Bill C-18

Online News Act

An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada

This enactment regulates digital news intermediaries to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contribute to its sustainability. It establishes a framework through which digital news intermediary operators and news businesses may enter into agreements respecting news content that is made available by digital news intermediaries. The framework takes into account principles of freedom of expression and journalistic independence.
The enactment, among other things,
(a) applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to specific factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those factors;
(c) specifies that the enactment does not apply in respect of “broadcasting” by digital news intermediaries that are “broadcasting undertakings” as those terms are defined in the Broadcasting Act or in respect of telecommunications service providers as defined in the Telecommunications Act ;
(d) requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) to maintain a list of digital news intermediaries in respect of which the enactment applies;
(e) requires the Commission to exempt a digital news intermediary from the application of the enactment if its operator has entered into agreements with news businesses and the Commission is of the opinion that the agreements satisfy certain criteria;
(f) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting how the Commission is to interpret those criteria and setting out additional conditions with respect to the eligibility of a digital news intermediary for an exemption;
(g) establishes a bargaining process in respect of matters related to the making available of certain news content by digital news intermediaries;
(h) establishes eligibility criteria and a designation process for news businesses that wish to participate in the bargaining process;
(i) requires the Commission to establish a code of conduct respecting bargaining in relation to news content;
(j) prohibits digital news intermediary operators from acting, in the course of making available certain news content, in ways that discriminate unjustly, that give undue or unreasonable preference or that subject certain news businesses to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage;
(k) allows certain news businesses to make complaints to the Commission in relation to that prohibition;
(l) authorizes the Commission to require the provision of information for the purpose of exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions under the enactment;
(m) requires the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide the Commission with an annual report if the Corporation is a party to an agreement with an operator;
(n) establishes a framework respecting the provision of information to the responsible Minister, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, while permitting an individual or entity to designate certain information that they submit to the Commission as confidential;
(o) authorizes the Commission to impose, for contraventions of the enactment, administrative monetary penalties on certain individuals and entities and conditions on the participation of news businesses in the bargaining process;
(p) establishes a mechanism for the recovery, from digital news intermediary operators, of certain costs related to the administration of the enactment; and
(q) requires the Commission to have an independent auditor prepare a report annually in respect of the impact of the enactment on the Canadian digital news marketplace.
Finally, the enactment makes related amendments to other Acts.

Online Harms Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we must protect Canadians in the digital age, but Bill C-63 is not the way to do it. It would force Canadians to make unnecessary trade-offs between the guarantee of their security and their charter rights. Today I will explain why Bill C-63 is deeply flawed and why it would not protect Canadians' rights sufficiently. More importantly, I will present a comprehensive alternative plan that is more respectful of Canadians' charter rights and would provide immediate protections for Canadians facing online harms.

The core problem with Bill C-63 is how the government has changed and chosen to frame the myriad harms that occur in the digital space as homogenous and as capable of being solved with one approach or piece of legislation. In reality, harms that occur online are an incredibly heterogenous set of problems requiring a multitude of tailored solutions. It may sound like the former might be more difficult to achieve than the latter, but this is not the case. It is relatively easy to inventory the multitudes of problems that occur online and cause Canadians harm. From there, it should be easy to sort out how existing laws and regulatory processes that exist for the physical world could be extended to the digital world.

There are few, if any, examples of harms that are being caused in digital spaces that do not already have existing relatable laws or regulatory structures that could be extended or modified to cover them. Conversely, what the government has done for nearly a decade is try to create new, catch-all regulatory, bureaucratic and extrajudicial processes that would adapt to the needs of actors in the digital space instead of requiring them to adapt to our existing laws. All of these attempts have failed to become law, which is likely going to be the fate of Bill C-63.

This is a backward way of looking at things. It has caused nearly a decade of inaction on much-needed modernization of existing systems and has translated into law enforcement's not having the tools it needs to prevent crime, which in turn causes harm to Canadians. It has also led to a balkanization of laws and regulations across Canadian jurisdictions, a loss of investment due to the uncertainty, and a lack of coordination with the international community. Again, ultimately, it all harms Canadians.

Bill C-63 takes the same approach by listing only a few of the harms that happen in online spaces and creates a new, onerous and opaque extrajudicial bureaucracy, while creating deep problems for Canadian charter rights. For example, Bill C-63 would create a new “offence motivated by a hatred” provision that could see a life sentence applied to minor infractions under any act of Parliament, a parasitic provision that would be unchecked in the scope of the legislation. This means that words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government has attempted to argue that this is not the case, saying that a serious underlying act would have to occur for the provision to apply, that is simply not how the bill is written. I ask colleagues to look at it. The bill seeks to amend section 320 of the Criminal Code, and reads, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

At the justice committee earlier this year, the minister stated:

...the new hate crime offence captures any existing offence if it was hate-motivated. That can run the gamut from a hate-motivated theft all the way to a hate-motivated attempted murder. The sentencing range entrenched in Bill C-63 was designed to mirror the existing...options for all of these potential underlying offences, from the most minor to the most serious offences on the books....

The minister continued, saying, “this does not mean that minor offences will suddenly receive...harsh sentences. However, sentencing judges are required to follow legal principles, and “hate-motivated murder will result in a life sentence. A minor infraction will...not result in it.”

In this statement, the minister admitted both that the new provision could be applied to any act of Parliament, as the bill states, and that the government would be relying upon the judiciary to ensure that maximum penalties were not levelled against a minor infraction. Parliament cannot afford the government to be this lazy, and by that I mean not spelling out exactly what it intends a life sentence to apply to in law, as opposed to handing a highly imperfect judiciary an overbroad law that could have extreme, negative consequences.

Similarly, a massive amount of concern from across the political spectrum has been raised regarding Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, calling it a pre-crime provision for speech. This is highly problematic because it would explicitly extend the power to issue peace bonds to crimes of speech, which the bill does not adequately define, nor does it provide any assurance that it would meet a criminal standard for hate.

Equally as concerning is that Bill C-63 would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. This process would be extrajudicial, not subject to the same evidentiary standards of a criminal court, and could take years to resolve. Findings would be based on a mere balance of probabilities rather than on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The subjectivity of defining hate speech would undoubtedly lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints would chill large amounts of protected speech, and the system would undoubtedly be deluged with a landslide of vexatious complaints. There certainly are no provisions in the bill to prevent any of this from happening.

Nearly a decade ago, even the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought, wrote a scathing opinion piece opposing these types of provisions. The same principle should apply today. When the highly problematic components of the bill are overlaid upon the fact that we are presently living under a government that unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act and that routinely gaslights Canadians who legitimately question efficacy or the morality of its policies as spreading misinformation, as the Minister of Justice did in his response to my question, saying that I had mis-characterized the bill, it is not a far leap to surmise that the new provision has great potential for abuse. That could be true for any political stripe that is in government.

The government's charter compliance statement, which is long and vague and has only recently been issued, should raise concerns for parliamentarians in this regard, as it relies on this statement: “The effects of the Bill on freedom expression are outweighed by the benefits of protecting members of vulnerable groups”. The government has already been found to have violated the Charter in the case of Bill C-69 for false presumptions on which one benefit outweighs others. I suspect this would be the same case for Bill C-63 should it become law, which I hope it does not.

I believe in the capacity of Canadians to express themselves within the bounds of protected speech and to maintain the rule of law within our vibrant pluralism. Regardless of political stripe, we must value freedom of speech and due process, because they are what prevents violent conflict. Speech already has clearly defined limitations under Canadian law. The provisions in Bill C-63 that I have just described are anathema to these principles. To be clear, Canadians should not be expected to have their right to protected speech chilled or limited in order to be safe online, which is what Bill C-63 would ask of them.

Bill C-63 would also create a new three-headed, yet-to-exist bureaucracy. It would leave much of the actual rules the bill describes to be created and enforced under undefined regulations by said bureaucracy at some much later date in the future. We cannot wait to take action in many circumstances. As one expert described it to me, it is like vaguely creating an outline and expecting bureaucrats, not elected legislators, to colour in the picture behind closed doors without any accountability to the Canadian public.

The government should have learned from the costs associated with failing when it attempted the same approach with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, but alas, here we are. The new bureaucratic process would be slow, onerous and uncertain. If the government proceeds with it, it means Canadians would be left without protection, and innovators and investors would be left without the regulatory certainty needed to grow their businesses.

It would also be costly. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct an analysis of the costs associated with the creation of the bureaucracy, and he has agreed to undertake the task. No parliamentarian should even consider supporting the bill without understanding the resources the government intends to allocate to the creation of the new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsman and digital safety office, particularly since the findings in this week's damning NSICOP report starkly outlined the opportunity cost of the government failing to allocate much needed resources to the RCMP.

Said differently, if the government cannot fund and maintain the critical operations of the RCMP, which already has the mandate to enforce laws related to public safety, then Parliament should have grave, serious doubts about the efficacy of its setting up three new bureaucracies to address issues that could likely be managed by existing regulatory bodies like the CRTC or in the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Also, Canadians should have major qualms about creating new bureaucracies which would give power to well-funded and extremely powerful big tech companies to lobby and manipulate regulations to their benefit behind the scenes and outside the purview of Parliament.

This approach would not necessarily protect Canadians and may create artificial barriers to entry for new innovative industry players. The far better approach would be to adapt and extend long-existing laws and regulatory systems, properly resource their enforcement arms, and require big tech companies and other actors in the digital space to comply with these laws, not the other way around. This approach would provide Canadians with real protections, not what amounts to a new, ineffectual complaints department with a high negative opportunity cost to Canadians.

In no scenario should Parliament allow the government to entrench in legislation a power for social media companies to be arbiters of speech, which Bill C-63 risks doing. If the government wishes to further impose restrictions on Canadians' rights to speech, that should be a debate for Parliament to consider, not for regulators and tech giants to decide behind closed doors and with limited accountability to the public.

In short, this bill is completely flawed and should be abandoned, particularly given the minister's announcement this morning that he is unwilling to proceed with any sort of change to it in scope.

However, there is a better way. There is an alternative, which would be a more effective and more quickly implementable plan to protect Canadians' safety in the digital age. It would modernize existing laws and processes to align with digital advancements. It would protect speech not already limited in the Criminal Code, and would foster an environment for innovation and investment in digital technologies. It would propose adequately resourcing agencies with existing responsibilities for enforcing the law, not creating extrajudicial bureaucracies that would amount to a complaints department.

To begin, the RCMP and many law enforcement agencies across the country are under-resourced after certain flavours of politicians have given much more than a wink and a nod to the “defund the police” movement for over a decade. This trend must immediately be reversed. Well-resourced and well-respected law enforcement is critical to a free and just society.

Second, the government must also reform its watered-down bail policies, which allow repeat offenders to commit crimes over and over again. Criminals in the digital space will never face justice, no matter what laws are passed, if the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies are not reversed. I think of a woman in my city of Calgary who was murdered in broad daylight in front of an elementary school because her spouse was subject to the catch-and-release Liberal bail policy, in spite of his online harassment of her for a very long time.

Third, the government must actually enforce—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.

Before I let you go, I do have a question. I'm going to pose this question to all three of you, but I'm going to direct it first at Mr. Frank. It dealt with your comment earlier in your testimony about trusted, credible sources of news being lost.

There was a time, Mr. Frank—and all of you know—that trusted news sources, whether it was anchor people or news people, were the go-to places for trusted sources. Now with social media, the difficulty is in finding those trusted sources.

It's even more difficult now, because there's a standoff going on right now—I'm sure you're all aware—between Facebook and the government as it relates to Bill C-18. Facebook, for many Canadians, is a source of information, but they have made the decision that they're not going to allow the sharing of links on their platform from dailies like The Globe and Mail and others. Paywall notwithstanding, I'm interested in hearing from each of you how this situation is playing out to allow further disinformation or misinformation—I call it lies—to be propagated on social media without access to these credible sources for all this information that is clearly fact-checked, that is clearly vetted through legal departments. If that information is not available on Facebook, how much impact does that have on people's abilities to get the right information?

I'll start with you, Mr. Frank, and then I will work around to Mr. Loewen and Mr. Al-Rawi.

[Patrick White]

Canada is already working hard with what it did with Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 for Canadian content, and with Bill C-63 it's going to fight misinformation and contenu préjudiciable as well. Are we doing enough? Probably not, but AI is an opportunity as well as a threat.

As far as deepfakes are concerned, I would strongly urge the government to legislate on that matter within the next 12 to 18 months, especially on deepfake videos and deepfake audio, as well, which you mentioned.

We have a lot to work on in the next 12 months on that issue, taking into context the upcoming federal election in Canada.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bibic, you can be faulted for many things, but I don't think your support for Bill C-11 or Bill C-18 can be counted among them. You talked about the importance of the transition you're making to a digital company, and I think part of the work that we're doing, as a government, is to support that.

The work our government is doing and the support we have given to news media across this country is not intended for you to pay further benefits to your shareholders and senior executives.

Mr. Bibic, do you know who Scott Roberts is?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Do you support Bill C-18, the Online News Act?

Government Responses to Order Paper Questions

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I support this question of privilege in light of the violation of government's obligation to answer an Order Paper question, but I also add to it, considering how the government has taken steps to take control of the Internet in Canada.

It has done this through legislation like Bill C-11, which centralizes regulatory control of what Canadians can see, hear and post online based on what the government deems “Canadian”.

In addition, I highlight Bill C-18, which has resulted in the government being one of the biggest gatekeepers of news in Canada. This is a major conflict of interest and a direct attack on journalistic integrity in this country.

Now, most recently, through Bill C-63, the government proposes to establish an entire commission, yet another arm of the government, that would regulate online harm.

How can Canadians trust the government to police various aspects of the Internet if it cannot even be honest and tell the truth about the content requested to be taken down? Trust is pinnacle and frankly the government has not earned any of it. The truth must prevail.

Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to look into this and to get to the bottom of it, or you can keep us in the dark and allow secrecy and injustice to reign. I understand that you are the one to make this decision, and we are putting our trust in you to make sure that this place is upheld and democracy is kept strong.

[Charlene Lavallee, President, Association of Métis, Non and Status Indians Saskatchewan]

Hello. My name is Charlene Lavallee. I'm the president of the Association of Métis, Non and Status Indians Saskatchewan.

We have community charters across the province in several different areas on the northwest side of Saskatchewan, which is very remote, and in northeast Saskatchewan, which is even more remote. Then, if we move into our urban centres, we cover all the urban centres in Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan includes in its treaty territory treaties 8, 10, 6, 7, 4, 2 and 5. Saskatchewan is also the home of the Métis.

AMNSIS is not part of the distinctions-based groups. We are an organization under the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We have been involved with the MMIWG national round table since 2016. Up until February of this year, we were involved. Then there was a meeting this February that we were not invited to attend personally.

With regard to the red dress alert, I'd like to thank MP Leah Gazan for putting this forward. I listened in on the communication on Tuesday. It was more about the processes of an alert system, and it was really interesting to hear how quickly it could be onboarded and started.

One of the hardest things that has happened for MMIWG has been Bill C-18. Many of our people get their news from social media. News not being allowed any longer on social media has led to a large void in sharing information about people who have recently gone missing.

There are a couple of things I'd like to touch on. This red dress alert and everything attached to MMIWG need to be indigenous-led and need to include all indigenous people in Canada. The current distinctions-based policy identifying organizations is unconstitutional. The Constitution of Canada mentions, in section 35, our first nations, Inuit and Métis. The Daniels decision also included non-status peoples in section 35. Section 35 does not mention the AFN, the ITK and the MNC.

Right now, the distinctions-based approach is the approach this government is using. It's leaving out all the non-status peoples, and it takes away my freedom of choice, which I am supposed to have under the Charter of Rights and under UNDRIP. It is choosing to only work with certain groups. Again, indigenous people, primarily women, are being left out of processes that could save their lives.

All aspects of the MMIWG calls for justice need to be inclusive of all indigenous groups. They should not be political, and the processes need to be nationally streamlined by indigenous organizations.

Policing has not always worked in favour of vulnerable indigenous people, and neither have government agencies, like social workers. When considering all of these factors, we have always said that policing has been a big part of the problem. I think those things need to be heard.

Are you waving your hand at me?

[Sarah Andrews]

Definitely.

I think, first of all, there aren't just subsidies. When we talk about government and parliamentary intervention, we're also talking about actions that have already been taken, like Bill C-18, for example, which does not provide a subsidy from the government; it is in fact the government intervening and correcting an imbalance in the market. I think it's very important to look at where we can intervene with the tools in our tool box, and not provide a direct subsidy but sort of correct those market imbalances.

As I mentioned in my remarks, closing the loophole in the Income Tax Act is one of those opportunities, and we're very happy to hear that the heritage minister is taking a further look into that.

Of course, I come back to the CBC, the public broadcaster. The parliamentary appropriation is such an important part of the CBC's budget. In fact, we at Friends of Canadian Media would advocate that the CBC be fully funded by the parliamentary appropriation at some point in time.

I was glad to hear from Mrs. Henley. I completely agree that we need to have the mandate review for the CBC. We're very much looking forward to the work of the advisory committee in the next little while, to see how we can get the CBC to be the best it can be and make the most out of that parliamentary appropriation.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Is Bill C‑11 moving forward as fast as you would like?

[Scott Hutton]

We had additional resources to implement Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, on news content. It's been an enormous amount of work. Our new president and we are prioritizing these major files, and we're putting all our efforts behind implementing these bills.

If we're talking about Bill C‑11, I think it was enacted in April. Within a few weeks, we made sure we had launched four proceedings based on which—

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

The problem with Bill C-18 is that legacy media has the say. They want to shut you down. They want to shut down new digital platforms. They want all the money, and when Bill C-18 happened, you were affected. You didn't say much, but all the legacy.... The Toronto Star had a side deal with Google prior to Bill C-18. Now they're maybe not going to get as much money as they had hoped, because with Google, $100 million.... Maybe it's $75 million.

There still could be side deals, but I think for people in this country, trust has been the issue. They're looking for news outside the legacy media. You've proven it. You were in legacy and you went from Smithers to the biggest market. You took the gamble. There are others in this country taking the gamble like you did and who I believe are being held back.

[Brandon Gonez]

Yes.

One thing we found that was so fascinating about the digital landscape was that we didn't look at what we were doing as a Canadian thing. We thought that with our stories, we connected with support globally. I thought that was really fascinating.

What we have in this country is such a unique situation. You can have somebody who looks like me and whose parents were immigrants...and now I've been able to start something super successful and to start to hire people who didn't have a safe place in some of these other newsrooms across the country.

I also understand a hundred per cent of the intent behind Bill C-18. I know what crisis has taken place. As I said, I've worked in the second-smallest market in this country: Smithers, a town of 5,000. I've also worked in the largest city, and I know what's happening. There is a deep need for a strong public broadcaster and for sustaining a diverse range of media voices, but it shouldn't come as a hindrance to people who took a risk in this country to create a new ecosystem, to create new opportunities and to give voices to people who were left out of the conversation.

That was always my fear about Bill C-18, potentially. How it was executed wasn't the right way. The intent, yes, I understand, but how it was executed severely affected people who were creating a whole new format that potentially could have been replicated across the world.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Gonez, you started out here today by saying that you had massive losses because of Bill C-18 being passed. Not one member of the government has talked about this here today. You lost because of Bill C-18.

Can you comment on what you lost with Bill C-18's passing last June as far as money goes, as far as staff goes and as far as the vision for your company goes?

[Brandon Gonez]

I understand the intent of Bill C-18. We're all hearing, obviously, about the crisis that's unfolding, and of course, we don't want to lose any more journalism in this country. Any way to sustain that is a good thing. I always believe that an expanded industry is a better industry because the more stories that are being told, the better for all of us.

It's unfortunate, though, that with the implementation of this bill, one of the largest tech giants, which owns two of the biggest social platforms that each and every one of us in this room uses.... We are no longer on those platforms, so what is on those platforms? If the mission was to stop or try to slow down the amount of disinformation out there, it's only gotten worse because trustworthy folks are no longer on there.

When I look at this, I say thank goodness Google didn't walk away from the table, or else all of us would have been effed. I don't mean to use that lightly, but it is the truth. Thank goodness Google did stay at the table, and I truly hope that Meta comes to its senses and comes back to the table.

If there are new funds coming into the ecosystem, I truly hope that everybody in this room will advocate for the people who took a risk to create innovation in this country so they will have a specific stream allotted to them where they can access some of those funds to continue to do the amazing work they're doing. I also hope that everybody in this room will advocate for racialized owners of media in this country so they also have access to a specific stream to continue to do the fine work and the hard work they're doing to tell the stories that they've been left out of.

I want everybody to understand that even before this crisis was unfolding, we had problems in the legacy sector. We had problems with diversity. We had problems with the diversity of storytelling. That's not to diminish the hard work of everyday journalists across this country, but we have to acknowledge the gaps that need to be filled. People like me took a risk and said that we were going to leave this legacy sector and try to fill those gaps, and we were doing a darned good job. It really is unfortunate, because I believe that if this block didn't happen, we probably would be about 50% bigger than we were before it happened.

We can't go back in time. The bill is here and I'm a realist. However, what we can do is try to, again, make people who have been affected whole. We can also try to foster an ecosystem where we can see other players, like GMI, emerge across this country in places like B.C. and Saskatchewan, in provinces that suffer from news deserts. Also, hopefully, we can have less impact...to what's happening in the legacy sector. I just don't want digital-first voices to be left out of the conversation, because we have been the most severely impacted by all of what's been transpiring.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Gonez.

Mr. Gonez, you started out serving in legacy media. You then left and started something on your own. It's been very successful. You're digitally-based. I believe you've hired 10 employees, if I read that correctly. Obviously diversity is something very important to you. Clearly you have an audience, so you've gained the trust of the Canadian public—kudos to you.

Your company seems to be going in the opposite direction of the legacy media. This government made the determination to go ahead with Bill C-18 even though it knew that the bill, supposedly for the benefit of legacy media, was to the detriment of digital media providers like you.

You just made a statement that, because of the legislation, Bill C-18, your revenue has gone down by 40%. That's a pretty big cut. Obviously what that represents is not just a financial cut to your company. It also means that Canadians aren't able to access the news they want to access, which is, of course, to their detriment.

My question for you is this. Clearly Bill C-18 didn't work and isn't working, so what is the answer to make sure that Canadians have access to quality news and independent journalism in a sustained fashion going forward?

[Brandon Gonez, Chief Executive Officer, Gonez Media Inc.]

Thank you.

As a little background about me, I'm a former broadcaster. I used to work for Bell Media and Corus Entertainment. I started my career in the second-smallest market in this country, in northwestern British Columbia, in the town of Smithers. Before leaving mainstream media, I worked for Bell Media in the largest market in this country, in Toronto.

I have a unique experience working for our largest broadcasters in this country, but I also have a unique experience because I left, in the midst of the pandemic, to start my own digital media company, called Gonez Media. Since then, we've acquired legacy publications and turned them digital. We have a team of nearly 20 folks. More than half are journalists, with many of them coming from legacy organizations, having been laid off and severely impacted by the media crisis.

I want to talk about the impact of legislation on this country, particularly Bill C-18. As a digital-first media company, we never asked for this legislation. We found a new model that worked for us, that was sustainable and that was providing new opportunities, especially for journalists of colour in this country, who for far too long have been told that they don't belong in newsrooms across this country or who have experienced discrimination and racism. We changed that model, and we're now one of Canada's fastest-growing online media companies.

When Bill C-18 came about, we were severely impacted. We lost our pages on Meta-owned platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, which were literally the platforms we built our business model on. Our revenue impact was a more than 40% loss. We were at risk of literally doing the exact same thing that legacy media companies had done to our staff.

One of the issues I have in particular is that the heritage minister at the time was quoted as saying that media companies affected by this block would be made whole. We have not been made whole. In fact, we have had to be agile, to innovate and to find new ways to sustain our business and our model.

One thing I would like everybody here to really focus on is that a lot of digital-first media companies are really agile. They don't have the resources to hire lobbyists to be here in Ottawa to advocate for them like legacy media companies do. When we and this government are approaching tech giants for funds, coming from the legacy sector, I do understand the importance of supporting that. I think there is an ecosystem that can sustain all different facets of media. However, if you're trying to draw money from tech giants and the bulk of that money is going to legacy companies that didn't adapt and build a business model that can be sustained in this current environment, and then you're leaving digital-first companies on the sidelines, that doesn't make sense.

What I've always wanted is for Canada to be a leader in the world, to foster a whole new ecosystem where we can have digital-first companies providing news, entertainment and culture content right to Canadians, right to their fingertips, using the devices they use. Everybody in this room has a cellphone. We found a way to create, in a different medium, the exact same content my peers have been doing for years and found a way to do it sustainably and profitably, creating a growth industry.

Th legislation put forth and the rules around it have literally harnessed and chained us, and it's really disappointing because a lot of digital-first companies are led by people who look like me—people of colour—and women. I can tell you we are one of the larger organizations, but when I talk to my peers, whose companies are a lot smaller, I hear they are at the brink of closing their doors, meaning we are going to be left with an ecosystem of companies that are living only because of government funding.

Before this legislation came into place, we did not accept one dollar from the government. We did not apply for any of that. We were sustainable and profitable.

[Sue Gardner]

I did not write that article to support you, but yes, there were a number of people—me included—who did think Bill C-18 was misguided from the get-go, for many different reasons. I think I said early on, as a lot of people said early on, that Facebook was not bluffing; Facebook was going to stay out. They did stay out, and that reduces Canadians' access to news.

Bill C-18 will not bring into the industry the money it was originally predicted it would bring into the industry. I think one of the estimates was $100 million from Google, minus whatever administrative costs are involved with that and minus whatever the value of the deal is they currently have, which people are guessing is something like $25 million.

It's going to bring in a bit of money to the industry but nothing on the scale of what was originally envisioned. The cost of it is very real. People here have alluded to the idea that Facebook is a wasteland. Well, that is part of why Facebook is a wasteland, if in fact it is. They felt they had no choice. If you want to see less of something, you tax it, and Bill C-18 brought you less of things for that reason.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Let me add this. Statistics Canada released today that 13% of English speakers have a high trust in media and 23% French speakers.

Anyway, in June, when Bill C-18 passed, I knew right away that Bell Media was going to cut. I'd worked for them. I knew their strategy. That same day, they went to the CRTC and said they wanted out of local news. It was that same day. I was criticized by the Bloc in the House for that comment. When I went out, I explained my position on Bill C-18 with the three or four cameras outside the House.

Mr. Champoux took a shot at me in the House about Bell Media. Ms. Gardner, you support me. You made a comment here that Bill C-18 would also reduce Canadians' access to journalism. Bill C-18 was a bad idea from the start.

Can you expand on the article you wrote to support me in June when I predicted that Bell Media would no longer exist?

[Colette Brin]

Young people consume social media because they grew up with social media and digital media. They never knew the era when television, print media and radio were the main sources of information. Social media make up the environment their generation lives in. So it is entirely to be expected that they will turn to those platforms.

When we talk about assessing the reliability of information, the Digital News Report survey we did shows that the youngest adults distinguish very much among the sources or platforms where they consume information. Older adults themselves have retained their trust in the traditional media.

We have to take notice of this. We must not blame young people or point fingers at them. Instead, we have to understand their reality. I have two children who are young adults, and I ask them about how they get information and their relationship with the information on these platforms. I think people really can use non-traditional platforms critically and intelligently. So the problem is not the platforms.

The behaviour of corporations like Meta when it comes to information is problematic. I think Meta's response to Bill C‑18 was extreme and problematic. I say that with all due respect for the Conservative member. These platforms also have a very useful role to play in democratic life. It is not all black or all white.

[Jen Gerson]

There are two points I would make in response to that question.

The first is that if we're sitting here at the heritage committee deciding who's going to cover the drink tab of the national forum, I'm all for it. If you're going to have a collection of journalists, we would expect an open bar.

Second, if I'm the federal government and I'm concerned about the democratic deficit this country is facing as a result of a decline in media or the collapse of the business model in media, I already have two extremely big sticks that I can use to start to bring things into a more proper balance without talking about Bill C-18, without talking about Bill C-11, without talking about new legislation and without necessarily talking about new funding from taxpayers.

The first stick is the CBC, and I believe Ms. Lindgren already made this point. If we are concerned about local news and we're concerned about news deserts, it seems to me that the place where the federal government already has an enormous impact on this industry is through public media.

I had some very interesting conversations with Conservatives, who are very angry with the CBC and perceive the CBC to be very biased, which is—rightly or wrongly—where I think a lot of Canadians are positioned across the political spectrum. I think the CBC in its current formation can't serve the function it needs to serve to try to fix a lot of the democratic deficits we're facing.

I think you need to look at a fundamental reimagining of what the CBC is, and also to reimagine it as a much more locally focused news outlet, potentially one that is not competing with private outlets and potentially one that has, for example, mandated reporters in every town of about 100,000 people. It's potentially a CBC that sees itself less as a private broadcast competitor and more as a public library of journalism. It may be a CBC that sees itself as providing news, video and audiovisual content to all Canadians to do with as they wish so they can use that to create their own local journalism practices, podcasts and so on. I think there is an obvious place for the federal government to focus its energy here.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time to be with us today. Some of you, I know, came on quite short notice, so we very much appreciate the efforts you've put into arriving.

My first question has to do with some of the things we've observed of late—just in the last few days. We know that Bell made the determination to lay off about 4,800 employees and that they purported to make this decision based on government regulations. Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 were detrimental to them, but so was the requirement to share spectrum they had built infrastructure for. The policies that came from the federal government were actually incredibly harmful, not only to Bell but also to the news industry. We know that 600 of those employees were journalists.

That being the case, here today we're discussing the federal government extending its hand again by being involved in a forum—or at least the terms of a forum—and whether or not it would be appropriate for news outlets to host such a thing. It seems like a bizarre question to me that the government would somehow determine whether or not it is even appropriate for news businesses to meet, as if it's the government's decision. Why can't news businesses meet all on their own accord, have a fruitful discussion and, should they wish to, invite government stakeholders to the table to listen to what they have to say?

Nevertheless, I would also highlight the detrimental effect Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 have had. Bill C-11, of course, built walls around digital first creators. To the point raised by Ms. Gardner and Ms. Gerson—and I believe one other witness raised this point as well—really, so many people are obtaining their news from digital first creators and digital platforms. Through Bill C-11, walls have been built around them, therefore stifling their reach. Furthermore, Bill C-18 has prevented Canadians from being able to access news. It has not generated more for the public good. Rather, it has taken away from the public good.

Further to that, what was supposed to be about $300 million to $350 million given to the news industry to help prop them up, and in particular was touted as something that would support newspapers.... In fact, Facebook said no to being regulated. Then Google went behind a closed door with the government, entered into a shady backroom deal, actually got an exemption from Bill C-18 and instead created some other contractual deal in which they're giving $100 million to the news media of, really, their choice. Further to that, the $100 million isn't actually a full $100 million because supposedly $25 million of that was already granted, so it's really only a new $75 million. All of that is to say there's been a lot of over-promising and under-delivering when the government gets involved.

My question will be for Ms. Gerson first. If the government is not to be involved—I believe I've laid out a few points as to why that would be a bad idea—then what are the alternatives so the news industry in Canada has longevity?

[Sue Gardner, McConnell Professor of Practice (2021-22), Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual]

My name is Sue Gardner. I am the former head of CBC.ca, the English language website of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am also the former head of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the San Francisco-based 501(c)(3) non-profit that operates Wikipedia. I have been dabbling recently in public policy, including a recent stint as the McConnell professor of practice at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University.

Further contextualizing myself, I started my career three decades ago as a journalist. I've worked in radio, television, print and online. I've been a practitioner. I was a working journalist for a long time. I was also a boss of journalists, and a critic and observer of the news media.

I have researched and written pretty extensively about public media specifically in Canada and elsewhere around the world. I have been working in the digital realm since about 1999, and very much my whole career has been part of what we sometimes call the digital transition. So that's me.

I am here representing only myself. I see your role as trying to advance the public interest, and I see my role as trying to help you do that.

You are here, I think, considering whether to provide support or encouragement to the news industry to stage a forum of some kind on the news media—what it needs in light of the crisis. I want to start by agreeing that there is a crisis, and I think you have a role to play in helping to solve it.

I have three quick thoughts for you on how I think you can approach that. This is in the nature of opening remarks, so my goal here is to lay out areas that maybe we would want to talk more about.

First, I think whatever you end up doing, it's really critical for you to be extremely precise about the nature of the problem you are trying to solve. I think the problem is not that legacy media organizations are having difficulty or are going out of business, and I think the problem is not that journalists don't have enough job security or cannot pay their rent or their mortgages.

The way I see it, the problem is that this country right now is not producing enough depth and breadth of journalism to the point where the citizenry can be appropriately informed and power can be appropriately held to account. That's the problem that I think you should be aiming to try to solve. How do you support the conditions in which good journalism can be made?

Second, I've had the sense that the digital policy that's been developed over the last couple of years has been driven perhaps too much by the needs and interests of industry. I decided to run the numbers to see if my sense of that was correct, and I think I am right. I looked at the current Parliament witness appearances to this committee, and by my count 77% of those appearances have been people who represent industry or industry workers. That's people who represent media companies, unions, trade associations and professional associations.

If you look at the Senate committee, you see their numbers are pretty similar, and if you look at lobbyist communications with the heritage department, those numbers are also pretty similar. I have the sense, from watching your previous meetings, that you may have general agreement that you should stay out of the driver's seat and should let the news media drive when it comes to solving these problems.

I want to inject a note of caution into that. I can see why you would believe that—to let the experts handle things—but I think it is actually a mistake, because I think you have different roles and you have different goals. If the industry leads, it is going to centre its own interests, and that is not what you want. What you want is to centre the public interest, so it's important that you guys keep the authority to do that. I think it's your job.

My last point is that until pretty recently, it's been the case that digital players have been largely invisible to you, and vice versa. I feel like we saw this in the Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 hearings, where digital first creators were turning up at committee meetings for the very first time.

During the current Parliament, by my count, only 12% of witness appearances to this committee have been digital players. What that means is people from companies like Google, Netflix and Apple, digital first creators, people who do YouTube and Twitch, academics who study digital stuff and people from digital-focused civil society organizations like OpenMedia or the Internet Society. That's a lot of people and that's a broad array of digital players, but all of them put together count up to only 12% of the people who have come to speak with you here.

I would urge you, when you're considering these questions, to rebalance where you're putting your attention.

I'm going to wrap it up there. I look forward to your questions.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, both here and online.

The first question is for all three groups.

I've been here since 2016, and during that time I've seen this government constantly attempt to use legislation to give itself excessive power and to avoid accountability. I think back to Bill C-59, the so-called National Security Act, 2017. As well, there have been their attempts during COVID to have over two years of unquestioned authority to spend taxpayers' money without accountability; their attempts to control what Canadians see and say on the Internet through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18; and of course their unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which the Federal Court has just recently, as you know, ruled as being illegal and unconstitutional. The pattern with this government and their legislation should concern Canadians.

Given the organization that each of you represents, and given Professor Clement's research, does this bill as it currently reads not give you pause, especially when it comes to legislating powers that limit Canadians' fundamental rights and privacy?

Ms. Mason, I'll start with you. It's nice to see you again, after seeing you at the Emergencies Act committee. This time, we're hoping to do something pre-emptive as opposed to trying to fix it after the fact, as we tried to do the first time. Could you answer that?

Could all three of you, in your responses, further to what you may have already suggested, suggest how the committee should address the concerns that Canadians have and that you have with those shortcomings?

News Media Industry

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the media crisis has once again swept away a part of our news media and a part of our democracy.

Bell is laying off 4,800 employees. This comes on the heels of more than 500 job cuts at Quebecor and 600 at CBC/Radio-Canada. The entire industry has been imploding for years with no meaningful response by the federal government.

Bill C‑11 is having no apparent impact because the CRTC is making zero progress on the regulatory framework. Bill C‑18 is all well and good, and we will happily accept Google's millions, but the job cuts continue.

When is the government going to take action?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about helping a billion-dollar company. I am talking about helping an industry that has been suffering and in crisis for years. As we speak, the only new money to assist our media organizations with Bill C‑18 came from Google, which put it on the table. That is like putting the fox in the chicken coop.

There are so many options: an emergency fund, a payroll tax credit for electronic media, a tax credit for advertisers who buy time on traditional media and more government advertising on traditional media, instead of slipping $50,000 into Meta's pocket, like the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have been doing for the past three months.

When will this government take action?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day for the media, news and democracy.

Bell just announced that it will be cutting 4,800 jobs and selling 45 radio stations, seven of which are in Quebec. The federal government is literally watching our news media die before its eyes by not extending a single penny to save broadcasters.

Meanwhile, there is no emergency funding, as the Bloc Québécois called for this fall. There are no tax credits for electronic media modelled on what is already offered to print media. How many more workers will have to be sacrificed before the minister realizes that Bill C‑18 will not save news media in Quebec?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I would encourage you to consider the question to see whether there is an impact.

We also know that Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 gave sweeping new powers to the CRTC. We've heard from witnesses that Bill C-26 as written also grants too much power, mainly ministerial power. How do you recommend amending the act to give Canadians the confidence that there will be proper oversight without overreach and that transparency and accountability will be balanced?

[Rachel Curran]

Again, no other government has pursued legislation like Bill C-18. We would be happy to work with the government to put news content back up, if they are able to carve us out of that bill. The Canadian government is unique in pursuing that particular piece of legislation.

That is separate and apart from our efforts to protect youth on our platforms, which are ongoing. We've had a number of recent announcements in that respect. We're going to continue that work very actively, because it's a key, critical priority for us.

Again, it's quite separate from the issue of news online in Canada, which we have had to remove in response to the government's Online News Act.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I am almost out of time.

I am really concerned that the response to Bill C-18 is not the same across different countries. The spread of misinformation related to the topics that I've noted is particularly troublesome.

Is there any analysis going on about Bill C-18 and the response by Meta putting youth at greater risk or less risk with the spread of misinformation? Again, your CEO has at least apologized to Americans on this issue, but not to Canadians. In your response to Bill C-18, is there an ongoing analysis on whether it has further harmed and spread misinformation, affecting the mental health of young people who are using your product?

[Rachel Curran]

I think these are two separate issues. Youth safety and youth exploitation online are a key, critical concern of ours. We just announced the further rollout of an initiative with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children that is going to ensure intimate images and sexploitation are more easily removed from platforms. We're assigning an individual digital code to those images. Youth can do that themselves from their devices without sharing the image. Once that code is received by us and by NCMEC, we can fan out to make sure that those images are not shared more broadly on our platforms and across the Internet.

We are taking a number of steps to make sure that youth are protected on our platforms. It's an ongoing battle, I have to say, and we're working with other members of industry to make sure that youth are protected.

That's very different from the issue of C-18 and online news content, which we have had to remove as a compliance strategy in response to the government's legislation. We didn't want to have to remove that news content. If we are carved out of that bill, we would be happy to put it back up. I'm hopeful that we can continue to work with the government on that front.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this.

In response to Bill C-18, Ms. Curran, Meta pulled access to news articles and sharing. One of the criticisms of that from many experts was that it was going to make children and youth more vulnerable to abuse. Your CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, at least apologized to Americans during congressional hearings a few days ago for what has taken place.

Can you explain to us—I'm trying to get at the trust factor here—what type of analysis has continued from that point? Do you disagree with the experts about that exploitation taking place through the products you have? Are we getting the same protections for our youth?

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a general, wider apology. I don't know what difference there is, other than citizenship, among those who have succumbed to this, and it has caused significant problems, including connections to suicide and self-harm. Can you assure us on the committee that an analysis is continuously going on with regard to the response to C-18 and whether or not Canadian youth are further at risk because of the spread of misinformation, which affects them mentally?

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, supporting journalists and local journalism is extremely important to this government, especially in these challenging times. That is why we introduced Bill C‑18, which will help our journalists operate at all levels.

We will continue to be there to defend an independent, free and professional press. We know that a lot of work remains to be done in these times of uncertainty. Unlike the Conservatives, we will be there to work with all parties interested in protecting journalism.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Will you forgo the $7-million share of the $100-million fund that Google is putting on the table as part of the agreement on Bill C‑18?

[Catherine Tait]

I think the reality is that when we know where we are, we will respond accordingly. I think it's premature to be talking about performance pay when, one, we're not even at the end of the fiscal year and, two, we actually don't know what our financial situation will be for the next year.

I would just point out that since my announcement on December 4, we heard there will be additional funding from Bill C-18 for CBC/Radio-Canada. That will have an impact as we plan for the coming year. We run a very, very complex organization, and we are vulnerable to all the vagaries of the market. I am very hopeful that our situation will improve and that advertising revenues will come up, and we will be able to meet all of our obligations and be able to reduce the impacts on programming and on employees.

News Media Industry

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives do not value the work of journalists, but we do. Over 500 newsrooms have closed in the past 10 years. That is why we passed the Online News Act, to level the playing field for journalists against the web giants.

The publication of our final regulations is the final step in the process for Bill C‑18.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Elgie, I'll return to you here for a moment with regard to Bill C-18 and the impact that it is having. Now, I should clarify, because Bill C-18.... Meta opted out because they're no longer carrying news links. Google had a few demands of the government and, of course, the government entered into a backroom and created a deal with them, so we now have a Google deal. We don't have Bill C-18 being upheld by anyone.

Given the Google deal for $100 million, how does something like this work to the disadvantage of innovative, new, local, independent or cultural media outlets?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For disclosure, I was part of legacy media for over 40 years, and I sat here for Bill C-18 listening to their hardships and to them bashing Meta. Many of them had agreements behind the scenes that they said little about, non-disclosure agreements, and then when Bill C-18 was passed in the House, one of the biggest media giants in this country, Bell, decided to blow off 1,300 of their employees. Again, there was nothing said. CRTC, with its lax regulations, said little, and it was just kind of swept under the carpet. Then when CBC—a broadcaster and digital network—made cuts, everybody was up in arms, yet it's the taxpayer who pays most if not all the bill for CBC.

Mr. Palmer, you mentioned before that there was hardship when Meta withdrew, but I sat around this table listening to these companies and they had certain agreements. Then, of course, when Meta withdrew, they said nobody was going to their websites and this and that. You can't have it both ways. These companies, when they sat here, were in hardship complaining about Meta, so Meta withdrew and they're still complaining today.

You don't think this is constitutional. I did hear you a year ago around this table. What are your thoughts today? Is online news constitutional or not?

[Dr. Joan Donovan]

They're already behaving like nation-states in their negotiations on Bill C-18. If you're a business that services the public interest and you understand that your role in society, especially for Facebook, is to share information with the world, then you have a public obligation to serve the people. That is the greatest thing your technology could do. I do think, though, that Facebook behaving as a state-like entity, such that they feel they should negotiate at this top level, is abhorrent.

The last thing I would say is that there is a $1-billion subsidy from the Canadian government going to Facebook. I think that needs to be addressed.

[Matthew Hatfield]

I welcome this committee doing a study because I think it's an open question whether we need some dedicated government support. I think there's a strong case that some types of journalism we need are not commercially viable, but I don't think the CBC should be cannibalizing the funding we need for a diversity of sources.

I think one logical conclusion of that study is going to be that we need to address areas that don't just have struggling news organizations but may have no news organizations now. We need to ensure that any dedicated support is reaching those kinds of areas. Under Bill C-18, we get precisely the opposite. The funding is going primarily to news organizations that, to some degree, are already succeeding and still exist.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Hatfield, in one of the articles you wrote, you said that Bill C-18 “puts media under the thumb of government and platforms, encourages the spread of poor quality journalism, and does nothing to rejuvenate local media.” Do you care to expand on that statement?

[Philip Palmer, President, Internet Society Canada Chapter]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for this opportunity to address you this morning.

The Internet Society Canada Chapter is an independent not-for-profit corporation that advocates for an open, accessible, safe and affordable Internet. We accept that some regulation of the Internet and its participants is necessary, and it is welcome. We have heard nothing this morning that we disagree with from the various panellists who have spoken.

However, extreme care has to be taken in formulating regulatory policies in order to obtain the best results for Canadians. The Internet is the most revolutionary societal disrupter since the invention of printing, and those disruptions are occurring at warp speed. Its reach is global, as are its impacts.

The Internet features both beacons of light and cesspools of depravity. Its more positive aspects further the goals of an enlightened humanity. Its worst aspects are a challenge to liberal democratic values and to all societal and legal norms.

Social media is often marred by shockingly bad behaviour. It can transmit misinformation and disinformation, discourage reasoned debate and constrain the participation of members of civil society as a result of racism, misogyny, threats and intimidation.

Where is Canada as the world confronts the many challenges that arise from the Internet?

Canada is a small country, economically open to the world and dependent on its relations with its peer countries. The Internet and Internet-based services are the key to Canada's continued integration into the global economy. For Canada to thrive and for her citizens to prosper, it is critical that Canada approach the Internet and its regulation with some humility.

Canada is too small in population and in wealth to establish the norms by which the Internet will be regulated or how Internet service providers will govern themselves. If Canada overreaches and imposes unrealistic economic and social costs on Internet services, it may find its businesses and its citizens cut off from the services and knowledge that are available to its peers.

Canada has already proposed or adopted counterproductive Internet-related measures, two of which were studied by this committee. The Online Streaming Act, rather than bringing Canada's Broadcasting Act in line with the world of Internet-based services, attempts to bring the Internet into the walled garden of the Canadian broadcasting regulatory system. The Online News Act attempts to extort payments from Internet platforms to subsidize news producers.

This committee's present study was inspired by its work on Bill C-18 and Google and Facebook's reactions to it. We maintain that Bill C-18 is deeply flawed. It has already had foreseeably negative impacts on Canadian news businesses and on Canadian consumers of news.

The choice of whether to provide Canadians with access to news and be subject to the act or to withdraw from the Canadian news ecosystem comes down to a business decision. Meta announced early that it would withdraw from the Canadian news market if Bill C-18 was adopted. This was not intimidation; it was a lawful and rational business decision.

The withdrawal of Meta from the Canadian news space has proven to be a hardship for Canadian news producers. If Meta's withdrawal is a hardship, Google's withdrawal from the Canadian news ecosystem would be catastrophic for Canadian news businesses and for the Canadian public.

We welcome the agreement reached between Google and Canadian Heritage. It promises to avoid that catastrophe. Nothing we say here today should be construed as approving the activities of tech giants, a term that encompasses not only the large international behemoths but also our domestic giants—Bell, Rogers and Telus—which dominate domestic markets and extract casino profits from Canadian consumers. It is good to see that Canada is focused on competition law reform.

There are a number of experiments under way in democratic societies that deal with Internet and tech regulation that Canada can learn from, emulate or co-operate with. It is critical that thoughtful policies be crafted that recognize the unique characteristics of the Internet and that they put up the full value of Internet-based services for Canadians. Poor regulatory policies will harm Canada and Canadians.

Thank you very much.

[Jeff Elgie, Chief Executive Officer, Village Media Inc.]

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for having me today.

I apologize if my comments are not directly aligned with the title of this session, but I was asked specifically to come today to provide our perspective on Bill C-18 and the Online News Act.

As a brief introduction, I am the CEO of Village Media, which is headquartered in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. We began with one local news publication and two journalists 10 years ago. Today we own and operate 25 news publications in Ontario and employ approximately 150 Canadians, 90 of whom are journalists.

Beyond operating local sites, Village has developed made-in-Canada technology for the publishing sector. This technology now runs our own publications along with those of Glacier Media, Dougall Media, Great West newspapers, Black Press Media and others. As of now, we power almost 150 news websites across Canada.

As you may know, I spoke in front of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications with respect to Bill C-18 back in May. My position since has not materially changed.

To briefly summarize, we believe the bill and the Online News Act were flawed from the get-go. It was suggested that platforms such as Google and Meta steal our content and provide no meaningful value in exchange. We argued this couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that we, including news publishers, willingly play to allow for snippets of our content to appear on the platforms, because we benefit tremendously from the traffic we get from them. For Village Media, this helped us grow and launch 25 publications and develop a profitable and sustainable model for local news.

I'm here today to speak about some of the impacts of the Online News Act. It is my belief that we have now created a number of scenarios where, in many cases, news publishers may come out behind. For large publishers, particularly those that had deals with Google and Meta, including Village Media, I expect some of us will be ahead and some of us will be behind financially. While these deals are covered under non-disclosure agreements, it seems apparent that, by having a smaller pool of expected funds from Google—$100 million—and by adding zero funds available from Meta, it is quite possible the ultimate value of the Google deal may in fact be less than the prior deals with both platforms.

For small publishers—including start-up and independent publishers—that did not have deals with either platform, there is still much to be determined as we wait for the final regulations to be released. First, will they qualify? Second, how much will they receive, if so? If you ask many of those small publishers if they would prefer to receive some amount per journalist, which may theoretically equate to approximately $10,000 per year, or have their Meta traffic back, I expect many would prefer to have their Meta traffic back.

This is the scenario for Village Media. Even the best-case scenario for the Google deal likely does not make up for the value of lost Meta traffic. That traffic allowed us to monetize our publications more effectively and to develop new audiences, subscribers and followers we would otherwise be challenged to reach. Facebook in particular was one of the best on-ramps to new publications we have found, and we have tested many. In the absence of Meta, sustainably launching news sites, or even sustaining recently launched sites, might no longer be possible.

This problem goes beyond my own self-interest. As an even worse outcome, Canadians are now no longer exposed to news on Facebook and Instagram. At a time when voter turnout is at record lows and we can expect to be flooded with disinformation through technologies such as generative AI, the missing voices of Canadian journalists in these environments will no doubt be damaging to our society.

Over our 10 years of operation, Village has gone into each year with an expectation of growth and continued sustainability. We're profitable and we reinvest our profits by expanding into new communities and growing our newsrooms. However, as of April of this year, in anticipation of the outcome of the Online News Act, and for the first time ever, our company has paused almost all new hirings and suspended new community launch plans. The potential outcome of the Online News Act has substantially impacted our progress.

Thank you for having me.

[Matthew Hatfield]

Over 12,000 members of our community asked you for fixes to Bill C-18, and over 20,000 of us raised concerns around the government's first online harms proposal, but that's far from the extent of our community's interest in tech platforms. Over 9,000 OpenMedia community members have demanded more anti-harassment tools and control of our data on online platforms. Nearly 34,000 of us have signed actions demanding data protections and regulating the data broker industry.

I look forward to discussing any of these important platform issues with you. Thanks.

[Matthew Hatfield]

Certainly. My apologies.

To me, this hearing's topic seems to be pinning down what's wrong with tech platforms and what our government can do about it. I'll try to answer that question very precisely for you.

What's wrong with tech platforms and their influence on society? It's three things: their size, their vast asymmetrical data compared to regulators and citizens, and the engagement algorithms that drive their business model.

Let's talk size. Platforms like Amazon and Google have a stranglehold on a huge share of Internet commerce, app purchases, advertising and more. They often use that power to set unfair terms vis-à-vis smaller businesses and consumers. I'll note, though, that Bill C-18 misunderstood the specific dynamic around news. It assumes that news has inherent value to platforms that, for Meta at least, it does not.

