there's another subamendment needed. Was that both of them that we—