Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Basically, my understanding then is that you have journalists who get together and create a journalistic association. Then that association meets the requirements that are laid out in this amendment and off they go.

It's totally self-created and self-policed.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Right now the journalism sector is self-regulatory in the sense that these organizations are independent and self-regulated.

The government's position would be to not interfere in that, but rather to respect the ways that journalists choose to organize themselves.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Great, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In addition, I will add a comment on what Mr. Ripley just expressed. His explanation was right on the mark.

It is also good to know that there is no professional order of journalists. There are indeed journalistic associations. The Quebec Press Council and the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec are examples, and there may be other associations. However, journalism governs itself and respects the journalistic principles mentioned in amendment BQ‑4. Any serious journalism association would include these basic principles in its code of ethics.

So it would not be a very difficult job for the body that would be responsible for determining which association can be recognized. All it would have to do is make sure that the fundamental principles of journalism are reflected in it, and its job would be done.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

Are there any other questions on BQ-4? Seeing none, I'd like to call the vote.

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

Thank you, Dr. Fry.

As you know, the vote has been called. I think everyone would like to stay here. Maybe we need five minutes to vote on our phones, but other than that, we'll all be in the room here.

The chair is yours now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Kevin. Thank you for filling in. For whatever reason, my computer didn't seem to want to respond this morning, but it's all good now. Thanks very much.

Having said that, I think we know that we have roughly 24 minutes of bells, so we can continue on.

I'm going to move to NDP-18.

Mr. Julian, did you want to speak to that?

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

Always, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure, though I will be brief.

We've spoken to this issue, and I think the committee a number of times has intervened to improve Bill C-18 through these amendments. We have intervened to provide supports for indigenous news outlets. This is another amendment in that sense. It would ensure that indigenous news outlets are eligible for the purposes of being designated as a news business under the act if they operate in Canada and produce news content of general interest.

News content would include the requirement that the content report on, investigate or explain current issues or events of public interest. This language includes greater specificity in relation to the coverage of rights of self-government and treaty rights, which are particularly relevant, as you know, Madam Chair, to indigenous communities.

This language mirrors the language regarding the coverage of democratic institutions and processes for the purposes of recognizing non-indigenous news businesses. What NDP-18 serves to do is to incorporate that amendment into page 10, saying the following:

operates an Indigenous news outlet in Canada and 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 and treaty rights.

I move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Does anyone wish to speak? I don't see any hands in the virtual space.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm entirely in favour of the way the amendment is drafted. I have a question about where it's located.

Mr. Ripley, again, I'm hoping that I'm misreading something. If we add this as a (c) in that clause, would it mean that you have to qualify by (a), (b) and (c), and that if you don't meet the requirement of (c), you will not be considered?

Perhaps that's a stupid question.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Chair, if I may, I think it is a question of the “or” and the “and”. Right now, (a) concludes with “or”, and then you have (a) or (b). I would defer to the legislative clerk on whether he thinks there is a potential reading if the “and” in (b) is not modified to be an “or”, that you have to meet both (b) and the new (c).

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Housefather, did that satisfy you?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I guess, then, the question is for Mr. Méla.

I want to make sure that we have the right wording and we're not somehow creating that you have to meet this and not that. Some, obviously, wouldn't need this.

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

Madam Chair, I think Mr. Housefather is right to say that clause (a) has an “or” that refers to clause (b), and I think it is implicit that “or” serves all three clauses. However, if the legislative clerk proposes that a second “or” is needed, I would absolutely be in favour of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Méla.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to refer to the French version for a second, if you don't mind. In the introductory part of clause 27, it reads:

27 (1) At the request of a news business, the Commission must, by order, designate the business as eligible if it: [...]

You then have (a) and (b). If you were to add (c), it would be the equivalent of an “or”.

In French, it's clear that it's an “or”. In English, the “or” seems to apply, it says, as eligible if (a) is so and so, “or” (b). There should probably be an “or” (c) to make it more consistent with French version, if I may say so.

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

Madam Chair, may I speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Are you happy with that?

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

I just wanted to point out that this is an example where French is superior to English. So you have to improve the English a little bit to make it match the French.

The Legislative Clerk is absolutely right. He has clearly determined that the French is very precise and the English is a little less so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for that bit of mutual admiration society going on.

Go ahead, Mr. Méla.

[Philippe Méla]

If I could add something, Madam Chair, it could also be a drafting convention. Maybe the French is not much better than the English in this case. It may be just a drafting convention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Anthony, does that satisfy you in terms of understanding how that would go?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

As long as we're clear that you don't have to meet both (b) and (c), I'm fine with it. I'm looking at the French.

In the French version, it is clearly stated at the end of section 27(1): “si, selon le cas:”, meaning either.

I am not sure that it says that in the English version. That is why I asked the question. However, if Mr. Méla is satisfied, I will be too.

[Philippe Méla]

You could add an “or”.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's what I was going to say. If we add the “or”, then we're good.

Is it okay with you, Mr. Julian, that we add the extra “or”?