The good news about the size problem is that Canada is opening new possibilities to do something about it through competition reform in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. In the U.S., several bills were proposed last year aimed at regulating how tech giants treat small businesses and consumers. They include the American innovation and choice online act and the open app markets act, both of which OpenMedia campaigned for. In Canada, the Competition Bureau has never had the legal basis to study platform power effectively, let alone change it. Soon they will.

My second point is about data asymmetry and privacy. Platforms like Meta and YouTube have an endless volume of sensitive data about each and every one of us. They use it for advertising and to feed recommendations, but not for much else. Partly that's to respect our privacy, which is a very good thing. Their data in the hands of a spy agency or law enforcement would be a dystopic surveillance nightmare and one that we must guard against. However, that lack of curiosity on the platforms' part is also self-serving. It makes it easy to bury accurate study of what may be going wrong for some of their users and, in the worst case, lead that minority to harm themselves or others. The limited research that exists on how platform models may sometimes amplify harms is done with very incomplete data or with crumbs of researcher data access, which platforms are quick to withdraw if their interests are threatened.

Here we need both an individual and structural remedy. The strongest possible privacy bill, Bill C-27, giving Canadians meaningful and unalienable control of our personal data, is one solution, but another must be a very strong provision for both regulator and approved academic researcher access to perform studies on platform data in our upcoming online harms bill. We can't intelligently regulate platforms if we don't understand how any harms they help produce actually occur.

Last but not least, let's talk about the algorithm. Without even noticing it, we've become a society in which most information we get is delivered because it keeps us scrolling and clicking, not because it is nuanced, well researched or true. For music or hobbies, that can be a wonderful tool of self-exploration. People are not passive consumers of our feed. We curate it heavily, pruning the algorithm to serve us what we like most. However, for facts and reporting, that same process is making us a less-informed, angrier and more polarized society. We all feel the impact and very few of us like it. That doesn't make solutions easy, although I would say that Bill C-292, Peter Julian's bill, is something worth considering here.

I'll give a couple of signposts for what might help. We welcome this committee's interest in a dedicated study of how to create a viable news sector in Canada that continues producing vetted information. There's a case that Canadian news needs permanent government support, but the more involved government becomes, the more urgent it is that funds move through a system that is fully transparent to the public, has clear and fair criteria for who gets what support and prioritizes funds where they're most needed, in local news deserts and public accountability journalism, not shovelling funds indifferently toward Bell or the CBC. The alternative of stacking complex funding band-aids one on top of the other until they represent the majority of news funding is not going to build public trust in truthful journalism.

We would also welcome a Canadian study of how social media algorithms are impacting society. However, regulating the algorithm, if it comes, must be aimed at expanding transparency and personal control over how it works for Canadian Internet users, not manipulating it for what the government thinks is best for us.

[Matthew Hatfield, Executive Director, OpenMedia]

Good morning. I'm Matt Hatfield. I'm the executive director of OpenMedia, a grassroots community of nearly 280,000 people in Canada who work together for an open, accessible and surveillance-free Internet.

I am speaking to you today from the unceded territory of the Tsawout First Nation.

This hearing came from Bill C-18's hearing. I'm happy to answer questions about how that bill has landed and what must come next, but in listening to the exchanges you've had with witnesses before today, it seems to me that—

[Dr. Joan Donovan, Online Disinformation and Misinformation Expert, Boston University College of Communication, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for being here and thank you for the invitation to testify at this hearing.

I'm Dr. Joan Donovan, and I've spent my career studying harmful online campaigns, including misinformation, disinformation and media manipulation. I'm an assistant professor at Boston University's College of Communication.

Until recently, I worked for the Harvard Kennedy School of Government as the research director of the Shorenstein Center and the director of the technology and social change research project, also known as TaSC. TaSC focused on online media manipulation campaigns and influence operations by bad actors, including adversarial nations running misinformation and disinformation campaigns, skewing public discourse, seeding hate, violence and incitement online, and, of course, undercutting democracy's free and fair elections.

Before Harvard, I led my research at Data & Society, a non-profit where my team and I mapped how social institutions were intentionally disrupted through online campaigns. I chose to join Harvard after a lengthy recruitment period because they convinced me that they would support this work at scale.

As we know, governments around the world and the public have come to rely on my work, as well as that of many other researchers in this field, but from my work, they have learned who is behind COVID misinformation, especially the calls for hydroxychloroquine. We also learned what domestic and foreign operatives are doing to create division in communities, explaining the behaviour of 81 countries that deploy cyber-troops to manipulate public opinion online. I have worked with the WHO and the CDC on strategies to mitigate medical misinformation, and most recently, I've worked with the Canadian election misinformation project at McGill University.

In my whistle-blower disclosure submitted on my own behalf by Whistleblower Aid, my team's groundbreaking research in this field was ground to a halt in obeisance to Facebook by the dean of Harvard Kennedy School, a man now known for his deference to donor interests.

In short, in October 2021, a well-known Facebook fixer became enraged in a donor meeting when I told the group that I had Frances Haugen's entire cache of internal Facebook documents and that I planned to create a public collaborative archive of that. I said they were the most important documents in Internet history. This donor and Facebook PR executive attacked everything I said at that meeting. He and Facebook-affiliated donors have powerful influence at Harvard, so that was the start of the Kennedy School's campaign to stop my work and create unceasing misery for my research team. When Harvard received a donation of half a billion dollars from The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the fate of my research was sealed. HKS killed the TaSC project and fired me after silencing me and my team for two years.

Courtney Radsch testified here that tech giant intimidation includes researchers and academics and a further weaponization of the big tobacco and big oil playbooks, silencing and skewing research and protecting their profits and lies to the public. However, unlike the censorship campaigns of those before them, tech giants have more tools at their disposal because they control the information landscape and the data about it. For instance, Meta's actions in Canada to fight Bill C-18 have deprived Canadians of more than five million news interactions a day, according to McGill's media ecosystem observatory.

You see the damage of their for-profit motivation acutely in Canada. As Imran Ahmed from the Center for Countering Digital Hate testified to here, we know that bad actors fill the vacuum when credible news and information leave us, with little else to look at. When a school like Harvard is complicit in the corporate direction of research, what can protect those of us who work to document, analyze and share the truth? As others have noted, Facebook's actions to avoid accountability have targeted legislators and regulators in the U.S. and Canada.

I want to close by saying this. I support the online algorithm transparency act, known as Bill C-292 here in Canada, and the similar legislation introduced in New Zealand, the U.K. and the European Union. I was raised with the deepest conviction that I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions, and tech giants must be too. As an academic, I have a moral obligation to tell the truth—then and now.

Thank you very much.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That bill is clearly still before the industry committee, I would assume. With cybersecurity, perhaps it could be with public safety.

I know that we had some serious concerns with that piece of legislation. I think we want to ensure that the rights of Canadians are always protected. When we're considering Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity, we know that this is an evolving field and there's an evolving threat level that comes with that. We know that the government, quite frankly, has failed to protect the rights of Canadians when it comes to their security—both personal security and in our communities. When it comes to the online environment, they've been lax. They've turned a blind eye, quite frankly, to threats to cybersecurity. I think we've seen that again and again.

We saw it when this government refused to ban Huawei from the 5G network for years in spite of overwhelming evidence that the communist regime in Beijing was using that technology in the Huawei network as a way to gain access to personal information. That was a security vulnerability.

We saw that our Five Eyes partners in the security establishment—our international partnerships with Australia, New Zealand and the United States—all took action to protect their citizens and their networks from cybersecurity threats. That's something this government did not do. It took them years and they fought it and fought it before they took the decision—much too late—to exclude Huawei from our cybersecurity networks. That resulted, quite frankly, in embarrassing situations where Canada was excluded from high-level meetings of the Five Eyes.

We saw it very recently, when Australia had its deal with the United States to purchase submarines, for instance. There was an exclusion of Canada because Canada's networks were not deemed to be secure enough to allow us to participate in those very important, high-level meetings. These are examples where the government has failed to take cybersecurity seriously.

As I said, we have grave concerns with Bill C-26. It's troubling to see that this bill would cede power to another piece of legislation or have this coordinating amendment, so there would be two pieces of legislation that we believe are flawed coordinating with one another. I think this is the sort of thing where we should be considering what is in Bill C-26 as we discuss this. We can't simply agree holus-bolus to something in another act if we haven't considered that fully, here at this committee.

I think that this particular clause is one where, perhaps as the evening goes on, we will find a way to bring about an amendment or to look at ways we can make sure that the concerns we had with Bill C-26 are addressed.

The summary of Bill C-26 states:

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.

It continues:

Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,

(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;

(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;

(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;

(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and

(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.

Cybersecurity, as I've said, is a growing concern for Canadians. It remains a national security concern. It remains an economic security concern. We know we lose when things like patents, trademarked information and secrets are lost because of a failure to ensure we have adequate cybersecurity in place. We know the government doesn't have a legal mechanism to compel industry action to address cyber-threats or vulnerabilities in the telecommunications sector.

Bill C-26 is another example of the Minister of Industry being given sweeping powers, as we heard with Bill C-33, where the minister is given sweeping powers to enact orders that, in his opinion, are necessary to protect port infrastructure, port operations, etc. We just dealt with that in a previous clause. I think this is another example where we need to ensure that the powers given in Bill C-26 are proportional—that there are checks and balances, and that the rights of Canadians are always protected when the minister is exercising the rights and powers given to him or her in the legislation. It's another example of giving the minister broad powers to enact the legislation.

Now, cybersecurity is something that Conservatives have been raising the alarm about for a long time. We did it when we first created, under a conservative motion, the Canada–China special committee. That was an issue that was raised there. In the context of Huawei, it is something we raised time and time again: our concerns that our 5G network was not being protected.

There are opportunities to strengthen our cybersecurity protocols. We need to ensure that not only are the privacy rights of Canadians respected, but that there's also no attempt at censorship for Canadian citizens when they are operating in the cyber-environment. We've seen the government go down that road as well, with Bill C-18 and with Bill C-10. They want to control what Canadians see, and control the algorithms of what will show up in their social media, for instance.

We have a hard time trusting the government when it comes to anything to do with cybersecurity or Internet regulations. They've proven time and time again that they're willing to sacrifice the rights of Canadians in order to promote their own narrow agenda.

Bill C-26, unfortunately, increases regulation and red tape, often, we believe, without adequate oversight and without votes in Parliament.

We've seen, even here today, that the rights of members or parliamentarians, the supremacy of Parliament, are things that this government does not put as the highest priority. If Parliament gets in the way, they simply try to bypass it.

I think Bill C-26 is another example of where that has happened. We have grave concerns with that, as I outlined briefly. There is also—

[Rachel Curran]

Monsieur Villemure, we would love to not be in this position. We would love to have news on our platforms. The problem is that the government, through Bill C-18, the Online News Act, has asked us to pay an uncapped amount, an unknown amount, for content that has no commercial value to us.

We believe we provide a great deal of value to news publishers in the form of free distribution and marketing. That amount we've calculated at $230 million per year. We would love to get back to putting news on our platforms and providing publishers with those free tools. We're not able to do that under the framework of the Online News Act.

Mr. Villemure, if you could work with your government colleagues to make amendments to that legislation that would allow us to put news back on our platforms, we would love to do that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Right now, under Bill C-18.... I'm sorry; I should not say that.

Google has managed to get an exemption from Bill C-18 and has offered $100 million to the news sector in exchange for that exemption. It is proposed by the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that about a third of that funding is going to go to the CBC, which is already a publicly funded broadcaster to the tune of $1.4 billion and has another $400 million in ad revenue and subscriptions.

What does this do to the overall news media market and its future in this country, when big tech and big government collude to give one-third of this money to a public broadcaster?

[Sean Speer]

One of the challenges, MP Thomas, that news start-ups face in terms of building an audience and building awareness in the marketplace is, of course, finding different channels to reach that audience.

Up until now, for The Hub—and I think others have testified similarly—Meta and Google have been a major part of that process. We don't see the platforms as a threat or playing a counterproductive role. They've enabled us to build and grow what are increasingly sustainable news organizations that can start to fill some of the gaps that have been created by the process of disruption, which is at the heart of much of the work the committee is doing.

One of the consequences, of course, of Bill C-18 has been that many of us have lost the ability to communicate, reach our current audience and grow it, because the law has caused Meta to leave the Canadian market. Fortunately, the agreement between Google and the government prevented a scenario whereby Google similarly left the market. Had that happened, I fear that a lot of the progress we're seeing in the new and independent media sector would have been fundamentally disrupted.

I would say that, as you think about the work the committee is doing, I would encourage you to start with the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. Permit entrepreneurs, innovators and, of course, long-standing media organizations to go through the iterative process of trial and error to figure out how we can continue to deliver the news and information that Canadians need, reflecting the changing technological environment.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. My first question is for Mr. Speer.

You said that right now in the news sector we're seeing lots of new and innovative approaches being taken and that they're largely being driven by market values. You said that this is a good thing and that government intervention is thwarting or distorting that innovation that's taking place.

I'm curious if you can expand on that a bit in terms of the impact that government interventions such as Bill C-18 have on the innovative news sector and its future.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

No. I was just going to say that it's interesting when we talk about governments at the national and provincial levels. They're the ones that have caused a lot of the crises in local newspapers. They pulled every ad they could in rural Canada. The crisis has hit, and some of the MPs around this table have really realized that, “Oh, the federal government is putting so much money into Meta and Google, and so on, and less into local newspapers.” We've been saying that, Madam Chair, around this table, particularly Conservative MPs, dealing with Bill C-18. Local newspapers are the ones that are disappearing faster than any other. Finally, everyone else has realized it.

That's all I have to say.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have always supported CBC/Radio-Canada and the services it provides to local communities across the country.

One of the first measures we took as government was to cancel the Harper government's cuts to our public broadcaster. Supporting local news and journalists during these difficult times for the industry is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑18.

While the Leader of the Opposition celebrates Canadian families being laid off, we will continue to support local journalists and local news in Canada. We are very open to working with the Bloc Québécois on this, as always.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have always supported CBC/Radio-Canada and the services it provides to local communities across the country.

One of the first decisions we made as a government was to cancel the Harper government's cuts to our public broadcaster. Supporting local news and journalists in this difficult juncture is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑18.

While the Leader of the Opposition rejoices as Canadian families are facing layoffs, we will continue to support local news and journalists in Canada.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very concerned about what is happening in our media, our art and our culture for years now.

That is why the government has taken concrete action to support media across the country, to invest in local journalism and to stand up against the web giants in favour of journalists and the work they do, which is essential to our democracy. For example, we were pleased to reach an agreement with Google regarding Bill C‑18.

We will continue to be there to support and defend journalists across the country, especially local journalists who play an essential role in our democracy.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

My follow-up to that, then, would be that Google went into a back room, entered into a deal with the government, and said that it would give $100 million to a collective of its choosing.

I find that very interesting. You have a big tech company that is going to ultimately determine which collective, if there are multiple, it is going to enter into this bargaining agreement with. It's going to hand the collective $100 million, and then that's supposed to go towards the perpetuation of news in the nation.

The minister has announced that the CBC has one-third of all the journalists in the country, and according to the regulations, we know that the money is supposed to be allocated according to the number of journalists in each office. The CBC, then, having one-third of the journalists in the country, would stand to gain $33 million. It already gains $1.4 billion in taxpayer money, and then it has access to another $400 million through advertising revenue and now the most recent Liberal announcement of $129 million in tax benefits.

I'm curious about the comment you made in your opening remarks with regard to the CBC and the fact that we actually can't level the playing field until it is omitted in terms of its ability to generate ad revenue. You also stated that it should be excluded from Bill C-18 or the $100 million that Google is granting. Can you comment on that further?

[Peter Menzies]

Sure. Unfortunately, one of the things that didn't get addressed in the way Bill C-18 ended up was the power imbalance issue. I had quite a bit of sympathy for that. Phillip Crawley used to raise that issue quite elegantly before this committee and before the Senate transportation committee. We're left without that.

Google would have to speak with regard to its intention regarding the fund, but putting the media in a position of being dependent on both taxpayers' money and taxpayers' benefits, and on big tech money—the two most powerful entities in our world that we need media to hold to account—which is the path we're going down right now, is just not where we want to be. We want to move forward. That's what I am trying to encourage here: that people think forward as to how we can get past these hurdles with Bill C-18, this roadblock that we've ended up with, this dead-end road that we've ended up with, and move forward to a place where the Unifor jobs can happen, where we can be flourishing and where journalists can be serving who they want to serve, i.e., readers and citizens.

That's basically where we are with that. Also, in terms of that, you don't have to like big tech to realize that. If you look at the National Post's editorial the other day, you will see that it went on about how terrible Google is and about some of the things like the antitrust suits in the States. Then it said that they looked forward to being great partners with Google. That's where we are.

[Dr. Erik Peinert]

Okay—we will try that.

I will continue where I left off.

I earned a Ph.D. from Brown University, where my research focused on competition, monopoly and antitrust and has been published in leading academic journals.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about big tech's pattern of coercion in response to regulation and specifically Meta's recent action to block Canadian access to news articles across its platforms in retaliation for the passage of Bill C-18, the Online News Act. This follows a nearly identical action in 2021 by Meta, then Facebook, to extract concessions from Australia with respect to its news media bargaining code.

This discussion comes at a time when the news industry across the globe is in peril. It's an industry I've watched closely since I was a child. I was raised by a journalist. My mother began her career as a reporter for a local paper in rural New England, moving to various editorial roles in minor cities, to the newsroom at The Boston Globe, and then to executive positions at The Boston Globe and GateHouse Media, now Gannett. She now owns several successful, independent local papers in Massachusetts suburbs.

My personal and professional experiences lead me to make two principal points today, the first being about the platforms' business models in this market.

Media companies pay to produce and distribute content that a large mass of readers find valuable. They then sell ads to businesses that want their offerings in front of those readers. On one side, Meta and Google have become a central way for readers to access news media, which gives them power over journalism outlets, with an implicit threat to cut off readership.

On the other side, Meta and Google also have an effective duopoly over digital advertising, and both face or have faced antitrust lawsuits for illegal monopolization in this space.

These companies are not providing viewership so much as using their dual control over Internet traffic and advertising to monetize content that journalists produce at considerable expense. Recent research by economists at the University of Zurich indicates that 40% of Google's total revenue from search advertising would go to publishers and other journalism outlets if it faced more competition. With media companies paying to produce the product [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Dr. Courtney Radsch]

Yes.

Sorry about that.

First, tech giants use their platforms to propagandize against regulation they oppose, distorting public perception and debate. We saw this in Australia, Canada, Brazil and the U.S. with news media bargaining legislation. Google used its search page to advocate against proposed laws, and reportedly told evangelical preachers in Brazil that they would no longer be able to quote the Bible online. The Brazilian judiciary accused Google of undue influence in the legislative process.

Second, tech giants censor news and withdraw access to data and APIs, as well as threatening to leave entire markets to avoid meaningful regulation and deter oversight. Meta even impeded sharing links from Australian government sites during parliamentary deliberations about the bargaining code there as part of its negotiation tactics, according to a whistle-blower.

Google and Meta have threatened to ditch news entirely, despite the fact that disinformation degrades their platforms while news provides greater value and a better user experience, and they have pressured news outlets to kill stories, including coverage of a recent study that estimated they owe U.S. publishers more than $12 billion a year. This pattern of censorship and distortion can also be seen in motions to suppress information, destruction of evidence and obstacles to public scrutiny, as with the historic antitrust trial against Google happening now in D.C., where it opposed audio livestreaming.

Third, they undermine democratic institutions, seek to handicap regulatory agencies and evade laws they don't like. We saw this in Meta's decision to censor news in Canada rather than comply with Bill C-18, and in its lawsuit against the FTC over attempts to force the company to comply with restrictions on data gathering.

Fourth, big tech companies spend more money in Washington, Brussels and other world capitals than virtually any other sector, through direct lobbying and by funding industry groups and fellowships that help shape how policy-makers think about issues they regulate, putting big tech-funded experts into the heart of policy-making.

Fifth and finally, big tech provides funding to most civil society, research and advocacy groups working in tech policy, digital rights, AI governance and the media bargaining code space, as well as journalism.

I do not want to disparage the work of these organizations, but the perception of interference, along with the potential to divert attention for more important and consequential issues, is a way to subvert demand for regulation. Research shows that big tech funding to media correlates with countries where governments are considering fair compensation legislation, and now AI companies are following the same playbook.

In conclusion, big tech companies generate chaos and disruption, which then they leverage to blame governments for crafting unworkable regulation that only becomes workable once modifications that benefit them the most are made.

[Peter Menzies, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I hope I can provide some constructive remarks that you can take forward to help Canada's news organizations flourish once again.

First, though, I wish to clarify a couple of points.

I represent only myself. The blend of my experiences of three decades in journalism and a decade with the CRTC has given me a relatively unique perspective. I have been outspoken in raising the alarm concerning the problematic unintended consequences of legislation, much of which has unfortunately come to pass.

I've always done so only on behalf of myself. I am not a member of any political party, federal or provincial, nor do I contribute to any. I am not a member of any organization, a paid lobbyist or a shill for big tech, as has been inferred. I am just a citizen with a passion for sensible public policy and independent, competitive journalism.

I have no intention of retelling the story of Bill C-18. You all know that well enough.

The role of journalists in society is often described as being to hold the powerful to account, but in Canada, we now unfortunately have a news ecosystem in which most of our journalists could soon have at least half of their pay dependent on the government, Google and any other offshore money the CRTC might come up with as a result of hearings this week. Given that the two most powerful entities in our society are governments and large data-vacuuming tech companies, this is not where we want to be, for as much as the news organizations and journalists involved may swear on their mothers' graves that these realities do not and will not influence their coverage, what they say or how they view the situation, frankly, doesn't matter.

What matters is what the people who read, watch and listen to their news think. While, for sure, some people won't care, a great many will believe that news organizations are fatally compromised. As a result, the public's faith in journalists will continue to wither, and trust in journalism will eventually die. Many will increasingly come to see news organizations as businesses that saved their skin by selling their souls.

We need to find a better way forward. To that end, I recommend to you “And now, the news”, a policy paper authored by myself and Konrad von Finckenstein, published this spring by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. It calls for the development of a national news industry policy framework that would ensure that the news consumer is served by a healthy, modern, competitive and refreshed news ecosystem that delivers fair, balanced and accurate news that is trusted.

There's a lot to unpack in that paper, but there is one recommendation in it that you can act on, beginning right away. Get the CBC out of the advertising business.

There will be no flourishing for news organizations until the CBC's dualistic distortion of the marketplace is replaced with a level playing field. We will never have one of those, provided the CBC continues to compete for advertising revenue while being paid $1.3 billion a year by Parliament to be a public broadcaster.

That money is intended to allow the CBC to achieve its public mandate, and no doubt much of it does. However, it also allows the CBC to out-resource companies like The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Postmedia, Le Devoir and dozens of smaller start-ups, while soaking up as much as $400 million in advertising revenue. That's significantly more than all the government and Google supports combined.

This is not to say there is not a role for a public broadcaster, but that's not what we have. What we have is a publicly funded commercial broadcaster and online platform.

Meanwhile, TVA and CTV lay people off and Quebecor and Bell are begging the CRTC to get Netflix and Disney+ to subsidize their newsrooms. It's ridiculous.

A flourishing future for a free and independent press in this country is just not possible so long as the CBC exists not as a pure play public broadcaster but as a publicly funded commercial broadcaster and online platform operator. No industry could thrive in such circumstances.

CBC/SRC needs to be stripped of its ability to earn domestic advertising revenues and needs to streamline its operations to focus on its mandate and make its news freely available to others. Immediately eliminating it as a recipient of the Google fund would be a good start.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting No. 103 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 Anishinaabe people.

While public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy no longer require mask-wearing indoors or on the precinct, masks and respirators are still excellent tools to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases. Their use is strongly encouraged, because these diseases are on the rise now.

I want to take this opportunity to remind all participants about some simple housekeeping.

You're not allowed to take screenshots of the proceedings, because it will be out there on the web later on.

This room is equipped with a powerful audio system. When you are speaking, it's really important that you not have other devices around to cause feedback. When you finish speaking, just press and turn off the mic. When you turn it on, be really careful that you're not echoing in the room, because it really affects the ears of the interpreters.

Finally, I want to remind everyone that questions go through the chair. This goes for the committee members as well.

Also, I will give you a 30-second heads-up when your time is up, so you will need to start thinking about how you will end your sentence.

I will also remind you that the way we speak to each other is really important. At committee and in parliamentary proceedings, it's important for us to be respectful of each other. We can differ, absolutely. That's what most of these meetings are about—differing and being argumentative with each other, etc. However, let's try to do this with a certain amount of decorum.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming today.

As you know, we're doing a study on the tech giants. This has been a real problem for us after the passage of Bill C-18.

As individuals, we have Peter Menzies and Pierre Trudel, who is a professor in the public law research centre at the Université de Montréal law school. We have the American Economic Liberties Project, Dr. Erik Peinert, research manager. We have the Center for Journalism and Liberty, Open Markets Institute, Dr. Courtney Radsch, director.

The Hub is in your notes, but they're not coming today. They are going to come another day.

Lastly, we have, from Unifor, Marc Hollin, national representative, and Julie Kotsis, media representative, national executive board.

I will begin.

You will all have five minutes to present. I will give you that 30-second shout-out so you can wrap it up. If you don't get to finish your presentation, remember that you can get your little bits in during the Q and A period.

Now, the five minutes is per organization, not per person, so if you're sharing your time in your organization, remember that you have only five minutes.

I'll begin with Peter Menzies and Pierre Trudel.

Peter Menzies is an individual and then Pierre Trudel is another individual.

Peter Menzies, please begin, for five minutes.

[Dr. Erik Peinert]

Hello. My name is Erik Peinert. I am the research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, a Washington, D.C.-based policy and advocacy organization focused on reducing concentrated economic power to broaden opportunity for small businesses, workers and communities. I earned a Ph.D. from Brown University, where my research focused on competition, monopoly and antitrust and has been published in leading academic journals.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about big tech’s pattern of coercion in response to regulation, specifically Meta’s recent action to block Canadian access to news articles across its platforms in retaliation for the passage of Bill C-18, the Online News Act. This follows a nearly identical action in 2021 by Meta—then Facebook—to extract concessions from Australia with respect to its news media bargaining code.

This discussion comes at a time when the news industry across the globe is in peril. It’s an industry that I’ve watched closely since I was a child. I was raised by a journalist. My mother began her career as a reporter for a local paper in rural New England in the late 1970s, moving to various editorial roles in minor cities, to the newsroom at The Boston Globe, and then to executive positions at The Boston Globe and GateHouse Media, now Gannett. She now owns several successful, independent local papers in Massachusetts suburbs.

My personal and professional experiences lead me to make two principal points today, the first being about the platforms' business model in this market. Media companies pay to produce and distribute content that a large mass of readers find valuable. Then they sell ads to businesses that want their offerings in front of those readers. On one side, Meta and Google have become the central way that readers access news media, giving them power over journalism outlets, with an implicit threat to cut off readership. On the other side, Meta and Google also have an effective duopoly over digital advertising, and both face or faced antitrust lawsuits for illegal monopolization in this space.

These companies are not providing viewership so much as using their dual control over Internet traffic and advertising to monetize content that journalists produce at considerable expense. Recent research by economists at the University of Zurich indicates that 40% of Google’s total revenue from search advertising would go to publishers and other journalism outlets if it faced more competition. With media companies paying to produce the content and big tech getting the ad revenue, this destroys the model of journalism that a democracy needs.

Google’s decision to broker a deal with the Canadian government last week, to pay about $100 million Canadian per year to journalism outlets and publishers, simply confirms this. It acknowledges the value the platforms gain from journalism. The dispute was over the scale of payments and the terms of negotiation—whether to have one deal or require multiple bargaining groups—rather than whether compensation was owed at all.

This brings me to my second point: why these companies respond to regulatory proposals with bullying, threats and coercion. Rather than making rational business decisions in response to regulatory changes—as Meta claims it is doing with respect to Bill C-18—they see oversight and market governance as an existential threat to their predatory business models, and they react with hostility.

For example, these tech giants have been leveraging trade and investment frameworks to stop governments around the world from regulating them. Their latest strategy is pressuring governments to include digital trade clauses in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. In this way, big tech companies are better positioned to argue that policies like the Online News Act are violations of trade law because they unfairly discriminate against companies like Google and Meta by virtue of their American origin, ignoring that these companies are targeted due to their size and not their place of incorporation.

This is also even though, as American, multinational companies, their home country is considering many of the same or similar policies, with the journalism competition and preservation act being repeatedly introduced in the American Congress. They succeeded, to a degree, by getting the North American governments to include expansive digital trade clauses in the 2020 CUSMA. U.S. industry associations are already making use of this language to claim that the Online News Act violates Canada’s commitments under the CUSMA.

More egregiously, Meta last week filed a lawsuit against the American Federal Trade Commission, one of its primary regulators, arguing that the commission itself is unconstitutional and, thus, effectively illegal as a regulator, rather than face an amended consent decree based on privacy violations that the company has repeatedly committed over the past decade, which the FTC has found involved children’s data.

Adding little of clear social value but having learned to profit from it nonetheless, Meta repeatedly shows disdain for the rule of law in this space, preferring to destroy the legal system in the United States and elsewhere rather than come up with a business model that is both profitable and socially beneficial.

Having seen the continually worsening struggles of the news industry over the course of my life, I applaud the Canadian government for passing the Online News Act. We hope to see similar policies passed in the United States.

Thank you.

[Isabelle Mondou]

I will answer the second question. The work is very advanced on the bill, which was designed based on the consultation, the advisory committee and all the work that Minister Rodriguez led across the country on the consultation. I think the committee will be sad if I don't turn at least once to Owen for a question on Bill C-18, so I will do that.

[Isabelle Mondou]

I think it's a very important message. They should not be forgotten.

You may know that in the department one of the things we've founded is the Indigenous Screen Office. It is giving indigenous people the capacity to do, under their own sovereignty, movies and productions of their own. I think you're raising a very important point, and I think Bill C-18 is putting the rules in place to make sure their voices are not forgotten.

[Isabelle Mondou]

Madam Chair, I have two answers to that.

The first one on Bill C-18 is that, as the minister said, indigenous newspapers, print and radio will be included, and they will be at the table. They have already engaged.

The point you've raised is very important. They're trying to make sure that everybody in Canada knows about it and that no small community is forgotten. The outreach is going to be very important, and there will be a call when the legislation comes into force to make sure that people can raise their hands.

I also want to mention another program to you. We have in Canadian Heritage a broadcasting program for the north. If you want to put me in contact with those organizations, I will be happy to follow up with them.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I understand your good intentions. Unfortunately, they're misplaced. Those local media outlets will receive very little and possibly nothing at all.

This bill has killed them. Big tech has colluded with big government to do away with news in this country. There will be less choice for Canadians and less access for Canadians. It's a shame.

Let's not forget the fact that, actually, Google isn't signing on to Bill C-18. It's actually been granted an exemption.

Minister, when you celebrate the success of Bill C-18, let's look at this. Facebook walked away. It's not carrying news anymore, so it's not under Bill C-18. Google is the second one the bill applied to. It applied for an exemption. You entered into a backroom deal with Google, and it got what it wanted. Bill C-18 technically applies to no one. It's an absolute failure. It's a boondoggle, Minister. Let's be really clear about the facts here.

My next question is with regard to Laith Marouf, who received $130,000 from the heritage department. He used that money to perpetuate vile comments towards the Jewish community and towards the francophone community, which you claim to defend. Meanwhile, that $130,000 has been outstanding—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. We hope you will come back often.

I'm going to ask you three questions. I would like brief answers, please.

First off, Laith Marouf, who was providing the most vile expressions of anti-Semitism and hate, was given a contract through Canadian Heritage. The NDP was the first party to call for the cancellation of that contract, and the government cancelled the contract. However, I want to know whether the money has been paid back—around $125,000—and what steps have been taken within Canadian Heritage to ensure that those who promote hate in any form will no longer get contracts through the government.

Secondly, on Meta, in testimony before this committee just this week, the Center for Countering Digital Hate stated very clearly, and its studies have shown us, that Meta, in its algorithms, is promoting the most vile anti-Semitism. Meta is not only refusing to respect Canadian democracy with Bill C-18, but has also been cited numerous times for that expression of vile anti-Semitism and other forms of hate. However, we provide subsidies to Meta and Google, according to the Library of Parliament, that are in the order of more than $1 billion every year. That is in the advertising tax credit as an indirect subsidy for Meta.

Why do we continue to subsidize Meta when it is not respecting Canadian democracy and when it has been implicated in the most vile expressions, through its algorithms, of anti-Semitic hate, Islamophobic hate, racism, misogyny, and homophobic and transphobic hate?

My final question concerns the agreement with Google.

We know that, with a crisis hitting news media across the country—we saw what happened at TVA—we need the web giants to contribute to our society and to the dissemination of news.

Google is also receiving this subsidy. Given that there is a shortfall between what the government was seeking and what we are receiving under this agreement, are you considering taking the subsidy away from Google? It represents $1 billion for Meta and Google combined, according to the Library of Parliament. The government could give that money to the media, whose job it is to provide news and inform Canadians about what is happening in their communities.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

This leads me to a question that was raised earlier about CBC/Radio-Canada. Ms. Tait, the Crown corporation's president and CEO, was in your seat a few weeks ago. She openly admitted to us that, in addition to the funding granted to the corporation, which is $1.4 billion, CBC/Radio-Canada had other sources of financing, including advertising and subscription revenue. This other revenue amounts to $400 million. That piece of information raised everyone's eyebrows. Although we were aware of this reality, the fact that it was announced so casually, in the current context, was difficult to take. I think some restraint would have been in order.

That said, we agreed here in committee, when we studied Bill C‑18, that CBC/Radio-Canada met the criteria. CBC/Radio-Canada is also suffering the consequences of the arrival of the digital giants, but it isn't in the same boat as privately owned media.

In the current context, since we won't be receiving as much money as we'd hoped under an agreement with Google, do you think it would be appropriate for CBC/Radio-Canada representatives to announce that the corporation will not be joining the collective, in order to leave the money entirely for the media outlets that really need it?

Do you think this would be the right thing to do? Will you encourage them to do so?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Minister, just out of respect for time.... Thank you.

I will go to my next question, because it's clear that you don't want to answer that one.

It is unfortunate, though, that more power was put in the hands of big tech and that Google was given control over the terms, because the whole point of Bill C-18 was to help level the playing field. That what's been touted the entire time.

At the end of the day, what we've landed with is Meta walking away. It is no longer carrying the news. Google said it would stay and negotiate, but only on its terms, so the government and Google entered into a backroom and they created a deal. They cooked up a deal, and all of Google's terms have been met.

It is another example of big tech and big government colluding, and it will ultimately damage news in this country. It will damage accessibility to news and the choice that Canadians have with regard to news. Yesterday was actually a really sad day in Canada, because that's the impact it will ultimately have.

My question is with regard to this agreement that was cooked up. I'm wondering if you can describe the criteria that the government will use to determine whether a news business gets state approval to join a collective. What are the criteria that the government will use to determine whether or not an outlet is an eligible news business?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you for making time to be here with us today.

My first question is as follows.

Yesterday, there was an announcement made with regard to Google and the government making a deal. Before I get into that, maybe I'll preface it. You stated that the Liberal government put Bill C-18 forward to “fix a commercial and power imbalance between tech giants and our news media sector.”

The deal that was entered into yesterday between Google and the government would actually appear to show that Google forced the hand of the government. Google got everything it wanted: $100 million spent, one agreement and one collective chosen by Google on their terms. It's clear then that big tech is actually in the driver's seat.

Is this your idea of fixing the power imbalance that exists between big tech and the news industry—by giving them more control?

[Jason Kint]

I agree 100%.

On the research and academic side, I've seen very important researchers.... A group at NYU here in the U.S. was blocked by Facebook from research it was trying to do, because it was seen as adversarial as it tried to expose some of the harms on the platform.

On the flip side, Google hosted Newsgeist in Canada as you were starting to look at Bill C-18. I'm fairly certain that some of the witnesses who defended Google were at Newsgeist, which is a closed-door, invite-only, Chatham House rule conference for a lot of academics and people in the news industry who covet that invitation from Google.

I don't get invited, by the way.

[Jason Kint]

It's very consistent. I think the only distinction is that there's a lot of attention here on the loss of traffic from Facebook when they moved early, frankly, to block all news.

I think it's important to say that news was struggling before Bill C-18 was passed or before Facebook pulled out. Traffic is down from Facebook and Meta across the board internationally. This notion or this myth that suddenly something happened because you passed Bill C-18, which isn't even in force yet, and that's the problem is kind of absurd when you look at and study the international news market.

I think you bravely passed legislation by looking at smart legislation elsewhere that is working. This is a short-term temper tantrum by Facebook, as was described. I think there are very consistent experiences.

A lot of the downstream harms that are being discussed today are also very consistent with what we see elsewhere. I would strongly encourage everyone to look at the state attorneys general lawsuit against Meta for underage children being harmed by their platforms. It's 40-plus state AGs. It's multi-party in the U.S.

Despite kind of looking at the U.S. and thinking that we can't agree on things, there's very clear agreement on the harm that's happening and that Instagram and Facebook are not taking care of their products.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

It does. I know that there are negotiations that the public is not privy to, where members around this table negotiate how many witnesses you're going to have and for how long the hearings are going to go forward.

To me, the starting point has to be not how many witnesses, but who you need to hear from and who is most relevant. Frankly, as part of the Bill C-18 process, there was an attempt to wrap this up after just four meetings, if I recall correctly, when there was a wide range of people—both supportive and critical of the legislation—who hadn't been heard from.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I think one of the reasons we've seen delays on the harms bill is that, in all likelihood, it is recognized—and rightly so—as being even more controversial than Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and I think that's true.

I also think that it never made sense to put it in heritage. I don't know why online harms is a heritage issue. Reports have suggested that it has now been shifted within the government. I think that's a good thing, because I think this is much more of a justice and public safety-related issue.

I would say that what we really need as part of this legislation—and this may sound like a naive academic speaking—is for there to be an openness, a willingness, to engage in an open iterative policy process once it gets to committee, in the sense that making changes is not a mistake and doesn't suggest that somehow someone has erred but is rather an attempt to make the bill better.

With all due respect, I've felt that too often committee is set up more as consultation theatre than as actual, real, engaged consultation and that the notion of making changes, even potentially significant changes, is somehow seen as an admission of some sort of failure. I don't think it is.

These are bills that should have been not nearly as controversial as they proved to be. I think part of the problem was that from the day they were put forward—and this has been true for a long time with successive governments, frankly, both Conservative and Liberal—the idea was that, once the legislation was put forward, any significant changes were seen as somehow saying that we had made some sort of mistake and that was a sign of weakness.

I don't think it is. Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think it's a sign of strength to develop the very best policy possible.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to pick up where I left off, in reference to what you said about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 in your statement and how some people might have been excluded for a variety of reasons.

We've just heard that it took two years for the U.K. to do the harms bill. You suggested that we had our study backwards here on Bill C-18 and Bill C-11. What would you like us to see as the mistakes that were made with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 so that we have legislation that might not be what it should and we excluded people from the process? My idea is that you talk to everybody and make sure everybody's heard if you want to get something right. On the harms bill, what would you suggest?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I actually think what we've seen take place in terms of broadcaster response, both on news and on calls for reduced CanCon obligations, which we are also seeing now, does come out of this legislation.

On CanCon, for example, it was an obvious consequence that, if you were looking for the international streamers—the foreign streamers—to shoulder more of the responsibility, one of the responses you'd get from Canadian broadcasters would be, “Okay, we can reduce what we have to do as part of that.”

On the news side, I suspect the timing may well have been a coincidence, but in terms of the amount of news we might get from some of those broadcasters, there's been little evidence to suggest that the results they might get from Bill C-18, which appear now to be pretty limited—with really only one company now subject to this legislation—would change the trajectory of some of the things those companies have been focused on when it comes to news.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Gainey.

We'll go now to the third round. I think we have time.

There will be five minutes for the Conservatives, and I'm actually going to lead it off.

Mr. Geist, the day Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was passed in the House of Commons, I found it ironic—some thought I was a conspiracist—that the big broadcasters slipped over to the CRTC chair and said, “We want to do less local news.” Isn't that ironic?

Of course, no money has come yet from Bill C-18 to the big broadcasters, but they are preparing for that, and I can tell you, in my city, that the local television station does two hours a day out of 216 First Avenue North.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

When you reference Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, who should set the standards there. Who should set these standards? Where do you think we should go?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Geist, earlier you talked about the lobbyists who intervened in the study of Bill C‑18. You mentioned News Media Canada in particular. You're right in saying its members were very active. That organization represents 830 newspapers, dailies, weeklies and community newspapers across Canada. Since it's the group most affected by the crisis, particularly as a result of the domination by digital businesses, it's quite natural for the members of that organization to be the most active group seeking regulations.

I understand that we can have very broad discussions regarding the business models of both digital and conventional businesses, which perhaps should be reviewed.

I recently suggested that we take a break and conduct an extensive study on the state of conventional media in Quebec and Canada, particularly on the state of news media.

Do you agree with that idea? Isn't it time we held a kind of summit to review those models and look to the future with a clearer idea of what lies ahead?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Let's go there for a minute.

You said News Media Canada was the biggest lobbyist on this bill, and they got everything they wanted. We saw, immediately after C-18 was passed, that Bell Media decided to shut down over 1,200 news outlets that were local, and Métro followed suit. It looks, at the end of the day, like C-18 utterly failed to meet its objective and, rather, lobbyists and the CBC, Bell and Rogers ended up with the lion's share of the taxpayers' money.

Would you agree with that?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

With your permission, I'd like to expand that not just to C-18 but to C-11 as well.

One of the real concerns with the legislative approach that this committee and that the legislation has taken on both the streaming act and on the news act has been to have significant negative implications for access to foreign content for diaspora communities. One of the real fears of what we're seeing play out at the CRTC is the likelihood that the increased cost of regulation and registration—but even more than registration, the actual costs of regulation—could well lead many foreign streaming services to simply block the Canadian market, because it doesn't become economical anymore. It's particularly those communities that may be most directly affected. The same is true on the news side.

Yes, this was a likely outcome. Again, I'm going to come back to my opening remarks to emphasize that, if you weren't listening to these players, if you decided all you needed to do was by and large listen to News Media Canada and a few other cheerleaders, then you'd miss that large story.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

It appears there are even more harms coming from the way C-18 was implemented than expected. You may have seen the Substack from my colleague Michelle Rempel Garner yesterday, where she expressed concern about how the rollout of C-18 was going to impact especially diaspora and ethnic small media.

Could you comment on what you think the impacts of C-18 have been on them?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Thanks for the question.

No, I wasn't surprised. I appeared before this committee a couple of times on C-18, and I thought that if you understood the business model that existed....

We've heard a lot of the negative aspects of the business model, which is why I think there is a role to play for regulation when it comes to some of the harms that have been articulated, but that wasn't what C-18 was about. If you understood the business model of trying, as we've heard, to keep people on the platform, capture information and deliver ads to them, the idea that news content was something they couldn't live without never made much sense. The reality is that it's the sort of content that actually sends people away, off the site. Given what had been taking place, it seemed to me that this was likely to occur.

I also have to say that sometimes it felt as if people didn't fully think through some of the implications. I mean, with all respect, it was this committee that established a specific exception for campus broadcasters to include them in the legislation, and we just heard today that campus news isn't included. This committee literally included it within one of its amendments so they would be eligible under the system.

It's also this committee that passed legislation that said that facilitating access to all news, whether in Canada or anywhere, brings you within the scope of being a digital news intermediary. You could have made the choice to say only news that's from a qualified Canadian journalism organization or only those who qualify for payments, which actually would have excluded some of these other entities and would have excluded many of the foreign entities, but that wasn't the choice that was made.

It seems to me these were the choices made in the legislation and the outcomes were pretty predictable.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I'm going to start with Dr. Geist.

Dr. Geist, you may have seen some of my interventions here at committee on C-18, where I did start by pointing out to the then minister of heritage what had happened in Australia when Meta blocked news content. I asked him what actions he was going to take to make sure that didn't happen in Canada. He said it was a simple business decision.

When Meta and Google were here, I asked them whether, if C-18 was passed in its current form and if the government made them pay for people to share news links, it would be a reasonable business decision to decide not to do that because they would have to pay. They both said it was, so I was not surprised when this result happened, although the Liberals and NDP seemed to be shocked and surprised. It looks like it's had very negative impacts on small and local businesses, when the whole point of C-18 was to try to protect small, local news outlets.

Were you surprised? What do you think the impacts have been?

[Jean-Hugues Roy]

Yes, it could be useful, but we can also go further. Earlier we were talking about a fund.

There's also a complex side to Bill C‑18. It can take a long time to negotiate with everyone. If two businesses said they were prepared to contribute to a fund, it might be up to you legislators to establish the amount of that contribution. You could set it at 30% of their revenue, for example. We already have mechanisms for then distributing those amounts, such as the Canada media fund, to which we could add an information component.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our guests for being with us today.

Mr. Roy, you said in your opening statement that Bill C‑18 might not ultimately be the right approach. I'm a bit surprised by that.

I'm not saying Bill C‑18 is the only approach we should adopt, but don't you think we're in a way throwing the baby out with the bathwater by concluding it wasn't the right one?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I met with McMaster University's student newspaper recently, The Silhouette, and they told me that they're really struggling, because without being able to share on Facebook and Instagram they don't have a way to reach their audience, the students of McMaster University. They're finding that, in lieu of getting news sources, the students are reading various opinions that are posted online.

I do agree that there are lots of great news organizations that operate only online. If people take my previous comments to mean otherwise, then that's just because they were inelegantly stated. Of course there are great online journalists, but there's also a proliferation of opinion that's not based on news or fact.

What do you think about those tactics that pull in an organization that doesn't even fall under Bill C-18. Student journalists wouldn't benefit from Bill C-18, yet they're being caught in this intimidation tactic.

I'll go to Mr. Ahmed first.

[Imran Ahmed]

I think that's the soft bigotry of low expectations that we've been attuned to expect from these companies.

In a sort of twisted irony, my organization has shown that Meta has allowed state-controlled media in authoritarian countries to pay for advertisements containing disinformation. In 2022, we published a report on Chinese state media buying Facebook ads to push disinformation about the conflict in Ukraine. While Meta is punishing Canadian news publishers by removing their ability to operate on the platform, it has profited from disinformation content paid for by state-controlled media elsewhere in the world.

The truth is that we've come to expect the platforms, and Meta in particular, to behave in the worst way possible. Not only are these regulations.... I think that Bill C-18 has its value, but one thing we've urged to Canadian ministers when I've met them, and we will urge today, is that there needs to be a more comprehensive framework that surrounds these platforms.

Ultimately, if they can find a way to squeeze out of taking responsibility and retaliate against anything that you do try, they will do so. That's why a more comprehensive framework—based on what we call the STAR framework at CCDH—includes safety by design, transparency of the algorithms, economics and a content-enforcement policy. It includes real, meaningful accountability to democratic bodies like your own and also shared responsibility for the harms they create. The negative externalities that these companies are imposing are an unbearable cost on our societies, whether that's destroying the news media industry or harming young girls and young children with self-harm and eating disorder content.

In all of those respects, I think the lesson you need to be taking from this is that these companies will wiggle out of everything they can. They will act in the worst possible way, and that's why more comprehensive legislation—a framework, as your previous speaker said—is necessary.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Dr. Geist.

I want to follow up on something else you said, and it's somewhat related.

We know that the big broadcasters—Rogers, Bell and CBC—have a lot to gain from Bill C-18, potentially. However, we also know that the new up-and-coming platforms that are based online, which Ms. Hepfner referred to as not actual news outlets—and I would contend otherwise as I believe they're legitimate—are actually being hurt significantly by this legislation. To the point you raised in your opening remarks, many of them have made the determination to not hire more employees, because they know they might be put out of business, potentially, by this legislation.

In your estimation.... It's not fair to ask why. I'm sorry. I can't ask you to speculate, but I'm just curious. Could you expand a bit? Bill C-18 was put out by the minister at the time, Minister Rodriguez, as something that was meant to benefit the little guy. It was meant to benefit the local newspapers, the ethnic media, the local media sources, etc. Many of these exist online.

Why did it end up in a place where it is benefiting the big broadcasters?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

My first question is for Dr. Geist. As you know, there has been a complaint filed with the Competition Bureau. The complaint was put forward by News Media Canada, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the CBC. The complaint has to do with Bill C-18, and the fact that Meta has determined that it is no longer carrying news links. Well before the legislation was passed, Meta made it clear that this would be the decision it would make in response to the legislation.

However, these outlets that I've just listed—or unions—are now complaining that:

By refusing to negotiate with Canadian news organizations in good faith for the access of Canadian news content on Meta’s platforms, and by blocking the news content on the platforms, Meta is denying Canadian news organizations fair compensation for their content, leaving them with limited resources to compete effectively in the news publishing market.

This last phrase here, “leaving them with limited resources to compete in the news publishing market”, would say that Meta served as a vehicle or a platform by which these news sources were being shared. That vehicle is no longer provided, and these news outlets are saying that it's hurting them.

However, the whole premise of Bill C-18 was that the news outlets were actually providing the value, and that Meta needed to pay them. It seems they're making an admission that the actual benefit was found in Meta being the vehicle.

Do you care to comment on this further or expand on it?

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I'm here in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

I've appeared before this committee many times, yet it seems necessary to expand on my standard opening by stating that I have never been compensated or otherwise received a benefit from any tech company in conjunction with any of my appearances, submissions or statements on any legislative or regulatory issue. I don't think I should have to say this, but given the tendency of some to defame critics of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 as shills, I should be absolutely clear that my views are not for sale.

Further, I should also be clear that criticism of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 was not opposition to tech regulation. There are real harms, and we need regulation. I recently appeared before the INDU committee, calling for the strengthening of Bill C-27 on privacy and AI regulation. I have to say that I have spent much of my time, in the aftermath of the events of October 7, focused on the alarming rise of anti-Semitism and the urgent need for action both off-line and online, which could include the much-delayed online harms bill.

Since this study is about tech efforts to influence policy, I'll focus on that.

There have been important studies and reports that chronicle tech sector efforts to influence policy. For example, the Tech Transparency Project reported on Google-supported research. It identified many papers and work by academics with links to, or financial backing from, that company. However, the investigations identified virtually no Canadian examples. In fact, a search for any articles or reports from the project, since its inception across multiple tech companies, reveals very little involving Canada.

If we consider efforts to influence Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 through lobbyist meetings—we just heard about lobbying—one organization leads the way. It isn't Meta, which had relatively few meetings on these bills—in fact, fewer than CAB, ACTRA, CDCE or CMPA. It isn't Google, which ranked second for the meetings. Rather, the organization with the most registered lobbyist meetings on these bills is News Media Canada.

