Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, MP Thomas. Through the chair, the relevant provision on the value exchange is at clause 38. Clause 38 acknowledges that the value exchange goes both ways. It says: the value added, monetary and otherwise, to the news content in question by each party, as assessed in terms of their investments, expenditures and other actions in relation to that content; and then paragraph( b) of clause 38 talks about the benefits, monetary and otherwise, that each party receives from the content being made available....

Canadian Heritage committee  The example we have is that the CRTC does oversee this kind of bargaining framework in the broadcasting system. There they do have a degree of discretion, again, to manage that process. In part, the government drafted the bill as it stands because you could hypothetically have a situation in which it's very clear that one party is not interested in bargaining or one party is not interested in mediation.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, MP Waugh. Through the chair, indeed the government wanted to signal that it's not open for these processes to run on forever. That's the language about a “reasonable” period of time. It's to indicate that the CRTC is under that obligation to move things along. I would also note that the CRTC does have regulation-making powers to provide a degree of additional clarity on the process in the bill.

Canadian Heritage committee  Through the chair, thank you, MP Gladu. That is correct. To our understanding of new subclause 19(1.1), if they are on the cusp of a breakthrough in a mediation session, for example, and they need a few more days, if they are both in agreement, they could request going beyond the period specified in MP Julian's amendment.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, MP Thomas. If I've understood the question, right now the bill as drafted specifies that it's a period that the commission considers reasonable. That would be in respect of the CRTC's impression of how the mediation and bargaining sessions are going. The bill as drafted intended to leave that to the discretion of the CRTC to move things along, basically, when the CRTC was of the opinion that the parties had exhausted bargaining and exhausted mediation.

Canadian Heritage committee  I would say that there is a spectrum of consultation that the CRTC does. It could mean providing an opportunity for stakeholders to make written submissions, and then essentially the CRTC conducts a paper process based on the written submissions. A public consultation with this kind of language—“to be held at a time and place in Canada to be fixed by the commission”—is short form for saying that there must actually be a public hearing where the CRTC, in a physical place, has to conduct a hearing and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to come and make representations in person.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, MP Thomas. Through the chair, if I may, the framework as intended in the bill is again to incentivize digital news intermediaries and news businesses to come to voluntary agreements in relation to the exemption criteria. The idea is that the CRTC would assess the agreements in relation to those exemption criteria.

Canadian Heritage committee  I believe there have been suggestions put forward. I think it was CPC-12.1, for example, that had the notion of folks who wanted to have an agreement requesting an agreement. From the government's perspective, though, I think the debate that has been had in this committee is a fundamental one.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Bittle. Nothing comes to mind from a constitutional perspective. The thrust of it is similar to what we were discussing, that in essence this would result in an obligation to have an agreement with all eligible news businesses in order to benefit.

Canadian Heritage committee  The government shares that objective in that a DNI should not be able to get an exemption without having agreements in place with small independent players. In terms of the government's position, if you look at the exemption criteria, you will see that there are strong markers put there about the importance, under subparagraph 11(1)(a)(ii), of supporting the production of local news content.

Canadian Heritage committee  In short, the bill is about putting that obligation on platforms to bargain. Then the exemption criteria benefit independent local news businesses by saying that in the context of that bargaining obligation, some of that bargaining has to be with them. When the CRTC looks at all of the agreements that are being brought forward to justify an exemption, again, they have to see that “a significant portion of independent local news businesses benefit from” those agreements, and that it contributes to their sustainability.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, MP Thomas. If this amendment were to be adopted, it would in essence require platforms, as you indicate, to come to an agreement with all eligible news businesses prior to getting an exemption. It would be a major departure from the way the bill is currently structured.

Canadian Heritage committee  Again, it's as long as the CRTC is of the opinion that it is necessary for the administration of the act. A reasonable hypothetical in this kind of situation might be about the number of Canadian users that a digital news intermediary has in Canada. The digital news intermediary remains bound by PIPEDA and any obligations in that respect, and then the CRTC would remain bound by the legislation governing the public sector.

Canadian Heritage committee  Again, Mrs. Thomas, for the purposes of administering the act, from where we sit, the information that would be provided to the CRTC would be in the aggregate. I see no reason that there would be the submission of personal information.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Ms. Gladu. Offhand, I am not aware. That would be a question you would have to ask the CRTC in particular. What I would say is that the mechanism that's provided for in this piece of legislation is modelled on existing mechanisms in the Broadcasting Act as well as the Telecommunications Act, in which it is recognized that sensitive information is sometimes provided to the CRTC as the regulator to enable it to carry out its functions, and that this information should be protected accordingly.