Evidence of meeting #60 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Good morning, everyone.
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to the meeting number 60 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.
Now, in keeping—
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, in the interpretation, both the English and the French are coming in at equal levels.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members attending on Zoom, you know what to do, and you know how to get into your interpretation with the little globe at the bottom of your screen. Of course, you know to mute when you are not speaking. I think muting when you're not speaking is really important, mainly because it stops this kind of feedback from happening.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Those of you on the floor, you know how to find interpretation. All comments should be addressed through the chair. In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses—officials from Heritage Canada—are present in the committee room and therefore no connection tests are needed.
Now I want to welcome the witnesses who are here to answer any technical questions. With us today are Mr. Ripley, associate assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs; Mr. Sabbagh, director general, broadcasting, copyright; Joelle Paré, acting director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Frederick Matern, manager, policy, marketplace and legislative policy.
We shall begin. The last time, if I recall, Mr. Champoux had withdrawn his amendment BQ-9, and we are now going to the question—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
It was amendment BQ-5, yes. I'm sorry.
Shall clause 31 as amended carry?
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 32 agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Now we have new clause 32.1, and under that we have amendment NDP-22.
Peter Julian, go ahead.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to folks for moving along in terms of clauses. That's very helpful, so we can spend more time on the amendments and less time on voting on each of the clauses.
Amendment NDP-22 was suggested by FRIENDS, which is a national organization that provides a lot of support for CBC and public broadcasting. This is an issue of ensuring transparency and ensuring that there's more information available, which will help to improve the calibre of the agreements that are signed and the ability, of course, particularly of smaller news organizations or, as we saw in the Australian model, organizations like Country Press Australia, which groups together dozens of small newspapers across Australia. Having that information is a very important aspect of ensuring there is a level playing field for negotiations with big tech....
What this amendment would seek to do is ensure that a copy of the agreement is filed within 30 days of the date an eligible news business enters into an agreement or 30 days after the day on which an arbitration panel makes a decision, and that the commission would publish that agreement on its website as well. So it ensures more transparency and it ensures the ability of particularly the small players to know the extent of agreements that are being signed, so that they can more effectively negotiate as well.
With that noted, I move amendment NDP-22.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
I have a question for the mover. I'm wondering whether, for those agreements that have already been entered into prior to this legislation coming into place, they would be expected to then make them known and, if so, how they would meet that 30-day criterion.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That is a very good question. I'll actually turn to Mr. Ripley for his interpretation of that clause.
Thank you for the question.
Thomas Owen Ripley Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, MP Thomas.
My reading of the proposed amendment would be that it would likely apply only to agreements moving forward, because the proposed amendment is circumscribed by eligible news businesses. Right now, in any agreements that are in place, there's been no designation of any eligible news businesses, so my read is that as it is drafted, it would apply only on a carry-forward basis.
Liberal
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
My only statement would be that I see a privacy issue here. Normally, commercial agreements wouldn't be published. We'll be voting against.
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Just very quickly, I think we spoke to this at the last meeting in terms of amendments brought by Mr. Julian, which, though well intentioned, go against what we think one of the main purposes of the bill is, which is to regulate foreign tech giants and not news organizations. I agree with Mrs. Thomas that this is private information between two private organizations.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
Is there any further discussion?
Shall amendment NDP-22 carry?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Actually, Madam Chair, I think it's pretty clear that I don't have a majority on this, so I would accept that it's defeated on division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
(Amendment negatived on division)
(On clause 33)
Now we'll go to clause 33 and amendment NDP-23.
Peter, go ahead