It's important to state that, if this hearing is about retribution for the blocking of news links in response to Bill C-18, I think that's misguided. Companies and many experts warned repeatedly that the legislation was deeply flawed. Now that news-link blocking has gone on for months on Facebook and Instagram without any apparent interest from that company in regulatory reform, I think that's pretty clear evidence that this is a consequence of the legislation and not a tactic to influence it. It was not a bluff, as many kept insisting. Indeed, I would argue that, frankly, both companies were pretty consistent from day one in their statements about the legislation.

In many respects—we just heard about threats to remove or stop investment—it's no different from Bell's recent announcement, in which it threatened to cut capital investment by a billion dollars in response to a CRTC wholesale Internet access ruling, or Stellantis putting its investment on hold earlier this year in Canada with the announcement of the Volkswagen deal. Simply put, legislation and regulation have consequences.

If this is actually about addressing concerns around regulatory or legislative influence, however, the real issue isn't tactics. It's regulatory capture. On that front, there is cause for concern in Canada. With Bill C-11, there was ample evidence of regulatory capture, as a handful of legacy culture groups dominated meetings with officials and time with this committee. The voices of Canadian digital creators were often dismissed or sidelined, including those from indigenous and BIPOC communities, some of whom reported feeling disrespected or intimidated by department or ministry officials.

The situation was even more pronounced with Bill C-18. Members of this committee indicated they were ready to move to clause-by-clause review without even hearing from Meta. During that review, someone stated that online news organizations were not even news. This form of regulatory capture was particularly damaging. Online news outlets were sounding the alarm over the risks of the bill and took the biggest hit with news-link blocking. They too were ignored. Some have now stopped hiring or been forced to suspend operations, yet News Media Canada somehow managed, in the span of five years, to obtain a $600-million bailout, the swift enactment of Bill C-18 and now an expansion of the labour journalism tax credit, in which their demands were met down to the last penny. Now that is influence.

Cultural policy is the bedrock of this committee, but culture isn't static. It's essential this committee and the department ensure they avoid regulatory capture and provide a forum for all voices. Failure to do so makes for bad policy and raises the risk of intimidation, in which—inadvertent or not—it may be the government, or this committee, that does some of the intimidating.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[Jason Kint, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Content Next]

Good morning. Thank you for having me, Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Digital Content Next. DCN is the only trade group exclusively focused on the future of high-quality digital content companies that manage trusted, direct relationships with consumers and advertisers.

Our members include more than 60 media companies and thousands of brands, including news organizations ranging from local to national and international, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Financial Times.

I last testified before this committee in 2022, ahead of the passage of the Online News Act, which DCN enthusiastically supported. We are grateful for your considerable diligence in studying the imbalance in bargaining power with Google and Facebook.

As background, I have nearly 30 years of digital media experience, including spending the first 20 running digital media businesses. During that period, I executed a number of major commercial deals with the large tech companies.

With antitrust lawsuits under way around the globe against Google and Facebook, the evidence emerging in these cases confirms what we have witnessed whenever one of these companies faces a legislative or regulatory threat to its bottom line.

Today, I'd like to open by sharing at a high level the types of intimidation brought on by the companies.

The first is threats to legislation. As you know, Australia provided a road map for this investigation, legislation and intimidation tactics around Bill C-18.

Much of the public learned about Australia's new bill when Facebook blocked users' sharing of news for five days in March 2021, just as vaccines were being rolled out. What may be less known is that Facebook's plan was to block news during the most critical week of Parliament's deliberations. A brave whistle-blower shared internal documents from The Wall Street Journal showing access at the highest level of the company before going underground for fear of identification and retaliation. Consider how much more informed lawmakers would have been if that whistle-blower hadn't been scared away from testifying.

The second is threats to investments. The public may know that Facebook significantly expanded its investment in the U.K. over the last few years, even moving a number of executives to London before shuttering its Instagram office earlier this year. Less known is what we learned through an open records request: that Mark Zuckerberg threatened to pull back investment in the U.K. at a time when its Parliament was demanding he testify about questions he never answered—to this day—including to Canada's Parliament, which went so far as to summon him.

On a related note, it made global news when the company agreed to pay $5 billion to the U.S. government to settle the matter in the States. However, what is less known is that this is the basis of an ongoing shareholder lawsuit alleging insider trading charges against Zuckerberg, and that the company overpaid to protect its CEO.

The third is threats to publishers and newsrooms. We've seen significant headlines over the years about both companies funding news projects and academic programs. Behind the scenes, the companies were able to leverage commercial relationships to suppress reporting on information considered sensitive to the companies. Those considered partners, through high-revenue programs or advanced access to new products, are understandably much more reluctant to publicly criticize the companies.

Google and Facebook also issued threats to pull out of news altogether. One example is the head of news at Facebook reportedly telling Australian publishers that they would be in “hospice” if they didn't work with Facebook.

In 2018, The Guardian and The New York Times reported on Cambridge Analytica, which is Facebook's largest-ever scandal. Again, less known is Facebook's threat to sue The Guardian a day prior to its news report, which Facebook's own head of news—and I'm quoting her, as I was sitting immediately next to her on a Financial Times conference panel—said was, “Probably not our wisest move”.

The fourth is record spending on lobbying, including through proxies. Google and Facebook registered in the top 10 lobbyists in the EU and the U.S. In addition to direct employee and campaign contributions, there is a long list of groups that champion the two companies' talking points in return for significant funding.

The fifth is that the companies intimidate consumers in order to drive outrage, including by using their dominant gateways of YouTube, search and messaging. This includes the oft-repeated claims that regulations will destroy innovation or end the free and open Internet. In each case, whether it was on new privacy laws, the EU copyright directive or Australia's news bargaining code, the Internet never broke.

Facebook often takes it a step further by suggesting it will have to charge for services or kill thousands of small businesses and millions of jobs. Mind you, the company makes tens of billions in profit per year, driven nearly entirely by ultra-high margin advertising.

As you've witnessed first-hand, these companies use various tactics in a coordinated fashion to slow down or stop any regulation that would impact their bottom line. Fortunately, their playbook is becoming more widely known and policy-makers around the globe are beginning to take action.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Jean-Hugues Roy, Professor, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.

I'm going to make a preliminary observation and then suggest four recommendations.

First of all, I'm stunned to hear Meta and Google spokespersons say that information has no value for them. I would note that a French researcher, Tristan Mattelart, clearly documented Facebook's efforts, when it was starting out, to encourage the media to create their own Facebook pages. At the time, Meta/Facebook was looking for high-quality content to enhance its subscribers' experience.

Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has regularly stated that his company's mission is to build better communities. In 2017, he specified that the communities Facebook wanted to build had to meet five criteria, one of which was to build informed communities.

Meanwhile, Google realized as early as 2001 just how valuable information could be. At the time of the September 11 attacks, Google realized that users were searching for keywords such as “World Trade Center” and “attack”, and that they couldn't find anything about the events because Google's indexing robots only visited each website once a month. So the company's engineers thought they'd better start indexing news websites much more often to meet the needs of their users. Information enriched Google's search results and has also enriched the company for over 20 years.

Now I'm going to make four recommendations regarding the Online News Act, the former Bill C‑18. We now realize that it perhaps wasn't the best approach. I would encourage you legislators to trust in your role as parliamentarians to avoid falling victim to the intimidation tactics that the online platforms use.

My first recommendation is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 3 of the charter guarantees the democratic rights of Canadians. As stated on the justice department's website, “A measure that denies electors sufficient information to enable them to make an informed choice in voting may compromise the right to vote guaranteed by section 3.”

The blocking of news by Meta is, in my opinion, such a measure. The public's right to information is not expressly guaranteed by charters, but I think everyone here would agree that it's a fundamental right. Insofar as 45% of Canadians today get their information from social networks, I believe the legislator would have an argument for obliging online platforms to provide information to Canadians, or at the very least prohibiting them from blocking information of public interest to Canadians. I think that section 51 of the Online News Act is a step in this direction. It simply needs to be made retroactive.

Moving on to my second recommendation, web giants Google and Meta have both said they are ready to contribute to a fund to support journalism in Canada. That's great. Except that it will now be up to the legislator to define the amount. It could amount to a percentage of the Canadian sales of online platforms that have provided Canadians with access to information over the past 15 years. You may be wondering how we can calculate these sums if we have no financial information regarding activities on these platforms in Canada. That brings me to my third recommendation.

You're no doubt familiar with Australia's ongoing inquiry into online platforms, which is scheduled to run from 2020 to 2025. The seventh progress report from that survey was just released yesterday. When you read it, you realize that Australia requires listed multinationals to provide information to it. I'm not just talking about those on the web, but rather about all multinationals that have subsidiaries in Australia. They are required to provide Australia with detailed financial statements on their subsidiaries. Why doesn't Canada have the same tools? Give us the means to acquire that information.

My last recommendation is that we collectively give ourselves more resources. In order to protect citizens, governments have given themselves the right to see how certain companies handle food, for example. They have given themselves the right to inspect aircraft and search travellers' luggage. There are a lot of good reasons to conduct this kind of activity.

Online platforms, for all their benefits, can also have harmful effects. Insofar as they have demonstrated, over the past 12 years, their inability to mitigate these harmful effects themselves, I believe the time has come for Canada to give itself the right to inspect what information these companies possess about Canadian citizens. I'm not just talking about Meta and Google, but also about Uber, Netflix, Spotify and OpenAI.

In my opinion, while of course respecting users' privacy, Canada should give itself the right to access these companies' databases and examine their algorithms. I know that the algorithms are like the Caramilk secret, but the well-being of Canadians supersedes the commercial interests of these companies.

This right should also be accompanied by obligations for these platforms to provide, again while respecting user privacy, programming interfaces, APIs, to enable researchers like me, Mr. Geist and others in Canada, to study what's happening on these platforms, which are playing an increasing role in the lives of Canadians.

[Imran Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Countering Digital Hate]

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all today.

I am Imran Ahmed, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. I am here to speak about the role that tech giants play in our information ecosystem, how the design and business model of their platforms increases the prevalence of disinformation and hate speech, and how they behave in response to democratically enhanced oversight—enacted oversight in regulation.

Social media companies are not, despite their vital role in public discourse, in the business of free speech. They are motivated by money and make that money by selling advertising space on the back of content that news publishers and platform users create for them for free. Meta and the other platforms do not want editorial responsibility for the content on their platforms—for liability and financial reasons—because content moderation and editorial control require lots of resources.

However, in blocking the sharing of news posts in Canada, Meta is proving that they've always had editorial power and will use it indiscriminately if content threatens their all-important bottom line. Meta's decision to block Canadian news shows that this company, and others like it, only take responsibility for the content on their platforms when it threatens their finances.

This is why the Online News Act incenses them so. Bill C-18 compels platforms to negotiate with news publishers whose content they have profited from and some of whose businesses they have destroyed.

Canada has been left in a position where Canadians cannot share news posts with their friends, family and community. This decision is nothing more than a temper tantrum by a company that has shown itself, at every opportunity, to be completely opposed to governance by democratically elected governments worldwide.

This year's Reuters digital news survey found that 27% of Canadians share news via social media and messaging. Now news has gone from Canadians' newsfeeds, so what replaces it? What content do users turn to now that reputable news outlets have been shut out?

That news vacuum—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Quickly, you're described as being independent and at arm's length. I've been on Bill C-10, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, so we've heard ministers say that a number of times.

I have the ATIP question. You said you did not send information to the minister. You said that a few minutes ago. Be careful, because I have information here. They sent it to you, then, because I know what they sent. I know it went back and forth.

When it talks about “media lines”, I know what those are. They sent them to you, then. You didn't send it to them, you said, so they sent them to you.

[Vicky Eatrides]

As you know, the CRTC follows a very formal process. That said, Ms. Paquette, who has just taken up the position, is certainly going to be consulted on all decisions we will be making about Bills C‑11 and C‑18 and other consultations we will be holding.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Okay.

I have only 45 seconds left, so this will be my final question. Bill C-18 passed on June 14. That was the day Bell laid off 1,300 employees or 6% of their workforce. Then they shut down six radio stations. Then, the same day Bill C-18 passed, they turned to you and said they wanted to do less local news.

What was your response to Bell officials that day?

[Scott Shortliffe]

We obviously and clearly have a role in news and broadcasting, which we take very seriously, but it's important to note the difference between Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. Bill C-11 gives us large policy questions. There are a number of policy objectives, and we have to figure out how to achieve them. With Bill C-18, we're basically being asked to administer a policy that the government is setting in regulation, and that will be in regulation by the end of the year. Our role is really to facilitate the commercial negotiations that are based on what we've been given.

For better or for worse, we're not being asked to regulate in the newspaper environment. Newspaper policy is something that very much sits with the Department of Canadian Heritage. Having said that, once we have that mandate we will take very seriously our role to help facilitate those commercial arrangements.

[Vicky Eatrides]

We are concerned about news and the state of news, as I know this committee is and Canadians are. I would say, with respect to newspapers specifically, the CRTC does not have a role or mandate in regulating newspapers or the diversity of voices. What we have is a limited mandate under the Online News Act, under Bill C-18, to put in place this bargaining framework.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, everybody.

I've been around here for a few years. Bill C-18, originally, was supposed to help the newspapers in this country—it's done anything but. As you know, the big telcos got their hands into it, including the public broadcaster, who wants another additional $172 million. It's interesting, because Ms. Tait was in that chair a few weeks ago. They get $1.4 billion from the public and they get $400 million in advertising, yet they want to get their hands into Bill C-18.

When the bill originally came, it was for the newspapers. As I said, in the last year, I've had gobs of newspapers that have gone under—Metroland, 650 jobs lost. I can talk about Pincher Creek or Vermilion. I have some in my province.

When I look at your mandate letter, Ms. Eatrides, I see that its says that the Online News Act seeks to enhance “fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace”. It's intended to benefit the diversity of news business, including local and independent outlets. How can that be? The newspapers are absolutely pushed out of this conversation.

I'd like your thoughts on the newspapers being pushed out, when originally Bill C-18 was all about the local newspapers.

News Media Industry

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good ideas in Bills C‑11 and C‑18, but, for now, they are not working. They are not doing anything. That is why, pending the conclusion of negotiations with the web giants in the case of Bill C‑18, an emergency fund for the media is required. That is reasonable. It is essential to maintain the diversity of information in the short term. In the long term, much more will be needed.

Now, we can send a clear message to our media that we are taking action to save them. Will the minister quickly set up an emergency fund before we find out that other newsrooms are closing in our media?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, the government is going to release its economic update. I think this would be a great opportunity for the government to express its concerns over the future of the news media. Our media industry is struggling. Our print media, electronic media, local media and regional media are struggling. Frankly, I think they need a break. Bill C‑18 will not take effect in the short term. Meanwhile, some newspapers will close.

Will the Minister of Finance announce the creation of an emergency media fund until Bill C‑18 comes into force?

Canadian Heritage

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 547 people working at TVA lost their jobs on Thursday, the darkest day in the history of Quebec television.

The federal government has to realize that Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 will not be enough. The government has to launch a $50‑million emergency fund for news media. It has to hold a summit next spring at the latest with all industry stakeholders to find long-term solutions to ensure the survival of our media outlets. Their future is at stake, and the time to act is now.

Will the minister create an emergency fund and hold a summit?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes. I will use the fullness of time, as the rules allow and as is my right as a parliamentarian.

We know that Liberals, through Bill C-18, otherwise like to silence opposition, but I won't be silenced, because I don't just represent myself; I represent the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. They duly elected me and they won't be silenced, so I will continue, Mr. Chair.

I was talking about the impact of the carbon tax. To relate it back—out of respect—to where I'm going to end up, national unity issues flare up because of this Liberal government, and because of issues of Liberal governments in the past. We were talking about the carbon tax and the impact of the exemption on national unity.

Mr. Chair, I have two children, and I love them absolutely equally. If I were to say to them that one child gets treatment over the other, I'd almost certainly be causing disunity and discord in my family. It's really that simple. You can't make a deal with one province and then not make it with the rest of the provinces.

This has thrown our entire country into carbon tax chaos. It's pitting brother against brother and sister against sister. This is incredibly reckless and definitely not worth the risk.

We see the exemption.... I see the demagoguery that goes on in the House of Commons. They say that this is a national program. Maybe legally it is, but effectively it disproportionately helps the folks out in Atlantic Canada, because they use oil.

One thing that's really been bothering me is that the Minister of Environment will get up there and say that they're doing this because home heating oil is really expensive. Okay. The whole idea behind the carbon tax is to create an impetus for people to switch to other products or other solutions because it is really expensive.

When we look at home heating oil costing folks in Atlantic Canada tens of thousands of dollars, that's mission accomplished. That's what you guys set out to do. That's the goal of the carbon tax. It's to make things more expensive.

That's why you put in place a carbon tax. It's to make things more expensive. That's why it exists. That's the market mechanism.

When the Minister of Environment gets up there and is shocked that—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, TVA had to lay off a third of its employees. That means that 547 people who work in Quebec television are losing their jobs just like that. This is a disaster. If it happened at TVA, it is going to happen elsewhere too. This is definitely going to happen again. We will not turn a blind eye and say that the new Broadcasting Act or Bill C‑18 is going to fix everything.

The question is simple. Will the government stand by while our television slowly dies or will it review everything to save conventional television?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, a full-blown atomic bomb has dropped on the world of Quebec television. TVA, the most-watched television network in Quebec, will be laying off 547 people, a third of its workforce. We are losing extraordinary artisans of our culture. It is catastrophic.

It is catastrophic, but not surprising, unfortunately. If this is happening to TVA, all of our media are at risk. We have to rethink everything, if we want to save our media. A massive undertaking is needed.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously think that Bills C-11 and C-18 are enough to save Quebec media?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's say that what we just heard was at least distracting, as it was a clear demonstration of Ms. Thomas' ignorance of journalism. This spread of her ignorance about journalists has consequences because there are people who subscribe to it and believe in it. There are people who do believe that journalists on the ground are being influenced and brainwashed by Hamas or any party in a conflict. You really have to think that journalists are naive and incompetent to believe such a thing.

I want to take advantage of the time I have right now to highlight the work of journalists on the ground, be they from CBC or Radio‑Canada. Like most of us, I am obviously following the conflict from afar, and I find that these journalists do an absolutely remarkable job. That is worth noting. Their working conditions are unimaginable. We have no idea what they are going through on the ground. They provide us with the most professional and accurate information possible.

Of course, this is a conflict and, in a conflict, there is so much information circulating. It is handled in the best possible way, but there are times when information is incorrect. In the case of the bombing of the hospital in Gaza, just about every news outlet—even the most serious and rigorous ones in the world—ended up disseminating the same information and retracting it when the information later became clear. So accusing the CBC of being incompetent in conveying information provided by Hamas is such a show of bad faith that I want to denounce with all my strength because it is unacceptable that this is being done in this way.

On the issue of the directive, as I pointed out in the House, it is unacceptable for CBC management to issue directives to the newsroom. Newsrooms must be airtight and absolutely independent of any management influence and ideological influence. We know that there are currently situations at the CBC that are raising questions about the message or ideology being pushed everywhere. That is not just the case at the CBC, but we will come back to that. Journalistic independence is a principle we discussed when we studied Bill C‑18. We talked about the importance of rigour in this profession. If there is one place where I am convinced people are rigorous, it is at the CBC and Radio‑Canada.

A number of experienced journalists have spoken out about this directive not to label an organization or not to use qualifiers to label it. On Sunday evening, on Tout le monde en parle, Céline Galipeau, whose values, credentials and reputation will not be questioned, and Jean‑François Lépine, a journalist whose experience no one will question, either, both explained why organizations are not labelled in conflicts. And yet, it seems that people are not listening to these arguments and do not want to understand them. They just want to look at the sensationalist side and say that news agencies don't want to label Hamas as terrorists because they want to protect people. That's not it at all. They simply want to make the information as clear, precise and non-partisan as possible. This is a principle that is generally debated even in large newsrooms. Some people agree and some don't, but the fact remains that it is up to newsrooms, journalists and information professionals to make those decisions.

I read an excellent article written by Mr. Shapiro in The Conversation. A short sentence in the article did a great job of expressing the neutrality, objectivity and independence that journalists must have in their choice of words when talking about situations as sensitive as the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. As soon as you start using labels, you designate a bad guy and a good guy because, by default, if you label one party as the bad guy or call it a terrorist, you automatically declare that the other is the good guy. The journalist doesn't have to make that distinction. What they have to do is make sure that the facts are as accurate and as rigorous as possible. The journalist reports facts.

The blunder is not the fact that the directive was sent; it's the fact that it was sent in writing. This is a directive that has been in place for years in the largest newsrooms in the world, in the newsrooms that cover these kinds of conflicts. That directive exists at the Associated Press and the Canadian Press. It exists in large agencies, such as Reuters. It also exists at the BBC. In fact, the BBC has fought the same fight that we're fighting right now. The BBC news service had to defend itself, not too long ago, in order to protect itself from political influence and the influence of lobbies. That, too, is a challenge for journalism.

Personally, I do not completely disagree with the motion before us today, but not for the same reasons as my Conservative friends. I quite agree that the committee should hear from CBC/Radio-Canada representatives, so that they can explain to us why things are the way they are and why there is a good reason for them being that way. It is not a matter of blaming them for something that has not been done, as has been reported, quite the contrary.

I think it's important to give the credibility that we owe to the newsrooms of CBC/Radio-Canada, but also to the major media outlets of the world that cover conflicts in extremely difficult contexts and situations. We have no idea of the challenges these people face on a daily basis. Instead of thanking them, congratulating them, honouring them and encouraging them, we are dragging them through the mud, impugning their motives and saying that they are engaging in reprehensible practices. I must say that I find that embarrassing.

Journalists' work is essential. It is extremely well done at the moment, in the current context. If we decide to adopt the motion, it will have to be amended. It contains elements on which I completely disagree. If the committee decided to invite CBC/Radio-Canada's senior management, it would be to give them an opportunity to explain in a clear and calm way why these directives are in place. I hope that, at that point, my Conservative friends will be open-minded enough to hear how things really work in a newsroom and how information is handled.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I would.

Just by way of background, this is revisiting the discussion we had when the member who brought the bill forward was here. We spent the last parliamentary session trying to modernize a lot of the legislation to make sure we captured the digital changes that have happened.

We updated Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-27 to all reflect the digital age. We want to make sure that “digital creations” are included. Then, when we had the language discussion, we agreed that English and French were important but, as has been pointed out, there are indigenous languages that people do creative activities in and there may also be ethnic-specific ones. In order to reflect that diversity and the digital creations, this amendment is to add the following:

filmmaking and digital creations that reflect the diversity of Canada, including with respect to the languages in use and its ethnocultural composition.

That's brought to you by the legislative people who know the legalese terms.

Thank you.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak in favour of Mr. Champoux's motion, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us freedom of thought, expression, opinion and belief. I see in the country an erosion of that right.

Taleeb was talking about what he's seeing in his riding, and certainly there have been comments made that were offensive to Jewish people and to Muslim people. There have also been comments made that are offensive to Christian people, and there have been comments made that are offensive to the LGBTQ and trans communities. There have been offensive comments.

I think we need to be careful and understand the difference between hate speech, which is defined in the Criminal Code as something that would be reasonably expected to incite violence, and offensive speech—somebody who has an opinion that you don't agree with. I certainly find the extreme left opinions very offensive, but it is their right to express them and we've certainly seen violence on that side as well.

I know Mr. Julian loves to talk about the extreme right, but I would say the extreme right and the extreme left are demonstrating similar behaviours. As Canadians, we want people to express their opinions and views in a respectful way without violence.

I think there's value in this study, because I think something needs to be done to the legislation to take the threshold of hate speech from today, where nobody can really bring a suit on it, to an understanding of what commonly we agree shouldn't be said because it's harmful to communities or whatever. It's a lesser crime, if you will, but we still want to send the message that it shouldn't happen.

I think within this study there is the ability to do that. With the censorship that we've seen increasingly with bills like C-11, and even C-18, people are concerned about the censoring of their freedom of expression, thought, opinion and belief.

I support this motion.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to MP Aldag and the senator.

Our committee has just been through an exercise that many of the legislators are going through in terms of trying to make sure we reflect digital progress. We had Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and you see the competition bill, the digital bill and everything else coming before the House.

In this description of “arts”, I think one of the things that might be missing is digital arts and things like animation. We talked about online creators and everything. Would you be open to an amendment that would add digital art so that we can make sure that it's good not just now but as we progress in the future?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, back in the House. Today I will be speaking about Bill C-49, which is the act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I have listened to the debate today, and a lot of times, members opposite have said they want to know what it is that the Conservatives do not like about the bill. Therefore, I am going to tell them what I do not like about the bill, and I am one of the Conservatives over here.

Let us start off with the name change to remove the word “petroleum” and change it over to “energy”. I am not opposed to “energy” at all, but words are important, and we have had an entire history of a war against oil and gas in this country from the NDP-Liberal government. Continually it has shut down projects. There were 18 LNG projects on the books when it came to office, and it shut them all down. It has shut down pipelines and shut down various expansions, so I think the removal of the word “petroleum” tells us where it thinks it wants to take this direction in the future.

We just heard the minister from Newfoundland talk about the importance of petroleum drilling projects there, so I am very concerned about the bill and the change to get away from petroleum, because Canada could be self-sufficient. We import $15 billion a year of dirty dictator oil, and the government seems fine to continue that. That is the wrong direction. We should be taking our environmentally sustainable oil and gas and making sure we are self-sufficient here in Canada. The whole eastern part of the country could use that.

That is the first problem I have with the bill.

The second thing about the bill is that it would award new powers to the regulators. Today we have people who are regulators in the petroleum drilling industry. Now, with a wave of the magic wand, they would be regulators of offshore renewable energy. This is another example of the Liberals expanding regulators' scope when they are not experts in that area. They did the exact same thing with the CRTC when we were talking about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and the CRTC has said clearly that it had no experience overseeing digital media, but the government made it the regulator of it. This is an opportunity for disaster.

I am not opposed to renewables. When I was a chemical engineer, I worked in renewables. I worked on solar projects, wind projects and even offshore Lake Erie wind projects, so I am a fan of transitioning and coming to better renewable energy, but let us learn the lessons from Ontario. All of those solar and wind projects were done in a hugely subsidized way that drove the cost of energy in the province of Ontario from eight cents a kilowatt hour to 23¢ a kilowatt hour and made us totally uncompetitive.

I am thus very interested in the details of this offshore renewable energy and what kind of subsidization the government is going to do, because if it does the same it did to batteries and puts $31 billion of taxpayer money into trying to attract people to build a facility, then the taxpayer is on the hook, and this is not an economically sustainable thing. It is another concern that I do not see that detail here in the bill.

The most concerning element of the bill is the addition of a new layer of decision-making and the granting of ultimate authority to federal and provincial ministers. It would increase the timeline for a final decision to 60 to 90 days from 30, with the possibility of an indefinite extension as the call for bids is issued.

I have an issue with letting federal ministers have the power to, first of all, issue land licences in a province. The province's jurisdiction has to be respected, and we have seen numerous occasions where the government wants to overreach into provincial jurisdiction, with the carbon tax, for example, and with many of the other health initiatives the government has had where it has wanted to reach into provincial jurisdiction. Clearly the provinces have pushed back, as they should. We need to make sure that, if ministers are being given these powers, there is some kind of limitation on those powers, because we know that we have already heard concerns about the bill with respect to indigenous consultations being given to the regulators.

The regulators would have the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples. That is an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government. I am not sure that the regulators actually have the resources to do adequate consultations, which could result in court cases and challenges that would further delay and cause uncertainty in projects as they move forward. That is a concern to me, absolutely.

The other thing that gives me great concern is that the bill would give the federal cabinet the authorization to end any operational petroleum drilling on a whim. We have just gotten through saying that the government is against oil and gas. It is trying to shut down fossil fuels. Now we would be giving cabinet the power, federally, to arbitrarily, on a whim, shut down petroleum projects that we have heard from the minister from Newfoundland are extremely important to the province. This would be without the province's permission and without adequate consultation necessarily.

This is an obviously bad idea. We can see where this is going. The first initiative of the government would be to shut down as much oil and gas as it can. That is what it has done in Alberta. I am from Sarnia—Lambton, which accounts for 30% of the petrochemicals. Believe me, when the minister came to Sarnia to hear the concerns of the people about getting a transition, we were not even mentioned in the plan in the go-forward. That tells us exactly how much the Liberals care about the oil and gas workers at risk in this whole equation.

The bill would also create a new licensing system for offshore drilling. There is language in the bill that says the government would impose a 25-year cap on licences. Any licences would be limited. After 2050, everything would be off. Why would we do that to ourselves as a country? We do not know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. We do not know whether or not there will be wars or a need for those resources. Why would we arbitrarily limit our licences and cut them all off at 2050, especially considering the expression of indigenous people to have economic growth and get involved in projects? If they have a licence, is their licence going to be pulled as well after 2050, arbitrarily?

We do not need to restrict ourselves in this way. It is concerning to me that this would be in the bill, because there is no need to do that. If it is decided in 2050 that the situation warrants fewer licences, that is the government of the day's decision. Again, it is very troubling to see what is in here.

Today, petroleum activities are subject to a fundamental decision by the existing review boards in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision on approving or rejecting a project allows 30 days for provincial or federal ministers to respond, or the regulator's decision is accepted. However, for offshore renewable energy projects, under this new process, the regulator would give recommendations to the federal and provincial ministers. Ministers would have 60 days to respond, with a 30-day extension allowed if given in writing, and with, again, the possibility of an indefinite extension if they decide a call for bids is issued.

This is exactly, once over again, Bill C-69, in which the government took the approval process for projects and made it longer, and made it possible, at a minister's whim, to restart the process as many times as necessary to frustrate the private investors and drive them out of the country. This is what has happened with multiple projects: the LNG and the pipeline projects I have mentioned. More than $80 billion of foreign investment has been driven out of the country. The uncertainty of having to spend billions of dollars and wait six years to get a project approved keeps anybody from wanting to do a project in Canada unless the taxpayer is willing to give them $31 billion to do it.

This is not moving in the right direction. We need to be nimble when it comes to our decision, responsible but nimble. Again, I do not agree with the red tape regime that would hinder both traditional and alternative energy development in the bill. The broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet power for arbitrary decision-making increases timelines and adds uncertainty around onerous requirements that are already driving away investment.

I want to read a quote from Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who talked about the lack of consultation with provinces. He said, “They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity”. The provinces are concerned that they are going to see infringements from the government and I think, based on what has happened before, that they are right to think that.

There was a project that was a renewables project. It was in New Brunswick. It was the first North America tidal power project deal, and the Trudeau Liberals killed it. Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative—

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, just to be clear, I am not speaking about Bill C-18, nor am I speaking about any purported amendments to Bill C-42. Rather, I am speaking about Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The bill does a number of things. Its stated goal is protecting Canadians against money laundering and terrorist financing, deterring tax evasion and tax avoidance, and making sure that Canada is an attractive place to do business. Those are all laudable goals.

We know that money laundering in Canada is a serious issue. It is so serious that we have earned our own nickname as the land of snow washing. That is not a badge of honour. In 2022, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre reported $530 million in victim losses, a 40% increase over 2021.

These are vulnerable Canadians being preyed upon by fraudsters, who are destroying lives. It is important that, as parliamentarians, we come together to deal with these problems and do our best to protect Canadians and their retirement savings.

In 2016, the Financial Action Task Force said that Canada was completely deficient in many areas. One of its main criticisms, in fact, was our lack of a beneficial ownership registry. That was seven years ago, and we are only getting to it today. Establishing such a registry would be a major step forward, and Conservatives certainly support that. The problem, as always, is that the devil is in the details.

In committee, Conservatives tried to strengthen the bill in a number of ways. One glaring problem with the bill is that the corporate and personal fines for failure to provide required information were too low under the CBSA. The fine was only $5,000 for corporations and only $200,000 plus six months' imprisonment for individuals. I was happy to see the INDU committee increase personal fines for individuals to $1 million plus five years' imprisonment, as well as fines for corporations to $200,000. Of course, Conservatives supported those amendments, as did Liberals on the committee. We can see that when Conservatives and Liberals vote together, amendments actually pass at committee.

There were, however, a number of other Conservative amendments related to thresholds, real estate, interoperability, law enforcement, access, searchability and the use of post office boxes, of all things, which would have made the bill more effective. They were all voted down by Liberal committee members.

I want to touch on a few of them now. Currently, under the CBSA, the threshold for what is called a “significant interest” is 25%. This means that corporations only have to disclose those shareholders who have at least a 25% interest in the outstanding shares of a corporation. This poses a problem, because if we really want to crack down on money launderers and terrorist financiers, the threshold should be lower. For instance, the Ontario Securities Commission threshold is 10%.

At committee, Conservatives proposed this amendment. However, it was rejected, even though the RCMP felt it was necessary. It was rejected by Liberal members of the committee, who purport to want this legislation to be effective. It is hard to understand why they would not want to lower the threshold. James Cohen, executive director of Transparency International Canada, said that it should go down as well.

Conservatives proposed another amendment that would have brought real estate holdings into the registry. In 2018, money laundering funded $5.3 billion in British Columbia real estate purchases alone, further driving up the cost of homes in that province. The amendment said, “The corporation shall prepare and maintain...a register of individuals with control over the corporation and its real property”; it was a very important amendment that would have gone a long way in helping to control money laundering in Canada through real estate acquisitions. This amendment would have expanded the scope of the registry to make it similar to British Columbia's land ownership transparency register.

Another amendment called for interoperability with provincial registries. The fact of the matter is that most corporations in Canada are provincial. As this bill only governs federally incorporated companies, it misses out on bringing in the provinces, which would make it far more effective.

Another amendment that was defeated had to do with law enforcement access. This amendment would have added specific language to the bill to ensure that law enforcement and organizations like FINTRAC could access information from the director rather than having to go to the corporations directly. It would also have removed reference to prescribed circumstances, ensuring that only minors would be automatically exempted.

Another amendment defeated by Liberal members had to do with using post office boxes, of all things. It would have barred individuals from using post office boxes as their address in the registry. This was a specific request of the End Snow-Washing campaign.

On a cautionary note, it is always important to give consideration to stakeholders and their concerns. Small business is the backbone of this country's economy. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business raised a number of concerns, and I want to talk about some of them here.

It raised the issue of privacy and personal security. It said many small business owners are concerned about having their information available to the general public, such as name, place of residence, date of birth, citizenship, telephone number, etc. In fact, individuals in small towns may not want neighbours or acquaintances to know they have a controlling interest in a company. The CFIB talked about fraud and crime risks and how making beneficial ownership registries public could make it easier for criminals to target wealthy individuals or SMEs. Small business owners are often the targets of fraud and could be even more vulnerable than consumers, as they do not have consumer protection acts to help them manage those who want to take advantage of them.

It talked about competitive disadvantage and that requiring SMEs to disclose detailed ownership information publicly might give their competitors a strategic advantage. Rival businesses could gain insight into their ownership structure, investments and so forth. It talked about inaccurate or outdated information and how public registries may not always provide accurate or up-to-date information due to delays in reporting areas or deliberate misrepresentations. It talked about how requiring small businesses to disclose their beneficial ownership information publicly could impose an additional administrative burden and compliance costs, and that this burden might disproportionately affect smaller companies with limited resources.

Also, I want to touch on the Canadian Bar Association, which raised concerns about the risk of identity theft from the registry, potentially undermining its anti-fraud rationale.

I raise these concerns not to say that we should not make this legislation effective but to say that as parliamentarians, it is incumbent on us to listen to the stakeholders and their concerns as we try to craft and fashion legislation that addresses those concerns but still accomplishes the ultimate goal of the legislation.

The reality is that money laundering is a very serious problem. We know from our friend Bill Browder that Canada has been fertile ground for Russian oligarchs to clean their ill-gotten cash.

I mentioned earlier how money laundering has driven up the cost of housing. This is at a time in this country, after eight years of this Prime Minister, that the dream of home ownership is in critical condition. The average mortgage payment has doubled. The average family now needs to spend 62% of its monthly income to own the average home.

The cause is clear: Inflation fuelled by wasteful government spending has fuelled the inflationary fire. Just today, the International Money Fund cautioned that Canada needs to bring back a debt anchor and keep fiscal policy tight. Money laundering makes things even worse.

Finally, I must reiterate how important it is to bring provinces on board. It is a matter of basic federalism. The government will need information-sharing agreements with the provinces if this registry is going to work. It will only be as strong as the provinces willing to co-operate with it, and that means all the provinces, because if one jurisdiction is left out, it will become a hotbed for money laundering.

I will wrap up by saying that although Bill C-42 is far from a perfect bill and has key shortcomings, including leaving in place a high threshold for significant control, failing to bring into force a clause allowing law enforcement back-end access to the registry and failing to ensure interoperability with the provinces, it is clear that it is a step in the right direction, and Conservatives will support it on third reading.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not here to debate Bill C-18; we are here to debate Bill C-42. The member was asking about Facebook.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not mind commenting on Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 is wonderful legislation, and I am very glad the member and the NDP are supporting it. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party is like a fish out of water and flip-flopped once again—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I do not usually do this, but we are talking about Bill C-42 right now and not Bill C-18.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Order and Decorum in the House

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows full well that this was the time allocated for the debate on Bill C-18, and that was the end of it.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member was not censored. The time was limited on debate, and that was it. That was the end of debate on Bill C-18. That was it. There is no point of order.

Online News Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 8:29 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-18 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the well-informed constituents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and speak to the Liberals' online news censorship act.

Every single day, thousands of Canadians have their online identity stolen. Every single day, a woman has her privacy and dignity stolen by revenge porn. Every single day, the mental health crisis grows in scale, driven by social media use among teens. Online crimes run rampant. Do these Liberals care? No, they do not. Instead, their priority is propping up dying broadcasters and failing legacy media corporations.

They have already passed their online streaming censorship act. We are already beginning to see the consequences of that first stifling bill. Smaller foreign streamers are telling the CRTC they'll leave the Canadian market. These Liberals were warned this would happen. I personally warned the member for Winnipeg North what would happen if foreign-language streamers such as a Filipino streaming service blocked people living in Canada from watching their content.

Now, here we are again. Every independent voice is telling these Liberals that their plan is terrible. Their scheme to force two foreign companies to subsidize the entire Canadian media industry is obviously ridiculous. Even the legacy media have finally admitted they make millions of dollars from Google and Facebook. The legacy media even buy ads on Facebook and yet their lobbyists continue to lie, and claim that these two tech companies are profiting from their content. We know this is a lie. Facebook and Google do not profit off the dying legacy media. These companies profit off our privacy. These companies strip minor data and sell it to the highest bidder. News links generate very little profitable data. Google does not even run ads on most news searches. That is why these companies have been clear: If they are forced to choose between negotiating unlimited payments for links and blocking news links, they will choose to block news links.

Now the Minister of Canadian Heritage huffs and puffs about his chest. That it is just a bluff. Hearing the minister speak like that, I can understand why some of his critics think that he is incompetent. In fact, the government knows exactly what it is doing. It is called the Liberal coin flip. If it is heads, the Liberals win; if it is tails, Canadians lose. If Google and Facebook win, it is tails and Canadians lose. If Google and Facebook comply with the extortion, the legacy media become beholden to the Liberals' continuing in power. If Google and Facebook reject the extortion and block links, fewer Canadians will learn the truth about the government's corruption and incompetence. Heads they win; tails we lose.

However, it does not have to be this way. There is a third option. Facebook and Google could respect our democracy by seeking a solution in the courts. The legislation would require negotiation on a commercial basis. The news media representatives have now admitted they receive significant commercial benefit from links shared by Google and Facebook. Google and Facebook provide these commercial benefits to the news media industry free of charge.

It is clear from the Liberals' desperate talking points that this bill has no relationship with reality. It is based on the big lie first pushed by Rupert Murdoch's Australian media companies. This bill would never withstand judicial scrutiny. Facebook and Google have a choice: They can block news links and make Canadian democracy worse off or they can use their considerable resources to fight this law in court. Facebook and Google must keep the news links working, refuse to pay the blackmail and demonstrate they care more about the fundamental principles that the Internet was built on, which is the free flow of information.

If Google and Facebook refuse to fight this and they just give up on Canadians and proceed with blocking news, then the Prime Minister wins and Canadians lose.

How many Canadians learned about blackface from a Facebook post? How many Canadians have googled the words “Communist interference” and “Liberal Party” in order to keep up with the latest news leaks?

The government would be all too happy to see fewer news stories online. Failing that, it would settle for bringing the legacy media under the control of government. This bill would give the CRTC the power to demand any information from news media. At the recent convention, Liberal Party members cheerfully passed a policy to force news media to disclose their sources. Who is going to risk blowing the whistle on the government if the CRTC can demand any news media outlet reveal their identity?

The government claims it needs to force Google and Facebook to subsidize the entire Canadian media industry in order to save Canadians from the scourge of misinformation. Meanwhile, the minister of public endangerment is a one-man misinformation man. He claimed that police asked for the Emergencies Act. He claimed he was not banning hunting rifles while seeking to ban thousands of them. He claimed the secret Communist police stations had been shut down. The current government is the greatest source of misinformation in our society today. Now the Liberals want to bring news media under their control.

At its core, the government is confused. It has confused the fundamental right of a free press with the corporate interests of a news media industry. The survival of any one particular newspaper or broadcaster is of no importance to our democracy. What is important is the freedom for any Canadian to publish. Bill C-18 threatens that freedom. If Google and Facebook give in to the extortion, then the larger established legacy media will be given an unfair competitive advantage over any media not willing to get into bed with the CRTC and—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I rise today to speak about my concerns related to Bill C-18. This bill should be strongly opposed. We Conservatives believe that Canadian news media deserves to be fairly compensated, while the Liberals continue to fail to create effective legislation to support Canadians.

First and foremost, the Liberals claim that Bill C-18 would help smaller newspapers and media outlets. However, they fail to mention the fact that, according to the government's Parliamentary Budget Officer, more than 75% of the funding would go to large media outlets, such as the CBC. Less than 25% would be left for small media companies. The Liberal government claims to support small businesses, yet it continues to funnel tax dollars to its friends at media companies. Small news outlets' main competition is from corporations, such as the CBC.

We Conservatives proposed amendments that would level the playing field and support local and ethnic media. These amendments were rejected. The Liberals want to pick and choose their friends instead. Is $1.2 billion to the CBC not enough?

In the Senate, Senator Carignan tried to bring forth a motion to fix this. It was rejected.

According to former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies, “Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.” He said, “If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.” Do the Liberals admit that they do not like a free press? The Liberal government continues to help its elitist friends in high places and big corporations, while it forgets about the local and ethnic media outlets.

Dwayne Winseck, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication and director of the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project for Carleton University said, “Canada's largest media conglomerates—some with revenue multiple times higher than what Google and Facebook earn in Canada—will likely be the biggest beneficiaries of the bill”.

In December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses at committee, silencing experts from dozens of independent and digital news outlets who wished to speak. Rather than focusing on Canadian experts, the government relied mainly on non-Canadian critics of the digital platforms Google and Meta to tout Liberal talking points.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage deceptively stated that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. However, he failed to mention that the same study he was referencing showed that hundreds of new news outlets had opened during the same time period.

After criticizing digital platforms for not disclosing the details of existing agreements with news outlets, the Liberal and NDP MPs on the committee rejected a proposal brought forward by Conservatives to require greater transparency. Now they have brought on time allocation to silence Canadians' concerns. The Liberal-NDP government has no interest in listening to these concerns. It wants to silence anyone with opposing views.

Furthermore, Bill C-18 poses a grave threat to privacy rights. The bill includes provisions that would expand the government's surveillance capabilities, allowing it to collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data without sufficient oversight. This erosion of privacy is deeply troubling. We should have the right to live our lives free from unwarranted surveillance and invasion of our private affairs.

By giving authorities unchecked powers to collect and analyze our personal data, this bill would put our privacy at risk and set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives. Just like Bill C-11, Bill C-18 would infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Conservatives believe in the importance of a free and independent press. This bill would have significant implications for journalistic independence. Bill C-18 would empower the CRTC to obtain any information it considers necessary, including confidential information from news organizations. Conservative MPs brought forward amendments to guarantee the freedom of the press, but they were voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc Québécois.

Another concern is that Bill C-18 would impact small businesses and start-ups. The bill would introduce stringent regulations and compliance requirements that would disproportionately burden smaller online platforms. This would create a significant barrier to entry for entrepreneurs, stifling innovation and competition. We must foster an environment that nurtures small businesses and start-ups, as they are often the driving force behind economic growth and job creation.

By favouring large corporations, the bill threatens to consolidate power in the hands of a few, reducing consumer choice and limiting opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship. The bill would enable the CRTC to pick winners and losers among media; to no one's surprise, the Liberals' friends are going to be picked as winners. Conservatives brought forward motions to fix this. They were rejected.

Many experts feel that the bill is on a path to destroying Canadian media. They agree that the bill has deep flaws, which would lead to millions of dollars in lost revenue. This would set back media by years, and the projected losses that would be incurred because of Bill C-18 are greater than the funding and the tax credits.

The Liberals have extended the eligibility to foreign news outlets, and they have the audacity to claim that this will help Canadians. Broadcasters who are licensed by the CRTC but do not produce news are eligible.

From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai has warned that Bill C-18 would have serious trade implications for Canada. In a recent press release, a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy stated the following: “We have...concerns it could impact digital streaming services and discriminate against U.S. businesses”. The U.S. has warned of trade retaliation, which would likely be equivalent to whatever the U.S. believed U.S.-based digital news intermediaries had lost as a result of Bill C-18. According to the PBO, this would be $300 million-plus. The Liberals have found a way to give Canadian taxpayer dollars to American companies, while at the same time, making trade relations with the United States worse.

Any government intervention into the free press must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence. In its current form, Bill C-18, the online news act, fails this test, according to the independent online news publishers of Canada.

Furthermore, the vague and ambiguous language used in Bill C-18 raises concerns about potential abuse of power. The broad definitions and discretionary powers granted to government agencies leave room for arbitrary decision-making and selective enforcement. This undermines principles of fairness and due process, which are crucial to the functioning of a just society. We must demand legislation that is clear and specific, while respecting the rights of individuals and the rule of law. The Liberals intentionally used vague language to deceive Canadians so that they can interpret the wording in a way that will allow them to give more and more help and funding to their friends.

The legislation before us fails to address the needs of Canadian media outlets. Conservatives have brought forward amendments to fix these issues, but the Liberal-NDP coalition, along with the Bloc, voted them down.

Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians, stand up for small businesses and push back against the Liberal government giving money to its friends. Canada needs more common-sense legislation without ambiguous words. We need legislation that uses strong wording that can be easily interpreted.

In conclusion, Bill C-18 represents a disregard for small businesses, as well as the principles of fairness and due process. The bill would help neither those struggling to survive nor those trying to enter the marketplace. We oppose the bill and demand a more balanced and thoughtful approach that respects our fundamental rights and effectively addresses—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the answer is quite simple: This bill will not do that. Although there are a few small publications that will benefit from Bill C-18, the vast majority of local and ethnic media will not.

During the study of this bill at committee, Steve Nixon, the executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, made this point. He said that only four out of the 56 publications will benefit from this legislation.

The PBO has stated, as I mentioned in my speech, that 75% of the money will go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell. This government does not want to help small publications, and neither does that member's party.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this place to speak to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, which has been returned to the House by the Senate with amendments.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to point out once again the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who imposed time allocation on this bill for a second time earlier today. If that was not egregious enough, yesterday a member of the government interrupted a member of an opposition party in the middle of their speech to give notice that it would be moving a time allocation motion on Bill C-18 today. The government then switched debate to Bill C-42, forcing that opposition member to finish their speech this afternoon. Perhaps it is understandable that the government is in such disarray as it stumbles from scandal to scandal, mismanaging its agenda in the House so poorly that it must now rely on these heavy-handed measures at the end of this session, although it can always count on the blind support of its NDP backbench to bail it out.

Moving on to the bill, this bill will require digital platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay Canadian media outlets for sharing their news content. Digital giants will have six months to negotiate private deals to compensate Canadian media outlets before being required to enter into arbitration. The proposed legislation will also create a framework for the arbitration process.

This is yet another ill-conceived bill from the NDP-Liberal government. Subject matter experts have raised numerous questions and concerns about it, including the impact it will have on news media, the Internet in Canada and the benefit or lack thereof to Canadian media.

Some questions remain unanswered: Why was the CRTC selected to be the regulator? Does the CRTC have the knowledge and expertise capacity to do the job properly? Does the CRTC have the capacity to enforce the regulations once they are created? The answers to these questions and others are impossible to know, because they will stem from the regulations that will follow if this bill is passed into law.

Essentially, what the government is asking of us is to grant them these new powers and just trust that it will be fair in its application. It is a ridiculous thing to ask for. The government has been chronically plagued with introducing deeply flawed and deliberately vague legislation, leaving the details to be fleshed out by the bureaucrats through regulation, which does not get the kind of public scrutiny that bills do through a debate in this place.

It is not only that: The government has also been chronically plagued with scandals and cover-ups. How can it be trusted to do the right thing when it has shown time and time again that it is prepared to abuse its position of power to help out its friends?

The fact that the CRTC, which is a government entity, will decide which news outlets qualify under this legislation is effectively a form of indirect funding. This bill allows the CRTC to pick winners and losers by determining which news businesses are included and will get to bargain for compensation and which news outlets will be left in the cold. Conservatives proposed amendments to level the playing field but were voted down by the other parties. While the government may suggest that the CRTC is independent, I am not reassured. The WE Charity scandal came out of a supposedly independent process. The SNC-Lavalin scandal came out of that same supposedly independent process. For the Liberal government, an independent process is independent in name only.

Another flaw in the conception of this bill is the idea that hyperlinks possess monetary value. While 99.9% of Canadians may not be aware of it, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011 dealt with this very issue. In the case of Crookes v. Newton, the Supreme Court stated clearly in their decision that hyperlinks are akin to footnotes. Since footnotes do not carry a monetary value when used in publications, why should hyperlinks? Although access to the information behind the link is much faster than having to look up the reference in a footnote, the two are considered to operate in the same way.

The Supreme Court was quite clear in their findings on this case. Experts are asking why the government is ignoring the Supreme Court in this matter and whether it planning on challenging this decision from over a decade ago. How does it reconcile what is in this bill with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2011?

Another flaw in thinking that links have monetary value is that often publishers and sellers are paying to feature their links at the top of search engines or to boost their outreach on Facebook. It is interesting that when organizations are paying to feature their links on these sites more prominently, the government now turns around and says that it is the one that should be getting paid.

Initiating this “link tax”, as it has been called, can open the door to other issues, such as the ability of larger organizations to take less money per link than smaller organizations, making the larger organizations a more attractive partner for big corporations. That raises the question of how smaller websites will be able to compete.

