Tories slow down C-18 clause-by-clause consideration with amendments

The House of Commons’ Heritage Committee’s clause-by-clause review of the Online News Act on Tuesday picked up where it left off last week, bogged down with a stack of virtually identical Conservative amendments and accusations the Tories were filibustering the bill. The committee is studying the bill, which could serve as a template for countries around the world who wish to protect Canadian media from the overwhelming influence of Google Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc. The committee heard its final witnesses on Bill C-18 on Friday, and on Tuesday resumed its clause-by-clause examination of the bill, eventually passing five clauses of the proposed legislation before adjourning for the day. On Tuesday, the committee dealt with several Conservative motions to introduce quantifying measures, such as financial benchmarks or wording changes. One proposal called for changing of a clause’s wording to replace the word “any” with the word “reasonable.” That proposal, along with others, were all shot down along party lines with the Liberals and NDP voting against the Conservative amendments. Alberta Conservative MP Rachael Thomas and Ontario MP Marilyn Gladu led the questioning of Thomas Owen Ripley, associate assistant deputy minister for cultural affairs and Michel Sabbagh, director general, broadcasting, copyright, and Creative Marketplace Branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Gladu started the session with questions about the meaning of copyright, while Thomas asked whether there were benchmarks for determining whether compensation was required under copyright law. “This bill would change this and would be requiring compensation for something that is currently legal,” stated Thomas. “There is nothing in the bill that requires compensation for snippets” of information, Sabbagh responded. Thomas compared the act with Spanish legislation with regard to hyperlinks and compensation, saying Canada should “learn from the mistakes of others.” The New Democrats brought forward an amendment that passed unanimously to broaden the scope of the legislation to ensure Indigenous content and story-telling techniques are included and recognized in the legislation. The third Conservative amendment was aimed at clarifying the definition of journalistic independence. “We feel it is important because there is a growing distrust of the media in the general public,” Thomas said. “People feel media is tainted or not acting independently because of undue influence, so the definition of journalistic independence needs to be further defined. Ripley agreed there is no definition of journalistic independence in the bill as it now stands. Journalism should be independent from government and large influences like Google and Facebook,” replied Thomas. “In the bill, there is a great deal that is left to a cabinet decision, which I feel affects journalistic independence.” Gladu added to the discussion, asking Ripley whether the legislation would mean the government could decide to filter the content that gets through to the public. “There is mistrust sometimes on the far left and the far right,” Gladu said. “There’s nothing in the bill that allows the government to censor,” Ripley replied. New Democrat Peter Julian said the bill safeguards freedom of expression. “This act supports journalistic independence,” he said. “Those clauses are crystal clear.” “Now that I am saying this, I know that the far-right whacko infrastructure that leads disinformation and hate will start sending social media messages, but the reality is we have very strong media sector journalists who have a great deal of integrity and they have been attacked by the far right. The reality is there is nothing in this bill that diminishes from that strong journalistic independence.” Saskatoon Conservative MP Kevin Waugh, a former television sports journalist, said one only has to look at election-day newspapers to see all they need about the state of journalistic independence in Canada. “They are now selling the front page of newspapers on election day,” Waugh told the committee. “The line no longer exists. Advertising could never come into the newsroom, but now they are there every day. Parties can buy the front page of a newspaper.” The MPs unanimously passed a Bloc amendment to add clarification that the bill would protect not-for-profit and local media outlets. The committee then dealt with more Conservative motions, including several that were identical, except for the benchmark set for revenues from Digital News Intermediaries (DNIs). Thomas said the “definition of a DNI is unclear and is left to subjective criteria. There is a lack of clarity as DNIs have a responsibility to allow their names to be put on a list and if not, face penalties.” “Let’s be clear here that they are foreign players and (they) should be included in negotiations. Those entities should be held accountable and ensure that smaller entities are not caught up in this bill. That’s why we have added this monetary amount.” Liberal MP Chris Bittle objected to the proposed amendment. “It’s not surprising that it seems like this is a reasonable amendment, but it creates a loophole big enough for Facebook and Google to drive a truck through. The Conservative party is acting on behalf of foreign entities. The Conservatives are lining up side by side with foreign tech giants,” Bittle said. After the Conservative amendment was defeated, Thomas again asked similar questions about strategic advantage and the size of the intermediary – issues that were the aim of the previously defeated motions. The NDP’s Julian took issue with the line of questioning and the virtually identical amendments. “The Conservatives have put forward five identical amendments with only changes in the dollar amounts,” Julian said. “This is an attempt to filibuster the legislation. I don’t understand how any Member of Parliament would put forward amendments that are clearly designed to stall the legislation.” Bittle joined in the attack. “They are filibustering their own amendment,” he said. Julian then asked the Conservatives to remove their carbon copy amendments. After a rebuke from Gladu, the Conservatives agreed to remove the similarly worded amendments. The committee adjourned after roughly two hours. The date for their next meeting has not yet been determined. -Reporting by Glenn Johnson and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Tories slow down C-18 clause-by-clause consideration with amendments

News | November 22, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Tories slow down C-18 clause-by-clause consideration with amendments

News | November 22, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta considers blocking Facebook news in Australia

CMPA accuses Corus of non-compliance, seeks appeal of regulatory relief

Streamers ‘disappointed’ in five per cent base contribution requirement

CRTC grants Corus, TVA CanCon relief; other BDUs must wait

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us