Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Ripley, I realize that was quite a lengthy answer, so I'll give you another opportunity to be succinct.

This bill talks about the sustainability of news outlets. You've used that word and the minister has used that word. I'm just curious how this bill will contribute to the sustainability of those organizations that have one or one and a half journalists.

They meet all the other criteria, but they have one journalist or one journalist and a half-time journalist. How will this bill foster their sustainability?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

With respect to one and a half, depending on the nature of it, the organization employs two journalists. If those two journalists were employed on a regular basis, that organization would be included.

An organization where there's only one journalist, as I previously mentioned, would not be included under the eligibility criteria of clause 27.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Have you finished, Mrs. Thomas?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Kevin.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I want to thank Mr. Ripley for clearly identifying a flaw in Bill C-18.

Madam Chair, I would like to have a subamendment to add “one journalist”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Would you like to add that to NDP-16?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I would.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Would you like to read out that subamendment and where it would go in the motion currently before us?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes.

“Canada, which journalists may include journalists who own or are a partner in the news businesses and journalists who do not deal at arm's length....”

That's NDP-16.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. You said you wanted to add “one journalist”. Where in that amendment would you like to add it?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I might need some help from Mrs. Thomas, who's on the floor. That's where I would like to add it. I'm just trying to find where we could add that, because there are flaws, as we've heard from Mr. Ripley and department officials, and to strengthen Bill C-18, we would like to add that. I would just like to add the subamendment that one journalist would qualify.

Rachael, can you help me out? You're on the floor, and you have people around you there. Is there any way that we can work this subamendment in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would like to—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have Mr. Julian.

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

What Mr. Waugh is attempting to do is start again a debate that we've already had in committee. I imagine it's to filibuster the bill again. We have already considered that amendment. It was not adopted by the committee for the reasons that I think the officials have spelled out. With NDP-16, part-time journalists who are regularly employed would be included. The only folks excluded are a one-person shop that doesn't even have a part-time journalist working with it. It doesn't meet the criterion in any other way.

We've already had the debate. I would suggest that it's out of order to come back to that. Otherwise, we'll be spending weeks going back over Conservative amendments that have already been rejected that they try to reinsert later on.

Since it's out of order, I hope we can move to a vote on NDP-16. Lots of online news publishers and community newspapers are waiting.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Okay, Madam Chair, we've heard. We know where we're at on this. It was a good try, but we'll move on for the sake of the committee.

I'm not happy about it, and you know that. That's on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Now I will ask the question. Shall NDP-16 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

NDP-16 carries, and therefore CPC-20 and G-2 have been removed.

We now move on to CPC-21.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak to this amendment.

CPC-21 is meant to make sure that this legislation carries out its stated intent, which is to support.... Actually, I think we're not unfortunately going to end up supporting the little guys with this. The stated intent, at least, was to support local newspaper outlets. Then of course it got expanded to broadcasters.

The point here is that funding would not be going to entities that are foreign in nature, from a foreign state. Those entities, those news businesses, would not be supported or able to bargain within the framework of this legislation, Bill C-18. That is the intention behind CPC-21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

[The Clerk]

I have Mr. Housefather and Mr. Champoux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Martin Shields for having inspired me on this one. He challenged me at the end of our last meeting: If I agree with any of their amendments in principle but don't like the wording, I should fix them.

I drafted a different amendment that will come later in the package. It goes to the heart of what I think is the important part of this amendment. I disagree on the question of a newspaper that has journalists.... Let's say a local newspaper with three journalists is owned by somebody from the States. I disagree that they shouldn't get funded under the bill. I don't think an entity has to be controlled by Canadians, because there could be newspapers that are purely Canadian newspapers employing journalists who are Canadians, yet aren't owned by Canadians. They are covering news in Canada. Why wouldn't they be covered?

I think the intention of this was.... There are bad foreign actors, like Russia or Iran. Those entities shouldn't be covered by the bill, so I propose a different kind of amendment saying that any news business owned and controlled by an individual who is a subject of sanctions per the three acts under which we sanction people wouldn't be covered, nor would any news business that has its headquarters in a foreign state that is a subject of measures under the Special Economic Measures Act. Therefore, any entity headquartered in Russia or Iran couldn't be covered, either.

That's where I could see it. I have no trouble if The Wall Street Journal has a Canadian bureau that employs five people and gets funding for the five people in its Canadian bureau. What I don't agree with is.... Of course, we don't want the Iranians or Russians or other countries that are not friends of Canada to get that funding.

This is what I got from the amendment and that's where I am proposing to go. I'm not going to vote for this, but I appreciate the thought, because it inspired me to craft something that I think does much of what is done here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I will go to Martin Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have more or less the same reasoning as Mr. Housefather. I would have voted in favour of CPC‑21, had it not been for the new amendment submitted by Mr. Housefather earlier. I must admit that I really liked CPC‑21. It was an interesting and entirely legitimate precaution.

However, I appeal to the open‑mindedness of my colleagues, and I invite them to welcome this new amendment, which is well drafted and responds in a slightly clearer way to our concerns and those set out in CPC‑21.

That's why CPC‑21 won't be my preference, but it's not because I don't like it. I wanted the Conservatives to know that.