The reality of media marketing is that organizations pay money to push links to their sites on platforms like Google and Facebook all the time. They spend quite a bit of money to do this. This boosting of their links is essentially an advertisement for their respective websites. Does providing access to these sites not boost user engagement with their articles? If Google or Facebook were taking the articles of Canadian news outlets and republishing them as their own, then we would have a real issue, but it is an issue that can already be addressed through existing laws and legislation. However, that is not the issue at hand. Anyone who has used Google would know that search engines do not republish articles in this way. If I were to search for an article, I would need to click through to the article in order to access the content behind it.

Another deep concern with this legislation is that the CBC would be the largest beneficiary of the provisions in this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the majority of the money—three-quarters of it, to be exact—would go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell, with less than a quarter left for newspapers. After the larger newspaper businesses take their share, very little, if any, would be left for local and ethnic media.

Canadians already give over $1 billion to the CBC each year. If the purpose of this bill, as the government purports, is to support smaller domestic media sources, why include the CBC? Again, Conservatives proposed an amendment to exclude the CBC so that more money would go to local and independent news sources, but it was voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc.

In conclusion, I am very concerned that rather than helping Canadian news outlets, this bill would harm them by restricting their reach, as I have mentioned. Independent media are foundational to Canadian democracy. Experts in the field have raised the concern that this legislation would negatively impact this principle in Canada. When the government creates criteria for access to funds, even media organizations may self-censor to ensure they qualify. This could lead to Canadians having less information, fewer options and an unbalanced media field.

Once again, I am unable to vote for this bill in its current form.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame that there are many things in the Standing Orders that are actually known as rules; they are not guidelines.

In the old days, Speakers who found somebody heckling, or violating the Standing Orders in other ways, would throw them out of the chamber for six months or more. This is not censorship; this is called decorum, and it is easy to follow the rules. One of them that I think the hon. member might want to take a look at is Standing Order 10, which says that, when the Speaker has stated a ruling, “No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.” We should cease discussing something that happened earlier in the day.

To the member's points on Bill C-18, I do not see how it would be censorship. I may think it is flawed policy, but I do not see any censorship there, and perhaps he could explain where he sees censorship as opposed to an effort to, as the member said, support legacy media.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and of the amendment.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The NDP-Liberal coalition has been as sly as a fox and as slippery as an eel with this piece of legislation known as Bill C-18, the online news act. This is yet another Liberal attempt to control the online content available to the people of Canada. The government will pick winners and losers among our various media outlets with this faulty legislation if it passes.

When this bill was before our House of Commons' standing committee in December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses who wished to voice their concerns about the fairness for media outlets. These witnesses and media stakeholders who wanted to put forward their concerns were simply shut down. After hastily being pushed through the standing committee, Bill C-18 came back to this place, where the censoring Liberals called time allocation after just three hours and 20 minutes of debate. What utter disregard for the many journalists and media outlets whose livelihoods will be weighed in the balance should this law pass.

The NDPs who supported the Liberals, when their blushing brides wanted to rob witnesses of the opportunity to testify at committee, backed them again by shutting debate down and rushing to get this bill passed here and sent off to the Senate. This is what we have seen time and time again with these partners in crime when it comes to legislation that supports their socialist agenda.

Legacy socialist legislation, like Bill C-11, Bill C-21 or Bill C-35, routinely gets pushed through this House with no regard for the views of stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and the opposition party.

What is wrong with Bill C-18, one might ask? Why are we using our resources to oppose this legislation? How is it bad for the Canadian public? How is it bad for small and local and ethnic media? How is it bad for journalists who want to maintain their independence?

I will tell us a little bit about that.

While this bill was in our House standing committee, the Liberals' court jester, the Minister of Heritage, deceived the committee with fake stats. He claimed that news outlets are destined for extinction. He cited a study that showed that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. The conniving part of this testimony was that he left out a very important piece, also outlined in that same report, which was that hundreds of new outlets had opened during that exact same period, yet the jester claims that this bill is about supporting local media and building a fair news ecosystem. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This bill will favour darlings of the costly coalition like the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money generated by this bill will go to large corporations like Bell, Rogers and the CBC, leaving less than 25% for newspapers. Very little of that will be left over for local and ethnic media after big newspaper businesses take the lion's share of that 25%.

According to the PBO, the Liberal claim that this bill will help sustain local newspapers and ethnic media is completely false.

That is why Conservatives tried to fix this grave injustice at committee but the NDP-Liberal coalition, and the Bloc, voted against the amendment.

Conservative senators tried to amend this bill to stop state-backed broadcasters like the CBC from competing with private broadcasters and publications for this limited money when they already receive secure funding from taxpayers' dollars.

According to the PBO, this bill would generate $320 million, and of that amount, $240 million would go to the big broadcasters: CBC, Bell and Rogers. They would be entitled to more resources than they can possibly use, to help them increase their market share, while smaller outlets like the Toronto Star could disappear, heaven forbid.

Bill C-18 is another greasy attempt at online censorship. It walks hand in hand with Bill C-11. The other place sent this bill back to this place with amendments made by its independent senators, while amendments proposed by Conservative senators have been completely disregarded. Witnesses at the Senate committee painted a grim picture for most journalism in Canada, but that testimony was disrespected and trashed, along with the amendments that arose from it. The Liberal government is determined to control what we see online. According to witnesses from The Globe and Mail, News Media Canada, La Presse, Le Devoir, CANADALAND, The Line, and Village Media, this bill would create enormous risk for the independence of the press, for the bottom line of news outlets and for the future of digital media across this country.

The government has disguised its eagerness to control what news can be shared online with its appearance to want to straighten out big tech, like Facebook and Google, and to protect small media. Does that sound familiar? The same Minister of Canadian Heritage used these exact same tactics with Bill C-11 by touting his protection of Canadian content; however, at the same time, he cut small media's global revenue streams.

The government is enlisting the help of the CRTC to determine what is news and what is not. When something is created to share information about something new, otherwise known as “news”, it would be up to the CRTC whether it can be seen online in this country. Who asked for this bill? Legacy media asked for this bill, and the Liberal government has responded. The bunch on that side of the House will make sure that their story, their narrative, their agenda and their propaganda get out, and that opposing viewpoints are silenced. That is what this is all about. The government will use this legislation to choose winners and losers in the information world, and if it does not match its socialist agenda, news will not see the light of day. Good journalists and independent news media risk falling by the wayside if this legislation receives royal assent.

Conservatives will fight censorship and stand up for freedom of the press, which is now much broader than what it once encompassed. This is a new world, and a new approach is required to fight censorship. Censorship can be easily enacted in the online world without anyone ever suspecting it. On this side of the House, we stand for freedom and for protecting the public from legislation which would restrict the news content they would see. This bill to protect legacy broadcasters would drastically impact what news Canadians can see online, and Conservatives will not go on the record as supporting it. Censorship is censorship, however one slices it, and I will not vote for a bill that supports it in any way.

To conclude my remarks, my thoughts are with my colleague from Lethbridge, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues, has been censored. She has been treated unfairly. It rushed to my mind as I was speaking so much about censorship. Hopefully, my colleague will receive justice.

The House resumed consideration of the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and of the amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am much in sympathy with what I have heard from the Conservatives around Bill C-18 to the extent of whether it will solve the problem. I am not hearing us identify the problem of social media outlets like Google and Facebook and the others having eviscerated the news media in this country, not necessarily by putting their content up without paying for it but by actually getting rid of the business model our newspapers used to rely on, like classified ads. The newspapers used to be able to rely on a source of income that is no longer there because foreign enterprises not paying taxes in this country have created a different marketplace that provides access to Kijiji and so on. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on whether we could replace the word “platforms” with the word “publishers” and solve this problem.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We are studying Bill C-18, and it speaks about freedom, censorship and power imbalance. I notice the member for Lethbridge and the fantastic shadow minister for Canadian Heritage has been getting up to ask questions over and over, and ironically, the Speaker is censoring her on a very important debate that she has much to contribute to. I urge the Speaker to reconsider her ruling and stop censoring the member immediately.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard the hon. member suggest there were not any amendments to the bill. Quite accurately, there were around 96, one which happened to be Conservative. The majority of the Conservative amendments on Bill C-18 seemed to side with the big web giants, actually taking talking points from Google and Facebook to give them the loopholes and stronger negotiating powers instead of supporting Canada's news media. Would the member explain why their party consistently—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the deputy leader of the Conservative Party taking this position and leading the fight against Bill C-18. Whether it is Bill C-18 or Bill C-11, a great deal of consultations have taken place. One sees that New Democrats, a member of the Bloc, a member of the Green Party, obviously the Liberals and even the former Conservatives, when the Conservative Party was under different leadership fewer than two years ago, supported the legislation.

What has changed, outside of the leadership of the Conservative Party? Why is the Conservative Party moving so far to the right? I would suggest it is going even further right than the Reform Party.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to give a shout-out to my colleague from Lethbridge for fighting the heavy hand of big, bossy government, which has struck again with this bill. It has almost become a cliché, and its latest offender is this bill, Bill C-18. It is sad to see the Liberal response to an important and relevant modern issue concerning the place where bureaucracies, news providers and digital technology intercept.

We are here to debate a bill that would fix one problem, instead of the one that actually needs it. It proposes solutions that would not work, and is backed by a minister who has yet to accomplish an actual win during his tenure. In other words, it is business as usual from this minister and the government. The incompetence is often confused with malice, and I can assure members that it can be both. On the surface, Bill C-18 seems like a pretty innocent bill. The gist is that small independent news providers should have a chance to compete with the big fish and earn their fair share of revenue in a free market. That is fair enough as a concept, but when we dig deeper, we find that this piece of legislation is deeply flawed, and it would not accomplish the stated goal.

Over the past eight years, we have witnessed an unprecedented erosion of freedoms under the Liberal government, particularly with Bill C-11, the censorship bill, as just one example. It was among the worst bills ever brought to the House, with an alarming opposition from industry, experts, creators and even their own friends, not just once, but twice, thanks to the member of Parliament for Lethbridge, who is not allowed to speak.

During those same eight years, we have also seen an alarming growth in the size and the power of the federal government here in Ottawa, with new abilities to regulate, to give and take away, to pick winners and losers, and to define right and wrong. A government that is big enough to do anything or to be anything is the same government that is big enough to take anything or everything away.

The overbearing approach, whetted with incompetence, adds icing to the cake of this Liberal failure. Because there are no longer proper safeguards in the new powers that the government has given itself, there is no justification on any of the decisions. Some of the most senior ministers do not read emails. Others are not briefed, and some simply are place holders in organizations where it seems like nobody is in charge.

There is no accountability, and Bill C-18 is the epitome of this. It is big government, limited freedom and crippling incompetence all combined into one bill. The political calculation here was that the Liberals might be able to force Google or Facebook to pay for links and to pay their fair share, saying at times that upward of 30% of the costs for every news outlet would be covered by these two companies. However, when we dig into the bill, we see the opposite is true because the publishers post links themselves to increase traffic and get more revenue. We heard that, over and over, at committee. It never made much sense to begin with, but when we found out from Facebook that news is only 3% of its overall feeds, it now makes even less sense.

Beyond the minister's initial miscalculation, he has no answer as to how he would deal with Canadians overall getting less news as a result of this bill, unless, of course, he is going to stop all of the government advertising or, even more ludicrous, the Liberals are going to stop Liberal Party advertising, let us say, during a campaign. Of course, the minister is not going to do that. Even if he were threatening to do that, it is a completely empty threat. It is more empty rhetoric and bluster that Canadians would end up paying for.

Let us go piece by piece and break it down. My first point is big government. Here in Bill C-18, the CRTC would be back on centre stage, much like it is with the censorship bill. Bill C-18 would give this unelected, unaccountable body of bureaucrats sweeping new powers. It would be responsible for ensuring that big social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, reach licensing agreements with various new outlets and, if an agreement cannot be reached, it would have the power to step in to appoint a mediator, and then an arbitrator, to do the job, giving the government the power to pick the winners and losers, in a free market.

Who would benefit from these deals? It would not be the small and local independent organizations that actually need our help. Rather, it would be large, established groups that can afford the high-priced lawyers and can curry favour with the CRTC and, by extension, the government.

In fact, many outlets, such as The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Le Devoir and more, have already reached deals. These big media groups might have the ability to negotiate with Facebook or even the federal government. Small mom-and-pop shops find themselves in a very different position. We have had confirmation of that already.

Lobbying records show that there was one meeting about Bill C-18 every four days over the span of eight months. We have had confirmation from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, too. He said that 75% of the money in this bill would go to CBC, Rogers and Bell, leaving only 25% for everybody else, precisely the opposite of the result one would want.

My second point is on limited freedom and forcing companies to pay for news access by mandating agreements in the free market. There would be less news, choice and independence. We have already seen the effects of that. Facebook recently shut down news-hosting services for some Canadians as a result of this legislation. That is a preview of what is to come. It is the most obvious thing that was going to happen.

If Google were to decide to do the same, it would again hurt the small independent producers. Large outlets, such as CBC, CTV or the Toronto Star, would not be affected. One can hardly say the same about the thousands of other independent broadcasters in Canada. The heritage minister can say this is not the intention, but the outcomes remain the same.

That brings me to my third point, which is incompetence. I will be frank. Only in this government could a heritage minister do no consultation, ignore opposing voices on not one but two laws, and fail so spectacularly without consequences. His record leaves much to be desired for anyone who looks critically at the issues and wants to do anything to solve them, whether in the House, in committee or in the Senate.

In front of committee, only a few weeks ago, the heritage minister could not answer basic questions about the legislation. From that bewildering appearance, we gather that he seems to believe the Internet is the problem. That is why he wants to regulate it with Bill C-11 and tax it with Bill C-18. He does not realize that the great equalizer, the Internet, is the place where all voices are heard, where people big and small can spread their ideas. It is the very outcome he wants to achieve.

The bill threatens that. Beyond the minister's crusade, this bill is extremely vague and unclear. It removes the certainties and the safeguards that anyone looking to Canada relies on. The minister likes to claim that he is working for the little guy, that he will not let Canadians get bullied by media giants. Again, that is exactly the opposite of what is happening. He is not working for the little guy. He is working in no way to rectify an issue. He is working to make the government, the CRTC, big media groups even more powerful and less accountable.

One cannot possibly be for big government, higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, and for the little guy. One cannot have it both ways.

If the bill truly helps independent media, then why on earth would organizations keep speaking against their own interests? We have heard this debate all day long. They would not.

Here is what they do say. Phillip Crawley of The Globe and Mail called Bill C-18 a “threat to the independence of media”. Canadaland's Jesse Brown, no friend of the Conservatives, underlined the risks Bill C-18 poses to Canadians' trust in news providers. Witnesses at a recent Senate committee admitted that this bill would devastate the Internet traffic that media groups rely on.

Canada's Conservatives believe the Canadian news media should be fairly compensated for the use of their content by platforms such as Google and Facebook. The Liberals' approach to this issue through Bill C-18 is absolutely devastating. Not only will it not work, but it also creates a problem we did not have before.

Conservatives have listened to feedback. We tried to implement amendments to level the playing field at the CRTC, ensure journalistic independence and target aid to the smallest, most deserving broadcasters, the person starting their Substack out of their own home. At every step of the way, we were voted down.

This bill should be called the “no online news act” instead of the online news act. That is what it will do in practice. I will proudly vote against this bill. I will vote on the side of the independent media, which will be killed at the expense of a government again protecting its friends in legacy media.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather shocked by my colleague's comments. I do not know what his point is.

My colleague is currently questioning freedom of the press and freedom of expression. There is nothing about that in Bill C‑18. That does not make sense.

Since he likes quotes, I will share one with him. Annick Charette, president of the biggest union of French-language news media employees, said that negotiating on unequal terms or without any obligation to achieve results rarely yields positive outcomes. She believes that Ottawa has the best possible legislative tools.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, talk about being paranoid.

It is interesting. The member talked about Bill C-11 and how the government wants to censor everything. He then went on to Bill C-18 and said we are going pay off the media so that the media will give us nothing but positive stories. The real manoeuvre, no doubt, is the fact that we were able to fool the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens into supporting the Liberals in bringing all of this together to pass this kind of legislation so that the Prime Minister of Canada would be almighty and powerful. That is the type of tinfoil hat talk that I think we are seeing across the way.

Does the hon. member really believe what he is talking about? Is this the type of thing he is promoting through his social media?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18 tonight.

The question I have for Canadians watching this evening is this: Does the Prime Minister want to control what they see and hear about him on the Internet? My colleagues have already mentioned what the Prime Minister has done, with previous examples. Jody Wilson-Raybould is a classic example of trying to control people in this House. He has also overlooked foreign interference to win elections, frozen the bank accounts of protesters and established mandates. There are countless other things showing that the Prime Minister's ultimate goal is control. He is not quite comfortable unless he has full control.

The predecessor to Bill C-18 is Bill C-11, the way I see it. Legislatively, the Prime Minister has already implemented a censorship bill. It has been called that by many people, including the Conservatives, and he rammed it through the House. I became very familiar with the previous iterations of this bill, Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, and he has now censored by law, through the CRTC, user-generated content. He wants to control it. He might not like the video that I post on YouTube. Freedom of speech still reigns in this country for now, but the Prime Minister may say he does not really like what the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is saying, so off he goes and he can no longer be on YouTube or social media.

We already see that the Prime Minister is gaining control by censoring Canadians, but let us look at what Bill C-18 would do, not in an opposite way but in another corner of what censorship does. This is by influencing what big media have on their newscasts.

The question is on censorship and what the Prime Minister considers he is doing in a positive way to influence media in his favour. This is the way I phrase it: Who does not get the money and who gets the money? This is from an article entitled “Sue Gardner: Bill C-18 is Bad for Journalism and Bad for Canada”. On who does not get the money, she says, “This process will benefit big legacy media companies at the expense of startups and indie publishers.” She goes on to say, “Meanwhile, many small and indie publishers are actually excluded from C-18; the bill excludes operations that employ fewer than two journalists, and excludes those ‘primarily focused on a particular topic’ in favour of those that make general interest news.”

That is a question we have to ask when talking about control. Small publishers are much harder to control, and big media is a lot easier to control. Just give them millions and billions of dollars and away we go.

Let us talk about who is getting the money. The same article says:

If news organizations became dependent on money from the platforms to sustain their operations, as they surely would with the passage of Bill C-18, this dependence would create an incentive for them to pull their punches in how they covered the platforms.

That is an example where media might say it does not want to go after someone because, after all, they are writing the cheques.

What is even more concerning, based on what I have alluded to regarding the control of big tech, is the control of government. This is from the same article:

For journalism to be trusted, it needs to be—and perceived to be—independent from government, and willing and able to be critical of government.... Bill C-18 deepens government involvement in the industry. This creates an incentive for the industry to be soft on the government, and it will further reduce trust in journalism.

That is not from me; that is from this writer. They continue: “And anything that reduces trust in journalism is dangerous—especially right now.”

I started by talking about who gets the money. Let us look at what the money looks like.

I have an article by Samantha Edwards entitled “What to know about Bill C-18, the proposed law that could affect Canadian news publishers”. It states:

A report from the PBO said of the around $329-million the bill would generate for news outlets, around $247-million would go to broadcasters such as the CBC, Bell, Shaw and Rogers.... “The fact that three-quarters of the money will be going to broadcasters, some of which are the richest companies in Canada, plus the public broadcasters which are heavily subsidized already, undermines the government’s whole premise of the bill”....

What is the temptation? I have already talked about it. The temptation, of course, is about somebody writing cheques for millions and billions of dollars: Is the media going to be as truthful to the public as it should be when reporting about them? What is its first goal? Is it to provide news and truthfulness to Canadians? Right now, the government is saying that if the media wants a big cheque, they have to say this or that. We know the Prime Minister is already about control and wants to control what people say about him. Will he use this as a heavy stick? I believe he will.

We have already talked about the control that Bill C-11 gave to the CRTC. The CRTC is influenced by the Prime Minister and cabinet. It says it clearly right in the bill. I have an article from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute entitled “Extortion, Dependency and Media Welfare—The Liberals’ Bill C-18”. About halfway through, it states, “Those in favour have no qualms about creating a news media industry permanently dependent upon the good graces of the two most imposing powers in the lives of citizens these days: Big Tech and Big Government.” As a former chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, I saw how powerful big tech was and is, and the government working together with these guys is a really scary thing for those who care about freedom in the country. I will go on: “All involved will huff and puff self-servingly, while the [Prime Minister's] government happily renders media companies ever-more dependent on federal funding.”

It is not me saying this but articles that are concerned about the very same measures that this controlling Prime Minister, who has already implemented a censorship bill, is now trying to use to covet those two big entities so as to have the narrative go his way.

One interesting bit of testimony I saw when I was doing some research, because I knew I would be speaking to this, was from Liberal Senator Paula Simons in her speech from the Senate debate. Here is a clearly Liberal senator, a former media person, who is very concerned about what this bill brings if passed. I will read a couple of her quotes.

“More than that, I’m asking if it’s wise. How independent can the Canadian news media be if they are so deeply beholden to the goodwill and future economic success of two foreign corporations?” She is referring to big tech in this instance.

She goes on to quote Mr. Greenspon, from 2021, at a Senate committee: “...inviting the platforms to negotiate deals with individual publishers can badly distort the information marketplace. People have expressed concerns for decades that advertisers influence news agendas.” This is exactly what I have been saying. This is a person who has been in the industry her whole life. He went on: “They have massive public policy agendas of their own, including tax policy, regulatory oversight, data, et cetera.... You are here to strengthen the independent press, not to create new dependencies.”

Here is another quote from the senator: “And are we comfortable giving unprecedented new regulatory powers to the CRTC to intervene in the business of print journalism and to require mandatory media codes of ethics, given the free press has never before been subject in any way to the authority of the CRTC?”

I will finish with this. Who controls the CRTC? We already heard that it is cabinet and the Prime Minister. Members heard my question, the question that I started with: Does the Prime Minister want to control what we see and hear about him on the Internet? Absolutely, yes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that the majority of the Conservatives' Bill C-18 amendments side with web giants to give them loopholes and stronger negotiating powers, instead of supporting Canada's news media. That is not a surprise, because we know the Conservatives are all about big business, big media and the ultrawealthy.

Would the member explain why your party consistently neglects to protect small—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I find really interesting is that Facebook has said it will no longer share news on its platform once Bill C‑18 passes. That means that news and local media will no longer have a voice. That includes Quebec media.

I think that it is very important for my colleague to consider the impact of Bill C‑18. The fact that Facebook will no longer share local news will have an impact on Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have an unbelievable fact. Here is what the Conservative Party said:

Canada’s Conservatives will:

Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.

They even make reference to Australia and France. This is what the legislation is doing. I heard the critic say, “Do not answer it.” I hope she does answer.

At the end of the day, how does the member justify going to her constituents, campaigning on doing what Bill C-18 is doing and, then, voting against it? It sounds as though the member is either being intimidated by giant tech or just selling out with the rest of her party.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am returning after the hour of PMB. I would like to thank my colleague from Niagara West for presenting that piece of legislation to the House. I would also like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

I left off saying that, for many reasons, I am very concerned about the direction of Bill C-18, for the reason that it would create risks to the independence of the press. My conclusion from all the items I listed prior to coming to that conclusion was a larger conclusion, which is that the government likes to control everything.

I gave some examples that were provided to me through different media sources, and I will continue some of those examples now. This is very interesting commentary that Canadians have left on the Substack of Michael Geist, and these comments include the following: “I wonder if the Liberals view C18 as a win-win situation. If Google and Facebook pay then the media will be more likely to support the Liberals in the next election.”

We have seen this happen before, of course, where the Liberals pay the media and then it feels compelled to report positively on the government of the day. In fact, we just heard the deputy House leader make reference to an article. We know, not off the top, if this journalist would have been subject to this type of situation, whereby they felt compelled to print something positive about the government of the day.

Another comment reads:

The potential consequences of this bill are deeply concerning. Even its supporters acknowledge the serious flaws that could lead to significant losses for Canadian media, including lost links and deals. The fact that the government is willing to silence criticism from local media organizations raises alarm bells about the lack of accountability and transparency surrounding this legislation.

This is similar to what we saw with Bill C-11. The comment goes on:

If passed as it stands, it could result in reduced access to news for Canadians and diminished revenues for Canadian news organizations. It is crucial that we address these issues and strive for a balanced solution that supports the sustainability of Canadian media while preserving the public’s right to information.

Another comment off the Substack of Michael Geist, who has been a strong commentator on the negative aspects of Bill C-18, is from a Canadian named Brian, who writes:

Haha. The driving of the final nail into the Canadian news media coffin has begun. Once the referrals to news sites from social media and web searches stops, so will the traffic to those sites stop and so will the advertising revenue they enjoy from that traffic. The last revenue stream for those news organizations will dry up faster than a puddle of water in the Sahara desert.

Michael Geist himself makes a comment, which is really damning, on the government cutting off debate, which is nothing new for us. Unfortunately, we have experienced time allocation several times in the House. He says, “The government cut off debate at second reading, actively excluded dozens of potential witnesses”; this is pretty par for the course as well. It “expanded the bill to hundreds of broadcasters that may not even produce news,” which is interesting considering that they accuse us over here of providing misinformation. It “denigrated online news services as ‘not real news’, and shrugged off violations of international copyright law.” This is a larger problem altogether.

In fact, I believe it was the member for Hamilton Mountain who said the quiet part out loud in committee by claiming that online news outlets were not news. That is news to me. After apologizing, she never spoke up again at committee, but she chose not to maintain her silence in the House today.

DB writes, “After Bill C11 and C18 why should anyone trust this government? It's clear they value the interests of media organizations over the interests of Canadians.” That is my point, as I go to close here. The Liberal government wants to control everything. It wants to control our democratic systems, as we have seen with its hesitancy to do anything about the situation regarding foreign interference and call a public inquiry. It wants to control the cycle of our economy, keeping Canadians in poverty with higher taxation but giving back tiny bits. It wants to control our day care systems, in terms of providing no solutions for different types of families and taking away work from female entrepreneurs.

The good news is, in the member for Carleton, we will have a prime minister that will allow for freedom, and we will see all these things go the way of the dodo bird.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and of the amendment.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House and address not only my constituents in Calgary Midnapore but also Canadians. The matter at hand today is Bill C-18, which seems to go hand in hand with Bill C-11, the unfortunate legislation we saw this House pass that attempts to silence Canadians.

Before I get to my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize the member for Lethbridge, who, as the Conservative shadow minister for heritage, has done an incredible job of standing up not only for content creators and all Canadians, but especially for those who want their voices heard, whom the government, hand in hand with its government partner the NDP, is not allowing to be heard. Let us hear it for them being the opposition someday soon. It will happen when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister.

Today we are discussing Bill C-18. I am not as familiar with this bill as the member for Lethbridge, who, again, has done such a fantastic job of championing our opposition to this bill and to Bill C-11, but after my review of the bill and the information I have seen online, which I do not believe is misinformation, I have some significant concerns. It seems that the government's reasoning for this bill is in alignment with a lot of its other legislation. I am going to go over some troubling points that I see and then conclude with how I feel this points in the same negative direction that we see the government often take.

Apparently, according to this bill, the government would be able to determine who eligible news businesses are. That is very unfortunate, because if anyone has something to say, then that is news, that is their news and that is their voice. It really should not fall to the government to determine who eligible news businesses are. The government would also mandate payments for links, so in addition to controlling who is saying what and what they are saying, it is controlling the money of who is saying what and what is being said.

Also, the CRTC would be judging the agreements. The CRTC has been given incredible oversight, and I would almost say overreach, with Bill C-11, and this is continuing with Bill C-18. I have seen several articles that indicate Bill C-18 risks creating no independence within the press. That is also very concerning.

What all of these concerns I have just listed point to is a theme with the Liberals: They want to control everything. That is exactly what they do. They absolutely want to control everything. Whenever there is something they do not agree with, they label it as misinformation. This is what they do, and Bill C-18 is just another example of the government's attempt to control Canadians.

However, members should not just take my word for it. Michael Geist noted, “The Globe and Mail's Phillip Crawley warned against the intrusion of the CRTC into the news business, calling it a “threat to the independence of media”, something I just mentioned. Virtually everyone admitted—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will ask the member a question that she did not really talk about and that not enough members talked about regarding Bill C-18. What I like about this bill is that the support provisions will provide for indigenous production. I wonder if she could help describe why Bill C-18 would be important for indigenous news outlets.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that journalists and small media outlets need support. At the same time, Bill C‑18 gives them the autonomy to negotiate directly with major tech companies. Some do not want money from the government.

We must continue to talk about all the ways in which we can support journalists, but I believe that Bill C‑18 is a good start.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that my colleague and I agree that we absolutely must protect our local media outlets. There is currently a crisis. People are losing their jobs, and we must stand up for them.

Bill C-18 is a good step, but unfortunately it will not fix everything in this time of crisis. That is why the Bloc Québécois, and especially my colleague, the member for Drummond, is working very hard to ensure that a special fund for local media is created.

Recently, media outlets in our ridings contacted us again about this matter. I am thinking of the Voix de l'Est, Granby Express, Journal de Chambly, Val-Ouest and M105. They are closely following the debates on Bill C‑18 and want an additional fund to give them a boost. All these media outlets need an extra boost.

I would like to know if my colleague's government is prepared to go that far, on top of passing Bill C‑18.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the online news act. As members have heard, I am a former broadcast and newspaper journalist, and I am also currently a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Therefore, this bill really is important to me. I am very proud of the work that we did as a committee and that we are one step closer to this legislation's actually passing now that we have received amendments from the Senate.

I am so grateful for the work of the Senate, and I would like to thank the senators for their thorough debate and their thoughtful consideration of the legislation. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the heritage committee for working collaboratively across party lines and listening compassionately to all the groups and individuals who came to committee to tell us just how important Bill C-18 would be for them.

Before I get into the substance of the Senate amendments, I would like to explain why this bill is so crucial for small local Canadian news outlets. These outlets at one time told the stories in and about every little corner of our country, but they have been shuttering, one after the other, and the trend is accelerating. I witnessed it first-hand in my more than 20 years as a journalist, surviving mass layoff after mass layoff and watching talented and bright colleagues have to go off and find their next dream job.

Just last week, Bell Media laid off some 1,300 employees from its broadcast division on Parliament Hill. We lost journalists like Joyce Napier and Glen McGregor. These journalists are institutions within this institution. Their deep knowledge, gained from years of experience, and the context they bring to their reporting has been lost. It is a loss to us who work in this place and it is a loss to our constituents who are trying to understand federal politics.

It is not just in Parliament buildings in federal and provincial capitals where journalists have become scarce. It is our city halls, our courtrooms, our legions, our school boards and our local sporting events. We used to have reporters in all those places, listening to people, sharing stories and giving us a real sense of community. They are mostly not there anymore.

As we have heard already today, since 2008, more than 500 Canadian news outlets have closed in 335 communities across Canada. Three hundred and fifty-nine of these are community newspapers. Sixty-three closed since the start of the pandemic.

Since 2010, the number of jobs in the newspaper industry saw a 45% decrease. Thousands of journalism jobs have been lost permanently from all the mediums. This means that many communities do not have local news to rely on. They are left unaware when they could have helped someone in need. They are left in danger when there is an impending natural disaster. They have no way to know how their city, or province or country is performing, whether there is corruption or a policy that causes harm to vulnerable people.

News producers told us at committee that news had never been profitable, that it was expensive, that it was hard work. It takes a person at least a full day, sitting through meetings, coming up with an angle, conducting interviews and writing a story for print or broadcast, just for one piece of content. However, news is so valuable that it was always worth the trouble. Companies would advertise. There were classified ads or obituaries. News producers could survive. Now all those sources of revenue are gone.

Eighty per cent of all advertising revenue goes to Google and Facebook, two companies. They do not employ journalists or ask reporters to gather news, but the content produced by reporters is still important to these online giants. These are the stories people share on Facebook. This is the data scraped from the Internet, when artificial intelligence is being developed. The news content creators are dwindling, but the content itself is going further than it ever has before. What happens when we do not have any more reporters to share our stories? Democracy dies in darkness, as I am sure members are aware.

In order to secure a future for local news, we must ask Facebook and Google to pay their share, to contribute to Canadian journalism. We must ensure that we continue to have journalists and that they are paid fairly for their long, uncomfortable, highly scrutinized and yet sorely needed work. That is why we need to pass Bill C-18. This bill would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers for the content distributed on their platforms.

My riding of Hamilton Mountain is particularly well served by local news outlets. There are radio stations, magazines, local web-based reporters, The Hamilton Spectator, Hamilton Mountain newspapers and CHCH TV, with hard-working reporters, editors, photographers and a myriad of other people with the skills required to make it all work, ensuring that the people of Hamilton know when there is something they need to know.

Bill C-18 would help smaller outlets. They can work together to negotiate collectively with big tech giants. Bill C-18 would require these tech giants to broker deals with smaller outlets. If a fair deal cannot be reached, the negotiations would move to final-offer arbitration.

We need to acknowledge and mitigate the threat that tech giants pose to our local news outlets based on the balance of power they hold. We need to empower and strengthen our local news teams. Most news organizations in Canada, which produce journalism as already defined under the Income Tax Act, will be eligible for the online news act, whether they are big or small, local or national.

This is bigger than just Canada. We are following in the footsteps of other countries, such as Australia and France. The online news act is based on the Australian model, where digital platforms that have a bargaining imbalance with news media are required to make fair commercial deals. As we saw in Australia, collective bargaining was essential for ensuring that small publishers got good deals. That is why this legislation does the same. Other countries are watching what we in Canada do in order to follow in our footsteps, because they also see the dire need to protect their journalism.

Regrettably, there has been a campaign of misinformation surrounding this bill. Tech giants have tried to convince small news outlets that Bill C-18 will hurt them. The opposite is true. This bill is good for local news. News producers maintain their freedom of expression and their editorial and financial independence. Bill C-18 is about supporting fact-based local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace.

To hear tech giants and opposition members spread misinformation about this bill really gets to me. It is appalling. I have heard this called a “link tax”. There is nothing in Bill C-18 that makes platforms pay per click. There is no tax. The government is not collecting any money. Now more than ever, as we face rampant disinformation and lost trust in our institutions, we need quality, fact-based, objective news reporting at local, national and international levels.

The intimidation tactics that we have seen from tech giants are quite troubling. From February 9 until March 16 of this year, Google ran tests that dangerously blocked and censored news from more than a million Canadians. When Google ran similar tests in Australia, it blocked access to other institutions too, like a hospital and a shelter for women escaping violence. Instead of directing people to those sources, Google directed its algorithm to promote sources of questionable quality, sources known for conspiracy theories, for example.

When Google uses tactics like blocking Canadians' access to news and information, it fails to be a reliable service for consumers. By running tests that block access to news, Google is hurting Canadians and damaging Canadian democracy. Rather than being good corporate citizens and working with legislators, tech giants have been trying to strong-arm and intimidate us. There is derision in lieu of thoughtful, meaningful engagement with the parliamentary process.

Our government supports journalism, full stop. We have the local journalism initiative, the Canada periodical fund, the journalism tax credit and the digital news subscription tax credit. With Bill C-18, we are taking another step to encourage, support and stand up for our local news outlets.

A free and independent press is absolutely essential to Canadian democracy. I am proud of the work I did for more than 20 years as a journalist. To come full circle, I am equally proud of the work we have done as a committee and as a government on this piece of legislation.

Let me just talk briefly about the Senate amendments to this bill. I am encouraged that we agree with the majority of amendments made by the Senate. Out of the 12 it suggested, we accepted 10. It is very reassuring.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendments four and five. These changes would undermine the objectives of the bill, which focus on encouraging fair deals. The amendments would narrow the scope of the bargaining process between platforms and news outlets. We cannot add an amendment that would limit the ability of news publishers to negotiate fair compensation with large tech giants. A main component of this bill is a fair and independent framework for Canadian publishers and journalists to bargain with tech giants. Amendment five would improperly benefit the platform at the expense of the publisher.

Once again, I thank my colleagues at the Canadian heritage committee and thank the Senate for its thoughtful deliberations.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate everyone's questions. Earlier, I was in the lobby with a colleague. We were talking about how the process required to come up with a law that makes sense and that meets the requests of all regional media is long, cumbersome and sometimes tedious.

I would like to point out something important. When the flooding in Baie‑Saint‑Paul happened, residents got information from community radio stations and community television stations. They got updates in the local newspaper, Le Charlevoisien.

At the moment, the staff at these media outlets are struggling. They are always on tenterhooks, wondering whether they will close their doors or be able to stay afloat. That is what Bill C‑18 is for. It provides a foundation. After that, the government will have to collaborate with us to consider the possibility of a new fund, because all these small media outlets have been in financial peril for too long. There will have to be a fund.

I would like to know if my colleague is open to a fund for media outlets that are at risk—

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative friends are very good at criticizing, but they offer very little by way of solutions to real problems. For all the years that we have been talking about fighting climate change, we have constantly criticized the government, and rightly so, because the Liberals are absolutely useless at fighting climate change. However, the Conservatives do not offer any meaningful solutions to real problems.

The revenue sharing in Bill C‑18 is a real problem. In my riding, there is a weekly newspaper that had 10 journalists five years ago. Now there are only two left. How can they cover all the events? There are six federal ridings and there is simply no way they can cover all the regional news, which is extremely important.

What solutions does my colleague have to offer for this problem that is real and widespread across Canada?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity again to address Bill C-18 in the House.

I am pleased that the Senate has exercised its judgment as the place of sober second thought and sent this legislation back to the House for further work.

Right off the top, I will say that there are three areas where all members of the House are in agreement. First, we all agree that there should be some mechanism whereby tech giants are taxed, and that we do so in a way that does not negatively affect Canadian consumers. Second, we all agree that there must be some mechanism in place to deal with online misinformation and disinformation. At every one of our offices, we deal with this issue on a daily basis. Third, we all agree that we must create a framework to regulate AI or artificial intelligence.

We agree on these three principles. The issue, as is usually the case in the House, is how we go about doing that.

How do we make tech giants pay their fair share? How do we regulate information online and, perhaps more pertinent to our conversation today, particularly in light of the events of the past three years, who determines what is misinformation? How do we differentiate between fact and opinion?

In our postmodern world, or what some have called a post-truth world or a world where truth has become a relative or entirely subjective concept, how do we, as governments and media, differentiate and adjudicate between truly evidence-based information versus that which is driven by ideology and political expediency? Finally, how do we even begin to deal with the challenges posed by artificial intelligence?

In the Bible, we have the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have the story of the Tower of Babel, where people believed that by building a tower to heaven, by storming God’s dominion, they could themselves become God. We have heard the story of Pandora’s box, or jar if we want to be exact, and the story of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods.

Almost every ancient civilization has some story of humanity receiving or taking knowledge from the gods, knowledge they were not ready for, that they were ill-equipped to handle and that ultimately leads to chaos.

With the advent of the technological revolution and, in particular, artificial intelligence, humanity has come full circle to a truly frightening reality. It is good that we are beginning to address these important issues. It is good that we are at least largely agreed on what those issues are.

Unfortunately, as is always the case with the government, the flaw is in the details. There is a reason that the Senate sent this back. It could have chosen to just approve it. It sent it back and that is because this legislation, like its sister legislation Bill C-11, is deeply flawed.

Conservatives maintain that the government has misled Canadians about what the true objectives of Bill C-11 are. In short, it gives the government the ability to control what people see and post online. That is why Conservatives have committed to repealing it. I suspect that we will do likewise after Bill C-18 has been passed, and we are sitting on the other side of the House.

Like Bill C-11, at first look, the legislation looks fine and prudent, but then one starts to dig a little deeper. The flaw is in the details. One of those first pesky details is the issue of accountability. The government says that tech giants need to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians, which is the pot speaking to the kettle.

I agree. I am pretty sure my colleagues agree with this statement. Tech giants, like all multinational, plutocratic entities, do need to be held accountable. If they wish to operate within the jurisdiction of a country, those individual nation states must find a way to temper the unprecedented power, influence and wealth these entities have amassed.

When it comes to transparency and accountability, the government has very limited credibility. How the government can have the audacity to tell anyone they need to be more accountable and transparent shows its utter lack of self-awareness and the level of narcissism we are dealing with here because there has never been a government that has been so secretive. This government has so actively shunned accountability.

When, in the long line of scandals and failures of the Prime Minister and his ministers, has even one of them ever taken responsibility? I think the record clearly shows that the answer to that question is never. I could stand here and, one by one, list the scandals and failures of this government, but we would be here all night, and I know we have other work do get done here.

There is always an excuse, always someone else to blame. The government never takes responsibility. No minister has ever been held accountable. Actually, that is not quite true. We may remember that the Prime Minister did fire a minister. What did she do? Did she fail to execute the basic functions of government? Did she create chaos in her department? Did she misappropriate funds? Did she lie about a matter of national security? No, she did not. Her crime was that she tried to hold the Prime Minister accountable. She was the first indigenous woman to be minister of justice and attorney general, and the Prime Minister fired her because she refused to be party to his misdeeds or to capitulate to his unlawful demands.

When it comes to accountability, the Liberals have no credibility. Therefore, how can Canadians trust the Liberal government to enforce the very thing that the government itself refuses to do? That same statement from the heritage minister’s office states, “Canadians need to have access to quality, fact-based news at the local and national levels, and that's why we introduced the Online News Act.” I agree with that sentiment. The problem is that it is really difficult to take the government at its word when it has spent the past seven and a half years subsidizing media outlets that are friendly to it, intentionally parrot government talking points as “facts” and brand everything else as “misinformation”.

The Liberals gave legacy Liberal media $650 million and continue to fund the CBC to the tune of $1.24 billion per year. Why do they need to do this? First, it is to buy positive coverage, and they have gotten excellent bang for their buck. There is always a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefit seems to have been worth the cost of taxpayers' dollars. Second, they have done so because those friendly outlets are dying. They are trying to prop up a dying industry.

With the exception of a brief renaissance during COVID, when flush with Liberal government dollars, the media spouted government talking points and spread fear and division among Canadians. They have ceased to be relevant. We can bemoan that fact all we want, but I would ask, as I believe my colleagues have adequately done, what members' primary source for their news and entertainment is? Chances are that it is something online. I think this is really at the heart of the issue. I would pose this question to the government: What is a better indicator of what people actually believe, what they say or what they do? I would argue that it is what they do.

In the same way as the government’s track record, its behaviour has shown that it does not really believe in accountability. It also does not care about what the media prints or posts as long as it is favourable to the government. However, Canadian consumers have also spoken by their behaviour. If we were to ask a group of Canadians to define “Canadian content”, it would be difficult to get consensus. The platforms that Canadians subscribe to, the shows they watch and the content they consume would probably not be considered Canadian content by all Canadians.

Maybe listening to Canadians rather than dictating to them what the government wants them to see as Canadian content would poise the government to better serve Canadians. If we were to ask a group of Canadians how important Canadian content in media is, I suspect about half would say it is important. If we were to ask that same group how much Canadian content they actually consume, what platforms they subscribe to and what shows they watch, the answer would most likely be pretty different.

Perhaps, for once, rather than dictating to Canadians, the government that supposedly represents their interests ought to take the novel approach of listening to them. While it is listening, it should ask them what they think about the carbon tax, the cost of living, this so-called green and woke agenda, their media priorities and whether they feel safe on the streets. This is Conservatism 101. The market is the best indicator of what Canadian people want, because it is driven by Canadian people. Rather than accept this reality, the government that thinks it knows better than Canadians how to spend their money, consistently pushes back against the market to achieve its own ideological purposes.

At the end of the day, the market determines the viability of a product, including media, so we need to address these issues. Conservatives agree with that, but the weaknesses of this legislation are secondary to the sad reality that the government lacks credibility. It is a serial offender, guilty of doing the very things it claims this legislation would address.

Only a new, Conservative government would be able to address these important issues, and we will address them head-on—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, with whom I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We have some great discussions there.

I too have worked in a newsroom and studied journalism. I am speaking on behalf of local media in my region, which want us to pass Bill C-18 because they want the web giants to pay their share. Whether it is La Voix de l'Est, the radio station M105, La Pensée de Bagot, Le Journal de Chambly, Granby Express or Le Val-Ouest, these local media, which contribute to the local economy and are part of our cultural community, are calling for it to pass.

I am not hearing from anyone at those media outlets about the administrative problems that my colleague just mentioned. All they want is for Bill C‑18 to pass. They need it. They are asking for it.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the member opposite by saying that yes, I have worked in newsrooms. For more than 20 years I worked in newsrooms.

I also sit on the heritage committee. I know that this legislation is possible because it is already working in a similar form in Australia, supporting small local news outlets in Australia.

Bill C-18 creates a framework so that news organizations have the power to negotiate with big tech. There is no money coming from government. There is no money going to government. In what world could one call that a subsidy?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Provencher.

As always, I recognize what a privilege it is to stand in the House of Commons and represent my community of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Today, we are debating Bill C-18 amendments that have been brought back from the Senate. It is known as the online news act. In a nutshell, this bill proposes to make big tech like Google and Facebook or Meta, as it is now known, pay when they share links from smaller independent legacy media. This bill is deeply flawed and, quite frankly, it is an absolute disaster.

I grew up just outside Peterborough, Ontario in a town called Douro. We had about three channels. As the youngest child, it was my job to be the human remote control. It was also my job to turn the dial for the aerial outside to make sure it was just right. Everyone at home who was a child of the eighties knows what I speak of. My favourite shows were the CHEX news, The Raccoons and The Beachcombers.

When I was nine we moved to the township of Otonabee and we got a satellite dish. It was a huge deal. If someone pressed a button, the giant satellite dish out in the yard moved with a remote control with hundreds of channels.

As technology has rapidly progressed, the customer has definitely taken more of a driver role. The customer says what they want, when they want and how they want it.

There are so many more options and it has increased competition, which has made it harder and harder to capture the attention of the customer. Local news will always be relevant. Local news will always be a priority because we need to know what is happening in our community. We want to know.

The landscape of how we consume media has drastically changed but our need to stay connected and informed has not. I worked at a local television station for 14 years and then I went on to start my own business in social media. I know the value of local media.

I also know the competition has dramatically impacted our legacy media and not necessarily in a positive way. I worked for CHEX television at that time and we always dreamed of having a satellite truck so that we could go live. Imagine doing live hits. We were a small-town news media but with a big following because people wanted to stay connected. Then along came this little guy and we could go live with our phones like that.

Bill C-18 is not going to help legacy media. It is going to hurt them. Bill C-18 is a subsidy program. It is not a support program and it will never work. It also opens a dangerous door for censorship and control. It is a terrible idea hidden behind a classic Liberal narrative of "We will protect you and we know what is best for you."

This morning I spoke with Jeff Dueck, who is the sales manager from My Broadcasting Corporation in Peterborough, Ontario. He has major concerns with this bill. He shared many of his concerns with me, but the one that struck me the most is when he told me that they do not want subsidies but they want an equal playing field.

Subsidies are the polar opposite to sustainability and they are a classic Liberal tactic. They create chaos and then offer a sliver of help and long-term dependence, rather than freedom and autonomy. Canadians have caught on and the trust is gone. Jeff went on to say this:

The inability of our Government and the CRTC to listen to us and modernize outdated policies is slowly killing our industry, and in doing so, putting Canadians at risk of losing access to valuable sources for local news and information from trusted media outlets. When major players make major changes, it affects us all and stigmatizes us as a “passe“ business model amongst the businesses that we count on for advertising revenues - but that's still far from the reality.

If people take anything from this, please listen to what I am about to say. The harsh reality of this bill is that despite its intention, it is actually going to do the exact opposite.

If I were at Google or Facebook and the government told Google or Facebook it had to pay to share the links of small legacy media, what motivation would I have to share it? I would have none, zip. I would not share it. That is what is going to happen. This methodology is literally the stick instead of the carrot.

The truth is that one of the very best ways to get news to more people is to have a bigger platform to share it. That is the exact thing one would want. Once a bigger platform shares one's content, they are then able to tap into a whole new audience. Once they have that audience they have the opportunity to promote their subscription or merchandise. It is literally the best way to grow their business and brand online.

Bill C-18 will destroy legacy media: it will no longer be seen because it will no longer be shared.

Andrew Coyne, a columnist at The Globe and Mail, said it well when he said:

The premise, that the problems of the newspaper industry can be traced to search and social-media platforms like Google or Facebook "stealing" their content, is utterly false. The platforms don't take our content. They link to it: a headline, sometimes a short snippet of text, nothing more. When users click on the links, they are taken to our sites, where they read our content. Much of the traffic on our sites, in fact, comes from social-media links, which is why we go to such lengths to encourage readers to post them - indeed, we post such links ourselves, hundreds of times a day.

Has anyone even begun to ask how in the world this would work administratively? Who, and how are the links going to be tracked? Who is billing? Is it the legacy media's job to be their own watchdog and submit a claim? I am not sure who has worked in a newsroom in this room, but I can tell you, nobody has time for that. We do not need another government-run program with more bureaucracy to create more backlogs.

This whole idea is bonkers. It is a distraction from the out-of-date and archaic mandates by the CRTC. The real problem here is there are a bunch of platforms that can play what they want. They have no rules and no restrictions. Then there are legacy media that are bound by the archaic shackles of the CRTC.

How about we let radio stations play the music they want? That would be a great start. Of course they will continue to promote our talented and diverse Canadian artists. How about we trust them to listen to the customer instead of holding them hostage?

Bill C-18 is a terrible bill. It will be the death of our legacy media. If members in this House want to support our journalists and artists then they need to vote this down. Seriously, if members do not believe me, they should pick up the phone and listen to the people on the front lines. They know this is a disaster.

Jen Gerson is the co-founder of The Line, an independent journalist. She was a witness at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in September 2022. She said that this bill:

...is predicated on a lie. The bill adopts a very ancient complaint of newspaper publishers that aggregation-based news websites and social media networks are unduly profiting by “publishing” our content. However, we know this isn't true. In fact, the value proposition runs in exactly the opposite direction. We publishers are the ones who benefit when a user posts a link to our content on Facebook, Twitter and the like. This free distribution drives traffic to our websites, which we can then try to monetize through subscriptions and advertising.

Legacy media does not need Liberal interference and control. They need the government to get out of the way, stop regulating how they do their jobs and let them do what they do best, which is to create content Canadians want to consume. If Canadians cannot see the content, what is the point in creating it? Let us make sure that legacy media's hard work pays off. Let us vote down Bill C-18.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and of the amendment.

News Media Industry

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question and her absolutely great work.

Bill C‑18 is crucial to save our newsrooms and make web giants pay their fair share. However, at every step of the process, Conservative politicians have filibustered to block passage of Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, because they would rather defend web giants than defend Canadians, jobs and our freedom of the press.

On this side of the House, we will continue to stand up for our democracy. We did it in the past, we are doing it today, and we will continue to do it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a free and independent press is vital to our democracy. Last week, we learned that 1,300 families were affected by Bell's layoffs, while the online platforms and web giants benefit from access to the Canadian market, but have no responsibility towards our artists, creators and local Canadian media. That is another example of why we need Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to make the web giants pay their fair share to our local media.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House how our government made a commitment to defend our democracy?

