Evidence of meeting #58 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 journalists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Is there any discussion on this amendment?
Yes. Go ahead, Marilyn.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Obviously I'm biased, because if this one passes, my CPC-17.1 doesn't pass. What I would say is that I don't know that “public interest” can be defined. Many of the public don't seem interested at all in things that our news content should be interested in. I think some of the wording in the other ones is preferred.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Sorry. Is Ms. Thomas on the floor? I didn't see her hand up.
Yes, go ahead, Ms. Thomas.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm curious about these terms of “public interest” versus “general interest”. I'm wondering if perhaps Mr. Ripley or one of the officials could weigh on what difference this makes in the ramifications of the bill.
Thomas Owen Ripley Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, MP Thomas.
Good afternoon, Chair.
What I would draw the committee's attention to is the definition of “news content” at clause 2 of the bill, which is:
news content means content — in any format, including an audio or audiovisual format — that reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest.
The idea of “public interest news”, from the government's perspective, was already included in the concept of “news content” and would include things like covering democratic institutions, courthouses, legislatures and Parliament. The government's view would be that the impact of the proposed amendment is minimal because the concept of public interest is already in fact included in the definition of “news content”.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Clerk, since I see no one else's hand up, can we call the question?
Shall BQ-3 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Are there people who would like to weigh in? Unless they put their hand up, I don't know if they want to weigh in or not.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That's why I asked if you would please call the question. Count the vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
BQ-3 is carried. We move on, therefore, to CPC-18.
I think that amendment was moved by Mr. Nater, but would someone speak to it?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Here we go on CPC-18.
It replaces text on line 5, page 10. Essentially it's taking out “general interest” and just saying that it has to do with reports of current events, including coverage of democratic institutions and processes, etc.
It's this concept of “general interest” that we feel is a vague, undefined term that perhaps is not necessary to this bill and doesn't necessarily strengthen it but perhaps causes confusion.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
This amendment looks harmless, but if we take it with other CPC amendments like CPC-22 and CPC-24, it undoes the current eligibility section, straying away from the QCJO definitions that are central to the act. Unfortunately, I can't support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Are there any other speakers?
No? Then perhaps I will call the question, and the clerk can count the votes.
Shall CPC-17 carry?
Sorry; it's CPC-18.
