Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I'm going to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. I know you're all familiar with this, but please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Those in the room have the earpiece and self-desired channels. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair, if you don't mind, this morning.

In accordance with the routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses are present, except Mr. Ripley. Therefore, no connection tests in advance of the meeting were required. I don't think Mr. Ripley is on Zoom. He is coming a little later.

I now would like to welcome the witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage who are present to answer any of our questions about about Bill C-18.

Welcome again to Michel Sabbagh, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch. We also have Joelle Paré, acting director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Pierre-Marc Lauzon, manager, legislative and parliamentary issues. We'll wait for Mr. Ripley when he decides to come.

Again, we have votes later in the hour, but we are resuming consideration of clause 27, amendment BQ-4, and consideration of Mr. Julian's subamendment.

(On clause 27)

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to see you take over the chairmanship.

I know that Mr. Champoux's amendment is extremely important. Just before we adjourned the last meeting, I tabled a subamendment, and I hope it will have the support of the committee. It seeks to add the following paragraph:

(1.1) The code of ethics referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv) [this is the one proposed by Mr. Champoux] must include measures for ensuring that no news content that promotes hatred or misinformation against any identifiable group is produced or made available and that errors of fact are corrected promptly and in a transparent manner.

This would, through the code of ethics in the excellent Bloc Québécois amendment, reduce the hatred and misinformation we see in society.

Mr. Chair, as you know very well we have unfortunately been witnessing an increase in incitement to hate-based violence for several years. It's disturbing to see this across Canada. It is therefore important that the journalistic content that is supported by Bill C‑18 be subject to this code of ethics so that hate and misinformation are not part of it.

We've seen a disturbing rise in hate, a disturbing rise in racism and misogyny, a disturbing rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and a disturbing rise in homophobia and transphobia. This is something we have to take action on. Journalism plays a key role in that. We've already talked about Bill C-18 playing a role in encouraging local journalism in a way that counters that hate and disinformation.

The reality is that what is foreseen in the Bloc Québécois amendment on a code of ethics is a code of ethics that must necessarily take into consideration hatred and misinformation against any identifiable group. This is something that I feel keenly is an important improvement to BQ-4, which is an excellent amendment that I'm prepared to support. This would ensure that the journalism supported by Bill C-18 is subject to that code of ethics that counters hatred and disinformation.

We have to take a stand. It's important. Bill C-18 provides a lot more community support. The improvements that we've provided to Bill C-18 provide for a lot more community journalism. It's important that this community journalism be subject to a code of ethics. It's important that this code of ethics includes measures that ensure that journalists at the community level and across the country are in no way promoting hatred or disinformation.

On that note, I will move the subamendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

I think we have Mr. Champoux first and then Ms. Gladu.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Julian's kind comments on amendment BQ‑4, as well as his commitment, if you will, to solidify it.

It is often said that the best is the enemy of the good. In the case of the sub-amendment proposed by Mr. Julian, I feel that it is more of a statement than a concrete addition. It looks like a declaration of good intent.

The principles that are recognized in amendment BQ‑4, and those that guide the journalistic profession include what is proposed in Mr. Julian's sub-amendment. Independence, fairness, rigour in the treatment of news and sources are all principles that fight against the infringement of the rights of certain minority groups, as well as racism or misinformation. This is also part of journalistic rigour and the principles that journalists respect. Correcting mistakes quickly and transparently is also part of what we call rigour in news reporting. One cannot be against virtue. As we say back home, we are not against apple pie, Mr. Chair.

The fact remains, however, that what is proposed in the sub-amendment is already included in amendment BQ‑4. A rigorous and professional journalist, just starting out in the profession, already has these values. They are part of those that they will have to apply throughout the exercise of their profession.

It is difficult to be against a sub-amendment which reiterates some of the content of the amendment. So I would find it hard to say I am against it, but, on the other hand, I find it hard to say it is relevant.

I will leave it at that and listen to my colleagues' comments on it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Welcome, Mr. Ripley.

Ms. Gladu, go ahead with your comments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, all of us would like to see less hate and less misinformation out there, but I do have a concern with the subamendment by Mr. Julian. It depends on who is making the judgment about what is hate—there isn't a definition there—and about what is misinformation.

I mean, Mr. Julian loves to hate on the Conservatives, so if it were somebody like him, he would think that was okay. I wouldn't think it was okay. In terms of misinformation, I mean, the government's standing up on a daily basis saying, no, we're not banning hunting rifles, when in fact they are. They're saying that it's not misinformation, but I would say that it is.

Because it's problematic in terms of trying to define it, I think what Mr. Champoux has said, in terms of journalistic ethics and codes of ethics, is a much better place to land. I won't be supporting the subamendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Are there any other comments before I turn it over to the chair? It looks like she has joined us from Vancouver.

Go ahead, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Just for the sake of streamlining, would you maybe just agree to call the subamendment and then hand it over to the chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I can do that, if you wish.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Could someone read the wording of the subamendment and exactly where would it be? I'm sorry about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're doing a marvellous job.

As the legislative clerk pointed out in our last meeting, the subamendment basically amends BQ-4. It's an addition to BQ-4 that would add subclause (1.1), so that, “The code of ethics referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv)”, which is the Bloc amendment, “must include measures for ensuring that no news content that promotes hatred or misinformation against any identifiable group is produced or made available and that any errors of fact are corrected promptly and in a transparent manner.”

What it does is add to the code of ethics that is specified in BQ-4. As I've mentioned, I think it's important for our committee to improve the amendment by pushing to ensure that hatred and misinformation are considered in the code of ethics that journalists are subject to.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Are there any other comments on the subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Dr. Fry, I will turn the chair over to you.

We are on BQ-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Waugh, if you don't mind, why don't you finish BQ-4 completely?

We'll call the vote on the motion after repeating the unamended motion. If you go ahead and do that, it will be fine. I'll take over then.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I have a quick question for the officials with regard to BQ-4 about this term ”recognized journalistic association”. I'm curious who will recognize them and how that criteria will be determined.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, MP Thomas.

I think it would begin from the recognition that the journalism sector is self-governed. There are a number of different organizations in Canada, but there is no one organization that represents all journalists. My reading of the amendment as tabled would have the CRTC assessing which organizations are accepted and understood as acting on behalf of journalists.

It would be journalists identifying that these are the organizations after they've chosen to self-organize.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If the CRTC is going to recognize or not recognize a journalistic association, what would the criteria be that the CRTC would use for that determination?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I certainly don't want to speak for you, MP Champoux, and what your motivation is as the mover of this, but based on the drafting, I think it would be the CRTC looking to journalists and assessing whether a particular organization is seen to have the confidence of the journalists for whom they speak.

For example, you have the National NewsMedia Council in English Canada, and you have a couple of organizations in French Canada. This is very much an industry and a sector that is self-organized in that respect. Based on the motion as drafted, that would be my understanding of it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Before you continue, Mrs. Thomas, as you can see, the bells are ringing.

Would you like to suspend, adjourn or continue?

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose that we vote remotely and continue through, if that's acceptable to all parties. This is important work on clause-by-clause.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Is it acceptable that we stay here, maybe take a five-minute break when we have to do it virtually, and then continue?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Good.

Mrs. Thomas, please continue.