Mr. Bittle has his hand up.
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.
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.
9:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Bittle has his hand up.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Unfortunately, we believe that this would skew deals in favour of foreign tech giants, and therefore we can't support it.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Actually, it should be LIB-3, because I've had two other amendments.
Madam Chair, this basically does two things. It removes the arbitration powers requirement to consult with the commission in the event that it's dismissing an offer. There's no reason that the independent arbitrators should be going back to the CRTC to discuss this with them. That's not how arbitration works.
The second thing is that it's not following the normal rules of arbitration. The way the bill is drafted, it is encouraging bad behaviour. The way the bill is currently drafted, if the arbitration panel dismisses an offer, they're going back and giving the same party whose offer they dismissed because it was so bad the chance to make a new offer, when normally, in that situation, the other party's offer would win.
Right now what I'm saying is that if one offer is dismissed because it violates the terms of paragraphs 39(1)(a), (b) or (c), the other party's offer should then automatically win. The arbitration panel will explain why it dismissed the offer, but it's not obligated to give that party a chance to make a new offer, because then it would be encouraging parties to do the furthest possible they can, and if it's dismissed, all they have to do is make a new offer again.
The only time there should be a new offer is if both offers are dismissed. Then, of course, the parties will have a chance to make a new offer, but not if just one is dismissed. If one is dismissed, the other party's offer wins. That's how I understand arbitration to normally work. That is my recommendation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Is there any discussion on this?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Shall clause 39 as amended carry?
(Clause 39 as amended agreed to on division)
Go ahead, Peter.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, I would like to propose that we carry clauses 40 to 44 on division if we have unanimous consent for that.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there unanimous consent? All right.
(Clauses 40 to 44 inclusive agreed to on division)
Thank you, Peter, for moving us along so nicely.
We are now going to amendment PV-6, which proposes a new clause, clause 44.1.
Is there anyone on amendment PV-6?
December 9th, 2022 / 9:20 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
Madam Chair, if I may, the amendments by the Green Party are deemed moved, so nobody needs to be here to move them.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right. Thank you.
Is there any discussion on amendment PV-6?
Shall PV-6 carry?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
No, Madam Chair, it's just defeated, unless there's someone here who's voting in favour.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I am, so it's defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
(Clauses 45 to 48 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 49)
We are on amendment NDP-27.
Peter Julian, go ahead.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
This was an amendment that was suggested by Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, which represents many of our terrific journalists right across the country.
Again, in terms of the transparency, this is another of the amendments that would help to ensure more transparency in terms of the confidential information that the parties would require, assuming, as they move through the process, the best possible outcome for local community journalists.
I move NDP-27.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there any discussion on NDP-27?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to on division)
(On clause 51)
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We are on amendment G-4.
If G-4 carries, amendments BQ-6 and CPC-26 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Is there any discussion on amendment G-4?
9:25 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Bittle has his hand up, Dr. Fry.