Canadian Heritage committee  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.

Canadian Heritage committee  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—

Canadian Heritage committee  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.

Canadian Heritage committee  You are accurate, Mr. Housefather, in your description of what's taking place.

Canadian Heritage committee  The broadcast of legislative proceedings would not meet the definition of “news content”, because it has to be “reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest.” There has to be a degree of analysis or reporting on it, not simply the broadcast of live proceedings.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question. I might redirect your question to the parliamentary secretary, should he wish to speak to some of the amendments further on. It's not really my place to speak to that. With the exclusion of CBC/Radio-Canada here, I believe what's being put on the table is a more clear understanding of what condition they would be subject to if they were to participate in the regime.

Canadian Heritage committee  There would be Télé-Québec, TVO, Knowledge Network and TFO as well, so you have a handful across three provinces.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for the question. The starting point for the government is that the public broadcasters should be included, as we just discussed in the previous debate, though we wanted to recognize that provincial broadcasters are a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that's why at clause 28 and further on in the bill a mechanism is provided whereby a provincial minister can actually write to the federal minister and request that there be certain conditions put on the provincial broadcasters if they want to.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, MP Waugh. The concept of a public broadcaster recognizes that in Canada, both at the federal level and in some provinces, there have been intentional policy decisions to create broadcasters with a public media mandate, a public interest mandate. The position of the government is that they should be included to the extent that they are distributing news content.

Canadian Heritage committee  Section 28 right now speaks to subjecting public broadcasters potentially to conditions specified through regulation. The removal of clause 28, as MP Julian highlighted, would essentially move towards removing the ability to attach any conditions whatsoever to the participation of public broadcasters in the regime.

Canadian Heritage committee  Mr. Waugh, I won't speak to the PBO report that is the source of the numbers you cited. That was not a department-led initiative. The internal modelling that we did when we tabled the bill and mentioned it in our technical briefings was more around a $150-million impact. That was based on how this played out in Australia and making some assumptions about how it might play out here.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Waugh. The impact of that would be that CBC/Radio-Canada news content could be shared on dominant social media platforms without incurring the obligation to bargain. The government did consider—it's certainly a question we turned our minds to—whether CBC/Radio-Canada should be included in the regime or not.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Chair. Thank you, MP Julian, for the question. In reverse—on your second question—the provision as drafted has a degree of flexibility in it to recognize that there may be non-state entities that could still be sanctioned. Under paragraph (a) for example, you could still have the sanctioning of specific individuals or entities—news businesses—independent of where their headquarters are.

Canadian Heritage committee  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).

Canadian Heritage committee  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.