Evidence of meeting #59 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think Mr. Julian's point is with regard to what we're dealing with right now, which is G-3. He's asking a pertinent question.
Will Mr. Ripley answer it, please?
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My concern is that, if you have a provincial public broadcaster that is acting inappropriately, not respecting the journalistic standards we are setting throughout Bill C-18, and this amendment isn't passed, would there be any ability for the Governor in Council to take action if those standards were not adhered to?
Doesn't this amendment offer an additional level of protection to ensure that, with what I consider to be a perversion—I will withdraw the word “trash” and say it's more of a perversion of journalism that the UCP is doing—there's some regulatory oversight through cabinet, additional reasons, to ensure they don't have access to the funding from Bill C-18?
12:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, MP Julian.
The starting point is that public broadcasters would still have to meet the eligibility criteria set out at clause 27 and, further to the amendments that this committee has now made to the bill, those would include either belonging to a journalistic association with a code of journalistic practices or having one in place, so that would now be a criterion that would have to be respected. The specific mechanism of clause 28, though, is primarily a mechanism to make sure there would be a way the federal government could respect provincial wishes, recognizing that it is not the prerogative of the federal government to impose its will on provincial broadcasters, which again are creatures of the provinces. Therefore, clause 28 has to be read in relation to paragraph 84(f), which says that the Governor in Council can set out conditions on provincial public broadcasters “for the purposes of section 28, if the provincial minister responsible for that broadcaster has made a request to the Minister.”
Again, it's really about respecting provincial wishes, but to the substance of your question, public broadcasters would still have to meet the other eligibility criteria of clause 27.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just have a couple of questions. I just want to clarify. I do support funding a public broadcaster. I also believe this will mean that taxpayers in the end will have to pay less because the public broadcaster will be covered and be able to earn revenues under the bill.
I want to come to how I understand this clause. I understand this clause not to be adding that public broadcasters are eligible. Public broadcasters were not excluded under the previous grounds for eligibility, so clause 28 has nothing to do with whether or not public broadcasters are eligible. They are subject to the same tests everybody else is under clause 27 of the bill.
Clause 28 was meant to say that, despite public broadcasters' being eligible, the Governor in Council could make other rules with respect to public broadcasters only.
My understanding of this amendment is that it says that now CBC/Radio-Canada is no longer subject to that, which is why I support this amendment. It means you can no longer have the Governor in Council saying that for some reason CBC or Radio-Canada is no longer eligible under the other criteria they set. They can't say that public broadcasters won't be eligible unless they make $20 billion a year or something like that, but it does say that provincial public broadcasters could be subject to an order in council.
Am I understanding this correctly?
12:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
You are accurate, Mr. Housefather, in your description of what's taking place.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley.
Shall G-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 28 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Before we move, we have two more minutes to go in this meeting. It is my understanding, from rumour, that there was discussion on the floor about having an extra half an hour to go to 1:30. The clerk thinks we can do this.
Is this something that everyone wishes to have happen?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there any opposition? Hearing none, we will continue until 1:30, as the clerk tells me there are resources. Hopefully, we will get through some more of this bill.
(On clause 29)
We're going to go to clause 29 and NDP-20.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't think this will be very controversial. It strikes at the heart of our objectives around Bill C-18, which is to foster journalism. This amendment would ensure that lists are published for public transparency that include “the number of journalists employed by each eligible news business in each year that it has been eligible.”
Through the transparency that comes with NDP-20, we could see, visibly, news outlets reporting back to the public about the number of journalists employed. That is what we seek to do through this legislation. I think all parties agree on that point. This is a way of ensuring more transparency and accountability from the news businesses that receive the funding.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I will allow Mr. Bittle to go first, and then it could loop back to me.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.
To Mr. Julian's amendment, I appreciate the intent, but the purpose of the bill is to regulate tech giants and not news businesses. Imposing reporting requirements on employment crosses that line, which is why, unfortunately, I won't be able to support this amendment.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much. I shall call the question on NDP-20.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 29 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 30)
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Before I go to clause 31, I am informed by the clerk that we can go to 1:45 unless the whips in the room decide that is not something we should do. We cannot go beyond 1:45 because of question period, but does everyone want to go to 1:45? Do I get nodding heads in the room?
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
There doesn't appear to be consent. Okay. We can go until 1:30.
(On clause 31)
Now we go to Ms. Thomas on clause 31 and CPC-24.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
With the amendment here, essentially what we're trying to do is make sure that the legislation stays within the framework that it is set out to be in or does what it's said to do, which is to stay focused on news and not paid promotional material or the potential of clickbait. That is what we are attempting to do here.
I guess I have one question for the officials. That is, I am curious as to this term that is used in line 15 on page 11: “original news content”. I'm curious as to what that means, that term “original”. Does that mean that it could not be published anywhere else?
