Evidence of meeting #57 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
That is correct. The value exchange is only necessarily considered at the final offer arbitration stage.
Again, the act is constructed in a way to leave as much room as possible for parties to come to voluntary commercial agreements prior to that final offer arbitration stage, where an arbitral panel is essentially making that determination for them.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry, but coming back to this, I just don't know that I have a clear answer as to why it wouldn't be a part of clause 19. It's going to be in clause 38 that upon final arbitration, both sides of the coin are going to be considered there, but both sides of the coin aren't going to be considered prior to that, or at least aren't mandated to have that be the case. Is that correct?
11:55 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
The intention is certainly that parties come to the table understanding that the value exchange flows both ways. It's not to preclude that, MP Thomas, but clause 19 was intentionally not limited, for example, to financial compensation. It acknowledged that it's up to the parties to determine what that appropriate agreement could look like, and that could include a number of things, including financial compensation, but also non-monetary elements of the agreement as well.
Again, the goal was not to be prescriptive but to provide the parties with flexibility to come to agreements that make the most sense until that final step.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Seeing no hands up, Clerk, please go to the vote on CPC-15.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
CPC-15 does not carry.
Shall clause 19 as amended carry?
I see nays on the other side, so can we call the question, please, Clerk?
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Now we have a proposed new clause, clause 19.1, and we have NDP-11.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
Noon
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The paragraph we propose to add is:
19.1 Any provision in a covered agreement respecting payments to be made by a digital news intermediary to a news business must be based solely on the editorial expenditures of the business.
This proposal comes from Canada's independent online news publishers, which include new media, metropolitan media and several publications from across Canada.
The independent online news publishers of Canada have made this suggestion in terms of improving the fairness around the formula. I think we've succeeded as a committee, Madam Chair, in adding transparency to Bill C-18 and closing a lot of the loopholes.
The fair-funding aspect is extremely important to the independent online news publishers of Canada right across the country. I wanted to shout out to the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor, two of those online publications that do very good work in our community.
The essence of the amendment is to focus on editorial expenditures, on journalists. The payments should really be made in terms of setting staff time and freelance contract labour in journalism. That is why they made the suggestion to put in place a level playing field.
In terms of the appropriate number of editorial expenditures to be covered, we saw in the Australian example that we're talking about 30% to 35% of editorial expenditures. In other words, what this amendment would do is put in place a fair-funding formula based on editorial expenditures, something that is alluded to in the bill but isn't as clear as this amendment would make it.
With thanks to the independent online news publishers of Canada, I move NDP-11, an amendment that would ensure that payments are based solely on editorial expenditures, on the actual provision for journalism in the business.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I guess my comments relate to both NDP-11 and PV-3, if we get there.
In Bill C-18, platforms must negotiate over the ways they make news content available. It allows parties to reach the deals that focus on the use of content that benefits them both.
This amendment shifts the focus of compensation from a broad conception of the value of news content to the DNI, to a narrow concept of cost of production. Editorial expenditures, as a measure for fair compensation, could be perceived as a tax on platforms, which could lead to trade and legal concerns. It could also discourage innovation by only rewarding established forms of news production, such as conventional newsrooms. This will likely undermine the compensation that is paid through the regime.
As we've said before, we should leave it to the parties to negotiate freely. We shouldn't be too restrictive in this bill.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
I see no other hands up.
Shall NDP-11 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
12:05 p.m.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
PV-3 intends to do something similar to what NDP-11 just attempted. This again comes from the independent online news publishers of Canada. It is seeking to move toward more equitable and fairer deals by focusing on bargaining power using a set percentage of organizations' editorial expenditures.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there any discussion, given that we have already discussed and voted on a similar motion?
Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, I was wondering about the procedure for tabling an amendment. Has Mr. Morris formally tabled his amendment?
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
All right, thank you.
My reasoning is the same as in the case of the NDP‑11 amendment, previously. It is very well intentioned and I understand the motivation, but it is an amendment I will not be able to support.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
I see no other hands up. Shall we call the vote on PV-3?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
The CPC opposes, so we have to call the question, please, Clerk.
(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm hearing “no” again.
Clerk, will you please call the question?
(Clause 21 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Clause 21 carries.
Shall clause 22 carry?
Again, we hear “no” on the other side, so can you please call the question, Clerk?
