Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, MP Thomas, for the question.

It was meant to capture the idea of news businesses investing in or reporting on original news content. It's not meant to say that the topic can't be covered anywhere else or that there can't be other reporting on the topic, but it is meant to recognize that the news business has to primarily be in the business of producing original news content, whether that's original print content, whether that's original news broadcasts—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

But what does that mean?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

It means created by that news business.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Here's the question, though. When you have an outlet like Canadian Press, let's say, where—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm not.... I'm sorry. I'm just asking the official what I think is an important question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, you asked a question of Mr. Ripley. He responded. Are you asking another question of Mr. Ripley?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Please go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Ripley, what I'm asking is this. If there's a source where journalists are putting stories, which are then able to be pulled from that and put onto different news outlets, is that still considered original news content?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of context, I'll take one quick step back and then go to your specific question. Eligibility criteria are set out in clause 27 of the bill. Clause 31 was provided for a mechanism for digital news intermediaries to challenge and make sure that a news business respected those criteria. It's really intended to make sure that there isn't a mechanism that digital news intermediaries can avail themselves of.

The news business has to be in the business of producing news content that consists primarily of original news content. That's not to say that the news business can never use content pulled from another source, but there has to be an assessment that the news business produces news content. There are indeed pool models, but at the same time, Canadian Press, which I think was part of your question, does also employ journalists. There would have to be an assessment made about whether, at the end of the day, they are producing news content that consists primarily of original news content. The focus is really on the production of the news content.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I flag that just because I still don't know that it provides a lot of clarity to eligible news businesses in terms of whether or not the news they're providing is going to fit within that. Nevertheless, I think you make a right distinction here. Clause 31 lets DNIs challenge whether a news outlet should or should not be eligible, whereas clause 27 sets out the eligible criteria to be scoped in as a news business.

The criteria that are outlined to be scoped in under clause 27 and the criteria that are assessed as to whether or not they should be eligible under clause 31 are different. This has actually been criticized by legal experts. Howard Law, formerly at Unifor, called it “an odd, backwards way to draft a statute”.

I'm curious to know why the criteria set out in clause 27 and the criteria set out in clause 31 are inconsistent with one another.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

There are two things going on here. Clause 27 is about the eligibility of news businesses. In clause 30, there's a recognition that you can have a business that will have a distinct part of it what the bill calls a “news outlet”. This is the definition in the bill:

news outlet means an undertaking or any distinct part of an undertaking, such as a section of a newspaper, the primary purpose of which is to produce news content.

That's a recognition that you may have, for example, newspaper business models or broadcaster business models where the entire business model isn't about production of news. There's a recognition that TVA should be able to come forward and claim that TVA Nouvelles is a news outlet. They are bargaining with respect to the news content produced by TVA Nouvelles, not all the content produced by TVA, because we recognize that it includes more than just news.

Clause 31 is fundamentally about making sure that, if they come forward and they want to bargain on that distinct entity, such as TVA Nouvelles, for example, that news outlet has to be primarily producing original news content. The criteria set out here are intended to flow through from clause 27, but at the application of that news outlet level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

Mrs. Thomas has her hand up.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm so sorry, but I'm going to come back this. It was a rather long answer, so is there a succinct way...?

Clause 27 and clause 31 don't align, but they're dealing with the same thing.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

They're not quite dealing with the same things.

Clause 27 is about the eligibility of the news business. Again, that's at a higher corporate structure level.

Clause 31 is about the DNI being able to challenge the way that a news business has articulated the news outlet over which they are bargaining. Again, that was simply a recognition that the way that media companies are structured.... It's not always purely in the business of news. The government wanted to home in and say, “What you are bargaining over is a distinct outlet within that broader corporate family.”

They are related in their intention. It was certainly not to have a conflict between clause 27 and clause 31. The thing at play in clause 31 is a news outlet, not the overall eligibility of the news business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

Seeing no other hands, shall CPC-24 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On NDP-21, we have Mr. Julian.

I want to point out once again that we have 15 minutes left, and we have not finished even half of this bill in clause-by-clause. I'm just letting everyone know that. I heard from everybody in this room that they're all interested in getting this passed before we rise, and I wanted to flag to you about the process and the timing.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Peter.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would make the suggestion that we both regroup clauses for adoption and that we adopt those clauses on division. I think that would facilitate a lot.... We're spending a lot of time on votes that are more properly the “on division” passage of clauses. Hopefully, we'll get all-party agreement to start doing that soon.

Madam Chair, I also want to flag that I thought we agreed to extend until 1:25. I can't stay until 1:30, so 1:25 is my witching hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

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

I would like to move on to NDP-21.

In conjunction with the other amendments we have already adopted, it is providing support for indigenous journalism and indigenous community news outlets. What this would do, in terms of a bargaining process, is to provide for an indigenous news outlet to be subject to the bargaining process if it:

(a) operates in Canada; and

(b) produces news content that includes matters of general interest, including coverage of matters relating to the rights of Indigenous peoples, including the right of self-government.

It goes in the same theme as previous amendments that we've adopted to improve the legislation and provide for full access for journalism from indigenous communities and indigenous journalists right across the country.

I move NDP-21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather has his hand up.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am totally in favour of NDP-21. I was just going to suggest that maybe we vote on NDP-21 and that we also perhaps agree.... I think we all want to hear from Justice Cromwell next Tuesday. If we have consent to add an extra hour on Friday—we continue on the Friday meeting for three hours instead of two—we can perhaps get the bill completed this week.

After NDP-21, perhaps we could take that up, Madam Chair. That's just my suggestion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I'm going to call the vote.

Yes, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

I'm terribly sorry. I was just verifying whether or not Mr. Waugh had his hand up to speak on NDP-21.

Mr. Waugh wants to speak, Dr. Fry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Waugh.