Order and Decorum in the House

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a serious point of order with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak during the debate that is currently on in the House.

At the end of the time provided to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his use of time allocation on Bill C-18, the online news act, there was a heated exchange between the minister and the member for Lethbridge. It is no secret that the member for Lethbridge is a fierce critic of the minister and has opposed his legislation every step of the way. She makes the point that Bill C-18 is the next step in the government's censorship of the Internet. The member has repeatedly argued that the minister is the one rewarding tech giants, as he will give them more power with Bill C-18. The minister accused the member for Lethbridge of using the talking points of tech giants in opposition to the bill. In response, the member for Lethbridge accused the minister of lying.

We know that term is unparliamentary, and I accept the decision of the Assistant Deputy Speaker to call her to order. It should also be pointed out that, when one member makes a false claim about another member, it is not uncommon for disorder to follow. The member for Lethbridge did the right thing when she said clearly, “I will apologize for using that word.” She went on to say, “He misinformed the House.” This is a matter for debate, although for my part, I agree with her.

The Chair took exception to that comment, informing the House that the member for Lethbridge would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. To be clear, the member did not accuse the minister of deliberately misinforming the House. She simply made the point that the minister was misinformed and brought that misinformation to the House. At most, this is a point of debate. It is not something that a member should be sanctioned for.

The irony is not lost on me that the member is being censored during debate on what amounts to a censorship bill. In my view, this is a heavy-handed response from the Chair, given the poor behaviour of Liberal members in recent days. The Chair has accepted apologies for behaviour that is far more egregious without Liberal members attracting any sanction.

We can take the member for Kingston and the Islands as an example. Last week, he gave me the middle finger when I called him out for denying a unanimous consent motion that called for Paul Bernardo to be put back in maximum security. That member gave the most insincere apology I can recall in the House. There was no sanction for him. In fact, later that day, he was given the floor in the debate.

Therefore, I would expect that the apology from the member for Lethbridge would be accepted by the House and that the Chair would allow her to participate in the debate this afternoon. Further, the House would benefit from even-handed application of the rules that is not seen to benefit one party over another. I would like the Speaker to clarify how the rules should be applied, regardless of who is presiding over the debates.

Online News Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate input from the leader of the Green Party. I am not sure if she was here for the beginning of my comments. The bottom line is that it is important for Canadians to realize the degree to which the government is working with some opposition parties in this House in order to pass important legislation.

I indicated at the beginning of my remarks just how important our community media outlets are. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that Facebook, Google and the big giant tech companies are paying for what they are receiving and utilizing through media news outlets. We are attempting to ensure that we have healthier community news and a healthier democracy, as a direct result.

I indicated earlier that I would talk about CBC. We have a government that is committed to supporting CBC and I would love, during questions and comments, to hear some Conservative members make the commitment to support CBC Radio and CBC Television. I will not hold my breath on that point, but it sure would be nice for them to support that, if not Bill C-18.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very entertained by my hon. colleague's speech, but I was wondering when he might discuss Bill C-18.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do plan to expand on that point shortly, but before I do that, I want to provide a bit of a different perspective on how important Bill C-18 is. It needs to be placed in the real world context to see how it would protect our national community news agencies and media. It is so very important.

I often will go to a lot of events, as members on all sides of the House do. Often it is the community news people who are at those events, taking pictures, doing interviews and so forth. If it is a local basketball game or championship game at a local high school, it will be the local newspaper that highlights it.

I go to many different types of ethnic events. Whether it be the Pilipino Express News Magazine, Filipino Journal, Punjabi Today or CKJS radio, these community-driven news agencies, newspapers, radio and media are reporting on the things taking place. There are pictures and everything else incorporated.

While visiting constituents in their homes, I often see that they have a newspaper produced in the community. They will show me where their son or daughter's name is in that community newspaper or where a local community event is being profiled in the paper.

It does not matter whether people are from urban or rural communities, whether they are from the east or the west or up north, these small news agencies play a critical role in our community development and society as a whole and, absolutely, 100% with respect to our democracy. One of the fundamental pillars to a healthy democracy is to have a healthy media. That is why the minister of heritage has often talked about the importance of supporting journalism, supporting those news media outlets.

I believe the minister referenced the year 2008, a year when just under 500 media outlets of different sizes from different areas of the country completely disappeared. We should all be concerned about that. Local media is how we often find out about the birth of a child, or that someone has died or an announcement about a parade to be held in our community It is often how we will hear about grand openings and so many other things. Not to mention that elected officials will often take political accountability by providing writing or commenting through local media.

I want people who are following the debate to understand just how important it is that we as a government are here to support our media. We are not the first government in the world to do so. We have heard about Australia and France. I believe that many countries around the world are following the debate on Bill C-18.

I am disturbed by the Conservative Party's approach to this legislation. All of us should be. Is it working with the giant tech companies ? Has it been intimidated by the giant tech companies?

The member for Kingston and the Islands raised a quote. I would like to reinforce that. For my Conservative colleagues across the way, I suggest they look at that election platform, the platform that they shared with millions of Canadians in the last federal election.

Page 155 of the 2021 Conservative platform, which has a picture of the former leader on the front of it, says, “Canadian media is in crisis. The loss of digital advertising revenue to American tech giants like Google and Facebook is putting local newspapers out of business, costing Canadian jobs, and undermining our ability to tell local, Canadian stories.” I agree with that. In fact, if I did not tell people it was coming from the Conservative platform, I would feel very comfortable making that statement.

I will continue to read from the Conservative platform. It says, “Canada’s Conservatives don’t believe that the solution is for the government to provide direct funding to hand-picked media outlets”, and I disagree with that as I see the value in CBC and I will provide further comment on that shortly, “something that undermines press freedom and trust in the media. Instead, we will secure a level playing field for Canadian media, ensuring that Canadians are paid fairly for the content they create while encouraging the creation of more Canadian media and culture.” I have some difficulty with some of the things in that statement, but the Conservatives raise the importance of the issue.

It goes on to say, and this is the platform's bold statement, “Canada’s Conservatives will: Introduce a digital media royalty framework”, and that is what we are debating in Bill C-18, “to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.” If members were to review Hansard and the debate we have had on this, what are the two platforms we are talking about? Google and Facebook. This legislation is, in essence, taking what is in the Conservative platform.

It goes on to say, “Adopt a made in Canada approach that incorporates the best practices of jurisdictions like Australia and France.” Members on this side of the House have said that. The legislation and establishment of the framework is based on what has come out of Australia and France. Our legislation goes even further. It would ensure there is a higher sense of accountability and transparency.

Let us go back to the last federal election. In that election, Conservative candidates, 338 of them, had a platform document. Every one of them campaigned on that. The legislation we are debating, what we are proposing to do with this legislation, is fulfilling something they committed to doing. I would have thought the Conservative Party would have supported Bill C-18.

Why are the Conservatives not supporting it? We listened to the critic. We listened to a few other Conservatives. We get the impression that they have been intimidated by giant tech companies like Facebook and Google. What is the other option? That they agree? What about the commitment they made to Canadians? This is in opposition to that.

This is not the first time. They did the same thing on the price on pollution. They made a commitment and they broke that.

I would argue that this is not the same Conservative Party from the past. This is very much a Reform Party and maybe even further to the right than the Reform Party was. This is what Canadians need to be aware of.

Why would the Conservatives not want to protect the national interest and give more strength to our democracy by supporting Bill C-18? They have gone out of their way to protect those giants. I would be disappointed if the government were to back down because Facebook says it is going to pull its news ads. I am not a computer tech person. I know there are all sorts of things people can do through the computer and maybe they have ways they can pull out the news ads; I am not 100% sure how that works. However, what I do know is that I am not going to be intimidated, whether by Google or Facebook. If Facebook operators believe that they do not need those stories in order to sustain the type of growth that they have experienced and wealth that has been generated because of journalism that has been utilized through their companies at no cost, I will stand by Canadians. I am going to stand by our democracy. I am going to stand by the jobs and the importance of that industry because I recognize its importance.

The Conservatives have now said they are going to pull all stops out. They do not want this legislation to pass and they have been very clear on that.

I had posed a question in regard to the budget implementation bill when the leader of the Conservative Party had a big press conference. In the press conference, he said he was going to speak and speak. He has unlimited time on the budget implementation bill. He was going to continue to speak until ultimately the Prime Minister backed away and changed the budget, even though hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing through the budget implementation bill in order to support Canadians. A few hours later, that kind of fell flat. Why was that? It was because not only did the Liberals see through the charade, but opposition parties outside of the Conservatives saw the charade and the propaganda stunt that the leader of the Conservative Party was trying to pull off.

Just yesterday, with respect to Bill C-42, the corporations bill, the Conservative Party actually supported the legislation. Everyone supports the legislation. However, the Conservatives want to apply that very same principle in terms of what they want to apply to Bill C-18, and that is to prevent government legislation from passing. Therefore, the Conservatives continue to put up members to speak and if it were not for time allocation, again, that legislation would not have been able to pass.

Now, the Conservatives are shocked or at least surprised that the government has brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. They should not be surprised. After all, they just need to look at their record; they try to frustrate the House of Commons, to deny Canadians the opportunity to have legislative measures that are going to protect their interests. We have consistently seen that from the Conservative Party. The Conservatives put their political party and their fundraising ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Let us listen to the first question, when the Minister of Heritage was answering questions as to why time allocation was necessary. The first person up for the Conservative Party asked why the government was bringing in time allocation, saying that they should be allowed to have all of their members speak to the legislation.

They should do the math. If every member speaks, that means how many hours of debate? How many more hours are there before the summer recess? It is not a question of whether the Conservatives will allow the legislation to pass before the summer break, they want to kill the bill. They do not want the bill, period, end of story. That is their intention.

That is why I posed a question to my Bloc friend. The essence of the question was whether the member believes that the Conservatives, had we not brought in time allocation, would have allowed this bill to pass before the summer recess. If the member from the Bloc were to be honest with the chamber, he would probably recognize that the Conservatives have no intention whatsoever to pass this legislation, definitely not before the summer break. If we did not have at least one opposition party supporting what we are doing, this legislation likely would not see the light of day in terms of its passing.

I need to remind the Conservatives, as they like to remind us, about the last election and there being a minority government. In a minority government, we have to continue to be focused on Canadians, delivering legislative and budgetary measures and working with the opposition. Fortunately, most opposition parties have a more co-operative attitude and recognize that they too have a role to play in a minority government. It is not just the government's responsibility.

The only party that has failed to recognize that fact is the Conservative Party of Canada. It continues to believe its only role is to prevent legislation from passing. Then it criticizes us for bringing in time allocation motions and trying to limit debate on important pieces of legislation or budget measures. It is hard to take Conservatives seriously on things of that nature when we see them delay time and time again, such as with concurrence in committee reports. One of my favourites is when a Conservative stands and moves a motion for another Conservative to speak. Then there is a vote, which causes the bells to ring. Instead of debating, they try to determine which Conservative member should filibuster or they decide we are done for the day and move a motion to adjourn, again causing further delay. These are the types—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the work of my colleague from Drummond.

I will also note that French-speaking Africa is a place where the francophone population is growing incredibly quickly. There will be millions of new francophones in the coming years. That is why Africa and the media presence in Africa are so important. Just as Australia served as a model for Canada, it is only right that Canada should serve as a model for other countries, such as the African countries.

Meta and Google siphoning off all the money is not just a problem in Canada or Australia. This is happening all over the world. Now the web giants need to pay their fair share. By passing Bill C-18, we will set an example for other countries.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. We certainly did work hard on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the other committee members. In general, we worked in a very constructive manner. I really appreciated that.

In September, I had the privilege of attending Mondiacult, a world conference on culture, in Mexico City. While I was there, I met with representatives from African countries, who told me that they were keeping an eye on the work that we are doing here in the House of Commons to regulate the news sector and the cultural sector with respect to the web giants. They told us that they are watching us because they do not have the same weight as Canada in terms of negotiating deals and in taking measures. They told us to stay strong.

Now we are seeing Google and Facebook threatening to remove or block access to Canadian news content. That is what Meta recently did. I would like to hear my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's opinion on this. How important is it to take a firm stance with the web giants, knowing that we are setting an example for other countries and other nations that will soon have to make their own laws?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a repudiation of community representation.

They have local newspapers in their communities, whether they are in Alberta or Saskatchewan, and that is where half of Conservative MPs come from, and the local community newspapers are saying that they really need this, that we need to start reinvesting. Rather than letting big tech continue to have its way and take money out of our communities, let us have some of that money put back. A Conservative MP who represents that community then says, no, they are not going to. They are not going to stand up against big tech. They are not going to stand up for their local newspapers. They are not going to stand up for their local community radio.

I just do not understand how that person could run for office, say they represent the community and not heed the call from the publications in the community to support Bill C-18.

They will have to live with the consequences of their actions.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is also on the Canadian heritage committee.

I really love that he highlighted how well this legislation worked in Australia to support smaller news outlets and how the big tech companies fought back with intimidation tactics. We are even seeing similar intimidation tactics here in Canada from those same big tech giants. At our committee, we saw some of those intimidation tactics.

However, we are hearing the Conservatives using those tactics as some sort of justification to not go forward with this legislation, saying, “Oh, Google blocked the news, so we better get rid of Bill C-18.”

What does the member think of the tactic being used by the Conservatives?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18. I hope that this will be the last debate in the House about this bill, because, as we all know, it is extremely important.

For years, newspapers have been talking about the importance of passing a bill like this one. For months, the Conservatives have been trying to block the bill at every step. They wanted to block it in committee, they wanted to block it in the House. Now that the Senate has given its preliminary approval and we are at the last step, sending the bill to the Senate for final approval, the Conservatives want to block it again.

I will talk about that later, because it is important to point out the differences between what the communities represented by Conservatives are calling for and what the Conservatives are giving them.

The most important thing to realize is the devastating situation community media are facing across the country. We are talking about 450 local newspapers and community radio stations that have closed in the past decade, losses that have taken a heavy toll across Canada. Why?

We know full well why. It is because the web giants have eaten up all the advertising money. We are talking about billions of dollars that have been taken away from our communities and sent outside the country, to web giants that pay little if any income tax, make no contribution to Canada, and simply want to funnel our money across our borders. It was important that the government took action.

The NDP has been saying so for years. We should have taken the appropriate measures years ago. We would not have lost the 450 local newspapers and community radio and television stations that closed because of the legislative vacuum that enabled the web giants to do whatever they wanted. Finally, the government did something. I say “finally”, because it usually takes the Liberals time to act. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois, through my colleague from Drummond, really pushed for action.

The bill is finally here, but the Conservatives, for reasons I do not understand, have systematically blocked it. Once again, I will say that there are two Bloc parties in the House. Of course, there is the Bloc Québécois, but there is also the “block everything” party, the Conservative Party, which blocks anything that could benefit all Canadians, which is unfortunate.

That is just what the framework would do. I want to talk about what it could represent for French-language newspapers in Acadia and even in western Canada. We can see the benefits for all the regions of Quebec and northern Ontario and the benefits for French-language newspapers everywhere. For them, it will make a big difference.

Let me tell the House about what a difference it makes in New Westminster—Burnaby. I mentioned earlier that a bit more than 450 news outlets have closed over a bit more than the past decade, because of the billions of dollars that have been siphoned out of this country, vacuumed out of the country by big technology companies that pay very little or no income tax and do very little to benefit the country. All they want to do is take money out. Bill C-18 would finally level the playing field so news outlets could actually negotiate. I will come back to the moment when the NDP achieved the transformation in Bill C-18 so that it really would do what it was intended to do.

However, out of those 450 outlets, I want to talk about two that were in my riding, the Burnaby News Leader and the New Westminster News Leader, two of those outlets that simply had to close because big tech was taking all the money out of my riding.

The reason I am supporting Bill C-18, from a personal standpoint, is that I see those publications that remain, like the Burnaby Now and the Royal City Record, doing remarkable work every day, reporting on our communities, and I see new news outlets that are also looking to take advantage of Bill C-18 and to finally start to get the money that has been vacuumed out of the community. The Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor are terrific new publications that are really exciting our communities.

The important thing is that, when we see the onslaught of hate provoked by foreign troll farms in the United States or the far-right troll farms we see out of Moscow's Internet Research Agency trying to pull apart our communities, what we need are good local journalists bringing our communities back together. That is the counter to the amount of devastating homophobia and transphobia, the anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, the racism and the misogyny we have seen across this country, deliberately fomented through the big tech giants that do not seem to want, in any way, to stop this flow of toxic hate.

The antidote to this is local community journalists' telling us about each other, telling us about our neighbours and bringing our communities back. For the crisis we have of toxicity and hate, created by the far right in a deliberate way, the antidote is reinvesting in community journalism that brings people back together. Within the four publications I have just mentioned in the communities I represent proudly, New Westminster and Burnaby, those journalists and those publications every day do that work to bring people back, and this is essential. That is why we are so supportive of Bill C-18.

Before I talk about what the NDP achieved, I want to come back to the issue of community representation and what it means when we see Conservative MPs trying to block this bill for months and months at every single step. I want to mention two of the most compelling witnesses we had before the Canadian heritage committee about Bill C-18, representatives from the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. Both of them said, on behalf of publications from across Alberta and across Saskatchewan, that this bill is absolutely needed. They said there need to be some improvements, and I will come back to that in a moment, but that this bill is essential. They told us to get it passed.

That was the message they sent to all of us, though it is fair to say it was to the New Democrats, because of our long roots in Saskatchewan and also because of the breakthroughs we have seen in Alberta. As members know, since the recent Alberta election, every single MLA in the city of Edmonton is now a New Democrat. There were no Conservatives elected at all, provincially, in Edmonton. Most of the MLAs now representing Calgary are from the NDP as well. There are a few Conservatives left, but not many. That new breakthrough in Edmonton and Calgary is important, so we take the issue of community representation very seriously. When the Alberta community newspapers and the Saskatchewan community newspapers speak out, we believe they need to be heeded.

I think it is fair to say that even though the Bloc does not have any members in Alberta and Saskatchewan, they understood. The Liberals understood. The Conservatives represent those communities, and let us mention the communities we are talking about. In Alberta, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Lethbridge, and Medicine Hat are all proud communities with important publications, and they are represented by Conservatives. What did Conservatives do? They said they are going to block this bill, that they do not care about community publications and that they are going to everything they can to block this bill, rather than work with the other parties to actually get it through. Let us talk about Saskatchewan. Prince Albert, Moose Jaw, North Battleford, and Swift Current, again, are communities that are currently represented by a Conservative MP who was trying to block the bill that the newspapers within the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association were trying to get passed.

What did the NDP do? The NDP, more than any other party, brought forward amendments to improve the bill. We wanted the bill to work. The Conservatives have mentioned a PBO report. The PBO, of course, references the old bill. The Conservatives do not point that out, and for full disclosure, they really should say “the PBO report that was published prior to the NDP members' working, as they always do, as the worker bees in Parliament, to improve the bill to make the bill much better”. A PBO report today would show what we did, and what we did was allow for that input of community newspapers.

The reality is that now a community newspaper, a one-person, sole-proprietorship that has a half-time journalist, would be eligible for the program. Because of the NDP amendments, they are covered by the bill. The NDP worked hard to include those smaller publications from communities across Alberta and Saskatchewan. We followed what the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association called for. When we put that into place, we made the bill better.

The NDP had more amendments to the bill than all the other parties combined, and we are proud of that record. As worker bees, that is what we do. We take legislation, and we make it better. Members realize that the NDP are the workers bees of Parliament. We are here to get the job done and make things better. Bill C-18 is absolutely one of those examples.

Members would think that the Conservative MPs who represent those communities would say, “Golly gee, you New Democrats have done amazing work again and have made the bill reflect my community's interest. I am going to vote for it.” However, they did not. On the contrary, they said, “No, we're still going to block because we do not really have a reason. We just like blocking stuff.”

There are two Bloc parties in the House: the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party. The “block everything” is the Conservative Party, which just blocks legislation, whether it is dental care, child care or providing support to their community newspapers. Conservatives say that they are going to block everything. They do not know why. They just like to block stuff.

I guess the voters will make their choice. We certainly saw in the Alberta election that Edmontonians and Calgarians were saying that they did not like the Conservatives anymore and elected New Democrats right across the board in Edmonton and Calgary.

However, we made that difference and improved that legislation, which is really our job. Now, the important thing is to get it implemented.

I also want to comment about how some of the web giants have been acting, such as Google and Meta, in trying to threaten this country and Parliament by saying, “Hey, we have taken these billions of dollars out of Canada for years. We have not put anything back, as we pay very little or no taxes, but we want the status quo to continue.” Members will recall that they did the same thing in Australia.

They basically said to Australians that they were not going to respect their democracy or their democratically elected Parliament. They were going to monkey around with their algorithms to make sure they monkeywrench the legislation. However, for members who may be attentive to all of these trends internationally, the Australians said that, no, they had to respect their democracy, and the Australians held firm. These big technology companies were forced to respond.

For example, Country Press is a consortium of independent smaller publications from across rural Australia, which faced many of the same challenges that we have seen with the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. It responded by calling on parliamentarians to adopt the legislation and improve it. In Australia, it was a similar sort of dynamic with money being siphoned out of Australia and small publications going under, but not as many as in Canada. We have lost 450, but they did lose a lot. However, Country Press came together and now, as testimony before the heritage committee showed, there is a very vibrant news sector in Australia with over 125 publications in rural Australia that are thriving because the Australians held firm.

In Canada, unfortunately, we have seen the big tech giants, which seem to be accountable only to themselves. As I mentioned and will continue to mention, they pay very little or no income tax in this country. They take from the country, and they do not give back.

They are trying to pull the same trick. Like they did with Australia, they are trying to threaten the country and threaten Parliament. They are going to monkey around with their algorithms, but they will call them tests. These are the same companies that do not crack down on the toxic hate that often helps to contribute to their profits.

Just as a short side note, the Stop Hate for Profit campaign has come out of the United States, and the NDP supports it. These big web giants are earning additional money from the so-called engagement that comes from the rampant and disgusting homophobia and transphobia, the appalling misogyny and racism, and the disgusting anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. It helps to foment their profits. Whether it is the Internet Research Agency in Moscow, run by Putin's regime, or the American far right troll farms in the United States, run by Republicans, all of them help to contribute to their profits.

The Stop Hate for Profit campaign wants to crack down on that. It says that what they are doing is unbelievably toxic to democracy and to human rights. Big tech companies say that these algorithms are out of their control, and there is nothing they can do about it. Then this bill comes forward, and is voted on democratically by parliamentarians, and all of the sudden they are willing to change their algorithms. They are willing to intercede, push back, threaten Canadian parliamentarians and keep Canadians from their news sources, to cut them off and censor them by using those algorithms.

There is censorship going on. They are being gatekeepers, yet Conservatives would never, ever say a word against big tech. Not a single Conservative MP has stood in the House to denounce these practices of gatekeeping and censorship when it comes to fomenting hate and lies. Not a single Conservative has done that.

It is clear hypocrisy that they can all of a sudden adjust their algorithms, allowing them to all of a sudden cut off and censor, but they are not willing to do it to stop the hate, and they are willing to do it when they want to disrespect this Parliament. I think everyone can draw their own conclusions.

The reality is that, as parliamentarians, we have stand up to these threats. They are threatening Parliament because we are asking them to give some of the money that they have taken out of the country back. They have taken between $8 billion to close to $10 billion, and 450 news outlets have closed as a result. One-third of the jobs in journalism across this country have been eliminated as a result, yet they are not willing to put back some of the money they have taken from us.

I think it is fair to say that, when the average Canadian is asked, they want us to stand up against big tech. They want us to provide supports to our local journalism sector so that, as in the case of my community, the Burnaby Now, the New Westminster Record, the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor can do that work, each and every day, that is so important to bring our community back together again.

We have been hit by a lot of things in the last few years. We have been hit by COVID. We have been hit by the catastrophic impacts of climate change, including the heat dome that killed 600 people across the Lower Mainland at a time of intense heat. We are also subject to the hate and lies that come through the big tech companies that say they cannot control it.

Now, as a Parliament, we have the ability to stand up to big tech to say, first, that we do not believe they cannot curb the hate and lies that are run on their platforms, and second, now they are going to contribute to legitimate journalism across the country. Whether we are talking about New Westminster—Burnaby, Alberta, Saskatchewan or anywhere else in this country, they are going to have to contribute so that our communities are better and our country is better. That is why we support Bill C-18.

The House resumed consideration of the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C‑18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and of the amendment.

Bill C‑18 — Senate Amendments

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was so eager to hear the end of my colleague's speech because he is proposing solutions. In the Bloc Québécois, we do not just pick fights. We propose solutions and stay positive.

Now, we know that there is filibustering going on. We know that the official opposition does not support this bill. However, the committee heard from Mr. Sims, the father of the Australian bill. Yes, there were fears following that bill, but there are things that Bill C-18 fixes.

Can my colleague tell us how this interview with Mr. Sims went and why Mr. Sims was unable to convince everyone?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bow River because he is a staunch defender of small media outlets and the regional media, the local papers he talks about so passionately. He did a great job of defending them and representing them during the committee study.

Originally, long before Bill C-18 was tabled, the Bloc Québécois's idea was that we should create a royalty fund financed by the web giants' profits. That is not what the industry wanted, so the Bloc got behind the idea of a bill based on what Australia did. That is what the industry and the whole community wanted.

However, if there are smaller media outlets or outlets that are not eligible but are still essential to regional news coverage, then we should implement emergency measures to help them and support them financially. The fund I was talking about earlier could be added to a measure like Bill C‑18. It could target and clearly identify small media outlets, like the ones my colleague from Bow River was talking about, that will have a hard time of it because they cannot get ahead. Once the bill has been implemented, I think that there might be more of an appetite for that type of proposal.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I too enjoy the work we do and our close collaboration at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Most of the time, our work has been constructive.

There is a reason journalism and news are called the fourth estate. The news media has a duty and an important role to play in society. I said “important”, but I really mean “essential”.

If Bill C-18 is not passed, more media outlets will shutter, continuing a more than decade-long trend. The news media are in trouble. Bill C‑18 is one of the tools we need to ensure their survival. If it is not passed, we could lose more media outlets, including regional media, which would be especially unfortunate.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I very much enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I enjoyed his description of journalists and what they do for our society. I wanted to ask him what he thinks will happen if we do not adopt Bill C‑18 and if we do not support our journalists. What will happen to our democracy?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pick up where we left off last night.

I have to say I was a little disappointed. We had a great opportunity to debate Bill C‑18 last night, but we were cut off at about 6:30 p.m. in the middle of my speech. I had about 12 minutes to go. The classy thing to do would have been to let me finish my speech before interrupting the proceedings. Let us not talk about that right now. Let us talk about Bill C‑18 for the time we have left because, as everyone knows, the House just voted in favour of time allocation.

During the debates on Bill C‑18, there was a lot of talk about money. Basically, people talked about the financial difficulties news outlets have been experiencing for decades, ever since the web giants came on the scene and helped themselves to the lion's share of advertising revenue. People have talked a lot about money, which is certainly important because that is the crux of the matter, obviously. That is what news outlets need in order to succeed and keep providing the essential service they provide: high-quality, independent, fact-checked, thorough information; essentially, news that meets recognized journalistic standards.

Bill C‑18 will benefit the news sector. It will most likely help save many news businesses. That is the objective of the bill, and I think that it will largely achieve that objective. Today, I also wanted to talk about something else that Bill C‑18 will help preserve or even save, and that is journalism itself. We have heard all kinds of things about eligible news businesses and which businesses would benefit more than others from this bill and from the regulations and regulatory framework that will be put in place by Bill C‑18. However, we are forgetting to define and discuss journalism itself.

With the advent of social media and digital platforms, it is true that we have seen the emergence of new types of news media, new types of businesses, new ways of disseminating information. However, we have also seen more news businesses engaging in what we might call advocacy journalism. In some cases, it could even be described as activist journalism, a form of journalism that involves embracing a cause and using the medium to provide news to the public in a way that is biased in favour of that cause. One example would be environmental journalism. We agree that the cause is worthy, but environmental journalists will always deliver the news with an activist slant. I have nothing against that, but is that journalism in the true sense of the word? No, not really, in the same way that a certain type of media outlet might have a political bent. I know some people will say that CBC/Radio-Canada has a pro-government, pro-Liberal bias.

What is journalism, really? Journalism is a profession that demands a lot of meticulous work and a lot of passion. It has certain standards, certain rules that I would hazard to say are accepted around the world. Its first guiding principle is independence. What does independence mean for journalism and for journalists? It means the ability to work unfettered by the influence of a government, company, movement or cause. That is what journalistic independence means. The second guiding principle is handling the news in a meticulous way. That means having an almost obsessive passion for truth-seeking and fact-checking, while remaining objective.

The other guiding principle is respect for individuals and groups and respect in handling sources.

These are the guiding principles of the journalism profession. I am not saying that advocacy journalism, activist journalism or opinion journalism are bad. However, they are not necessarily what we are trying to protect through Bill C‑18. That is why we included eligibility criteria in Bill C‑18. News outlets eligible under the regulatory framework proposed by Bill C‑18 will have to espouse a code of ethics. The code in question may not necessarily mirror the journalistic standards and practices of CBC/Radio-Canada or the ethics guide of the Quebec Press Council. However, the media outlet would need a code, even one scribbled on a piece of paper, that reflects its commitment to complying with the guiding principles of journalism.

I think this should offer some comfort to people who think that Bill C‑18 will favour certain large media outlets that they believe show a bias for the government and could act as a conduit for the government's opinions.

I do not think that what I am about to say will be a big surprise to members who did not participate in the debates on Bill C-18. My Conservative friends were not very supportive of this bill and they do not generally like what we call the mainstream media, the major news media outlets. I am talking about traditional media companies like CBC/Radio-Canada, Vidéotron, Bell Media and Québecor, of course. I am talking about these major companies that produce the news. The Conservatives find them biased because, in general, they take positions that are not relayed as the Conservatives would like, for all sorts of reasons. Generally, the populist spin gets filtered out in the mainstream media, which adopt journalistic standards and adhere to broad journalistic principles.

I will now digress briefly, since we are talking about CBC/Radio-Canada. I know someone who has worked in the news service for a good part of his career and who received complaints from the public. On the French side, Quebec separatists have often accused Radio-Canada of being federalist and not reporting the news or doing so in a biased way when it comes to the separatist cause. Conversely, Quebec federalists find that Radio-Canada is a gang of separatists. This person I know told me that when it comes to the news, if he receives the same number of complaints from people who complain that they are being too federalist relative to those who complain that they are being too separatist, he feels that they did a good job, that they worked objectively and that they were “on the right track,” as my friend, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for La Prairie might say. In short, it is all a matter of perception.

However, there is something that is different about the mainstream media. I do not want to advocate for CBC/Radio-Canada, but in general, these major media companies are objective. Obviously we see biases from time to time, but not serious ones. These major media outlets must change course and correct the situation when they make a mistake, when they err, when they are, for example, partisan, or biased, or handle a news item badly. They all have mechanisms for receiving complaints, processing them and making retractions as needed. Knowing how to make retractions after recognizing that a mistake was made is also one of the major principles of journalism.

I am talking about mainstream media, but I also spoke earlier about the new media, new forms of news media that we have seen emerge, media of all kinds. There is a lot of opinion news, as I said. I wondered whether these media had to be neglected. The answer is obviously no.

Changes are happening in the news sector. Everyone acknowledged that when we studied Bill C‑18. A lot has changed. The fact is that news companies need to adapt, transition to digital technologies and make sure they reach people where they are.

Consumer habits have changed in recent years when it comes to the news. People get their news on social media. They go on Facebook, for example, or they search for a particular piece of news or subject using Google. These are now the ways we get our news. What is more, these outlets and general content companies sell huge amounts of advertising, since 80% of advertising is said to now be in the digital sector. I think it is normal that these outlets and these companies, which profit heavily from the news sector and the content generated by newsrooms, contribute to the content they are benefiting from. It is the least they can do.

I am well aware of the fact that Bill C‑18 will not solve all the issues with the news sector, the media in general and culture, the latter being addressed more specifically in Bill C‑11. Bill C‑18 will not solve everything. There will still be problems and challenges. In my opinion, it is normal that governments come to the aid of a sector as fragile as the news sector. It is a fragile sector, but it is essential.

Clearly, we will need more tools to help the media. That is obvious. The fund the Bloc Québécois is proposing would be a very effective tool, allowing us to collect royalties from the digital giants that are making outrageous profits and use them to support more fragile media, such as regional media. I think that would be a good solution.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is the party proposing solutions rather than simply opposing suggestions and obstructing Parliament. I would be very pleased to discuss this with my colleagues and to make a more detailed proposal to the government.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and of the amendment.

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam. Speaker, I do listen to what is happening in the committee. It is very important for me, being the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I have a lot of respect for the work of the committee, and I have had the chance to go committee many times.

However, there are many programs for local papers. As I said before, there is the tax credit on labour, local journalism initiatives, especially for small communities. There is the Canada periodical fund. We are open to work with the other parties to come up with other solutions. However, Bill C-18 is one of those solutions. It is there, it is ready, it has been studied in the House and in the Senate. It is time we move on.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will be delighted to hear what I have to say.

My colleague just said that he supported the concept of closure when the bill is essential. Bill C‑18 is certainly essential to our newsrooms across Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Québécois members ultimately lack that little bit of courage to say that it is important for them, even if it is no fun to limit debate. No one likes it, and no one got into politics to invoke closure. At the end of the day, they just do not have the courage to say that this step is necessary to get the bill.

Right now, they want Bill C‑18, but they do not want to do anything to help the government pass the bill. They do not want to help. They could stand up today, vote with the government and the NDP, and show how important it is to pass it before the summer break. If they do not do that, then the Conservatives will block it all week.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the minister's heated reaction. We know he is quite a passionate man and that this bill is important to him, but I believe he misunderstood the meaning of my question earlier. I really want to refocus my question on the concept of a closure motion.

In its entire history, the Bloc Québécois has supported under 10 closure motions. When it did give its support, it was because it was truly crucial that the bill being considered at the time be freed up. In 2021, in regard to Bill C‑10, the Bloc Québécois even suggested publicly that closure be used and recommended that the Liberals impose a time allocation motion because the government had lost control of the agenda. Something needed to be done to move the bill forward.

Right now, the government has not lost control with Bill C‑18. Everything is going pretty smoothly. We are in the final stage and there is no need to, say, free up something stuck somewhere due to filibustering. Earlier, I asked a question about the fact that we have two or three days left to debate Bill C‑18.

Yes, I want to see it passed this week at all costs, but my question was whether the minister had given up hope of having the bill passed in the usual manner by the end of the week and that was why he was imposing the closure motion today.

I would like to hear from the minister on this.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important question. I want to thank my colleague for his work on this bill and the overall work of the government. He is a key member of the government team.

Sometimes, it is necessary to use time allocation. With this official opposition, it may be used more, because they like to filibuster. The opposition likes to play with the tools it has to hurt our democracy.

Bill C-11 is an amazing bill that is asking the streamers that we all love, such as Disney, Netflix and others, to contribute to Canadian culture, which is a good thing. Normally we would all agree on this. I know the NDP agrees. I know the Bloc agrees. The Conservatives are not too sure. That bill spent more time in the Senate than any other bill in the history of this country, because it was blocked by Conservative senators under the order of the leader of the Conservative Party. That is totally unacceptable.

The Conservatives are trying to do the same thing on Bill C-18, with the budget and other bills. They are hurting our democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister could reflect on how, when the leader of the Conservative Party had a press conference in regard to the budget bill, he said that he was going to speak and speak.

His intentions were to prevent the bill from passing until the Prime Minister made changes to the budget. Now we have the Conservatives opposing this particular bill. They have already expressed an interest in terms of speaking and speaking in order to prevent the bill from passing.

Would the minister not agree that, just as when the leader of the Conservative Party vowed to speak endlessly, without the time allocation, we would never have been able to pass the budget and we would not be able to pass Bill C-18? Would the minister provide his thoughts on that issue?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Drummond just mentioned, we had dozens and dozens of witnesses. Two of the key witnesses who came forward about Bill C-18 were from the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. These newspapers, independent outlets right across Alberta and Saskatchewan, are the ones that cover cities and other places represented by half of the Conservative caucus, and they said Bill C-18 needs to be put in place, adopted as quickly as possible.

We have Alberta community newspapers and Saskatchewan community newspapers saying the bill needs to be brought in, and we have Conservative MPs who represent those ridings fighting tooth and nail to block this bill completely, refusing to allow it through. To me, that seems to be hypocrisy and a clear contradiction of what Conservative MPs should be defending, which is their communities' interests.

Why are the Conservatives blocking a bill that their community newspapers are calling for?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really do not like that they are imposing time allocation. I think it is an insult to democracy and parliamentary privilege.

That said, I do not agree with my Conservative colleague who said that people were not heard in committee when it studied Bill C‑18. I think everyone spoke to that bill. The committee heard as many people as possible and we had ample time to debate the bill.

The bill was debated in the House and it was studied in the Senate. This week, the government is moving forward by imposing time allocation, and I find that deplorable. I would like to ask the minister if he believes that we could have dealt with Bill C‑18 in the House this week without resorting to time allocation. Or, on the contrary, does he believe that the Conservatives would have done everything possible to drag things out to ensure that the bill, which they oppose, does not pass?

I deplore time allocation. Was it absolutely necessary to use it today? Could we have dealt with it this week in the normal course of debate?

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

It seems as though we were supposed to be debating Bill C-18, which is legislation that deals with online news. It is interesting that, in this House, Liberals have accused Conservatives of playing partisan games, then half an hour before the debate on that bill begins they tell us we will be debating Bill C-42, so clearly these games are going both ways, but they probably do not want to admit that.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the life of Ms. Kathleen Beauchamp from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. She was my grade 5 teacher who later went on to become the principal at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Elementary School where I went to school. I ran into her a couple of years ago as I was getting into politics and I remember she gave me a really big hug. It was nice to see somebody with so much life, exuberance and vitality. She was volunteering into her nineties. I found out about her passing recently and I want to recognize her life because it was a life well lived. She was a model for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. May perpetual light shine upon her and may she rest in peace.

I also want to recognize the life of Jared Larkin, the brother of a constituent and friend Sean Larkin. May perpetual light shine upon him and may he rest in peace.

Today, we are debating Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. It is always nice to get up to learn about areas that might not be one's area of expertise. Despite being a lawyer and having some corporate law background, the Canada Business Corporations Act is far from being my area of expertise. However, I know a bit about some of the areas, particularly when we talk about money laundering and how that has impacted corporate crime and the Canadian economy.

I recall being a young criminology student, about 20 years old, and having a professor who told us to put down the sports section and pick up the business section. It was then I realized that corporate crime costs society much more than street-level crime. The problem with corporate crime is we do not always see it. It happens through things like price fixing and illegal influencing. We do not always see these types of things and sometimes, because it almost always happens behind closed doors, it is really hard to detect.

As a former prosecutor I can say that part of what the police authorities have to do is connect the dots and sometimes build what is called a circumstantial case, which is when they take facts from here and there and paint a picture. Each piece of evidence is like a piece of the puzzle. This is obviously an important aspect when we talk about a registry under the Canada Business Corporations Act. It is something law enforcement is asking for and really does need.

Again, as has been said repeatedly in this House, this bill is required, but it could have gone further. I was speaking with our shadow minister, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, and I believe he spoke about this in the House this morning. He said that there were witnesses at committee and within minutes of hearing from them the committee went into a clause-by-clause analysis. In other words, the testimony of those witnesses who had information to give that was directly germane to the bill at hand was not fully incorporated into this legislation, because the government seems to have been in a rush to deal with this.

I believe four speakers were put up at report stage and then the government moved closure. It is a government that has repeatedly moved closure to stymie debate by saying it needs to get legislation through. I understand that there is a legislative objective, everybody understands that, but it should not push legislation through this way; rather, it should be done co-operatively.

This is a government, as I understand it, that said it would not use closure and time allocation. I am sure it was highly critical of Stephen Harper when he did it. We now see the Liberals and the party that is supposed to be the conscience of Parliament, the NDP, backing them up at every step of the way. I cannot remember a bill, controversial or not, for which we have not seen some sort of time allocation or closure invoked by the Liberals; their coalition partners, the NDP, just go along with it. What happened to being the conscience of Parliament and to hearing debate?

Yes, the government wants things to go through quickly. Here we are at the end of June. It is not Canadians' problem. It is not everybody in the House's problem that the government did not manage its time effectively and has not been conciliatory in terms of addressing things that would be of mutual interest. The Liberals say they want to work together. I am just not seeing that when we see these types of actions.

I will move on to some of the elements of this bill and the necessity for it. For me, as a British Columbian, the necessity comes when I review the Cullen commission. The Cullen commission was authored by Austin Cullen, from British Columbia; I believe he was associate chief justice at the time. He found that money laundering had risen to an unacceptable level in British Columbia. The province and law enforcement not only were not keeping up with it, but enforcement and shining a light on these types of issues had also become secondary.

This is a timely issue to be dealing with. The Cullen commission report, I believe, came out in the past couple of years. However, we have to remember that we should not be rushing these types of things in order to simply get them through, when more things could be done.

One thing that stood out to me was that the threshold for share ownership for being listed in the registry is at 25%. That is actually a high threshold. When we look at other corporate legislation, if memory serves me from when I was studying, there is a threshold of 10%. When somebody owns 10% of shares, that is enough to trigger a warning system.

Therefore, 25% of shares seems inordinately high. I would suggest that we perhaps move back to 10% of shares. As I understand it, the RCMP was supportive of this. Its view is that 10% would get more names into this registry, and the more names, the better. With more names on the registry, more dots can be connected for the police. Moreover, the police will have more tools to combat money laundering.

Before I go any further, I just want to highlight a couple more things from the Cullen commission, because I think they are really important to this discussion. There are unexplained wealth orders. I believe they would probably be an issue for the provinces, but while we are talking about commercial crime and Canada as a whole being a safe haven for money laundering, the provinces should really explore this issue in conjunction with the federal government as we enact this legislation. They could be used in conjunction with civil forfeiture and things of that nature.

The Cullen commission made a number of recommendations and really came up with things that the government should be doing. It looked at how money laundering was occurring in British Columbia. For instance, it was occurring by laundering money through casinos; the commission looked at how this impacted the real estate market.

Before I end, I want to recognize a news anchor, Bill O'Donovan, who received the RTDNA career excellence award in broadcasting. I am the godfather to his granddaughter. Bill is a great human being and a great broadcaster. Congratulations to him.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that Canadians are facing in this country and, specifically, those issues that impact Battle River—Crowfoot.

However, I was celebrated, along with so many in this place and fathers across this country, this past weekend on Sunday, as our nation recognized fathers. If I could for a brief moment, before I get into the substance of what is a very substantive debate, I would just like to pass along my greetings, officially on the record, to my father, all fathers across the country and those grandfathers who have impacted us. Although I do not have grandfathers alive anymore, I know the significant role they played in my life. I wish a happy belated Father's Day to all the fathers represented across our country from coast to coast to coast.

We are debating Bill C-42 here this evening. Although, unfortunately, it seems that the government did some tricky manoeuvring to change the debate from Bill C-18 to Bill C-42, this is an important issue that bears fulsome and comprehensive discussion in this place.

I will back up a bit and talk about something that is probably not on the radar of many Canadians, because when it comes to the idea of money laundering, most Canadians do not really understand the significance of what it is. For example, I know the Panama papers are part of the discussion that has surrounded this bill in particular. I will enlighten us on the challenge that brought us to the point that we would be debating this here this evening. I will then get into what is proposed and where I think some additional items need to be challenged, discussed and addressed, when it comes to the larger issue of what the bill is trying to accomplish.

Most people who have spent much time watching Hollywood movies will have heard of the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or other jurisdictions that are known for hiding money. Criminal enterprises, gangs and thugs store money there, access it in a secretive manner and ensure they could take dirty money that was earned by some nefarious process, whether that be the sale of something illegal, the proceeds of crime or whatever the case is. They go through a process where the money comes out, and it might not be clean on the other side, but at least it is not traceable to the original way that it was earned. This is why we call it “laundering”.

Things like the Panama papers and other news articles make headlines on occasion, and specifically, they often only make headlines when there are significant figures that are involved. This may happen if there is a businessperson or a politician who has some notoriety and is named in these sorts of releases. However, one of the really unfortunate realities is that Canada has become a place where we are known for being able to have money laundering take place.

That is incredibly concerning, especially in a world where digital technology, artificial intelligence and the dynamics associated with some of these things are incredibly complex. We have not had a great deal of time to discuss artificial intelligence in this place. The fact that Canada has become something of a safe haven for money laundering and the proceeds of crime is incredibly concerning.

Some of those proceeds would be from criminal activities that take place on Canadian soil, but the unfortunate signal that has been sent to the criminal enterprises that exist around the world is that Canada seems to be the place where one can see money laundered, regardless of where those proceeds are from. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

This has a few unintended consequences as well that I think bear mentioning. Just to highlight for those watching, one of the things that has been highlighted that would be a possible way to see this happen is through the purchase of real estate. At a time when we already have some of the lowest per capita housing availability in the developed world, it is incredibly concerning that some of the pressures that exist there would be for purposes that are nefarious and certainly not benefiting Canadians for the pricing structure that exists. Especially when we have a price point that is determined in a market that is not based on the product and its availability, laundering artificially inflates it. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

That is the problem. Now we have Bill C-42, which is a step in the right direction to address some of those things. The question is whether it goes far enough, and I will get to the ways that I do not think it does. However, it does address some of the challenges and attempts to ensure that some of the currently existing loopholes that allow Canada to be this safe haven, as I mentioned, are addressed.

One thing is to ensure that there is greater accountability for those who are purchasing businesses that have those large financial interests in this country. The reason this is important is to ensure that there is that registry and that ability to have accountability at every stage of the corporate process. For those who have no reason to hide their actions, of course, this is not something that will concern them. There may be some reporting requirements through financial institutions and whatnot, but if a person is not doing anything wrong, these burdens are not something that would be part of the daily life of the accounting of a business's operations; that is valuable.

When it comes to the fines, and we have certainly heard a lot about the fines as we have had debate about this issue, there would be an increase in the penalties, both monetary penalties and possible prison sentences. Certainly, I think that is important, although I will note the irony that it seems as though the Liberals have this habit of being soft on crime in many regards, but they want to send a signal through the legislation, it would seem, that Canada is willing to get tough when it comes to white-collar crime. However, there are certainly some challenges when it comes to the crime that is affecting so many Canadians.

There are a number of aspects that build on some of the actions that have been taken by the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which saw this as a challenge and started to make some of those changes. Notably, back in 2014, I believe, there were some significant changes that the Harper government made to ensure that it would tighten up some of the areas that were loopholes at that point in time. A number of steps have been taken over the last number of years.

I believe my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills said it well when he talked about a chain being only as strong as its weakest link. We are seeing that there could be some holes plugged in the challenges that Canada faces when it comes to money laundering. However, it is fundamentally important to ensure that we do not stop here.

A lot of this discussion took place at committee, and I know folks who are watching are interested in seeing some of that. The work that the committee did highlighted some opportunities that existed in terms of strengthening this legislation, and we saw a few amendments pass. However, a whole host of other amendments could have made this legislation stronger.

To address some of this strange occurrence that happens increasingly with the government, it seems to be quick to rush everything through, because it is a crisis. This is unfortunate; as it is rushing things through, it often ends up having to go back and fix the challenges or the gaps that could and should have been addressed in the earlier stages of the process. At the industry committee, there were some challenges brought up, including from some senior public servants who were concerned about the possibility of challenges when it comes to implementation. There are privacy concerns that the Liberals have to address, and this is simply another part of those areas.

To conclude, it is incumbent on us all in this place to do our utmost to ensure that every bill that comes forward is debated thoroughly and that we have engagement from the affected stakeholders. When it comes to something like this, it may not be on the forefront of many Canadians' minds, but it is fundamentally important that we get it right, so that we can stop Canada from being a safe haven for money laundering in this world.

Bill C-18—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was part of leading the charge on the debate with regard to Bill C-18, the online news act, and the bill was scheduled for debate tonight. A whole host speakers from all parties were prepared to speak to it. With only a moment's notice, that debate was cut short.

I would have the House know that this has happened in the past at second reading of the bill—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

With less than 30 minutes' notice, the government informed the official opposition that it intended to switch the business before the House this evening. We had planned on debating Bill C-18, the online news act, until midnight, because that is what the government told Canadians and members of Parliament it would do through the projected order of business, which was published on the parliamentary website.

It is the common practice of the House that the government provide accurate information on the projected order of business so that all members can plan accordingly. Of course, the government has the right to determine the business it brings to the House on any given day. It also reserves the right to change the business throughout the day. That said, it should always provide at least the professional courtesy of informing other parties of its intentions as early as possible. In this case, it would appear that this standard of professionalism was not met.

I understand that the government House leaders had difficulty managing the agenda of the House, but for the future, I think it is proper that we should expect better planning. The government is in chaos as it relates to the economy. It has been embroiled in scandals, including the latest one on the transfer of Paul Bernardo. I ask that the government House leader contain this chaos to his cabinet table and not bring this level of disorganization to the House.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is totally unacceptable what is happening right now in this debate.

We were in the middle of a debate on an essential bill, Bill C‑18, with arguments in favour and arguments against. The member for Drummond, who has been working hard on this for months, if not years, was in the process of delivering a very interesting and important speech in this debate. Then, in the middle of his speech, as though it were no big deal, the Liberal minister intervenes and ends the debate. This is completely unacceptable.

This bill was supposed to be debated all evening. Only the governing party has been able to speak in the time it was allotted, and the official opposition had a chance to speak, but this is not about chances, it is about debate and parliamentary democracy. The second opposition party had started its time, but it got barely eight out of its 20 minutes, not to mention the period for questions and comments that would have followed, when we could have enriched the debate and demonstrated its importance. Instead, the government is pulling the plug—

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Online News Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is never a dull moment in the House. It truly is incredible. There is always some event or other that grabs our attention.

I am very happy Bill C‑18 has reached this stage. I am happy, but I can promise my colleagues that there are an awful lot of people at media outlets in my riding and pretty much everywhere in Quebec, not to mention everywhere across Canada, based on our conversations with stakeholders, that will let out a big sigh of relief when we finally pass Bill C‑18.

I would humbly like to dedicate my speech to the 1,300 workers in the news sector whose jobs were cut at Bell Media last week. We talked about it here in the House. I would like to spare a thought for two of them. I am sure that many of my colleagues have some in their ridings throughout Quebec and Canada.

Martin Brassard, a journalist with 35 years of experience at Bell Media, in my colleague's riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, lost his job to the cuts. Back home in Drummond, Louis‑Philippe Harnois‑Arel, a talented young journalist full of potential and promise who worked on the Bell-owned Noovo news desk, was also among those who lost their jobs because of these cuts.

Mr. Speaker, you may not have had a chance to read today's news yet, but in today's Le Devoir, Boris Proulx reports that my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood hinted that Bell's decision to cut 1,300 jobs and close six radio stations may have been part of a plan, made in cahoots with the government, to force the adoption of Bill C‑18 this week.

I wondered what kind of movie script we were playing out. Have we really got to the point where we believe that a company will fire 1,300 people just because we want to push through a bill that is long overdue and that was obviously going to pass in the coming days or weeks anyway?

Honestly, I think that is going a little overboard with the conspiracy theories. I wanted to say it. I really admire my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which we co-chair. I know that he loves the media industry and that before becoming an MP, he had a career in the media, as did I. He and I will definitely have an opportunity to talk about it again.

To provide some context, the media, and especially the news media, has been struggling for many years. Facebook and Google in particular appropriate the news stories, the news content, without paying royalties or compensation for the material produced with hard work and passion by newsrooms.

In the early 2000s, red flags were already being raised regarding the presence of the web giants, the major corporations that were taking up more and more space on the Internet. The government decided at that time to exempt them from the Broadcasting Act, to exclude them from those regulations. Perhaps the government was short-sighted. I do not want to criticize the decisions made back then, because they were based on the information available at the time, but I think the government could have shown a little more agility. The government may not have given itself sufficient freedom to re-evaluate its position over time.

For years, the news media in particular, but also the cultural industry, have been sounding the alarm and urging caution because these giants were taking up more and more space, and warning that the space taken by these giants was hurting them, eating into their revenues and putting jobs at risk.

That is exactly what has happened over time. Successive governments were warned, but no one ever bothered to lift a finger or consider whether something should be done for the news media and the cultural industry.

As I said earlier, I was in the media before switching to politics. I also worked in the private sector, always with some connection to advertising. For years, I had a front-row seat to the impact this new player in the advertising world was having on the market. For example, representatives would come to us to sell us advertising and explain that it was more profitable for us to buy advertising space from them than from the digital platforms, even though the digital platforms were offering rock-bottom prices compared to traditional media. Obviously, it was very tempting for all kinds of companies to choose the option of switching to digital media, to Google and its ilk.

Today, more than 80% of advertising revenue is generated online. The market has been cornered primarily by Google and Facebook, which, again, pay no royalties. They pay nothing to the people who produce the content. They get to monetize that content and use it to sell their advertising.

On top of that, they collect data. We know that data is even more lucrative than advertising. They are really raking it in and not leaving anything for anyone else. Journalists are slowly seeing their work picked up by digital media, and high-quality reporting by talented journalists is ending up being shared on Facebook or Google in search results. Not a penny goes back to them for that, and not a penny goes back to the media that paid to produce it.

This makes no sense to me. We urgently needed to address the calls from news media and implement legislation that would impose not specific amounts or a payment, but rather a framework for negotiations. Bill C‑18 does not tell companies that they have to pay a certain amount. What Bill C‑18 does is tell companies that they have an obligation to negotiate in good faith within the legislated framework. That is what Bill C‑18 is all about.

It is a bit of a stretch to say that this will give one party an advantage over another. It is going a bit far. I think this bill could likely be improved and it will not solve all of the problems. That is obvious. The news media have fallen so far over the past 10 or 15 years that Bill C‑18 alone is certainly not the solution. However, it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are certainly sending the right message to the web giants by telling them that they cannot cannibalize our news outlets' content and our cultural content.

It is urgent that we pass this bill and it is urgent to see what impact it will have so that we can then put measures in place to help media outlets—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Lethbridge for her brief speech. She spoke a lot about the fact that Bill C‑18 offers nothing positive for smaller media outlets, weeklies or newspapers.

Oddly enough, however, over the course of our study, the most vocal proponents of this bill were people like Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, president of La Presse, and Benoît Chartier and Sylvain Poisson of Hebdos Québec, an organization representing about 150 Quebec weeklies. There was also Paul Deegan of News Media Canada, which represents various media outlets across Canada. There was also Jad Barsoum and the folks from Quebecor, which is by no means a second-rate media organization. All of these people, who represent very small to average-sized media outlets and mega media companies, unanimously agree: Bill C‑18 is a necessity.

I have a simple yet complicated question for my colleague. I want to know whether she listened only to the version of the web giants like Google and Facebook and those who signed agreements with those companies. Did she also take the time to listen to the people from News Media Canada, Hebdos Québec, and other media outlets like La Presse and Les coops de l'information, who have been calling for a bill like Bill C-18?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the online news act. I do so in response to a bill that has returned to the House, after being in the Senate for quite some time. It was sent to the Senate earlier this year. I believe the Senate started to study at the end of January or the beginning of February. It has arrived back in the House as of June 16, and it has been considered by the government; a motion has been drafted in response to the Senate amendments.

To refresh our memories, Bill C-18 is about supporting local media and building a fairer news ecosystem, so said the minister. I will get to these false claims in a moment. The bill would compel digital platforms, such as Google and Facebook, to enter into monetary negotiations with a news outlet and pay when they simply provide a link to a news source and not the entire content. Under this bill, those negotiations would take place between the two parties, and there would be no transparency with respect to what the negotiations look like or any terms the platforms might put on these news outlets. That being the case, one has to wonder about the implications for journalistic independence and what this would do to true journalism and news coverage in this country. I will get to that in a moment, but I would like to highlight that as one of the main issues in this bill. It is also an issue the government had an opportunity to fix.

In order to fix the bill, there were amendments brought forward by my Conservative colleague and me here in the House of Commons and at committee. There was an amendment brought forward by a Conservative Senator to fix this problem as well. Therefore, the government had plenty of opportunity. We heard from witness after witness that the bill was a direct threat to journalistic independence, so it is on that premise that we must begin the discussion today. We know that the bill fails not only journalists and news outlets but also Canadians, because they deserve access to news that is independent of any pressure from a government or a platform.

We have to begin by looking at the importance of media. The Liberals try to paint us as being against media. They have accused us of being on the side of tech giants. The bill is not at all for the media or the independent journalists, who are proud of their work, day in and day out, and want to maintain that good work going forward. Let me talk about this a bit here.

The media plays a few key roles in society that we support. It is the watchdog. In other words, it protects the public interest. For example, just this year, in the last six to eight months, we have seen stories in the media with respect to the government turning a blind eye to China's interference in our elections. We know that there was interference both in 2019 and 2021, because of a brave whistle-blower who came forward. We know the Prime Minister's Office was aware of this. We know the Prime Minister turned a blind eye and chose to do nothing with intelligence reports from CSIS that were put on his desk or perhaps in his hands. Based on his chief of staff testifying at committee, we know that he reads everything and that he is shown everything.

Here we are in the House of Commons, and we have had committee meetings and asked questions with respect to this issue of interference in our elections. The reason we have been empowered to do this is that a brave whistle-blower came forward. This person works within CSIS, Canada's foremost intelligence agency, and brought forward the truth. Documents were produced and given to the Prime Minister, and he turned a blind eye and allowed Beijing to interfere in our elections, because it would benefit the Liberals in the long run. We know that because of a brave whistle-blower using the vehicle of media.

Therefore, make no mistake, media has an important role to play in our society. Media has a role to play with respect to telling stories, raising awareness and with respect to accountability. Media has an important role to play in celebrating incredible things going on in our country and in our local communities.

Media has an important role to play in educating folks with regard to various things that are going on, for example, right now, the many wildfires taking place across the country. We are thankful for the key role that media plays in our country.

The way that media is able to play its greatest role is when it is kept independent, when it is allowed to thrive without government intervention, without undue pressure, without being dictated to. What Bill C-18 would do is put the government squarely in the middle of the newsroom.

The government determines, through this legislation, what the CRTC will do. The CRTC then makes decisions and those decisions are applied to media. According to this bill, the CRTC can compel information from these news businesses, even confidential information.

Further to that, through the bill, there also has to be these negotiations that transpire between the platforms and the news businesses. We do not know what the terms of those negotiations are. Let us just say that the terms of those negotiations are that, as a news business, one gets rewarded for the number of clicks. As a news business, one is motivated to create clickbait. That is not news. At least, it is not the type of news that we would expect. It is not the type of news that is most beneficial to Canadian society.

We can see right off the bat that there is this massive problem with the bill. Therefore, when the minister says that this bill is about levelling the playing field, that it is about creating a more fair news ecosystem, that it is about access, that is just wrong.

At the end of the day, yes, we do need media, but we need independent journalists who are going to tell the stories that need to be told without pressure from the government or tech giants. We need journalists to truly be free to come at things from a non-partisan angle. I wish we had more of that in our country. It would benefit us all.

The minister has claimed that the landscape has changed and therefore this bill is needed. I would agree with him in that the landscape indeed has changed. Where I would disagree is that I do not agree that the bill is, in fact, the answer.

We know that the landscape has changed. We know that fewer people are buying newspapers. We know that fewer people are watching news on television. We know that more and more people are shifting their attention online. They like to go on a website, or they like to click on a Facebook post or they like to access it through Twitter.

We know that folks prefer to stream in the moment if they are going to watch their news. Many are going to read their news. However, we know that they are not necessarily going to read from a paper; they are more likely to read from an iPad or a phone.

Yes, the landscape is changing. As a result of that, because the consumer, the Canadian, is changing his or her habits, it means that more and more traffic is going online. Because more and more traffic has gone online, it means that ads are also being placed online, which means that those entities that have been innovative and have evolved in that space are getting the ad dollars.

Of course, when one is advertising, one is going to go where to the people are, and the people are online. What has happened is that one has these legacy media companies, whether it is newspapers or broadcasters such as the CBC, Rogers and Bell Media, and they have started to see the shift in their ad revenues, and, of course, it is not in their favour.

As a result, many concerns have been expressed to the minister. In response, the minister has come up with Bill C-18. It is in direct response to legacy media. It does not account for the innovative or creative ways of incoming media outlets that are actually thriving in this new tech space.

I would like to read a couple of quotes into the record.

This entity was heard from at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is by Independent Online News Publishers of Canada:

Any government intervention into the free press, however well-intentioned, must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence.

This is a key warning regarding this legislation and the impact that it is going to have.

Further, Professor Dwayne Winseck of Carleton University's School of Journalism and Communication and director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project said:

The media's money troubles are long-standing and this latest proposal is a bandaid on a bullet wound.... I just think the whole thing is a real dog's breakfast.... This bill is being saddled with expectations and being sold as a rescue package — that, I think, [is] really disingenuous.

In other words, as much the government might want this legislation to be the answer to the many problems faced by media and, in particular, revenues dwindling, it is not the answer.

The world innovates. The world generates. The world moves forward. Instead of punishing those individuals who are new, innovative and going to that next place, and rewarding legacy media, I believe it is the government's responsibility to take a step back and allow the world to evolve, to allow consumer demand to evolve, and to allow journalistic independence to maintain itself.

Another individual who spoke to this bill at committee was Jen Gerson. She is the co-founder of The Line and Independent Journalist. About the bill, she said:

...this bill...is predicated on a lie. The bill adopts a very ancient complaint of newspaper publishers that aggregation-based news websites and social media networks are unduly profiting by 'publishing' our content. However, we know this isn't true. In fact, the value proposition runs in exactly the opposite direction. We publishers are the ones who benefit when a user posts a link to our content on Facebook, Twitter and the like. This free distribution drives traffic to our websites, which we can then try to monetize through subscriptions and advertising.

It is so clearly stated.

We have these online entities that can be connected to through platforms posting links. In other words, it is propagating or propelling free traffic. It is doing the advertising for these news sources.

This individual, Jen Gerson, is calling it what it is. She is saying the sharing of their links is actually a good thing. That is what drives people to their sites and gives them the opportunity to make money. This legislation is built on the wrong foundation. It is built on the foundation that somehow these platforms should not be sharing these news links, that they should be punished by having to pay a financial penalty for sharing these news links. That does not make any sense.

The way that information flows online is when links are shared. If we want the news to be read, if we want the source to be accessed, then allow for the links to be shared. If we allow for the links to be shared, of course it drives more traffic.

If it drives the traffic, then of course there will be more people viewing the content, and if there are more people viewing that content then there are more people who will want to advertise with the source of that content. What she is saying is that, really, the government has this bill all wrong.

Let us get into some of the nitty-gritty of the bill. There are many serious concerns that were raised at committee, both in the Senate and here in the House of Commons with regard to where the benefit lies. Government officials said that this is going to generate about $215 million for the various news sources across Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent entity, said that this bill is going to generate about $350 million. What is going to happen with that money? The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was reported that 75% of the money will go to the CBC, to Rogers and to Bell, which leaves less than 25% for newspapers.

Despite this entire bill having been put forward by the minister to protect local newspapers, that is not true. This bill will not help local newspapers the way he has said it will. This bill will not help ethnic media sources. This bill will not help digital media sources. This bill looks to the past. It does not look to the future, so this bill is incredibly problematic. While the CBC, Rogers and Bell would accept 75% of the revenue, local newspapers in cities like Lethbridge, or towns like Picture Butte, Coaldale or Coalhurst in my riding, are not going to get a dime from this legislation. The minister continues to be incredibly disingenuous in how he touts this legislation, saying that it is going to benefit the smallest newspapers when in fact this legislation was built or designed solely in favour of legacy broadcasters.

Further to that, this bill gives a tremendous amount of control to the CRTC. The CRTC now will be responsible for determining if a news outlet is truly a news outlet. How will it be defined? We know somewhat. We do not know entirely, but we know somewhat. We know that some of that definition will be based on whether the entity has a licence with the CRTC. That is interesting to me. Just because an entity has a licence with the CRTC does not mean it produces news. That begs the question then of where the money will go. Is it truly going to local news? Is it truly going to ethnic media? Is it truly going to digital sources? Is it truly going toward the future of news in our country? The answer to that question we already know is “no”.

The CRTC will not only determine if an entity is an eligible news business, but the CRTC will also determine some of the negotiating factors. There is some independence. In fact, the CRTC again can compel these new businesses to give up information, including confidential information. Here is what a few people had to say: “Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.”“If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18”. Who said that? It was the former CRTC commissioner, Peter Menzies.

Peter Menzies went on to say:

Bill C-18 is as likely to kill journalism in Canada as it is to save it. The very prospect of it is already perverting news coverage and undermining trust, the commodity upon which the industry depends most. Bill C-18 will permanently entrench the industry's dependency not on the loyalty of citizens, readers and viewers, but upon the good graces of politicians and the ability of offshore, quasi-monopoly tech companies to remain profitable.

Could there be a more damning statement?

If we truly value the independence of our press, if we truly value the future of our country and if we truly value having access to real news, everyone in this House should vote against this bill in a unified manner.

Here is another quote from Dr. Michael Geist, who is at the University of Ottawa and specializes in this area. He said:

Bill C-18 doesn’t only increase the power of the Internet companies. It also provides exceptional new powers to the CRTC. These include determining which entities qualify as [news businesses], which agreements create an exemption, which Canadian news organizations qualify as eligible news businesses, and whether the arbitration decisions should be approved. On top of that, the CRTC will also create a code of conduct, implement the code, and wield penalty powers for failure to comply. Far from a hands-off approach, the CRTC will instantly become the most powerful market regulator of the news sector in Canada.

Again, this bill fails to protect the independence of the press, and when it fails to protect the independence of the press, it then fails Canadians as a whole, because Canadians depend on being able to access news that is not a result of pressure from tech companies or from the government. As such, when the government points fingers and says that Conservatives are in the pocket of the tech giants, actually the government is. The government is squarely in the pocket of the tech giants, because it created legislation that directly benefits those tech giants, as those tech giants get to give direction to these new outlets as to what to produce and what not to produce. It is the government that took power and gave it all over to the tech giants. Let us make no mistake of that.

Let us talk a bit about this bill and whether it actually supports local newspapers.

I have already said that in my riding, there is hardly a dime to be gained, but mine is not the only one. We know that many local newspapers across this country are struggling right now, and we know that many of them are dependent on only one journalist. Because of that, they will not be able to apply for this. They will not get the CRTC's stamp of approval as an allowable news outlet, so this bill will put them under. This bill has nothing in store for their future. In fact, this bill will result in their demise, because this bill will raise up legacy media and big broadcasters and put them in a favourable position, while simultaneously pushing down those local newspaper outlets that exist in ridings like mine.

Shame on the government for trying to mislead Canadians.

I should mention that it is not just that this bill will support the big Canadian broadcasters or the big Canadian newspapers; I should also mention that this bill is so broad that it actually extends to foreign new outlets, such as The New York Times. I should also mention that it will extend to hundreds of broadcasters that are licensed by the CRTC, whether or not they produce news.

The question is this: Is this bill actually doing what the government says it is? The answer is no.

This bill will not revive the media. This bill will not save local entities. This bill is not the solution. In fact, I would argue that this bill actually is the problem. It perpetuates the problem. It personifies the problem. It embodies the problem. It is synonymous with the problem.

I will read another quote from Andrew Coyne. He is a columnist in The Globe and Mail. It took a lot of courage for him to provide this, but nevertheless it is an important one. He says:

The premise, that the problems of the newspaper industry can be traced to search and social-media platforms like Google or Facebook “stealing” their content, is utterly false. The platforms don't take our content. They link to it: a headline, sometimes a short snippet of text, nothing more. When users click on the links, they are taken to our sites, where they read our content. Much of the traffic on our sites, in fact, comes from social-media links, which is why we go to such lengths to encourage readers to post them - indeed, we post such links ourselves, hundreds of times a day.

Again, let us make no mistake: When platforms post links to news, it is of great benefit to the National Posts of the world, the Globe and Mails of the world and so on and so forth. That is what Andrew Coyne is getting at here. It is of great benefit to have these links posted.

Here is the problem, though. Because of this legislation, Facebook has already said that it will no longer be carrying news links and Google has indicated that it is considering doing the same, which means that these links would no longer be made available to Canadians, not on Meta or Facebook, not on Instagram and not on Google. If that is the case, this bill would kill newspapers, because Canadians would no longer have those links available to them within the framework of a Google search or within the framework of Facebook or Instagram.

That is a problem, because, as I just read into the record, Andrew Coyne makes it very clear that the entire model is dependent on those links' being made available. In fact, the news outlets themselves post those links. In fact, he said they do not just post them once or twice but hundreds of times per day, so the government, in forcing this legislation upon Facebook and Google and causing them to make a business decision to retract and not carry news links anymore, will actually kill newspapers.

But the government does not care. The government would prefer that people did not know that, because at the end of the day this legislation, though touted as something that would benefit newspapers, is actually built to benefit CBC, Rogers and Bell Media. We know that. The government has built this piece of legislation on a lie, but it sounds nice. It sounds like the government is for local media. It sounds like it is for ethnic media. It sounds like it is for progress, and the Liberals like that word, “progress”.

In fact, this bill is one of the most regressive pieces of legislation that I have ever seen, and it would put a spear directly through the heart of newspapers. Eventually, other outlets would dwindle too. Make no mistake.

Let us talk about this legislation for what it truly is. Let us talk about the fact that the CBC would receive the greatest amount of benefit from this legislation and let us talk about the fact that the CBC is already funded to the tune of about $1.2 billion per year in taxpayer dollars. Let us talk about the fact that this legislation then would allow the CBC to enter into negotiations with platforms and thereby gain more money. Let us talk about the fact that this legislation would actually benefit the CBC to a massive extent: It would get money from the government, money from its negotiations with Google and Facebook, and money from advertising revenues.

Guess who does not have the benefit of all of those sources of income: local newspapers. Guess who else: ethnic newspapers. Guess who else: innovative, creative news start-ups.

Make no mistake: This bill is not about supporting the future of news. This bill is not about supporting newspapers. This bill is all about supporting legacy media. It is all about the CBC, primarily, and secondly it is about Bell Media and Rogers. That is what this bill is about. If the government wants to present this bill under a true premise, I would be more than happy to debate it under that premise, but the one that has been put forward today is altogether false and incredibly misleading.

It should also be considered that this bill would likely violate our agreements with the United States of America, and that point has been brought up.

Ms. Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, has warned that Bill C-18 has serious trade implications for Canada. We have been warned that if we move forward with this legislation, the U.S. is likely to retaliate, and if it retaliates, that will be to the tune of about $350 million. That means that the government is choosing to benefit legacy media at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses in our country that are going to be subject to that punitive response by the United States.

The government shrugs its shoulders, because it does not care. It is going to pass a bad piece of legislation that is going to result in newspapers dying, ethnic media dying and new start-ups not gaining a dime of support. Then, on top of that, it is also going to result in punitive outcomes for our small and medium-sized businesses that are going to have trade barriers or penalties placed against them.

At the end of the day, this bill is a lose-lose-lose. There is nothing here to be gained. If the government wanted to give the CBC more money, it could have just cut a cheque. It does it all the time. However, the biggest thing is that Canadians lose. Canadians lose because they want access to a variety of media, and unfortunately, that variety is going to be depleted. Canadians lose because they want access to independent media. They want to be able to trust the journalists who are bringing forward the stories that they so long to hear, but this bill would not protect journalistic independence.

Furthermore, Canadians lose out because right now they enjoy the convenience of being able to go online and find links to news, and this bill would result in those links largely being removed. Therefore, at the end of the day, this bill is a direct attack on Canadians and their ability, and I would even say their right, to access the information that they depend on as timely news in this country, and there is no one else to blame for that shift, that change, that damaging effect than the government.

It had opportunity after opportunity. Whether it was here in debate, hearing from witnesses at committee, incorporating amendments that I or my colleagues brought forward, or Senate amendments, the government has had plenty of opportunity to correct this bill, and every step of the way it has chosen not to. That is to its shame, but sadly, it is also the shame of Canadians, because they are the ones who are ultimately punished by this bill.

That said, because this bill is so damaging to Canadians and their ability to access news from independent sources, a plethora of sources, in a convenient and timely manner, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the first word “That” and substituting the following:

the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague for his question and his tireless work. He is an MP I respect enormously. We have known each other since we started working together in 2004. I have seen the quality and thoroughness of his work over all these years, particularly on Bill C-18.

He is absolutely right. There is no democracy or sovereign nation that can allow a web giant, a foreign company, to come in and dictate terms.

We cannot allow a company, any company, to come in and tell a sovereign government, one elected by the people, that it must do this or that or risk suffering the consequences and paying the price. That is absolutely unacceptable. Some of the actions taken by certain web giants constitute bullying, pure and simple. They are bullying Canadians, members of the House of Commons and senators. It is unacceptable.

We must stand strong. Unfortunately, the Conservatives caved immediately. They caved to pressure from the web giants at every step and at every opportunity, but we will stand strong.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague's question gives us some idea of the mood and the positions taken in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its work on Bill C‑18. It was pretty specific and pretty clear.

Throughout this study, the web giants went to great lengths to tell us that news was not that valuable to their businesses. Sabrina Geremia, a vice-president at Google Canada, somehow managed to tell us, during a memorable, pathetic and pitiful committee appearance, that last year, Google linked to Canadian news publishers over 3.6 billion times and that this traffic drove $250 million in value. When the web giants tell us that news has no value, well, if 3.6 billion clicks have no value for Google, they should shut down, because that does not make any sense.

With the urgently needed passage of Bill C-18, however, we know that the media will be able to negotiate and be compensated for the content that they and newsrooms create in Quebec and Canada. We have seen the closures, however. In his speech, the minister spoke about newsroom closures and the elimination of journalism jobs.

If Bill C-18 is not enough to keep newsrooms open and journalists employed, is the Minister of Canadian Heritage prepared to accept the Bloc Québécois proposal to create a fund to support journalism in Quebec and Canada?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me quote some other people, for example, Paul Deegan, CEO of News Media Canada. Let us hear what he had to say about this bill. I am sure members will find it very interesting. Paul Deegan said, “The amendment would limit the ability of news publishers to negotiate fair compensation with dominant platforms. [Fair] value will be determined during negotiations.”

That is not all; I have another quote.

Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, president of La Presse, said, and I quote, “This amendment would tie one hand behind our back and hamstring us in negotiations with the platforms that enjoy a massive power imbalance over news publishers.” He went on to say, and I quote, “This amendment benefits the platforms at the expense of publishers.”

Because we are rejecting that amendment, we also have to reject a second amendment, which is a technical amendment tied to the first one. We are accepting 10 amendments out of 12. Again, I want to thank the senators for their amazing work.

Canada is currently leading the way with Bill C‑18. We are leading the charge.

I also want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, especially the member for Drummond, who did an outstanding job, as well as the NDP heritage critic, who did great work. I thank them for their interest in this bill and for the valuable and productive work that they did.

Thanks to this collaborative effort, Canada is leading the way. Even Australia, which served as a model for us in the beginning, is now looking to us to be guided by the transparency measures we included in the bill. In the beginning, we followed the Australian model, but then we improved it. We added a lot of transparency, and now Australia is looking to us to see what we are doing and it may even copy some aspects of the Canadian model.

Transparency is fundamental. Transparency is always central to every decision we make and every action we take. It is important. Canadians also expect transparency. They want things to be done in a transparent way.

As a government team, we want everything to be transparent. That is why, every year, an independent auditor is going to assess how well the act is meeting its objective of ensuring a fairer news ecosystem. Having an auditor will also enable us to adjust course as needed.

We have studied this bill. We have examined it and made it better. We have listened to what everyone had to say. We addressed many of the concerns that stakeholders raised in Parliament, and I would say that the bill is much stronger because of this.

The online news act would not be a silver bullet for all the challenges facing the news sector. We are very realistic and we understand. There are different programs that we have put in place. We did this collectively as a team to improve the situation, and there are many other things. However, this is an extremely important part. Through this bill, we would address many of the concerns we have heard in the House and in the other place, in discussions with experts, with people from platforms and with people from the media, including journalists. It is not a silver bullet, but it would definitely give the Canadian news media a chance to rebuild and thrive in a more sustainable, fairer news ecosystem.

As I have said before, the world is watching Canada, and we have to take clear leadership. I would say that this is a call to all parliamentarians in this place and in the other place. The world is watching, and we are all taking clear leadership on this. I want to thank all parliamentarians for this.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 made by the Senate; and

respectfully disagrees with amendments 4 and 5 because they undermine the objectives of the bill, which focus on encouraging fair deals that reflect what each party contributes to, and how each party benefits from, the making available of news online, and narrow the scope of the bargaining process and the key factors guiding final offer arbitration decisions;

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank all parliamentarians for their important work on this bill, starting with the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and also the senators who sit on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In particular, I would like to thank Senator Harder, who did a truly remarkable job as the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

Last, but certainly not least, there is my incredible, formidable parliamentary secretary, the member for St. Catharines. I thank all of them so much.

I have said it in the past and it bears repeating today: Since 2008, more than 500 media and newsrooms have closed their doors in 335 different communities all across the country. There are very few members who have not had a newsroom in their riding close. It affects us all. We are talking about local newspapers, television stations, local radio stations and news sites.

We discussed this here last week when Bell announced the closure of radio stations and the elimination of 1,300 jobs. Furthermore, we will recall, especially my Quebec friends and colleagues, that not so long ago Québecor announced 240 job cuts, including 140 at TVA. We are talking about real people who lost their jobs.

This bill is about them. It is also about the future of the news industry in our country. It is about upholding our democracy, because our democracy, or any democracy, needs a free, independent and thriving press. We all rely on fact-based and timely news to make rational decisions to counter misinformation and to participate in our democracy. Today, I would say, it is more important than ever.

We all know that the Internet has dramatically changed the way we create, search and consume content, especially when it comes to news. We see that more and more Canadians are using digital platforms to stay informed, and 77% of Canadians consume their news online, including 55% of them doing so on social media. We can see the impact right here. Meanwhile, our traditional news sector is in crisis; we all know that. It is very clear to all of us that there is a big power imbalance in our news marketplace, and the actions of the big platforms, as we have seen very recently, are a clear demonstration of this. Right now, there is absolutely no incentive for digital platforms to pay our news businesses and our journalists fairly for their content. Everything I have just mentioned here has a direct impact on our ability as Canadians to access reliable news.

The bill proposes practical measures to respond to everything I just said. It proposes to put an end to the status quo because it is not working, as we have clearly seen. When we are talking about nearly 500 newsrooms or news media outlets, whether big or small, in cities or in the regions, that have closed their doors, we clearly see that the status quo is not working at all. We therefore need to take strong, definitive action.

Bill C‑18 sets out clear criteria that the platforms must meet in their negotiations with news organizations. I hope it will be passed in the coming days with the help of my colleagues here and the administrators.

As soon as the law is passed, we will consult with Canadians, who will get to have their say. It is essential that Canadians have a say because this bill is partly about them. Basically, we are talking here about access to good quality, reliable, neutral, independent and non-partisan news. We are talking about local journalism, one of the pillars of our democracy. Because of that, we obviously want Canadians to express their opinions and have their say. It will therefore be a completely transparent process.

During their study of the bill, senators made 12 amendments to Bill C-18.

There is a provision to have the entire act come into force within six months of royal assent. There is also a guarantee that no media will be required to take part in this if it does not want to. Then there is the addition of provisions on official language minority communities, as well as Black, indigenous and other communities.

There are some important and interesting amendments that are in the spirit of the legislation that I would say improve the legislation. We propose supporting 10 of these 12 amendments, which is a lot. I want to take this opportunity to thank the senators for their work, in particular Senator Harder who, as sponsor, did extraordinary work. I thank him and the members of the committee and all senators. We are support 10 out of the 12 amendments.

The only one we cannot support is an amendment that would force negotiators to set boundaries on bargaining by setting a simple value for news content and limiting negotiation over other items of value. Currently, the legislation intentionally would not set boundaries on what parties can negotiate on. This would allow them to bargain over the elements outside the scope of news content if they want.

If you do not want to take my word for it, Madam Speaker, which I am sure you and everyone in this room would want to, but just in case—

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to this closure motion. It is very disappointing, yet nothing new, that we are seeing this from government, since it has consistently used every opportunity it can, in coordination with its coalition partners, to silence not only members of the House but also the Canadians they represent.

We do not have enough time to present our opinions. I want to say that again for both English- and French-speaking Canadians because our debates are held in both official languages. Unfortunately, this process is not new to this House.

It is not surprising, unfortunately. We have seen this with a number of other bills. In addition to limiting speech, and we certainly know that we are going to have an opportunity to talk about the limitation of speech with Bill C-18 also coming forward in the House, we also see the limitation of democracy across the country, not only with foreign interference but also with Bill C-11.

The silencing of members of the House, as well as of Canadians, is nothing new, so I would like to say that it is very disappointing, especially as we go into the summer holidays. We are very limited in the amount of time that we have to have these important conversations for Canadians.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond on behalf of the government.

This afternoon we will continue debate on Government Business No. 26, concerning amendments to the Standing Orders. When debate concludes later this evening, we will consider Bill C-35, respecting early learning and child care, followed by Senate amendments to Bill C-9, concerning the Judges Act.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-42, respecting the Canada Business Corporations Act, at report stage and third reading, and Bill S-8, respecting sanctions.

The priorities for next week shall include Bill S-8, on sanctions; Senate amendments to Bill C-18, respecting online news; Bill C-40, concerning the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's Law; and Bill C-33, which strengthens the port system and railway safety.

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

News Media Industry

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our government will always be open to new solutions. We will always look at what more we can do and what we can do better.

However, when we introduced the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, the Conservatives were against it. When we created the Canada Media Fund for the regions, the Conservatives were against it. When we introduced Bill C‑11, the Conservatives were against it. When we introduced Bill C‑18, the Conservatives, again, were against it.

Do they understand that their actions have real consequences?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, layoffs at Bell Media are a sign of growing pessimism even among the telecom giants. We can only imagine how the smaller industry players feel.

Will current federal programs and the compensation flowing from Bill C‑18 really be enough to ensure the survival of the news?

The Bloc Québécois is proposing the creation of a dedicated fund, separate from existing programs, wholly dedicated to protecting news media and newsrooms. I think we are at that point.

What does the minister think? Is he prepared to work with us to develop a fund like that?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with all those who have lost their jobs, and with their families. It is always worrisome when radio stations shut down and journalists lose their jobs. That is why we have been there from the start. We worked with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to study Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, but the Conservatives did everything they could to delay the passage of those bills.

Do they finally understand that their actions have consequences?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 1,300 people learned yesterday that they would be losing their jobs at Bell Media. Six radio stations are going to stop broadcasting. When even a giant like Bell can no longer protect its media and newsrooms, the situation is dire. The entire news industry and the people who work in it are all under threat.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to have contributed to Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, two very important bills. However, I think the minister is beginning to realize, as I have, that this will probably not be enough.

In light of these new job losses, does the minister have anything to suggest in order to better protect the diversity of information?

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes. I want to thank you personally, Mr. Julian, for all your work on Bill C-18 and the support you gave us—the NDP, but you more at a personal level—because the work we did collectively is super-important.

In too many regions, those papers—and Mr. Shields mentioned it—are struggling or disappearing. In some cases, an MP goes back home and there's no one to cover it, and that's bad for democracy. People should know what's happening in their city hall and what their MLA is doing, what their MP is doing.

That's why we're going to be reinforcing those small papers through Bill C-18, and that's why collective bargaining is so important and why it has been included in that bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Okay.

We're going to come through Bill C-18. The NDP fought hard to get a number of amendments to stimulate local journalism. I want to shout out to the New West Anchor, the Burnaby Beacon, Burnaby NOW and the Royal City Record, all of whom will benefit from this.

Is it in the plans of the government to have those voices and that local journalism revived after years of having big tech suck all the advertising money out of communities? Is it your plan to ensure that Canadians are aware of how we are reviving the local journalistic sector and uniting people in their communities?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

This is a very topical issue. We can also see it with the advent of artificial intelligence and the increased risk of disinformation.

It's not up to the government to say what disinformation is or is not, i.e., that such and such a message is disinformation and such and such is not. There's an element of debate in all this.

There are several answers to your question. One of the main answers is Bill C‑18. Indeed, it reinforces a free, independent, autonomous and impartial press that likes to dig, does research, writes and disseminates information based on facts.

We're also setting up other programs. I'm thinking, for example, of the programs we've implemented to foster civic education, to help young people and different groups recognize what might be disinformation.

However, at no time would it be for the government to say that it knows what is true or not. We agree on that.

We need to help institutions that give the public access to valid, factual information.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, as during all discussions regarding bills C‑11 and C‑18, we have often heard disinformation from large technology companies, who want nothing to do with these bills.

In the coming months, with the implementation of bills C‑11 and C‑18, it will be even more important for Canadians to know exactly what's in these bills.

What are you going to do, Minister, to counter this disinformation often promoted by interests with enormous resources?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Some of them have, absolutely. We know that. That's perfect. Do you know why some of those deals were made? It was because they knew that Bill C-18 was coming.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

First, Bill C-18 is not in place, so it's going to be a game-changer. Second—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, going back to a previous question I asked, said with regard to Bill C-18 that the majority of the revenues have already been accounted for in deals made with the CBC, Rogers and Bell. It was the PBO who said that.

Now, I know your staff is saying that the CRTC is going to take a look and see if that's representative, but do you understand that the PBO has said that deals with CBC, Rogers and Bell have already been made for the majority of the money?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We're doing several things, and we're doing them together, by the way. Bill C‑18 is one part of it, as well as the payroll funds and—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It's part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Bill C-18 will help those small papers because they can negotiate and they can have collective bargaining negotiations. This gives them way more strength to sit at the same table as giants like Google and Facebook.

There's also the periodical fund they have access to. They have access to the credit for newsrooms, the $600 million. There's a series of programs. We're looking at how to help them even more, because they're fundamental to our democracy. Even the smaller ones have their roles to play.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

One thing I took out of it was that there are larger organizations and then there are smaller organizations, lots of self-employed and small companies, theatre companies, that all need support at the same time. I was very happy to hear that discussion happening at all levels.

We faced challenges to overcome the pandemic in a culture that asks to bring people together, and all of a sudden we were unable to do that. Those were the challenges we had to overcome, but there are also some potential gains we can make moving forward. I think legislation like Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 will be very important to modernize how we support our cultural sector, so I do appreciate that.

We talked about Bill C-18 and supporting papers, so I wonder if you could expand on that, because in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga we have those small weekly papers, and they are feeling the lack of advertising revenue and are having trouble keeping people on staff and staying afloat. Can you expand on how those small papers are going to be supported by Bill C-18? Maybe use Australia as an example of how legislation similar to this has worked in other countries.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Louis, for your contributions, not only on this committee but in different conversations. You're an artist, and I have a lot to learn from you. I think we have a lot to learn from you. You know your stuff probably more than all of us, so thank you very much for what you've done.

It's the same as Ms. Hepfner's knowing the media sector extremely well, and it's been extremely helpful to have her with us to prepare Bill C-18.

Probably the most important thing was just seeing each other at that summit. Remember, that was in the middle of the pandemic. It was a year ago in the month of May. It was cute to see our faces on screens, but the fact is that we gathered 400 people from all over the country, specialists in museums, music, movies, television and books. It was simply amazing to have the human contact and the chance to share our point of view and our best experiences. There were things that were done in B.C. that we could learn from, and other things that were done in Quebec that we could learn from. I think it was the perfect forum to share those experiences and the challenges of the future.

I was discussing earlier today the fragility of the sector, the job situation and the instability. How can we help these people who want to follow their passion so that they don't have to leave their jobs and go work in a restaurant or anywhere else? I know they're all good jobs, but they're not doing what they love, what their passion is, so how can we help them? How can we offer more support, comfort and stability to a mother who is a ballet dancer but doesn't have the stability required to pay the mortgage, the rent, and this and that?

I think that it was very welcomed by all the sectors. I think all of us learned quite a lot, and that also helped us put in place some of the programs that followed to help in terms of support during the pandemic.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think you're referring to Bill C-18, Madam Gladu.

We've had many discussions. Those who know me know that my door is always open. A lot of them have my cellphone. I'm always ready to discuss with them, with their representatives. My team and our public servants have been discussing with them all the time, and my door is still open.

I don't like this impression of confrontation. We may disagree on stuff, but there is still a lot of stuff we can do together. My door is still open to see if we can discuss.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Part of the answer is in the hands of our friends at the Conservative Party, because it depends on what they do. Last time they took a lot of time. They wanted to really reflect on Bill C-11. I think they did that. Now they want to really reflect on Bill C-18.

In a way, Bill C-18 is a game-changer for our independent media and newsrooms. As I've said before, please keep reflecting on the importance of an independent press, a free press, a non-partisan press, in all different forms, for fighting disinformation, informing Canadians and searching for the truth.

These people are professionals who have devoted all their lives to this, but now the money has now gone to the big techs, and we have to find something that is fairer for the system.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Very good.

As you know, I'm a former broadcast journalist and I have spoken to many stakeholders about Bill C-18. I was very honoured to play a big role in helping shape the legislation and work on that legislation here at this committee. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters were here on the Hill a couple of weeks ago, and all I'm hearing now from stakeholders is, “Thank you for getting Bill C-18 through the House. When will it take effect?”

Please tell us about the next steps for Bill C-18. We know it's at the Senate right now. Is there a date we can expect it to actually take effect?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's a big question. I'm not sure any of us has the full answer to that. We understand there are many challenges.

One of the things we got out of that summit.... It was a huge success, by the way. We had 400 people from all over the country, and hundreds of people were on the screen. A big topic of discussion and debate was the fragility of many of our workers. The arts and culture sector was one of the hardest hit during the pandemic, especially the live arts.

If you think about it, you had venues and maybe you had a gig where you would play the guitar. Let's say Mr. Louis had a gig, and he was playing at a certain venue. The venue would say, “No, sorry; there are COVID rules. You're not playing.” The COVID rules then changed, and then it was, “Oh, by the way, yes, you can play next week.” The rules kept changing. We lost many people because these people who had contracts here and there were also parents. They also had to pay the mortgage or the rent, put food on the table, clothe their kids and all of that. Because of that instability, we lost many people.

We have to look at ways to offer more stability to that sector. Can we do stuff, for example, through EI? How can we also help the venues to encourage people to come back? We've put in place some of those programs. For a while, people were still concerned about COVID and going into a room full of people. People are a bit more reassured now, but not fully. It brings supplementary challenges, so you discuss live events and the future of television and movies at the same time. The way to approach this is to have an inclusive approach.

We have programs with the live sector. We have Bill C-11 for our culture sector. We have Bill C-18 for media and newsrooms. The most important thing is to listen and to learn from the people on the ground. I'm only the minister, right? We have some tools as a department, and some money, and definitely goodwill to change and help, but the people who know are the people doing the stuff on the ground.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Shields, the $600 million is going to local media.

One of the benefits of Bill C-18 is collective bargaining. You can have a lot of them, even if they are not represented by anyone, get together. That is what they have done in Australia, and the small media in Australia, proportionally, got more than the big ones, proportionally speaking.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You're raising a very good point. There are different programs for those papers. They play a fundamental role, Mr. Shields, as you'll agree.

Why do we have Bill C-18? It's because those papers are disappearing. Over 460 media—big and small, in regions and cities or whatever—have disappeared in the last 10 to 15 years.

All of the money is migrating to those big players, and we're trying to come back to a fairer system. The government has no say; we're just putting in place a table in the middle. We're having the tech giants with all of the players, including the small ones like yours, come to the table and negotiate collectively.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

There are two things there to support them with Bill C-18. That's hopefully coming soon, depending on what's going on in the Senate. I also mentioned the special fund with $50 million of support.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

I wrote to you just a few days ago about CACTUS, the Canadian Association of Community Televison Users and Stations, and the funding issue they have around the local journalism initiative. They're experiencing a lot of complications. This is important, as Bill C-18, as you pointed out, is to incite and encourage local journalism.

Do you have an update on responding to the needs of these local organizations that are just trying to put in place local journalism initiatives?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'd like your opinion on the attitude that has been shown here by representatives of Google and Meta regarding Bill C‑18 during recent meetings we've had at this committee with these people.

How did you react to their threats? How do you intend to respond?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You're absolutely right that CBC plays a fundamental role in our country, with a very specific mandate to support minority-language communities, to be present in regions and to help us understand what's going on in the world. As you know, in my mandate letter one thing that I have to do and that I'm starting now is the review, la révision, of the CBC/Radio-Canada mandate. That will be ongoing. Then we will be analyzing all that at the same time.

Remember that CBC, like other institutions, will also benefit from Bill C-18 eventually, so there's something there.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Big festivals are indeed relatively happy. It's the smaller festivals, the local festivals, that are suffering the most. They're going to reach out to you, because I told him to call you directly. You're certainly going to hear from them.

We talked about Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, which were both very important to me. I think we share the same vision of them, but I was still concerned throughout study of the bills, especially in the case of Bill C‑11, by worries among those who still consider it a censorship bill. You and I both know that's absolutely not the case, but maybe it wasn't well explained. And maybe it was somewhat misused by some of our colleagues, who took advantage of the fear about a possible infringement on freedom of expression.

Now that Bill C‑11 has passed and the CRTC will be looking into it, do you intend to respond to these people, to show more caution in order to reassure them about it? There's still work to do on that front, isn't there?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by welcoming Mr. Doiron. I have a friend with the same name, and he's been called Doyon or Dorion his whole life. Hello, Mr. Doiron. I also welcome Ms. Mondou and Mr. Ripley.

Minister, it's a pleasure to finally have you with us. We want to talk to you about many things, including bills we studied over the last two years, Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18.

I also wanted to talk with you a little about the cultural industry's recovery. I imagine you're familiar with the committee's report on the industry's requests regarding recovery. Have you read it?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I agree with you that Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 are major steps and that the CRTC will be playing an important role.

I remember that we put in place an additional amount of, I think, $1.9 million for the CRTC regarding Bill C-18. As for the rest, we have to see exactly where we go in terms of regulations and the amount of work that's going to be done, but the CRTC will be fully funded for that, and they are confident that they can do the job on both bills.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and your department executives, for being here today.

Because of the work that's been done with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, the CRTC is going to have a huge amount of work to do, but I notice in the estimates that they've not been given any additional money in this budget, and there are words there that suggest that additional money could be added.

Can you give us an idea of how much it will cost for the CRTC to fully implement the provisions of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 when they get royal assent?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you about priorities included in my mandate letter and the Main Estimates for the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As you said, Mr. Chair, with me today are Ms. Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister; Mr. Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, whom you know very well; and Mr. Éric Doiron, Chief Financial Officer of my department, who will also be able to answer some of your questions.

I often say how proud I am to be the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In fact, I had asked to come back, but you know how it works. The Prime Minister could have said no. In the end, I came back because I think it's an extremely important department for Canada's social fabric. To be honest, it's not the easiest job in Ottawa. We have a very ambitious program, but I think we're all proud to contribute to promoting and defending our culture and who we are as Canadians. Our culture and all those who work in the sector deserve our support. I'm thinking of our artists, our creators, our independent producers, our museums, all those who work in the arts and culture sector.

All parliamentarians, my team, my department's officials and I all work extremely hard to implement all these priorities. Many have already been achieved and others are underway. Among other things, I'm talking about supporting our cultural industries, protecting the rights of our artists, encouraging The production of books and music, museums, theatres, homegrown programs and films. We must also support Indigenous people's efforts to revitalize their languages, promote their cultures and tell their stories in their own way. All Canadians need to see themselves in what they watch and listen to. We must protect our news media industry and make sure our laws reflect our digital world which, as you know, is undergoing profound changes.

My mandate letter, as you can see, contains many ambitious commitments, probably more than ever. There are definitely more than there were the first time I was Minister of Canadian Heritage. One of the most important, at least to me, but probably to a lot of you too, is to modernize our broadcasting system to make sure it reflects the reality of how the industry works today, because things have changed in the past quite a lot. We're doing this to make sure our industry succeeds. We want our people to succeed and we want to make sure that our artists and creators and producers have all the opportunities they deserve.

Over a year ago, I introduced our Online Streaming Act. Recently it received royal assent, and I think we should feel proud of that. We may not agree on everything, but I think it's a huge step.

It's been a long process. We all know that. We examined the bill; we debated it; we improved it. Even if it was tough, parliamentarians worked hard to make this bill into law. It's the law of the land. It's the first time it has changed since 1991, so I want to acknowledge the collaboration of parliamentarians, witnesses and all those who participated, including all of you.

The Online Streaming Act was the first success in a long series of actions we're going to take to level the playing field for everyone. When I say everyone, I'm talking as much about digital platforms as our broadcasters, newspapers and media outlets.

There's another step which I think is absolutely fundamental and unavoidable in this series of actions, and that's Bill C-18, the Online News Act. Access to reliable, quality news is the foundation of our democracy. It's one of the pillars of our democracy. The work of our journalists and newsrooms has value, and platforms must recognize and contribute to it. It's essential for democracy in our country.

Currently, a Senate committee is studying Bill C‑18. I hope things will keep moving along smoothly. There were some good conversations and I think things are moving along well. Our news community needs it. As soon as the bill passes, it will help ensure the viability of our local and independent media.

Collectively, regardless of our party banner or where we come from, our job is to stand up for them, for a free, independent, nonpartisan and professional press. Every single one of us must make the effort, because Canadians expect us to protect local journalism and have independent, free, reliable and nonpartisan press. We must make this effort together.

Coming back to the rest of the mandate, we've accomplished a great deal. I'm thinking specifically of support we provided to artists and the cultural sector during the pandemic. It was at the top of my mandate letter. It all happened while we were in the middle of the pandemic. There were tremendous concerns in the sector. It was at the heart of our actions.

We supported the entire sector throughout the pandemic, but the sector was there for us too. I'm sure you'll agree with what I'm about to say. It was hard to be isolated, not to talk to each other, to be on our own. Imagine if we hadn't had books, music and television. Itwould have been a thousand times harder. While we were there for the cultural sector, it was there for all of us too.

I say it all the time. I just can't imagine a world without culture, languages, stories, TV shows, books, our museums and our music. I'm happy to see that because of the initiatives we put together through the pandemic, nine out of 10 recipients told us that our recovery fund helped them stay in business.

That's not all. Over a year ago—and you probably remember this—in May of last year, we held a national summit with cultural leaders from across the country, with people coming from everywhere. Hundreds of people came to talk here in Ottawa about the future of the sector. That was another very important moment. We met and reflected on the needs of the sector. Since then, we've seen our artists return to the stage, our venues fill up and our museums welcome visitors again. All of this is absolutely great to see.

Do you know what? The reality is that the credit goes to the cultural community, because they're the ones who did the job. We provided the funds and we had programs here and there, but they're the ones who worked hard to get back to prepandemic levels of activity.

We were there for them and we were committed to supporting the recovery all the way. A lot has been done, but you will definitely agree that a lot remains to be done also. There's so much work to do.

That brings me to the next topic that I'm here to talk about today, which is my department and portfolio budgets.

For the coming year, Main Estimates for the Department of Canadian Heritage will be $1.9 billion. That includes $202.9 million in operating expenditures and $1.7 billion in grants and contributions. That's an adjustment of $244.3 million compared to the previous year, simply because we’re coming back to our pre-pandemic priorities.

A good example of that is our creative export strategy, which supports the competitiveness of our creative industries at the international level, and we just renewed it for three years.

There is also an increase of $74.2 million in 2023-24 to support the efforts of indigenous communities to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen their languages. In the 2022 budget, money was also provided to foster a more inclusive arts training sector and to continue to support the postpandemic recovery of the arts sector.

It's important because it shows that we were there during the crisis, during the pandemic, that we're still there today, that we've been there for all Canadians and that we kept our promise to leave no one behind.

We will continue to be there.

Once again, thank you for your work, your dedication, your analyses and your reports. I'm here to work with you to see what we can do together to help the people we represent.

I'm now ready to take your questions.

Thank you very much.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who represents a great many anglophones, a minority community with unique needs in the Quebec context, I have studied Bill C-13 with a critical eye.

First, I would like to say that my community is not impressed by the Quebec government's pre-emptive, and one could say almost perfunctory, use of the notwithstanding clause to escape judicial and political scrutiny of its recent language legislation, Bill 96, and its law on religious symbols, Bill 21.

Quebec anglophones have a unique political perspective because they are a minority within a minority. This makes the community particularly understanding of the importance of minority rights, including francophone minority rights. This perspective leads to an inherent sense of fairness and moderation among Quebec anglophones that makes the community wary of government overreach that can harm not just minority-language rights, but minority rights generally.

My colleague from Mount Royal has put it well. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for an override of rights where reasonable in a democratic society. Recourse to the clause when section 1 is otherwise available but deemed insufficient by the legislator is by definition a tacit admission that rights are being unreasonably suppressed.

The timing of Bill C-13 unfortunately intersects with the Legault government's heavy-handed approach to a legitimate objective, which is the strengthening of the French language against unrelenting pressures in the proverbial sea of English, pressures heightened by the new Internet-based communications technologies, a challenge our government is addressing through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

I believe Bill C-13 and Bill 96 have been conflated and a narrative has taken root that obscures key facts about this legislation and minority-language guarantees in Canada. Anglophones in Quebec have legitimate grievances with aspects of Bill 96, but Bill C-13 is not Bill 96.

As former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache said, the objective in Bill C-13 is to give special attention to the French-speaking minority outside Quebec and it is not inconsistent with the interests of the anglophone community in Quebec. Let me quote the former Supreme Court justice:

I don't really know what it is in the bill [Bill C-13] that worries them. I don't think that promoting French takes anything away from anglophones.... One can help a community in trouble [that is, francophones outside Quebec] without harming another.... I don't think the anglophone issue in Quebec has anything to do with the federal government, but rather the Quebec government.

That said, in my view, we could have done without the preamble in Bill C-13, with its reference to the Charter of the French Language, and the confusion and controversy this has sown. In fact, there was an attempt to remove the reference, but that attempt was blocked by the opposition parties in committee. One would not expect co-operation from the Conservatives or the Bloc, but the lack of support from the NDP was disappointing.

Bill C-13's preamble refers to the fact of the existence of the Charter of the French Language, just as it also makes reference to iron-clad constitutional guarantees for minority-language communities across Canada, including the anglophone community in Quebec.

For example, the preamble states:

the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities—taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society—as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;

Preambles, however, are not the substance of a law. They are not normative, nor determinative. In fact, they have not always been included in Canadian legislation. According to an article by Kent Roach in the McGill Law Journal, between 1985 and 1990, only nine statutes had long and substantive preambles. Since then, there has been an increasing trend to incorporate preambles into legislation. As Mr. Roach puts it, “Once departments and ministries saw their colleagues using preambles, this created a demand for more preambles.”

The same article outlined different types and uses of preambles. In some cases, preambles are meant as a recognition of “the complexity...of modern governance” and as “an appeal...to embrace tolerance and diversity as part of what it means to be Canadian.” Roach gives the example of the preamble of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society”.

He continues by saying, “The symbolic nature of preambles means that they are often concerned with the politics of recognition” and they “frequently recognize goals that are in some tension with each other.”

He then adds, “By definition, preambles will be better in securing expressive as opposed to instrumental purposes because they do not impose rights and duties.” Here is a final quote: “courts have frequently been reluctant to give great weight to preambles.”

This all sounds a lot like Bill C-13's preamble. I will quote from the preamble: “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”.

In response to those who argue that preambles are interpretive, I would say that this is typically the case only when the body of law in question is not clear, which is not the case with Bill C-13. I will quote British case law in Attorney-General v. Hanover: “It is only when it conveys a clear and definite meaning in comparison with relatively obscure or indefinite enacting words that the preamble may legitimately prevail.”

I will quote Ruth Sullivan, from her book The Construction of Statutes, in chapter 14 on page 445: “Preambles must be measured against other indicators of legislative purpose or meaning, which may point in the same or a different direction. If there is a contradiction between the preamble and a substantive provision, the latter normally prevails.”

Finally, I will quote former Supreme Court Justice La Forest: “it would seem odd if general words in a preamble were to be given more weight than the specific provisions that deal with the matter.”

Bill C-13, in its body, is specific in its language, including with respect to the need to protect the interests of Quebec's anglophone minority. This would avoid any confusion that would otherwise require the courts to rely on the bill's preamble for interpretation.

For example, Bill C-13 would add, in black and white, the following to section 3 of the Official Languages Act: “For the purposes of this Act...language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation”. The body of the text also reiterates phrasing from the preamble on the federal government's commitment to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development.

This brings me to the fear that Bill C-13's preamble endorses the pre-emptive use of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.

Some contend that the reference to the Charter of the French Language in the preamble of Bill C-13 endorses the Quebec government's pre-emptive use of the clause, but the federal government has been clear that it does not approve of the pre-emptive use of the clause, whether against organized labour in Ontario or in both Bill 96 and Bill 21. The Attorney General has said clearly that the federal government will argue the point in court, specifically when Bill 21 reaches the Supreme Court.

Parliament also made its view known when it recently voted against the Bloc motion seeking to affirm the legitimacy of the pre-emptive use of the clause. I note that the Conservatives voted with the Bloc to support the motion affirming pre-emptive use. However, both together failed to carry the day.

These official parliamentary and governmental expressions of opposition to the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause matter. As the Supreme Court said in 2023 in the case of Murray-Hall v. Quebec, “To analyze the purpose of a law, courts rely [also] on...extrinsic evidence, such as parliamentary debates and minutes of parliamentary committees”. This would include, in my view, statements by the government and votes in Parliament.

As such, there should be no confusion in a future court's mind that the federal government has no intention of legitimizing Quebec's pre-emptive use of the clause by referencing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13.

Finally, something that has been lost in this debate is that the notwithstanding clause cannot override minority-language education rights, nor the right to speak English in Quebec in the courts or in the National Assembly.

Some suggest that Bill C-13 would allow the Quebec government to ignore obligations to the anglophone community under federally funded programs delivered through negotiated agreements with the province, but those agreements are governed by section 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which refers to the right of the public to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in English and French, and by part IV of the Official Languages Act, which is meant to implement section 20.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.

I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.

I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.

I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.

Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.

As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.

I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.

We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.

I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, bu allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.

I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.

I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.

Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.

When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.

No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.

Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.

What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.

When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.

Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.

We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.

Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.

Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.

First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.

I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.

I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.

I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.

The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?

Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.

My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.

In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.

With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to go back to the significance of the news content that can be found on platforms like Meta.

In terms of circulation, 3% of content searched for by users is news. You said that there were 1.9 billion clicks on news content over the past year, and added that the free marketing was worth a total $230 million. So you're admitting that there is a value attached to this content.

My question is more about Meta's interests further to the adoption of Bill C‑18. You mentioned earlier that contracts had been signed with 18 news organizations and I find that positive. Moreover, I think it's interesting to note that although you're not really interested in news, you are nevertheless signing commercial agreements with news companies. This nevertheless raised some questions that need to be asked.

If Bill C‑18 is adopted, will initiatives to support local journalism continue? Will these contracts continue? Is Meta going to remain interested in quality journalism content, particularly local?

Unfortunately, you only have a few seconds to answer, because I don't have much speaking time.

[Rachel Curran]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for the question.

Through the chair, yes, it is absolutely our intention not to make the same errors in Canada that we made in Australia. We're working very hard to make sure that's not the case.

Of course, the way we do this is going to depend, by necessity, on the final scope of Bill C-18 and how it emerges from Parliament.

We will be absolutely transparent with parliamentarians and with Canadians. I'm happy to have the conversation with your office about these details as well, Mr. Housefather.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary started her remarks with an acknowledgement of indigenous communities, because they led the way, with the Assembly of First Nations, in fighting against the amendments the government brought in at the eleventh hour. I am glad to see that those amendments were withdrawn. I would also thank committee members for passing my amendment to save the sport of airsoft. We have had a lot of very positive correspondence from that community, which is glad to see that the government will go back to the drawing board on this.

By my calculation, after tomorrow's meeting, the committee will have had eight hours on clause-by-clause. If this motion passes, there will be an additional 17 hours, which will be the equivalent of 12.5 meetings. By comparison, Bill C-18 only had seven meetings. I think there will be enough time to get this bill through.

Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the other bills that are waiting their turn at the public safety committee, like Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, and how important it is to look at those bills?

[Rachel Curran]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Through the chair, we have certainly signed a number of deals with Canadian publishers to support the work they're doing, and in particular to support new and innovative business models.

Look, a central fund model would be very different from what's proposed in BillC-18. I think that in principle, that model would be an easier one for us to support.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

This is my final question.

I have recommended that the government consider abandoning Bill C-18 in favour of models of the kind used in Taiwan, where monies can be brought in that would actually benefit the local and smaller media outlets. Are you involved in any relationships like that in the world?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Certainly, the Supreme Court in Canada decided that there should be no monetary value for the links. That would be consistent with what the courts have said, although not consistent with the legislation the Liberal government has brought forward.

One of the concerns I have about BillC-18 is that the CRTC will be involved in the oversight. They have said that they currently don't have experience in the oversight of digital platforms. Do you share my concern?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chan, my understanding is that you mentioned you were at Senate committee, and it was actually a productive discussion with respect to the amendments. What amendments did they seem to be favourable to that you would like to see modifying BillC-18?

[Rachel Curran]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Through the chair, one of the problems with the Canadian legislation is that it doesn't actually allow for any kinds of discussions like that, or for a process to unfold, before we are designated and subject to the framework contained in Bill C-18. We are virtually automatically designated under this framework as soon as the bill and regulations are finalized.

One of the amendments we have proposed is that to allow for some time for those discussions to happen, we should not be automatically designated under the legislation. As it stands, the Canadian framework does not allow for that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I think I'm going to pick up on the topic that I left off with last time, and that has to do with the fact that since I have been on this committee studying Bill C-18, I have been explaining, as a person who was in business for over 30 years, that if the government brings in a plan that says that if you allow the sharing of news links, you have to pay, a logical business reaction is to say that you won't allow the sharing of news links so that you don't have to pay.

Mr. Chan, does that seem like a logical business decision?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Meta representatives are telling us that they want to respect the committee, except that Mr. Clegg refused to come here today. They spoke about transparency, but they refused to disclose the figures for revenue generated in Canada. They are here to talk about Bill C‑18, and even though they admit that the bill has changed considerably, they continue to speak about the initial version rather than the current one.

I'm therefore somewhat skeptical about Meta's sincerity. Moreover, there have been some extremely serious allegations made against Meta.

I'm speaking of course, Madam Chair, of the horrific allegations contained in reports recently about Facebook amplifying hate. The Amnesty International report found that Facebook amplified hate ahead of the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has talked about Facebook letting activists incite ethnic massacres with hate and misinformation in Ethiopia. We have reports that Facebook's ethical failures are not accidental; they are part of the business model.

How do you respond to these serious, egregious allegations that amplifying the most horrific human rights violations and ethical failures are part of Facebook's and Meta's business model? How do you respond to those allegations, and why should we believe you now when you come to this committee and say that you want to respect laws and respect Canadian values?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, sir.

I want to point out that this fund actually represents a very small percentage of what Facebook paid under the news media bargaining code in Australia and what it would be mandated to pay under Bill C-18.

I want to go a bit into your statement that news has no value to Facebook.

We know that Facebook collects millions of data points on its 21.5 million Canadian users. Your company has pushed back against regulation internationally that would limit your ability to harvest data for ad tracking. Are you really telling us that the data collected on the content a user views on your platform is of no value to Meta?

[Kevin Chan]

—out from under the challenge of Bill C-18.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate that and I appreciate getting your overall revenues in Canada, because then we can determine, and Canadians can determine, whether it's a fair share of taxes.

It's in the billions of dollars, of course. We know this, and with billions of dollars, you seem unaware that Bill C-18 was substantially changed through this committee process. The NDP tabled a whole range of amendments that put the focus on small local news organizations.

In your testimony to begin, Mr. Chan, you didn't seem to be aware of those amendments passing and the overall impact that it has on the thrust of the bill. The PBO report that you cited took place before all of these amendments were brought forward by the NDP to put in place a framework that favours local businesses and community businesses that are providing information in communities across the country.

Are you aware of those amendments being passed?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The questions that Mr. Champoux just asked are altogether legitimate.

Mr. Clegg is an experienced parliamentarian. I therefore find it hard to believe that he didn't know he was muddying the waters by requiring an invitation rather than a summons. He can prove that he is prepared to come and testify by responding to our summons and coming to answer our questions next Monday.

We'll see. I remain skeptical with respect to some of the answers, but grateful in other instances for your clarifications.

Ms. Curran, you talked about the product team that is currently working on what I perceive to be a threat to parliamentarians and our democracy, saying that you will respond if Bill C-18 is passed in the Senate.

At this point, is that product team examining limiting access by Canadians to emergency services information? You can understand that in an emergency, people need information immediately. Meta Platforms did that in Australia, and I find it absolutely reprehensible that Meta may be looking at doing that in Canada.

[Rachel Curran]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We are frustrated too. We really wanted Mr. Clegg to appear here. He was eager to appear to discuss the online news act, to discuss Bill C-18. We received last-minute notice on Thursday evening last week that the title of this hearing would be changed, and we took that, understandably, as a very significant change to the framing of the hearing, in that that it would not be about Bill C-18 but about a suite of other matters altogether, and on that basis Mr. Clegg decided not to appear.

He was really looking forward to being here and talking about Bill C-18 and the impact of that bill on Canadians and globally.

[Kevin Chan]

I don't know about that. As I said, we received an email and all I saw was an invitation to come and discuss Bill C‑18. We are still transparent and would like to work with you.

[Kevin Chan]

I couldn't tell you what he was thinking, but to me, it wasn't at all clear that the motion of March 20 was related to the invitation we had received. It was an email inviting us to appear for the study of Bill C‑18. We were delighted to…

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

These discussions should have been held before we voted to send Bill C‑18 to the Senate. It's now being studied by the Senate. We're a bit late for that.

I understand from the way you're nodding that you have indeed met government representatives.

Did they listen to your concerns? Did you get the impression that you had been answered? Tell me a bit about what happened.

[Rachel Curran]

Look, Mr. Champoux, we would love to meet with you about Bill C-18, and we can certainly rectify that very quickly. We'd love to have a conversation with you about it and about the amendments we've proposed.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Ms. Curran, what you're saying is very interesting. I never received a request to attend a meeting to discuss Bill C‑18 with Meta representatives. And yet I believe we might have been able to have some very interesting conversations. We could have debated our respective ideas.

Did you have direct discussions with government representatives during the debate surrounding Bill C‑18?

[Rachel Curran]

Yes, we have met with some MPs and some senators to discuss our concerns with Bill C-18, and all of those interactions and engagements are recorded in the lobbyist registry, as required by Canadian law.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

When a bill is tabled in the House of Commons, it goes to committee for debate, where MPs from all parties meet the stakeholders and organizations affected by the bill so that they can explain their concerns or expectations.

Have you met MPs from various parties In connection with Bill C‑18?

[Rachel Curran]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I can confirm that the way Australia unfolded was not ideal. There were some technical errors made in the way that we removed news from our platform. We fully intend that those errors will not be made in the Canadian context, and we're preparing very carefully to ensure that this is the case. We're going to make sure that we're fully transparent with Canadians, with parliamentarians, as we move towards news removal, if we're forced to do that.

Of course, Mr. Housefather, that's going to depend on the final scope of Bill C-18, and we don't want to pre-empt the work of the Senate in that regard.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You don't know.

Was the decision to do content-blocking in Canada if Bill C-18 was adopted made exclusively by the Canadian team?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Has Meta's board of directors discussed the proposed content-blocking in Canada if Bill C-18 is adopted?

I can't hear your answer, Mr. Chan.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Has Meta's board of directors discussed the content-blocking decision you've made in the event that Bill C-18 is adopted?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm curious. For Facebook to continue to carry news and to continue forward with these deals that have been sprung—I think it's 14, or something like that—I'm wondering what is required in terms of legislative change. Right now, Bill C-18 is in the Senate, so it's possible to have amendments made. What should those amendments be?

[Kevin Chan]

Well, Madam, I don't know that we have an answer for that. Of course, it depends on what the framework for Bill C-18 will ultimately be. We have to understand what is scoped in with Bill C-18 to understand what can and cannot be ultimately on the platform from a news content point of view.

[Rachel Curran, Head of Public Policy, Canada, Meta Platforms Inc.]

Thank you for the question, Mrs. Thomas.

Part of our concern with the online news act, with Bill C-18, is the fact that it ties the fate and the fortunes of the Canadian news sector to the fortunes of two American technology companies. We think that one of the major flaws with the legislation, as you've stated, is in fact that it makes the news sector almost entirely dependent on foreign technology companies. That is one of the points of concern we have with this piece of legislation.

[Kevin Chan, Global Policy Director, Meta Platforms Inc.]

Madam Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, it is a pleasure to once again be before you today. My name is Kevin Chan, and I'm a global policy director at Meta Platforms. I am here with my colleague Rachel Curran, our head of public policy in Canada.

Madam Chair, as you will know, your committee clerk wrote to us on Friday, April 28, to confirm an invitation to appear before this committee for its study on the “reaction of companies in the information technology industry to Bill C-18”.

We were delighted at the opportunity to once again make a representation to the committee of our serious concerns with the online news act and readily agreed to accept the invitation. To demonstrate how seriously we took this opportunity, our president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, confirmed his participation as our principal witness.

Unfortunately, late last Thursday, May 4, we were notified by the committee clerk that the title of the hearing was changed to a much more confrontational one, one that seemingly had nothing at all to do with the online news act. Given this development, on Friday Meta notified the committee that our president would no longer be appearing.

I think we were all looking forward to a substantive discussion about Bill C-18 today, much like the thoughtful discussion that occurred at the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications last week. That seemed like a high-water mark of legislative deliberation.

As you know, the clerk of your committee wrote us on Friday, April 28, to confirm that we had been invited to testify before you in connection with its study on, and I am quoting now, the reaction of companies in the information technology industry to Bill C‑18.

We were delighted to have another opportunity to speak to your committee about our major concerns with respect to the Online News Act, and willingly accepted the invitation. To demonstrate how seriously we were taking this opportunity, our president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, confirmed that he would be attending as the principal witness.

On Thursday, May 4, we were informed by the committee clerk that the title of the study had been amended and replaced by another much more worrisome version that apparently had nothing to do with the Online News Act. In view of this change in direction, Meta advised the committee on Friday that our president would no longer be attending.

I believe that we were all keen to take part today in a serious discussion about Bill C‑18, like the thoughtful discussions held at the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which seems to have been the high point of the legislative proceedings.

With that in mind, I am pleased to now share with you the opening statement that our president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, had written and was prepared to make for your original study on the reactions of companies in the information technology industry to Bill C‑18.

This is what he said:

"Madam Chair, my name is Nick Clegg and I'm President, Global Affairs at Meta. I'm grateful for the opportunity to address this committee.

"Madam Chair, the Online News Act is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. Meta does not benefit unfairly from publishers sharing links to news content on our platform. The reverse is true.

“Publishers choose to share their content because it benefits them to do so, whereas it isn't particularly valuable to us at all. As such, we've taken the difficult decision that if this flawed legislation is passed, we will have to end the availability of news content on Facebook and Instagram in Canada.

“The truth is, our users don't come to us for news. They come to share the ups and downs of life, the things that make them happy and sad, that interest them and entertain them. Links to news stories are a tiny proportion of that—less than three percent of the content they see in their Facebook Feed.

“But news publishers do find our services valuable. We estimate that Facebook Feed sent registered news publishers in Canada more than 1.9 billion clicks in the 13 months to April 2022. This amounts to free marketing we estimate is worth more than $230 million. Publishers choose to share their content because it drives traffic to their websites. It helps them sell more subscriptions, grow their audience and display their ads to more people than they might have otherwise.

“The traditional news industry faces profound challenges. New technology has emerged, consumer behavior has changed, and old business models don’t work anymore. Of course, everyone wants quality journalism to thrive. But it makes no more sense to claim social media companies are taking money from publishers than to say car companies stole from the horse and cart industry.

“It seems we’re having a debate as if the internet was frozen in time about 10 years ago. The way our users engage with content has changed dramatically. Just in the last year or two we’ve seen an enormous shift in people consuming creator content and short form video. Watching video is now more than half of time spent on Facebook and Instagram. People reshare Reels—our short form video format—more than two billion times every day on Facebook and Instagram, which has doubled in just the last six months.

“The world is constantly changing and publishers, like everyone else, have to adapt. Asking a social media company in 2023 to subsidize news publishers for content that isn’t that important to our users is like asking email providers to pay the postal service because people don't send letters any more.

“And not all internet companies are the same. We’re not Google. They are an amazingly successful company that does extraordinarily useful things for people, but they operate a search engine that functions by using links to news web pages. Meta, by contrast, doesn’t solicit, need or collect content from news websites to put on our services. Our users—and in this case, news publishers—choose to share it themselves. Globally, more than 90% of organic views on article links from news publishers are on links posted by the publishers themselves.

“I’ve heard a lot in this debate about how this legislation is replicating what Australia has done. In fact, the laws are different in important respects—and C18 will go further than the Australian legislation. First, the Australian code doesn’t apply to Meta because we haven’t been designated by the Treasurer there. If we do end up being designated and forced to pay publishers, we will be faced with the same difficult choice we are making in Canada. But perhaps more significantly, this legislation would make Canada the first democracy to put a price on free links to web pages, which flies in the face of global norms on copyright principles and puts at risk the free flow of information online. Canada—and Canadian liberals—have a long-standing reputation for believing in multilateralism, and for defending the free and open internet—C-18 would be a direct contradiction of that long held and honorable tradition.

“I spent 20 years of my life as a legislator, so I understand how difficult it is to craft good policy and sensible legislation. In this instance, I believe C-18 is flawed legislation which would deliver bad economic policy too. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that most of the funds generated by the Act will go to broadcasters, not the local and regional publishers it was supposed to support. It’s Robin Hood in reverse. The Act would subsidize big broadcasters at the expense of independent publishers and digital news sites, skewing the playing field so it’s even harder for smaller players.

“Ultimately, this legislation puts Meta in an invidious position. In order to comply, we have to either operate in a flawed...regulatory environment, or we have to end the availability of news content in Canada. With a heavy heart we choose the latter. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage has said, this is a business decision. It’s not something we want to do, but it is what we will have to do.

“I welcome your questions.”

With that, Madam Chair, Rachel and I welcome your questions as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll state it again.

I move that in relation to the committee's study on Google, Facebook and Bill C-18, Nicholas Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta be summoned to appear before the committee for two hours on May 15, 2023.

I move the motion. Hopefully this won't engender a lot of discussion.

He was invited. He is not appearing. This would be a summons, so he would have an obligation to appear.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

The witness who is not appearing today, Madam Chair, is Nicholas Clegg. He was invited and has not appeared.

Hopefully we can move quickly on this point. I wanted to move that in relation to the committee's study on Google, Facebook and Bill C-18, Nicholas Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta be—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have another quick question. Based off a question I asked before about our media ecosystem, the government's been putting in place measures, like the online news act and other things, to try to make sure that we have public broadcasting as well as other news outlets for Canadians.

Do you think the closures that we're seeing globally are contributing to the rise in disinformation and misinformation? Should the government be doing more to protect our media sources?

Citizenship and Immigration

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, when the Liberal-NDP coalition was trying to shut me down on this, I was barely a minute into my speech. These members need to let me get to the point I am trying to make, instead of just trying to silence me, as the government is doing with its censorship bills. This is what we are dealing with here, being silenced.

Instead of debating the budget, as we are supposed to be doing, the NDP put something forward called a concurrence motion. That is what we are debating right now. The concurrence motion is to deal with a very tricky bit of Liberal-NDP machinations, which is actually really harming people and delaying the help that Bill S-245 would provide.

Instead of debating the budget, we are debating a concurrence motion on something that happened, and I want to break down what happened. Bill S-245 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It went through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin to deal with a very narrow scope, dealing with something called “lost Canadians”. It was very narrow in scope, and because it was so narrow in scope, it sailed through the Senate, on the understanding that it would stay narrow and it would go through the Senate.

It came to the immigration committee. What ended up happening was that, first of all, before moving this in the immigration committee, the member for Vancouver East went and did a press conference, pre-positioning herself to do this.

The Liberal-NDP coalition got together and did two things. It moved a motion to extend amendments to the bill by 30 days, which delayed action for people who would have been impacted by the bill, and then it also moved a motion to extend the scope of the amendments that would be debated well past what was in the bill itself.

For those who are watching who may not understand what this does, it allows members, in a private member's bill, which is supposed to be very narrow in scope, to put forward any amendment they want. What that does, in effect, and the reason why I do not think we should have done that, is forces the bill to go back to the Senate yet again.

This is going to delay justice for the people who we had non-partisan, all-party agreement to deal with. That motion itself, to do what the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do, passed in the citizenship committee with its support. Even though it passed, it introduced this concurrence motion in the House of Commons today, and it is doing what? It is eating up time to debate the deficit budget issue because it doesn't want to talk about it.

If it is saying, oh no, nobody should talk about this and then we go back to the budget, we actually gave it an opportunity to go back to debate. My colleague from Calgary Shepard rose to move a motion about an hour ago to move on from the debate, yet it voted against that.

That is the agenda here. The agenda here is to curtail debate on the budget while it is supporting the passage of Liberal censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. These are the types of tactics that we are going to see over and over and over again from this Liberal coalition because it does not want to stand up for what Canadians need, either in the budget or in Bill S-245.

When the Liberal and the NDP coalition decided that it was going to delay the passage of the bill through the committee and delay justice for people who were in that bill, who we all support justice for, and open up the scope of the bill, it forgot one thing. It forgot that, if it opened up the scope of the bill for its one issue, which the senator and the Senate did not want because they agreed to sail it through on a small amendment, it forgot that maybe other people would want to put forward amendments too, such as me and my colleague from Calgary Shepard.

It then had the audacity and the gall to stand in this place during this debate, which it did not need, and which it put forward to waste time on debate on the budget because it does not want to talk about how much deficit spending money it puts forward, which has caused an inflationary crisis in Canada, all while it is putting forward censorship bills. Because it does not want that debate to happen, it puts this debate forward.

Now it is saying that it is because the Conservatives want to put forward amendments to the Citizenship Act. Well, guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supporting censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to shut down conversations in the Canadian public, are using a concurrence motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons, we are absolutely right that Conservatives will be putting forward motions beyond the scope of the bill. It is as simple as that.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wants a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then let us giddy-up and do it. I have a lot of great ideas, which I will definitely be bringing forward. This does nothing to help the people who could have been helped if the NDP had just let this go.

The other thing I can show is why we should not be delaying this bill and why the scope of the amendment should not be put through. It is not just because it delays justice for people within this bill; it is also because the NDP is propping up a government that has refused to do this in its own government legislation. If the government had actually wanted to do anything else, it has had nearly eight years to put forward, through its own government legislation, what my colleague from the NDP wants to do.

The NDP is actually in a coalition with the government. I do not know if the NDP wants to go to an election, but I know the Liberals do not. Considering what the polling numbers show today, I do not think there are a lot of people on the Liberal backbench who would want to go to an election today.

The NDP could be using that coalition agreement to say that, within a piece of government legislation, we need to do this. However, they do not actually have the leverage they claim to have over the government, so what they are trying to do is sneak through committee what they cannot get the government to do in the House.

To people who are watching and are impacted by this bill, I say that the Liberals delayed the passage of the bill because they did not understand what they were doing. That is brutal. It is terrible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe they would not do what we all agreed to do in a non-partisan way, as the Senate did, which is to get Bill S-245 through.

Today, we are debating the concurrence motion and the substance of the motion, and we are using House of Commons time that we could have used to debate the budget. The Liberals moved this concurrence motion even though the bill has already passed through the immigration committee. They actually ate up hours of critical, precious House debate time, which we could have used to talk about the budget. This is a path to ruin that the government, the Liberal-NDP coalition, put us on by inflationary, deficit spending in the budget bill. That is critical.

People cannot eat. People in Vancouver, the member's home riding, are eating out of dumpsters because of the inflation crisis and the affordable housing crisis. Today, she moved a motion that would essentially cut off debate on the budget today, even though it has already passed through the House of Commons.

If my colleague wants to open up the scope of the bill so that it is going to have to go back to the Senate anyway, through her actions, not mine or those of any of my Conservative colleagues, then we will be putting forward other amendments as well. One of the amendments I would like to put forward, given that we are now reviewing the citizenship bill, has to do with the fact that the Liberals said they were going to do away with the need to have in-person citizenship ceremonies. This is something that has received wide, cross-party condemnation. I have an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star on April 10. The title is “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”. It goes through quotes from non-partisan people, including Adrienne Clarkson, a former governor general; a Syrian refugee; and others who are saying the government should not be doing away with the requirement for in-person citizenship ceremonies.

I would like to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that, rather than doing away with the ceremonies because the government cannot figure out how to get services to where people want them, the government would actually be required to make sure new Canadians have the right and the ability to go to an in-person ceremony, take the oath with fellow new Canadians and be welcomed into the Canadian family in such a glorious way, instead of doing what it is doing now.

Members in this place have used up precious House time. I am speaking here because members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against a motion to end debate on this and move forward. They gave me an opportunity to speak. For once, instead of speaking on Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, the censorship bill, I am, they are darn right, going to speak in this place. I am certainly also going to be putting forward amendments. I do not know if they have forgotten how this place works or have forgotten that each of us has our own individual rights to work within the process that they put forward.

They stand up and say that one person can put forward an amendment that is completely out of scope, but they are going to use that to justify delaying justice for the people in the bill and use that to delay debate on the government's inflationary budget deficit crisis bill. Therefore, yes, I am going to put forward amendments that make sense for my constituents. My constituency is a diverse community in north central Calgary where the Citizenship Act matters. If the member for Vancouver East is going to use her Liberal-NDP coalition position to try to get the Liberal government to extend the scope of the bill and, in doing so, delay justice for people, while delaying debate on the budget, then yes, I am going to be putting forward amendments to amend the Citizenship Act.

To the people and stakeholders watching this, this bill could have been through our committee already. It could have been sailing through the House. However, what is the Liberal-NDP coalition doing? Instead of the government putting forward its own legislation to address any additional issues, the NDP is proposing a motion to extend this by another 30 days, plus have a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. It is plus, plus, plus. They did not think through the process. I am sure that when they were talking to stakeholders, they did not talk to them and were not honest with them about what could or might happen if this path were undertaken.

If I had been meeting with those stakeholders, I would have said that this is something we need to lobby the government for in different legislation, because the senator who put it forward in a private member's bill had agreement among her peers on a narrowly defined scope in the bill in order to get it through and get justice for people. If we do what the member for Vancouver East is suggesting, we would delay it for another 30 days. Then it would probably have to go back through the Senate. The Senate takes a lot of time to look at things. Then it would have to come back here again. That would be months and months of delay, when it could have been done maybe before June. Now we do not know when it is going to be done.

That is why I opposed the approach in committee. Frankly, it is why I oppose using all this time in the House to continue a debate that the NDP-Liberal coalition settled at the immigration committee, an unwise course of action, only to vote against it. They just voted, an hour ago, against moving forward. Also, as we saw at the start of this debate, time after time my colleagues were getting interrupted by points of order, with members saying we should not be allowed to raise the issue of the budget. Absolutely we should be able to raise the issue of the budget, after the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against a Conservative motion that would allow us to move forward to debate the budget.

However, here we are, and if members have given me the opportunity to speak by not moving on that, absolutely I am going to speak about it. Of course, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want to talk about that inflationary budget, that big, expensive nothing burger that would cost Canadians more, that would lead to food inflation and that is not addressing the core issues facing this country, because it is an embarrassment. They do not want an election because they are all afraid of losing their seats. Canadians are on to them, just as I am on to them right now.

I am tired of this. I am tired of these games. We did not need to have this debate in the House. This could have gone forward to the immigration committee. What we have done, in effect, is delay justice for the people in Bill S-245, delay debate on the budget and, in doing so, delay justice for all Canadians, who are dumpster diving in Vancouver East to eat and who continue to not be able to afford places to live.

This is a hard truth. It is an inconvenient truth for everybody in this place. However, it is time coalition members are confronted with it. There are consequences for the actions of the coalition and its backroom dealings. They lead us into places like this, where they make mistakes on parliamentary procedures and where they do not explain the implications of their actions to stakeholders who are advocating for change in this bill. Again, the government could have done this.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Walker, and Mr. Gingras, thank you.

We do look forward to receiving some information in a timely manner, if you don't mind. All parties and the analysts have asked you today, in the last couple of hours, for the transparency report, the information from Australia, and maybe even the Canada contracts that you have with 150 organizations. Timely would be in two or three weeks, if that's possible, instead of months or years.

I know there's pressure on your company, but there's pressure on us as we move forward with our study of Google, Meta and Bill C-18.

This two-hour session was a hell of a lot better than the first one we had. Gentlemen, I think you realize that in the first one, you should have been here. In the second one, you've cleared up a lot of things.

Thank you for being with us. You were frank, and we look forward to hearing further from your organization.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I would counter and say that a lot of journalists tell stories in order to inform their local communities. This is part of the journalism that we really value in Canada.

As we've heard today, Google has already made a whole bunch of deals with news organizations all over Canada. Why make such a big deal and have tests in the face of Bill C-18 when you're already doing what Bill C-18 would accomplish here in Canada?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You're not 100% sure, so that is something you would need to clarify.

I know the chair is signalling, but my final comment would be this. You have indicated that you are still looking at your options, including running a similar test for the business response on the passage of Bill C-18.

Are you not concerned as Canadians seeing that again as a threat by an extraordinarily powerful and profitable corporation to say, “Well, we're still evaluating our options of how we're going to respond” when you have also not indicated that you're not going to do a denial of service test in the future?

Do you not understand why many Canadians would see that as a threat by a very profitable global corporation?

[Richard Gingras]

If we were accurate in our assessment against the draft provisions in Bill C-18 with regard to eligible news businesses, then I would think so, though I would note that some of those that fall into those classes aren't online, so they weren't affected.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I want to come back to the issue of the test, because this committee substantially improved Bill C-18. After the PBO report that came out early in the fall, we enhanced access by community broadcasters, small community newsrooms and indigenous news outlets.

When you ran your test simulation, did it have an impact then? Did you take into consideration the amendments for small community news outlets, community broadcasters and indigenous news outlets when you ran the test?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Perfect.

This is what is on everybody's minds. You did this testing in Spain. You did it in Australia. It became public. Everybody's wondering whether or not you did this so that it would become public—because everybody knows it would eventually leak and become public—in an attempt to intimidate parliamentarians when they were considering Bill C-18, because it's now before the Senate.

Can you just confirm for me that that was not your intention?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'll go to my final question then.

You've got a lot of experience, Mr. Gingras, with news and being in the news world for years and years.

What is your expectation if Bill C-18 is put in place in its current form? What do you think the impact will be on local media in Canada?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Very good.

You made a comment earlier that Bill C-18 “eligible news” definition was too broad. Is there another country that has a definition that you think is a more accurate and narrow focus?

[Richard Gingras]

I want to be clear about a couple of things. First of all, we are completely in support of our providing further to the news industry in Canada. We also have no desire to limit the kind of linking we do to diverse sources in a news ecosystem in Canada.

As noted earlier, we think there are better solutions and more constructive solutions. We do think a fund approach would make more sense. In doing so, by the way, I'm not suggesting that we craft the criteria. We shouldn't. I'm not suggesting that we should govern the criteria. We shouldn't. I've never been comfortable with Google being in a position to directly fund news organizations. In fact, one of my concerns is that I'm not sure why a government would want a private entity to be responsible for striking relationships to fund a significant portion of the news ecosystem.

We think there are better approaches—better approaches not only for the health of the ecosystem and not only to drive the necessary innovation we need so desperately, given how much our world has changed, but also to do so in a fashion that is appropriate to the expression of journalism in an open society. We'd love to work further on that.

Again, we think there are simply more constructive approaches to the stated objective of Bill C-18.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes. I see a nodding of heads.

I'm interested, then, in some of the deals you were talking about that have been made in other countries and other approaches that you think would be more in line with the goal of Bill C-18, which is to try to keep local news media sustainable.

[Kent Walker]

In many cases, we have YouTube creators, for example, or small publishers who disagree with Bill C-18 because they don't think it would benefit them—

[Richard Gingras]

It's not for us to set a number, nor has there been a number set for Bill C-18. I would hope and expect it would be a number that would actually be appropriate to our business interests and to how we can continue to properly run our business.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understand that full well and I appreciate it. However, no company is safe from someone coming in with a completely different vision. That's why it's important to have legislation. In the bill we are currently debating, there are criteria we consider essential for our journalism.

When you propose a fund and other methods, it removes the opportunity for us here in Canada and Quebec to keep our own fundamental criteria for journalism. I think that Bill C‑18 is good and important, even if you don't approve of the way it's written or the method we plan to use. It's still up to us to decide how we are going to manage this type of informational content.

My time is almost up, but we'll have time to come back to it later, Mr. Walker, because I think you wanted to respond.

[Kent Walker]

As Richard was saying, we try very hard to do quite the opposite. We want Google to be known as a source of high-quality information whenever possible. That's why when we implement these kinds of tests—and again, we do thousands of tests a year—we are constantly looking for the value to users in response to a whole variety of queries.

Our concern about Bill C-18, and the reason for the test, is that it may well encourage more low-quality information websites that are trying to—

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. It's very interesting to hear this from you.

We've also heard this afternoon that Bill C-18 can help to spread misinformation and propaganda in Canada. However, from my perspective as a former journalist, I would say that during the test that's exactly what Google did in response to our legislation.

When Google ran similar tests in Australia, it blocked access to fact-based news sources and instead promoted sources of questionable quality that were known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. Please confirm for us whether Google has promoted those sorts of sources in its tests in Canada.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Okay. That's fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Walker.

We've heard a lot about links today. You or a Google representative said that these tests were designed specifically to assess the potential impacts of Bill C-18 on how news is linked to Google Search and Google Discovery. We've heard this several times today. We heard this in previous testimony from Ms. Geremia when she appeared before our committee last month.

Please tell us how these tests could possibly be conclusive given that Google is moving away from traditional links in this search engine and instead towards AI features. We heard this from your CEO in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 6.

Please go ahead, Mr. Walker.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my privacy-loving constituents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Bill C-27 is another piece of legislation that had to be resurrected after the Prime Minister called his superspreader pandemic election. Originally, this was supposed to be a long overdue update to the Privacy Act, and it has since morphed into Bill C-27, the data-grab act.

Everything about Bill C-27 should leave the Liberals feeling embarrassed. A Canadian's right to privacy is fundamental. Sadly, Canadians' privacy rights are not a priority for the government.

This bill has languished for years. It was first introduced immediately after the original online streaming censorship act was introduced. However, when the Prime Minister called his pandemic election and reset all legislation, what did the Liberals make a priority? Was it the privacy rights of Canadians? No. Was it securing Canadians' ownership over their data? No. Instead, what the Liberals prioritized was a bailout for big telecom and a bailout for the legacy media.

Not only does the government care more about padding the bottom line of Postmedia, but it also adopted Rupert Murdoch's false narrative about tech profiting off the content produced by the news media. Social media companies and search engines do not profit off the news media. They profit off us. These companies profit off our data, and the Liberals know the truth. Unfortunately, this legislation seeks to make it easier for companies to profit off our privacy.

If Bill C-27 is not significantly improved at committee, then together with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, the government will have entrenched the surveillance economy in Canadians' lives. By combining the updates to the Privacy Act with the creation of a new artificial intelligence act, the Liberals have actually illustrated the brave new world we live in.

The Privacy Act and the way we talk about privacy even today are holdovers from the industrial era. We do not live in that world anymore. In the industrial economy, privacy rights were concerned with the ability to control what information could be shared. The goal was to prevent harm that could come from our personal information being used against us.

In effect, information was personal and an economic liability. We spent money on shredders to destroy personal information. The careless use of our personal information could only have a negative value, but then the world changed. Our personal information stopped being a liability and became an asset.

It started out slowly. Early examples were Amazon recommending a new book based on previous purchases and Netflix recommending what DVD rental we should next receive by mail. Google then began displaying ads next to search results. That was the eureka moment: Targeted ads were very profitable.

However, the targeting was pretty basic. If someone searched for shoe stores near them, Google returned search results alongside ads for shoes. Then it became ads for shoes on sale nearby. Then came Facebook and millions of people signed up. In exchange for an easy way to connect with friends and family, all someone had to do was share all their personal information, like who their friends were, how many friends they had and their geographical proximity to friends.

With the addition of the “like” button, the data harvesting exploded. If someone liked a news story about camping, they would start seeing ads for tents and sleeping bags. Every action Canadians took online, every single bit of their data, was commodified. Our privacy was turned into property and we lost both.

Not only does this bill not secure privacy rights, but it effectively enshrines the loss of our property rights with just two words: legitimate interest. Proposed subsection 18(3), entitled “Legitimate interest”, has this to say:

(3) An organization may collect or use an individual's personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for the purpose of an activity in which the organization has a legitimate interest that outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual resulting from that collection or use

Is “legitimate interest” defined anywhere in the legislation? No. It is just another example of the vagueness found throughout the legislation.

Even if we accept the plain-language definition and that private business really somehow does have a genuine, legitimate reason to collect private information without consent, it is weighed against the adverse effect. However, this is industrial-era thinking. It views personal information only as a potential liability. Businesses have a legitimate interest in making money. With the Internet and mobile phones, much of our private information can be collected without any adverse effect. This legislation turns the private information of Canadians into the property of corporations and calls it legitimate.

I mentioned earlier that combining the privacy legislation with the AI legislation actually puts a spotlight on the issue of private data as property. However, as important as it is to highlight the connection, it is more important that these bills be separated. The artificial intelligence and data act has been slapped onto previously introduced privacy legislation.

With the privacy portion of the legislation, the devil is in the details. Overall, however, the bill reflects a general consensus developed over countless committee studies. That is not to mention the contributions to the privacy debate from the federal and provincial privacy commissioners. The issue has been well studied, and the minister has indicated that the government is open to responsible amendments. I am sure that the committee is well equipped to improve the privacy sections of this bill.

The same cannot be said about the artificial intelligence section of the bill. It seems rushed, because it is. It is intentionally vague. The Liberals claim the vagueness is required to provide them with regulatory flexibility and agility. The truth is, they do not know enough to be more precise. I have been trying to get a study on artificial intelligence in the defence committee for years, but there was always a more pressing issue. AI was treated like nuclear fusion technology, something that was always just over the horizon.

Since this bill was introduced 10 months ago, we have gone from ChatGPT to open-source GPT models, which any teenager can apparently run on their personal computer now. AI programs went from producing surrealist art to creating photorealistic images of the Pope in a puffy jacket. We have gone from short clips of deepfake videos impersonating real people to generating fictional people speaking in a real-time video. When we all started to learn Zoom in 2020, how many people thought the other person on the screen they were talking to could just be a fake? Now it is a real possibility.

The speed at which AI is developing is not an argument for delaying AI regulation; it shows that it is imperative to get the regulation right. Would this bill do that? The only honest answer is that we do not know. They do not know. Nobody truly knows. However, we can learn.

We should split this bill and let the stand-alone AI bill be the first legislation considered by one of the permanent standing committees, adding artificial intelligence to its official responsibilities. Artificial intelligence is not going away, and while much of the media attention has focused on chatbots, artistic bots and deepfakes, AI is unlocking the secrets to protein folding. This has the potential to unlock cures to countless different cancers and rare genetic diseases.

A paper was just published describing how an AI trained on data about the mass of the planets and their orbits was able to rediscover Kepler's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of time dilation. If we get this wrong, Canada could be left behind by the next revolution in science and discovery.

Given the government's track record on digital technology, Canadians should be worried about the Liberals rushing vague legislation through to regulate an emerging technology. Rather than modernizing the Broadcasting Act, they are trying to drag the Internet back to the 1980s. With Bill C-18, they claim that linking is a form of stealing.

The Liberals and their costly coalition allies do not even understand how broadcasting technology or the Internet works. They see people's personal data as the legitimate property of corporations, and now they are seeking the power to regulate a revolutionary technology. They did nothing while the world shifted below them, and now they are trying to rush regulations through without understanding the scope and scale of the challenge. Protecting Canadians' privacy and establishing property rights over their personal data should have been prioritized over bailing out Bell and Rogers.

[Richard Gingras]

We have not analyzed the results in that regard, so I really can't say one way or the other. Not surprisingly, I would say, obviously publishers who produce large volumes of content will likely see more traffic to that content.

When it comes to news at Google, be it on search or in Google News, we strive to present results sources that relate to news topics, whereas it is our analysis that under Bill C-18, the links and the size of the eligible news business class would mean that compensation would go to content that's far beyond what we would call news topics or current event coverage.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Let's talk a little bit about the test that was done. The Parliamentary Budget Officer had looked at what he expected to happen under Bill C-18 and said that 75% of the revenue would likely go to CBC, Rogers and Bell Media based on their having the larger-volume news content. Did you see a similar result in your test?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Originally, Bill C-18 was supposed to ensure local media would be sustainable. A lot of times, we've heard that it was modelled on the Australian legislation, but I think I heard you say in your testimony that we're the first country to put a price on links, so I assume that means Australia did not do that. I think you also said that you weren't subject to the Australian code. Is that correct? Could you confirm that?

[Richard Gingras]

It is my sense, in my reading of the draft of Bill C-18, that the requirement for journalistic ethic standards does not apply across the various components or cohorts that are included as eligible news businesses in Canada.

Now, it is not for us, globally, to prescribe what those ethics are. As I say, we strive to provide diversity of view, diversity of perspective and diversity of source.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I do find it strange, however, that you're telling me you have criteria for quality journalism, when you rely exclusively on criteria which, in fact, exclude any adherence to a code of ethics.

You say you have criteria for quality journalism, and that Bill C‑18 will undermine journalistic content and quality news. However, we've added criteria to this bill that affect eligible companies; they must adhere to a code of ethics and a code to meet journalistic standards.

I therefore do not see why this threat to the quality of journalism is being raised again. On the contrary, Bill C‑18 reinforces it. You should be satisfied with that, Mr. Gingras.

[Richard Gingras]

In entering the agreements we have entered into with publishers in Canada, the criteria we followed were very similar to the criteria used in Canada for the journalism tax credit, which is very thoughtful. In fact, we've used that to guide our publisher relationships not only in Canada but elsewhere. We think they were codified quite well.

It's not about quality; it's more about intent. We can't judge quality, and we don't judge quality. Our concern with Bill C-18, as we expressed, is that the definition of “eligible news business” is extremely broad such that we feel that the quality [Inaudible—Editor] in journalism that we believe is the stated object of the test will not benefit versus all other kinds of content that are not quality journalism for local communities.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That the clearest answer we've gotten so far. Thank you for your transparency.

Mr. Gingras, you are vice president of the news division. Google raised a concern fairly often about Bill C‑18. This concern always makes me smile a little, because it alleges that the bill will jeopardize the quality of journalistic content.

You already signed agreements with news production companies, before Bill C‑18 was even put forward. What are Google's criteria for quality journalism? Which criteria did we include in Bill C‑18 that differed from yours? What makes your criteria better than what's included in our bill?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Walker, let's imagine that Bill C‑18 passes in its current form. Do you intend to continue opposing it and to attempt to block Canadian news content?

[Kent Walker]

We continue to be optimistic, but the Canadian Parliament has an opportunity to evolve the current file of Bill C-18.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'd like to get an answer. I know you conducted tests, but you answered Ms. Thomas earlier, saying that you could not reveal the results of those tests. However, I think that Quebecers and Canadians subjected to those tests have the right to know what purpose they served.

Once Bill C‑18 passes, do you intend to comply with it, or will you use the results of those tests to block news content? What is your intention in light of your recently obtained test results? Will you block content?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Gingras, my colleague Mr. Housefather asked you a nuanced question earlier, and you answered by evading it rather neatly. You talked about your concerns if this type of legislation were passed by the American government. However, my colleague's question was whether you would have acted the same way in such a case.

We could debate it here, but we found that the timing for conducting tests with 1.2 million Canadians this spring, by blocking their access to Canadian news content, was especially curious, if I may take the liberty of saying so.

So, Mr. Housefather's question was whether you would have acted the same way if the American government passed similar legislation, and if your intentions would have remained the same regarding Bill C‑18. It's therefore not just a question of concern, it's a question of action. Would you have conducted the same tests at the same time if this had happened in the United States?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gingras, the question from my colleague, Mr. Housefather, was not about whether Google had the same concerns about similar legislation in the United States. Rather, it was about whether the company would have taken the same steps that Google took or planned to take in Canada. I consider the nuance important.

Would your actions have been as bold? For example, could any other time have been chosen for the tests you did this spring? I must say that the timing was rather peculiar.

Would you have had the same attitude and taken the same actions if a bill like C‑18 passed in the United States?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand. I think it was more a question of whether or not you'd lose ancillary revenue by people losing your platform because they didn't have access to news on the platform.

My last question in this round is for Mr. Gingras. I know I'm running out of time.

I know that Google has its concerns with Bill C-18. If the U.S. Congress adopted a bill that was identical to Bill C-18 and was signed into law by the President, would Google's actions be identical to the ones you would take in Canada, or would you treat the U.S. differently?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I was just saying that because of the way it came across at the last meeting, I want to now make clear that this testing was considered at the highest levels of Google and was one of the tests that would not be a normal standard test. It was something related specifically to Bill C-18.

The next question I have, Mr. Walker, is, did your team undertake any legal analysis to determine whether any Canadian law might be violated by the testing? I'm not asking for your advice: I'm asking only whether you undertook any discussion of that.

[Richard Gingras]

As I mentioned earlier, we do thousands of tests to continue to evolve our products. Often, those tests are to help us in how we take and address misinformation or how we address our understanding of what our users see when they come to our sites. We do them constantly to improve what we do.

It is always important with such tests that we practise sound research methodology—for instance, randomizing the samples of people who see the tests. That is in line with what we also did in Canada. Our efforts in Canada were to understand the behaviours of our users with regard to the inclusion of sites that are referenced, as best we could tell, with the drafting of Bill C-18. For reasons of security, we don't release the results of such tests.

I can tell you, however, that at a very high level the tests confirmed several things. First of all, news queries are very small percentages to Google—less than 2% is typically the case—and there was no impact on our users with regard to non-news inquiries, whether that was seeking, for instance, information from academia, information from the government or, for that matter, how to find a local seafood restaurant.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

You used a key word, and that was diversity. You stated that the algorithms are used to make sure that there are diverse sources provided. You're nodding your head yes.

With Bill C-18, you're going to have to enter into contracts with various news businesses. Now, my understanding is that you already have started that process by entering into numerous contracts. Within those contracts, are there any promises made to give preference to some new sources over others?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Great, thank you.

Going forward with Bill C-18, once it's in place, will you use algorithms to refer or promote some content versus other content?

[Richard Gingras, Vice-President, News, Google LLC]

Thank you, Kent.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Richard Gingras. I am Google’s vice-president for news. Fifteen years ago I served as publisher of Salon.com, the web’s first digital news offering. I have some appreciation for the evolving market conditions facing publishers.

For over a decade I’ve worked with journalists and publishers around the world to advance quality journalism. We collaborate closely with the journalism community. We’ve trained half a million journalists on subjects ranging from journalist security to audience development. We’ve developed tools to help drive subscriptions. We offer free tools to help journalists with investigative work. We’ve created funds to drive innovation around the world. Recently we announced a multi-year fund in Taiwan called the “digital co-prosperity fund” crafted with stakeholders across the spectrum, governed by outsiders and with the support of Taiwan’s Ministry of Digital Affairs.

I have also worked closely with dozens of newsrooms and publishers across Canada, including both long-standing legacy publishers and emerging digital players. Canada has the most innovative digital news ecosystem in the world, from the award-winning efforts of The Globe and Mail to start-ups like Discourse Media and The Narwhal, to the remarkable profitability of Village Media’s network of local news sites in more than 100 communities across Canada.

We and many others are concerned with the impact of Bill C-18 on the evolution of journalism in open societies. It would make it more difficult for digitally innovative, entrepreneurial journalists and publishers to help Canadians understand important issues in their communities.

Bill C-18 would make Canada the first country in the world to put a price on free links to web pages, setting a dangerous precedent that is contrary to the long-term interests of both Canadian readers and Canada’s independent press.

Last year we sent more than 3.6 billion visits to Canadian news publishers, helping grow their audiences and make money through ads and subscriptions. This referral traffic was valued at $250 million last year alone.

Putting a price on links, as Bill C-18 does, will naturally cause any company to reconsider how they use them. Take Google News, for example, which is a specialized aggregator and search service that I expect many of you are familiar with. It was created to help users discover multiple stories on diverse topics and from many sources.

Please understand that Google News, like Google Search, does not distribute articles from news publications. We provide only a link and a short snippet of text, often only the headline. Google News, like Google Search, is a newsstand that publishers don’t pay to be on, quite different from the prior world of print. We send millions of visitors to their sites for free. Google News costs us millions to operate, yet it delivers zero revenue. If we had to pay publishers simply for linking to their sites, making us lose money with every click, it would be reasonable for us or for any business to reconsider why we would continue to do so.

Bill C-18 would subsidize large legacy organizations and broadcasters to a far greater extent than it would smaller, emerging and innovative organizations that provide quality local news to communities, placing them at a comparative disadvantage. It would incentivize the creation of clickbait content over high-quality local journalism and likely require Google to pay publishers for non-factual or misleading content.

If Bill C-18 is passed in its current form, it may affect our ability to provide products and services that Canadians use and enjoy every day. To understand that impact and our options, we ran tests based on the current wording of the bill. Those tests limited the number of news links for 3.3% of Canadian users, selected at random, for five weeks.

Many of you have questions about these tests. I hope to provide more clarity on what they involved and why we ran them. We are committed to enabling a sustainable future for news in Canada, but this bill threatens to create a situation in which everybody loses. We want to work together to ensure that doesn't happen.

We welcome your questions and look forward to continuing our engagement.

Thank you.

[Kent Walker, President, Global Affairs, Google LLC]

Thank you very much, Vice-Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you all for the opportunity to appear today. As the vice-chair noted, my name is Kent Walker, and I am president of global affairs and the chief legal officer for both Google and Alphabet. I am joined today by Richard Gingras, vice-president for news.

Let me start out by just reiterating that Google is deeply committed to Canada. We opened our first office here more than 20 years ago, and today Google Canada employs more than 3,000 people in Toronto, Waterloo, Montreal and many other areas of the country.

We've been proud to support Canada’s economic growth. In 2021, Google’s products and tools helped provide $37 billion of economic activity for Canadian businesses, publishers, creators, developers and non-profits. In the last five years alone, we have provided over $16 million in Google.org grants to Canadian charities and non-profits, which have helped them expand the reach of innovative digital skills programming, empower Canadians to stay safe online and build more inclusive economic opportunities for indigenous communities.

Our commitment to Canada includes engaging constructively on regulation and policy innovation, which sometimes means identifying challenges with proposals that we believe may not achieve their stated objectives or that could have unexpected negative downstream impacts.

We support thoughtful regulation and advocate across the globe for updated rules on important issues like privacy, responsible AI development and a balanced international corporate tax system. We also have a responsibility to be clear about the potential impacts of new technology regulation and to speak up for the interests of the people and businesses that use our products and services.

Throughout our time in Canada, we have collaborated closely with the news industry and provided billions of dollars globally to support the creation of quality journalism in the digital age. Through our programs, partnerships and products, Google is one of the world’s biggest supporters of journalism.

We all recognize that the Internet has deeply changed the business models of news organizations. Technology companies, news organizations and governments need to collaborate to enable a strong future for quality content in ways that don’t disrupt access to the open web.

For over a year now, we have been advocating for practical solutions to our main concerns with Bill C-18. Both Richard and I have been directly involved in some of these engagements. That's because Canada is important to us, and we believe a reasonable and balanced solution is not only necessary but achievable.

In our conversations with the government and members of Parliament, we have repeatedly offered specific and practical solutions to the issues we have identified. We believe that the legislation could be amended to support journalism and to provide consumers with a more diverse range of perspectives, delivered in innovative and accessible formats, without undercutting core principles that allow the Internet to benefit Canadians and people around the world.

There are also thoughtful alternatives we believe would be even more effective at achieving the underlying policy goals here, such as a fund to which Google would contribute but that would be independently governed. Proceeds from this fund would be distributed in a manner consistent with clear criteria, governed by an independent board of experts, in line with the approach already adopted by Canada through its journalism tax credit.

This is not the path that Bill C-18 is currently on, but it’s not too late, and we do want to work with Canadian parliamentarians to get this legislation right.

I want to acknowledge that members of the committee were surprised by our product tests that sought to assess the potential impacts of the legislation, and we welcome the opportunity to address these issues today.

With that, let me turn it over to my colleague Richard to discuss Google’s approach to news, our more specific concerns with Bill C-18 and our deep commitment to journalism.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Good afternoon, everyone. Dr. Fry is away today, so I will be filling in as vice-chair for today and probably Monday as well. Apparently she had a minor accident at home playing with the grandkids. We wish her all the best.

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 75 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 28, the committee is meeting to begin its study of the activities of Google in reaction to Bill C-18. We have had one meeting with Google officials. This is the second. It will be a two-hour meeting. We will have plenty of chances to question Kent Walker, president of global affairs, who has joined us by video conference. We also welcome Mr. Richard Gingras, vice-president, news, also by video conference.

Welcome. As I said, we'll have several minutes of questioning, several rounds, by the parties in front of you.

I also want to welcome Alexandre, who is our analyst here today. Gabrielle is out of the country, and we're in great hands with you, sir. As usual we have Mike MacPherson as our clerk.

Mr. Walker, go ahead for 10 minutes, please. The floor is yours.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know the government is abundantly committed to censoring what people can see, post or hear online. However, what we just learned is that the Prime Minister actually got a head start. According to government documents that were tabled in the House of Commons, the Liberals actually pressured social media companies a total of 214 times over the period of 24 months. Talk about heavy-handed. Why is the government so committed to censoring speech?

Social Media

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know that the government is committed to censoring what people can see, hear and post online. However, what has just come to light is that it is so committed to this that it has actually gotten a head start. It has been trying to censor social media platforms for quite some time.

Thanks to the question put forward by the member for Niagara West, we now have documents, which have been tabled in the House of Commons, and they show that the government pressured social media platforms 214 times in a 24-month period to get them to take down content. Sometimes this was valid due to impersonations or copyright violations, but many times it was simply because the government found the content to be embarrassing.

If adopted, Bill C-11 would take this type of pressuring tactic and make it legal, which means the social media companies would not be able to push back. They would simply have to comply.

Canadians deserve to have their freedom of speech protected. The government needs to back off from censoring speech. We will be calling for an emergency debate.

Online Streaming Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech is interesting, as I see that my colleague is much younger than I am, yet some of the things he talks about are from a long time ago. It is interesting that in February, for example, vinyl outsold CDs, which is a change that is happening.

I have a challenge with what the member is saying. I sat on the heritage committee for Bill C-10 and Bill C-18. Bill C-18 talks about money transfer, but it does not talk about the CRTC. That is the challenge that I have with Bill C-11. The Liberals could do the monetary thing but not involve the CRTC. People understand support for artists and understand royalties or whatever they want to call it. However, why involve the CRTC?

Back when Bill C-10 was passed, it was without that “user-generated” part. It was in there and the Liberals took it out. However, why do we need to involve the CRTC if they keep talking about monetary support going to the artists? The Liberals quote a lot of professional organizations that like the money, but why are they not talking about the artists themselves and a mechanism for where the money would go? In Bill C-18 they talk about where the money goes. Why do we need the CRTC? If they want the money to go to artists, why is that not what they are doing?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member opposite's passion and her fondness for the nostalgia of boom boxes and cassette tapes. I still have some cassette tapes at home. My kids do not know what on earth they are.

What is critical is that this is part and parcel of a broader agenda of our government and, I hope, of this Parliament in terms of what we are doing to address the presence of digital platforms in our lives. We have Bill C-11 and we have Bill C-18. We are very committed to addressing online harms and online safety. In previous Parliaments we have addressed things like electoral advertising in online spaces.

Our commitment is to ensure that digital platforms that benefit from what they do in Canada and how they promote themselves or advertise in Canada, and that reap dollars from Canadian pockets, will also contribute back to Canadian communities and to the creation of Canadian content. That is a fundamental theme that informs all pieces of our legislation, and it will continue to do so.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

I am always proud to rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country on legislation we have before us. Bill C-11 is before us tonight at this very late hour. It would amend the Broadcasting Act.

Our constituency office has received hundreds and hundreds of emails, letters, phone calls and messages on this bill. Every time I am out in the community, people come up to me, letting me know how they do not want Bill C-11 to pass, as well as the former Bill C-10.

I think it is amazing that along with soaring gas and grocery bills and rising rent and mortgage payments, residents in my riding are letting me know that in addition to these very important topics, they are also concerned about this bill, which would affect their use of the Internet. I think it is because all of these topics affect their lives every day.

That level of attention is warranted because of what the government is proposing for this legislation to pass. It would cause unprecedented changes in how Canadians go about their daily lives online. Local residents in my community, Mitch and Lori, wrote to me to say that Bill C-11 represented the tipping point of government overreach.

Benji wrote to me to say that Bill C-11 would represent a major step back for our country.

Were Bill C-11 to pass, which it looks like it will with the Liberal-NDP coalition, those members in this House would be gifting the Liberals the power to play censor on what Canadians can see, if it does not match what they determine to be classified as Canadian content. The beneficiaries are the oldest legacy companies whose viewership has decreased. This bill would allow the government to have a policy directive implemented through actions like criteria. The government would give authority over online licensing and other matters. The only thing is that we have no idea what these would all be.

Bill C-11's twin bill, Bill C-18, would help failing legacy media companies looking for government cheques. They have found a perfect partner in the Liberals' desire for greater control of everyday Canadians' lives. A free and democratic country like Canada should never seek to empower the government with censorship powers to protect failing companies.

Canadians are rising up against the bill and against the Liberals for not listening. Bill C-11 is the government's proposed updating of the Broadcasting Act to provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the power and authority to regulate online content platforms.

The stated reasoning behind Bill C-11 is to bring the CRTC into the 21st century, while supporting Canadian artists and promoting the spread of Canadian content over that of international competition. While that may seem like a noble goal, there are reasons Canadian artists, legal experts and digital content providers are speaking out against this bill. In fact, this legislation is going to suck content creator innovation into an antiquated Broadcasting Act black hole.

There are profound questions about using the CRTC bureaucrats as online regulators, as would be granted by Bill C-11. Here I am again in this House standing against bureaucracy and government overreach. This bureaucracy, the CRTC, took over a year to implement a three-digit number for mental health emergencies, despite that action being called for unanimously by all members of this House. This organization has proven to lack accountability. It regulates the telecoms and we know that Canadians pay some of the highest rates on the planet.

The questioning we did at the industry committee last summer of the CRTC, that I was part of at the time, on the Rogers' outage was like we were questioning a telecom executive and not an executive of the regulator.

The CRTC's expertise is primarily regulating radio waves, television feeds and advertising. If this bill passes, it would also be tasked with regulating user-content generating websites, like YouTube, where users upload hundreds of thousands of hours of video content every minute but even assuming they could do it, the federal government should not be policing what will be defined as Canadian content when using social or digital media platforms.

Canadians are right to question an organization having the power to censor or impose what content will be prioritized for Canadians to see online.

Here is the most concerning part: The criteria will come later and we have no idea what the criteria will be. We are just to trust the Liberals.

A free and open Internet is the gold standard of open, democratic nations around the world. The bottom line is that what we will search for and see online will be different after the CRTC puts in place its regulations, which will change online algorithms.

The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, has come out strong, all along the way of this legislation. Of this legislation from the past Parliament, to which there really are few changes in the new legislation, he said, “Overall, it ensures that going forward all Canadians communicating over the internet will do so under the guise of the state.”

Then, in November 2022, Mr. Menzies stated, “If Bill C-11 passes and Internet regulation falls into political hands, Canadians will regret it for the rest of their lives.”

Many of the very people the Liberals say Bill C-11 would help do not even want it. There was extensive testimony, at both House of Commons and Senate committees, by content creators, digital experts and professors. Without Bill C-11, Canadian artists are succeeding in making their full-time livings producing content on digital platforms with the support of fellow Canadians and viewers from around the world, receiving billions of views.

Canadian social media stars bringing their concerns to the federal government about their content being hidden because of Bill C-11's regulations found themselves ignored. Over 40,000 content creators affiliated with Digital First Canada called for the discoverability rules in Bill C-11 to be removed. The government is not listening to all of these voices.

What is discoverability? It really is about, when one searches online, what comes to the top based on what one is asking about and what one's interests are. This legislation would change discoverability, because the CRTC would come up with criteria that would rise to the top.

The Liberals have refused every offer of good faith regarding Bill C-11, not just from regular Canadians but also from the government's appointed senators. Most of the senators are independent who sent an unusually high number of amendments, after months of study, back to the House of Commons.

The minister responsible made it clear he was rejecting all amendments that attempted to restrict the powers he sought for himself and the CRTC.

Once again, this has never been about good legislation, better regulation or updating our laws. It is about control for the Liberal government.

Some Canadians have already gotten a sneak preview of what life with Bill C-11 might be like. Recently, Google announced that, because of another overreaching online law, Bill C-18, it started a test run to temporarily limit access to news content, including Canadian news content, for some Canadian users of Google.

This was not an outright ban. However, people were searching and not seeing what they did before, and that is my point here. Censorship by big government or big tech has the same results.

When I debated the government's original version of this bill in the previous Parliament, I said that Canadians did not want this deeply flawed legislation that would limit speech and online viewing.

The number has changed from Bill C-10 to Bill C-11. Sadly, everything else has stayed the same, with some minor amendments from the Senate. The most important Senate amendments have been rejected by the government.

Canadians still do not want it, but the Liberals and their coalition partners insist on passing it. It is time for a government that protects consumer choice and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-11, a bill that the citizens of Oshawa have been very clear about. Oshawa wants us to kill this bill.

Canadians are not ignorant or dumb but the Prime Minister and the Liberal government clearly believe that Canadians are simply not smart enough to decide for ourselves what we want to see and hear.

There is a quote I have on my front door. It is from John F. Kennedy, a man that I admire. It states, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This quote helps frame the debate about the bill. Does this bill expand the rights of every Canadian or does it diminish their rights and freedoms? Does this bill threaten Canadians' ability to communicate, make a living or be heard?

Some very prominent Canadians have weighed in on this unprecedented bill and how it threatens freedom of speech.

Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be effectively exercised if one has the ability to be heard.

As Professor Michael Geist explains, “to be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.“

Canadian author Margaret Atwood has a gift of boiling down rhetoric to a very specific phrase. She sees this bill as “creeping totalitarianism“ and I agree with her. Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, thought and belief. Traditionally and historically, these rights and freedoms were not considered a left- or right-wing thing. They were based on a fundamental understanding that in free societies, we have fundamental rights.

Let us review the fundamental question that this bill is forcing us to ask. This legislation is about one thing: trust. Do Canadians trust this government to respect our rights and freedoms if Liberals are given these new, unprecedented powers?

Trust is unfortunately a challenging concept for the government. Trust is a characteristic, a quality that needs to be earned. It is a belief in reliability, truth or ability of someone or something. Trust can be predicted from past behaviour and past actions. Given this government's past, we see a record of distrust and concern. Let us examine that statement. Let us take a look at the Prime Minister and his government's history and what has been said about their approach to governing and what premises and ideologies drive their behaviour, in regard to Canadians' rights and freedoms.

We could talk about Bill C-18. We could talk about the Emergencies Act, the freezing of bank accounts of Canadians who disagree with the government, or Canadians who should not be tolerated and instead punished due to their unacceptable views or we could talk about David Pugliese's exposé in the Ottawa Citizen about the Canadian military who “saw the pandemic as [a] unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians” or Swikar Oli, who wrote in the National Post. We could talk about privacy advocates raising concerns, about the Public Health Agency tracking Canadians without their permission or Susan Delacourt writing about “nudging” techniques to manipulate Canadians' behaviour. Were these government behaviours warranted? Maybe, maybe not, but it begs to the question: what else is going on that we do not know about? What direction is the government racing toward? More freedom and choice or more government control?

Our democracy is fragile and “creeping totalitarianism” can be insidious and appear to be harmless or based on noble lies or intentions.

There are so many examples but let us focus on the bill in front of us and what it means and could mean. Let us review.

Bill C-11 is an online censorship bill designed to control search engines and algorithms so that the government can control what Canadians see and hear.

What is censorship? Censorship is defined as “the suppression of speech, public communication or other information”.

As Canadians know, whoever controls the narrative controls the world.

Canadians are storytelling creatures. We tell each other what is going on by talking, singing, dancing, creating and showing others about ourselves, our ideas and our feelings. Historically, we have been able to do this freely.

With the advent of the Internet, Canadians embraced a new way of telling these stories. We could now send birthday videos around the world, sing a new song and post it for all to see. If people liked it, they shared it. New innovations allow Canadian creators and storytellers to earn a living online, communicate, educate, debate, explore. We could choose what we wanted to see and enjoy where it sent us, but this ability is being challenged.

Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content that they choose for themselves. The Liberals and their big government, big corporate friends would decide who is heard and who is silent.

Have colleagues ever heard the term “inverted totalitarianism”? It is a term coined by Dr. Sheldon Wolin to describe a system where big corporations corrupt or subvert democracy. Elitist politicians with their ability to control and regulate are influenced by the big players, the big corporations that have the money to lobby government officials and regulators such as the CRTC to get the rules that benefit their monopolies and their bottom lines.

Is this where the Liberal government has taken Canada? Such arrogance. Perhaps Canadians should not really be surprised. The New York Times reported that our Prime Minister once said that Canadians have no core identity and that he wanted us to become the first post-national state.

Does that sound like someone who wants to protect our unique Canadian culture, our unique Canadian values? After all, we did elect the Prime Minister who said he admires the basic dictatorship of China so much because it gets things done. Perhaps this explains why the Liberal-NDP coalition has been so focused and intent on ramming this bill through the House.

Sadly, this legislation models practices directly from the Communist Government of China. The CCP has created the great fire wall, a heavily censored Internet that directs users to approved content under the guise of protecting the public and keeping people safe. It blocks unacceptable views and connections that the CCP considers harmful to the Chinese public. The goal of its Internet is to reshape online behaviour and use it to disseminate new party theories and promote socialist agendas. It is about shaping the Communist government's values.

Could that happen in Canada? One of my constituents, Rhonda, who lived and taught in China for two years in the early 2000s recounts, “When I lived in China for two years, we always had to verify the news and Internet content with friends and families back home or in free countries, as we knew we were not receiving unaltered information. It was highly regulated by the Communist government in China. I fear we are heading in this direction in Canada and I am having a hard time understanding how this is possible when it's supposed to be a free and democratic society.”

I agree with Rhonda. This idea of creeping totalitarianism seems to be alive and well in Canada. If Canadians give governments these new powers, I believe it is just a matter of time before these powers are abused. Bill C-11 would give the current Liberal government and future governments the authority to pick and choose what individual Canadians are allowed to watch, essentially placing the government as a content regulator.

Homegrown Canadian talent and creators would no longer succeed based on merit. Bureaucrats in Ottawa would determine content based on its level of “Canadian-ness”, but the culture of minorities would be cut out. By the way, how does one define “Canadian-ness”? This bill certainly does not do it. The CRTC would have control, big government would be lobbied by big corporations to wedge the little guys out. Corporate government would grow. Entrepreneurs, creators and artists would be squashed.

Sadly, we saw Canadian content creators come to Ottawa to have their voices heard but, as expected, they were shut down. The government wholly rejected any amendments brought forward that would narrow the bill's scope and fully exempt content that Canadians post on social media. Canadians are asking the questions, asking what the government is afraid of. Is it freedom? We have had different journalists and commentators around saying that this could change the independent Youtubers' way in which they make their money. Their viewership and revenues would take a hit. That is something that I think is quite worrying.

To finish, why does the government want to cause more uncertainty, loss of income and pain to make Canadians depend on the government? Why the attack on Canadian innovators in a way that no other country does, except maybe under the Communist Government of China? Why does the government not trust Canadians to be their own directors of their own destinies? We trust Canadians. A Conservative government would repeal this horrible bill.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to separate the different parts of this bill because it is clear that everyone thinks that the government has a right to have people pay their fair share, for example, and to make sure that we have Amazon and Netflix helping out our performers and artists.

Full disclosure, I did make a CD. I did write a book. I could be considered an artist, although I will let those who consume the product be the judge of that.

Do our Canadian artists need that help? We have Shania Twain, Alanis Morissette, Terri Clark, Celine Dion, Jason McCoy, Keanu Reeves and Ryan Reynolds. Do we really need that help? I think Canadian artists are able to succeed in a streaming environment on their own. I think everybody can pay their fair share.

Let us look at one of the models from Bill C-18, which we are talking about at committee right now, where Taiwan has gone ahead and made a deal with big tech companies to donate $250 million to fund things in their country. We are already getting $5 billion. Where is the government on that negotiation?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say I will be sharing my time with my very distinguished and dynamic colleague from Shefford.

Let me make a few things clear. Bill C-11 deals with culture, not censorship. Bill C-11 deals with national identity and pride. Culture is the essence of who we are. This bill does not promote censorship, it promotes and showcases our culture. I would even say that it seeks to showcase our cultures: Canadian culture, Quebec culture and indigenous cultures.

The bill seeks to give more visibility to culture. This is not about telling people they can no longer listen to certain content. Since the beginning of the debate today, we have been hearing all sorts of things. In fact, we have been hearing these things for two years, since Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-10. We hear things about cat videos, for example. Let us be serious.

The threat does not come from censorship because of Bill C-11. The threat comes from the platforms that have changed the world of telecommunications. That is the threat.

We are working on Bill C-11 to review an act that was amended for the last time in 1991. Must I remind you that, in 1991, we did not all have cellphones in our pockets? It was a completely different world, which is why we need to review the act.

The cultural community is asking for this, as is everyone else. We are not just being asked to pass the bill quickly. Quebec’s cultural community is asking us to hurry because it needs this legislation. They are losing $70 billion a week. On reflection, that may be a bit high. I will have to check the figures later in my notes. Let us say that, every week we delay the passage of this bill, they are losing a lot of money. Let us protect our people.

What does Bill C-11 do? It ensures the protection and promotion of original content. For us, that means French-language content, which is what concerns us. Of course, it also ensures the protection and promotion of original Canadian productions in English and indigenous languages and productions created by certain visible minorities. If we want to protect Canadian content and boost visibility, we need to bring in incentives. We are not talking about banning people from posting on Facebook and saying what they want. This is not about imposing choices, it is about raising their visibility. It is about ensuring discoverability.

Let us consider how small the percentage of French-language production in North America is. If we rely only on the number of times videos are viewed by users, French-language content will not be suggested very often. That is the problem. It is not about playing with algorithms. It is about giving the CRTC the power to talk to these companies and see what they can do to give local culture more visibility. It is a matter of promoting and showcasing our culture.

Let me draw a parallel here. When we look at platforms, we see that there is very little French-language content and that needs to be fixed. When we look at the boards of directors of Canadian and Quebec companies, we see that women are under-represented. In both cases, we need to take action to fix the situation. Obviously, we do not want to prevent anyone from applying, but we want to make sure that the positions are accessible to women and that women receive those kinds of job offers. The same thing applies to culture.

With Bill C-11, we want to improve the visibility, and therefore the profitability, of our local French-language productions and put in place a mandatory contribution to the Canadian and Quebec broadcasting system.

A mandatory contribution is more than just running old television shows. We want the platforms to participate in the creation of real local content. An American movie filmed in Vancouver is not local content. We certainly benefit when American filmmakers shoot in Vancouver. We support that. However, local content is something local produced by local artists who represent us. That is what culture is.

When racialized people say that they watch television and do not see themselves, that is a problem. These people should be able to see themselves and identify with the characters. That is why we are trying to increase representativeness. It is the same thing.

We simply want to expand the coverage of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to all media we interact with. We need first-run French-language content.

With this bill, we are telling the major American platforms that stream content in Canada and invade our markets that we are relatively happy because that is a good way to disseminate information, it gives more people greater access to information. Furthermore, streaming does not restrict access to cat videos; then again, it invades our market. That is where we have the right to say, as a state, that we have a culture to protect.

I often talk about the agricultural exemption in the House. This morning, I talked about the agricultural exemption. We cannot act without protecting our culture. It is important. We have the right to tell the people who come and make money in Canada that we are happy to welcome them and that it is a good thing, just as we have the right to tell them that we would like to recognize ourselves in our media. We are not asking them to ban certain content, but to showcase local productions that represent our people. That is the idea.

There is another very positive element in Bill C-11. It makes no sense that, in 2023, we are revising a broadcasting act from 1991. That is a major oversight.

The bill includes the obligation to review the act at least every five years. To those who have concerns, I would say that we are capable of being intelligent and implementing a reasonable policy. After the law is in effect for a few years, we will review it all to see how things went and what the impacts were. That is the important part.

I want to spend the last few minutes of my speech emphasizing that the Quebec and Canadian cultural community wholeheartedly supports Bill C‑11.

I just found the figure that I mentioned earlier. I should have said “millions” rather than “billions”. I thought that seemed like a lot. According to the former Canadian heritage minister, we would lose $70 million every month. I do not know whether those numbers were validated, but I am assuming that they were.

This important bill is one of three related and highly anticipated bills in this Parliament. As parliamentarians, I would like us to quickly pass them. There was Bill C‑11 to promote our local content. There is also Bill C‑18, which will complement it. Communications platforms will pay something to use news content in order to encourage our journalistic community. That is important. Finally, there is a third bill on online hate, which we need to regulate.

Once again, this is not about censorship, but about living together, being reasonable and creating a world where the Internet is a bit more representative of who we are. We need to see ourselves on television every once in a while, see ourselves reflected in the programming so that we do not forget who we are. I said television, but it is the same thing for the things we watch on a computer screen.

Let us stop wasting time and pass this essential bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am personally a dog person. Between cats and dogs, I like dogs. However, whether it is cat or dog videos being uploaded on Facebook with their owners, it is great to see and is encouraging. In no way, as I have pointed out and tried to make as clear as possible, is this bill going to put any sort of limitations on individuals.

At the end of the day, Bill C-18 deals with a good part of what the member was referring to. That is the online news act, which would ensure that big companies, such as the Googles and the Facebooks, pay their fair share. All we are asking for, whether it is in this legislation or Bill C-18, is to ensure that we are levelling the playing field and that everyone is contributing a fair share. In this case, it is about Canadian content.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. To be clear, I would offer those as amendments: that private communications from individuals would not be scoped in, and also that the date would be April 5, 2022, which is when Bill C-18 was tabled in the House of Commons.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My return comment—and I understand what you explained and I appreciate that—is that, again, there are individual Canadians who will get scoped into this, and I do not believe that is the road we want to go down. Correspondence with any individual who may have contacted Meta with regard to Bill C-18 or any other government legislation—because it says “internal and external”—must be made known to this committee. I think that's a very dangerous precedent.

I would perhaps recommend, then, that we exclude communications that were with individuals or individual entities outside of Meta. I don't know why we would need to include that.

The other amendment I would move is that we would change the date from January 1, 2020, which seems arbitrary, and actually pick one that makes more sense: April 5, 2022, which is when Bill C-18 was tabled in the House of Commons.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Absolutely. I'm happy to try to answer these questions.

The first thing, with respect to you, Ms. Gladu, and the documents, in terms of delivery date, I'm flexible if somebody wants to put a later date in terms of delivery of the documents. I think it would be useful to get them during the course of the study. I think an Order Paper question is different from at committees, where we have asked the government to deliver documents, and when the government delivers, it has to be translated, which usually causes the delays. Here, we're not asking them to translate. They would just provide us whatever they have, and we would have to translate it. I don't think March 31 is out of range, but I'm happy if you feel you want to propose an alternative date, like April 15 or April...I don't mind.

On Mrs. Thomas's points, it's understandable. The first one relates to the scope of what we're asking for. I think this is equivalent to what we asked of Google, and we all unanimously approved the Google motion. If there's something in there that is beyond Google....

The reason I put January 1, 2020 as a date was that the Google motion had no date, it just said anything going back. I thought that you shouldn't have to go further back than that, and I arbitrarily put January 1, 2020, which I think was the first year we started talking about a bill like Bill C-18. Again, if there's an alternative date somebody wants to propose, I don't have a major issue with an alternative date. If it's January 1, 2021, versus January 1, 2020, I don't think I have a major issue with that.

Finally, in terms of the chilling effect, I think parliamentary committees frequently summon documents like this. Look at what was summoned from the WE Charity; look at what has been summoned from McKinsey at the OGGO committee; look at what we've summoned from sports federations, although they're a bit different. I don't think this is chilling, because again, number one, if there was a litigation—for example, the United States is taking antitrust action against Google—all these would have to be produced in the context of the litigation. Parliamentary committees in other countries, such as the United States, would summon documents like these relatively frequently, so I would again acknowledge there may be solicitor-client privilege and attorney-client privilege and litigation privilege that might attach, and if Google or Facebook have those issues, they'll identify them, and I think the committee will be flexible in addressing them.

Since this was the language largely approved for Google, hopefully that's okay. I didn't want to go further and I didn't want to go less, but again, I'm open to talking to you about wording and being flexible.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I want to acknowledge the fact that Mr. Bittle put forward a motion and it's now been replaced by this motion from Mr. Housefather. This motion is much more appropriate, so I appreciate that, but I still have some concerns. No doubt about it, Meta and Google certainly are throwing around their weight, and that is concerning. I think the Canadian public is somewhat concerned, and I think Parliament is concerned.

I also have a concern, though, with regard to this motion and the precedent it sets. Under (I)(b)(i), it is compelling that:

Meta Platforms Inc., and its subsidiaries, be ordered to provide: (i) All internal and external communications (including but not limited to emails, texts or other forms of messages) related to actions it planned to take or options it considered or is considering in relation to all Canadian regulation since January 1, 2020, including that under Bill C-18, including but not limited to, restricting the sharing of news content on its platforms in Canada.

This reaches beyond the scope of looking at Meta and its decisions with regard to Bill C-18. This is looking at its response to any government regulation or legislation.

I'd be curious as to Mr. Housefather's motivation behind that. I would also be curious with regard to the date, January 1, 2020. Normally, a date following an election would be chosen, or a date when the legislation, Bill C-18, was brought forward, which was April 2022. This date of January 1, 2020.... I'm curious as to why that one has been chosen.

Thirdly, if we're asking for “all internal and external communications”, Meta could have been contacted, let's say, by a content creator or by a news outlet with regard to how Meta is going to respond to the government legislation. That correspondence, to my understanding, is scoped into this, so I am very concerned with regard to the implications this has for privacy and freedom of speech issues.

Furthermore, this will have an incredibly chilling effect, not only on the Canadian public, knowing that their words could be summoned, but also on businesses in Canada. Businesses need to be able to have conversations with regard to how they're going to respond to government legislation, and they should know that they're able to have those conversations internally without government surveillance. As soon as we start sending the message that it's okay for government to surveil or demand these types of communications, I think it puts a huge chilling effect on investment in this country, and I am very concerned about the precedent that sets for our nation going forward.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair, I want to put forward the motion. It's a very long motion, so I'm not going to read the entire thing. It's the motion I gave notice of yesterday and that the clerk has circulated.

In the French version, second bullet, the words “et ont reçu l'ordre de comparaître devant le Comité“ should be deleted. I have already spoken to the Clerk about it. The rest is correct.

Basically, Madam Chair, we all saw what happened last week when Ms. Geremia was here. I don't think any of us were satisfied with the answers she gave, although I very much appreciate that Google has now agreed to send its two top American executives to us.

This motion is similar to what my colleague, Mr. Bittle, put forward. It's a motion about international ways that large companies are seeking to subvert parliamentary accountability. We're going to look at current and ongoing use of intimidation not only in Canada but around the world. We're going to learn from what happens around the world.

One meeting would be with Meta, and we would summon Mark Zuckerberg, Nick Clegg and Chris Saniga.

We would ask Meta to provide the documents that Google was asked to provide earlier, as set out in (i) and (ii), but we will not ask for third party documents. Parts of what were in Mr. Bittle's motion, (iii) and (iv), are gone. I've revised part two of his motion because Google has accepted to appear, so there's no need to order them to appear again. We're simply recognizing that Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras will appear here for two hours at a publicly televised meeting and that it will be incorporated into the study.

We would hear from government officials, civil society and experts from other jurisdictions, like the European Union, Australia and also the United States, that have experienced tactics that are similar to what has happened in Canada. We note that the Department of Justice in the United States is taking antitrust actions against Google.

One meeting would be allocated to the study of tech giants' abuse of power around the world. We'd hear from domestic and international antitrust and competition experts.

Basically, this is a motion that I think would enable us to delve deeper into the international field. This is not only about Bill C-18. I think we can agree or disagree with Bill C-18 and still support this motion, because this motion speaks to larger issues of how very large companies use anti-competitive monopolistic tactics to seek to influence parliaments to meet their desires. This is not whether Bill C-18 is the right approach or the wrong approach. It's about how tech companies are tackling it and other similar laws around the world.

I hope we can find unanimous support for that motion.

I'm happy to listen to my colleagues.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I just want to re-emphasize the difference here in the fact that Bill C-18 is not law, yet Google Canada has gone forward and, as Mr. Bittle clearly pointed out, limited specific information to specific people based on this random test.

It's been discussed, of course, before, by you, Ms. Geremia, that Google has quite a significant impact and quite a significant share in terms of how Canadians find out information and how they access news. Censorship of the specific news that people see cannot be minimized. Every single member of this committee has specifically said that.

As Mr. Champoux mentioned as well, it's very important that you take that back and that we see some changes in terms of how that testing is implicated.

I also never really got a response in terms of this randomization of your so-called testing. I find it very dangerous to try to call it that, because it's ultimately a minimization of what you're doing, but it could have implications for someone like a member of Parliament, and the limiting of a member of Parliament's access to information, as was somewhat seen here today, is a violation of their parliamentary privilege.

In terms of that testing, have you and your legal team entirely considered the implications of what you have done in terms of Canadian safety and in terms of that legal side of limiting information?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay. Theoretically, they seem to have sent you here in their name, and you obviously do not, since you didn't meet with them, have access to their personal knowledge, which this committee wanted to get. I think we're going to need to hear from them and we're going to need to make sure they come.

Let me go to another question.

Google claimed that Bill C-18 could help spread misinformation and propaganda in Canada. However, in response to legislation, Google ran similar tests in Australia in January 2021. At that time, it blocked access to fact-based news sources and, in their place, as was shown, promoted sources of questionable quality—like The Epoch Times, for example—that were known for spreading a certain side of the story.

Did you do this when you did these tests in Canada, or did you take steps to make sure the errors you acknowledged having made in Australia were not made in these tests?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Under oath, you're saying specifically that the tests and the timing of these tests have absolutely nothing to do with the passage of Bill C-18.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Did you discuss what, ultimately, Mr. Housefather was trying to get at in terms of the timing of this committee, the timing of your testing and the timing of the Senate's passage of Bill C-18?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Right, so my question again is.... You knew that Canadians would become aware and what the end result would be. This was an attempt to pressure parliamentarians to do the amendments in the Senate that Google wanted for Bill C-18, and that seems to me to be the end result of what you actually intended to do.

I have one other question.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think that you were aware, and I think you wanted us to be aware. You wanted the House of Commons and the Senate, particularly, which will now vote on Bill C-18, to be aware of this threat.

I think that you intentionally intended to make Canadians aware of it, so that we would be afraid to pass Bill C-18 in the Senate because of the threat that you would block news content.

Was that not the real reason you did this test, and did it with this timing?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I have to move on, because my time is very short.

I take that as a yes, because you are doing it. We had a previous member speak up and ask you a simple question about blocking news on a car seat, and you agreed that it was happening.

I will move on, though, from us on this side in opposition. We don't trust Justin Trudeau either, frankly, or the legislation put forward by his government. Remember, this is the same government.... We talk about online monitoring and the digital public square and the threats that Bill C-11 poses to it, along with C-18. I think a lot of Canadians are fearful of what the Prime Minister can decide in terms of whether or not somebody will see a particular news item or cannot see it, or in terms of deplatforming a certain user or boosting another. Then we have what's before the House right now, the issue of foreign interference in our elections—and also the demonizing of peaceful protesters not that long ago.

I'm going to ask you a question about your concerns around Bill C-18. We have heard a lot of concerns about the Internet tax and the possible threat to freedom of information for Canadians.

What is the risk to freedom of information if Bill C-18 passes?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Can I just follow up on that? Seeing all of the accounts of this C-18 legislation in reference to your company and the precedent it's supposed to set globally for you, I would have thought that at least you would send your CEO to speak to a country that represents 38 million people—or to the House of Commons that represents 38 million people.

I will move on to my next comment or question. I just spoke two days ago in the House of Commons about Bill C-27 and its implications for Canadians' privacy. Google once attempted to build a smart city in Toronto that would have collected massive amounts of personal and very private information for money. The basis of your business is surveillance, and you make a lot of money doing it.

We now see you as a company threatening Canadians that you will be censoring, or you have censored, 4% of the news content in Canada.

I have a simple question. Yes or no, do you think it's okay to block any news content to Canadians?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Could you give the committee the list of product tests you have done in this country in 2023? I'm going to narrow it down for you. After this committee, can you give us a list of the product testing you have done in this country from January 1, 2023 until today, in March? We have no idea.

I say that because, in the last two weeks...Beijing interference in this country. I say it's Google interference now. I don't know what you're testing for. Canadians don't know what you're testing for. We have no idea. Guess what? You're going to give us the list, because I'm going to demand it from Google Canada. Give us a list of what you're product testing on Canadians.

Today we find out that 1.2 million—4% of the population—happen to.... Their democratic right has been put to the side, wouldn't you say? I don't know. You might have Google-tested me. I might be one of the 1.2 million who.... All of a sudden, I can't get the Google search. Is that fair to me—not knowing you're doing this to me or other Canadians?

I don't think that's fair. You're a $1.2- to $1.3-trillion company. I think you exceeded your boundaries. I think Canadians would also say, today, that Google has exceeded its boundaries. I know you're upset about Bill C-18 and want product testing and all of that, but that's not what we're here for. I think Google has overstepped its boundaries in this country in deciding what the product testing is all about. We have no idea.

I would like to assure this committee that you will give us a list of what Google, in this country, has done for product testing in the last two and a half months. That will give Mr. Kee something to do, because I don't really want to hear from him. That will give him something to do when we leave committee today.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

There is no need, Ms. Geremia. I'll leave my question hanging, because I won't get the answer. I think you are telling us absolutely nothing about this. You can't contradict the people who are being tested now.

At every meeting this committee has held to study this issue, Google representatives have always said that they do not agree with the bill, but that they will comply with the legislation, as they do in every country where they do business.

Ms. Geremia, Bill C‑18 is going to pass, whether you like it or not. Since Google claims to act as a good corporate citizen in every country it does business in, will it comply with the legislation, yes or no?

[Jason Kee]

The Google news showcase commercial arrangements had no bearing on the application of the test. Again, those are not secret, nor is the test.

The specific definitions of eligible news business and the application of Bill C-18 were the basis on which the tests were being undertaken, because it was really to understand what the impact would be on both the product and the users in the event that we were no longer able to serve links.

[Jason Kee]

In the case of Bill C-18, the effort was to utilize that bill—

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I'm sorry, but we're not talking about Bill C-18 here, sir. I asked you specifically how Google is deciding what's news and what's not news for the purpose of this arbitrary test.

[Jason Kee]

As part of the normal course, product teams, legal teams and other experts, including, where appropriate, leadership, will conduct assessments with respect to what the potential impacts of legislative initiatives like Bill C-18 might be.

In the case of Bill C-18—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Kee.

The witnesses have been duly sworn in, committee, so we can now proceed with Ms. Hepfner's questions.

Before we go to Ms. Hepfner, I would just like to suggest, first, that it's very clear what this committee wanted to meet about, and it was not only to discuss tests. It is very clear that this committee was asked for the activities of Google in reaction to Bill C-18, not limited to the decision to test the blocking of news sites. This is not a limited committee hearing.

Second, the committee asked for any internal or external communications, including but not limited to emails, texts or other forms of messages related to actions it planned to take or options it considered in relation to Canada's Bill C-18, including but not limited to those in relation to the testing of the blocking of news items. Once again, it's not limited to testing.

The committee asked for the list of all news organizations blocked by Google in Canada. There was a time to deliver this. An extra week was given to Google because of technological difficulties on Monday, so I am just putting that on the table for those listening and for Google to understand that it was very clear what was required of you, and so that in answering, since you've taken an oath, you will really consider the questions the committee has raised pertaining to your appearance here.

Thank you.

[Jason Kee]

As Sabrina indicated, the Taiwanese example is precisely the approach that we would like to adopt. It's precisely the approach to ensure that we are providing funding to, again, local and regional papers, the small players, and maybe also to those who are doing really interesting and innovative work. Those are the approaches that we've adopted.

I did want to make a quick mention that, to be clear, these are product tests. Product tests are actually a normal course of business when you're considering any range of product changes. This is actually very ordinary. I appreciate the observation with respect to how it's being perceived. It's certainly not the intent. It's also, again, us responding rapidly to a radically changing landscape, so that we can responsibly understand what the impact of those changes would be.

It's also worth noting that Bill C-18 is very different in structure from Australia's legislation. In Australia there were concerns that were basically raised.... We interacted with the government, and the government criticism—

[Sabrina Geremia]

Madam Chair, I have to disagree with the premise. News is available to Canadians. Canadians consume news in so many different ways. It's available through browsers. Many people actually subscribe. That's an important part of the news ecosystem. They go to social media. They do other things.

The tests are in response to the great uncertainty that we described in the earlier remarks. Bill C-18 will radically change the legal landscape for linking in Canada. This is the foundation of how the Internet works. It's how we share our links. We share information and the free flow of information online. We can't assume that we're going to be able to link in the same way that we have in the past.

Due to this uncertainty, tests were conducted. These are tests. They are not product decisions. They are tests, because there is just so much uncertainty right now with this legislation. We just need to understand that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I believe you covered that in your introduction. I appreciate that. I'm going to move along with my time. Thank you.

Google claims that the censorship decision was made in response to the oncoming Bill C-18. However, that bill isn't law yet, nor is it a censorship bill.

This seems extremely troubling in view of the fact that now Google is voluntarily engaging in the censorship of news content. Is it normal for Google to censor news?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Geremia, before we recessed, I was asking you if you were familiar with Bill C‑18.

The premise of my question was that Google accuses Bill C‑18 of endangering quality journalism by not specifying journalistic ethics criteria for determining corporate eligibility.

So I'm asking you again, are you familiar with Bill C‑18 and do you know it well?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Ms. Geremia, we'll move on. Obviously, this question makes you uncomfortable.

We will expect Google to comply with this committee's request and eventually, and as quickly as possible, provide the documents that have been requested, because they are documents that are relevant to Quebeckers and Canadians. Your current manoeuvres have repercussions and are of concern to many people.

In your opening remarks, you said that one of your criticisms of Bill C‑18 is that it would encourage the creation of cheap clickbait traps at the expense of quality journalism. You also said that there is no clear commitment to a code of ethics for qualifying companies, which threatens the standards of journalism in Canada.

Ms. Geremia, are you familiar with Bill C‑18?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you, Ms. Geremia.

The question is not whether you know what the documents are, but whether there were internal communications or not. You are a multinational company. Are you trying to tell the committee members that there were no internal communications?

You've never mentioned them. You come before the committee to testify on Bill C‑18, in response to which you are doing pseudo-tests, and you tell me that there were no internal communications.

My question is extremely simple: were there internal communications, yes or no?

[Sabrina Geremia]

I am here to collaborate. In terms of Bill C-18, we've been very transparent with our concerns. We've been publishing this, etc., and we're here to answer questions.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I asked a different question, Ms. Geremia. I asked if you personally have ever written an email or sent a text related to this scheme to block news content from the search engine or how Google should react to Bill C-18.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

They're willing to lobby against the bill privately, but not willing to come to the committee to speak publicly.

Google has sent documents to the committee, which we've recently received. My understanding is that all of the documents Google provided to the committee are publicly available documents on Google's website. Google was asked to provide:

all internal or external communications (including but not limited to emails, texts or other forms of messages) related to actions it planned to take or options it considered in relation to Canada’s Bill C-18, including but not limited to those in relation to the testing of the blocking of news sites in Canada;

and

the list of all news organizations blocked by Google, in Canada

It seems we got none of that information, but rather were thrown a bunch of publicly available information.

Ms. Geremia, did you ever write any email or send any text that related to your plans related to Bill C-18?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

All three of them were summoned by this committee. Are you aware as to whether Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras have visited Canada in recent months to lobby on Bill C-18? Are you aware that Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras have been here to lobby parliamentarians on Bill C-18?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to remind everybody why we're here today. Google has had ample opportunity, including before this committee, to talk about its views on Bill C-18.

Today, we're talking about a situation in which we have over 30 million Internet users in Canada, and Google has a dominant, 92% share of the search engine market. Google applied a test to block news from its search engine to approximately 4% of users, according to its public statements. That suggests that approximately 1.2 million Canadians were affected. That's why we're here today.

Ms. Geremia, my questions are for you. I would appreciate a yes-or-no answer unless I ask you to expand upon it.

As part of this scheme, did you use individual user data to block users from accessing news sources, yes or no?

[Jason Kee]

Absolutely. Again, this is actually an innovative model that we welcome, that we encourage other jurisdictions to consider and adopt. We have consistently supported the concept of a fund, certainly throughout the Bill C-18 process. In our view, it is a way of resolving some of the core issues that Bill C-18 presents in terms of its structure. However, it still ensures that large platforms like Google are contributing into a fund that is supporting the news ecosystem, that this money is being focused on developing sustainable business models, and also, frankly, that it's supporting local and regional publications and resolving the issue of news deserts that everyone shares a concern about.

[Jason Kee]

Thank you.

As Sabrina indicated—and this is important to constantly reiterate—this is just a test. There has been no decision made with respect to the outcome of the test. We are literally in a process of trying to gather information to ascertain what the potential impacts of Bill C-18 will be.

We routinely conduct these kinds of tests. We make, again, 11,500 tests per year on search. Not surprisingly, some of these kinds of tests have an impact on news. Many of them are actually intended to elevate authoritative content, which would include news content. We have conducted these kinds of tests in a variety of jurisdictions. It's normal course for us to conduct these kinds of tests, especially if there's also legislation being introduced into a marketplace that may have an impact on our products.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

You've concisely described the concerns you have with Bill C-18. Did you make these concerns known to either the Minister of Canadian Heritage or perhaps government members on this committee?

[Jason Kee, Public Policy Manager, Google Canada]

Companies frequently use hypothesis-driven tests, also known as A/B testing, on a small percentage of real users to collect data about new features or changes before deciding whether to launch them at scale.

Google runs over 11,500 tests each year to assess potential changes to search, and only a small fraction of these end up launching.

The news tests in Canada were designed to assess the potential impacts of Bill C-18 on how news is linked to in certain products. They affect less than four per cent of Canadian users.

Bill C-18 would radically change the legal framework under which we provide free links to news for Canadians, but those are moving targets and we don't know if we will continue to be able to link to news as we do today, so we are testing a range of possible responses. Specifically, due to the vagueness and uncertainty surrounding Bill C-18, we are testing the impact of featuring varying amounts of links to news in our search results based on the scope of the bill. I want to underline that these are just tests: No decisions have been made about product change. We are simply doing our due diligence in the most responsible way possible.

Canadians can still access news sites at any time in a variety of ways, as they always do, including directly through their web browser, dedicated apps, social media or other means. We want to include news in our products. However, Bill C-18 puts a price on free links to news sites, provides no clarity or certainty as to what that price might be, and requires payment to an extremely broad range of outlets and organizations even if they don't produce news. This creates maximum uncertainty, disincentivizes voluntary agreements and moves us further from the shared goal of supporting news in Canada.

We remain committed to working constructively with the government on reasonable and balanced solutions that would fix Bill C-18 and contribute to a healthy, innovative and diverse news ecosystem for the digital age.

We welcome your questions.

[Sabrina Geremia, Vice President and Country Manager, Google Canada]

Good morning.

My name is Sabrina Geremia. I am joined today by Jason Kee, who is a subject matter expert on search, news and ads. This committee's work is important. We have made it a priority to be here to answer your questions.

Google has been in Canada for over 20 years, and we are proud of the many ways that we support and partner with Canadian newsrooms. Last year, we linked to Canadian news publishers over 3.6 billion times, helping them make money with ads and subscriptions. This free traffic drove an estimated $250 million in value to publishers.

Through the Google news showcase, we've signed agreements that support over 150 Canadian publications by paying for curated content and access to articles that would otherwise have been behind paywalls. The Google news initiative provides tools, training and funding to help Canadian news organizations innovate and build stronger, more sustainable business models in the digital age.

We have been transparent about our concerns with Bill C-18. We have worked constructively with parliamentarians and offered reasonable and balanced solutions. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 has some very serious problems.

Bill C-18 puts a price on free links to web pages, setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundation of the open web and the free flow of information. It incentivizes clickbait content over quality journalism.

Bill C-18 is intended to encourage voluntary agreements with news publishers, but the exemption and eligibility criteria have shifted so significantly that it would require subsidies to media companies, even if they don't produce news and are not online and we do not link to their content.

There is no clearly defined commitment to a code of ethics for eligibility in the bill, which threatens the standard of journalism in Canada.

Unreasonable timelines and unfair arbitration provisions would ensure that any reasonable offer from platforms would be rejected, creating a framework for bad-faith bargaining.

Bill C-18 would subsidize large legacy organizations and broadcasters and could hurt emerging and innovative players that are providing quality local news in communities across Canada.

This bill is no longer about supporting journalism.

Under Bill C-18, platforms would be subject to an uncapped financial liability merely for providing free links to the news that Canadians are searching for. Canadians should be concerned about the potential negative impacts on how they find and share news online.

As the bill has worsened at each step of the process, we've had to consider what product changes it may require. Potential product changes need to be tested.

My colleague, Jason Kee, will now share more about the tests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 69 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.

As you know, this is going to be a hybrid meeting. It's taking place pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

While public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy no longer require mask-wearing indoors or on the precinct, masks and respirators are excellent tools to prevent the spread of COVID and other respiratory diseases. Of course, the World Health Organization says that we are still in a COVID pandemic.

I want to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that taking screenshots or taking photos is not allowed. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. If you want to know, you can go there to find out.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 28, 2023, the committee is meeting to begin its study of the activities of Google in reaction to Bill C-18.

Today we have witnesses from Google Canada. They are Sabrina Geremia, vice-president and country manager; and Jason Kee, public policy manager. Both are here by video conference.

We will begin with the opening remarks from Google.

You have five minutes to make your remarks. That means not each, but for Google, so you can decide how you're going to do that.

I will give you a shout-out when you have 30 seconds left, so that you can wrap up.

Thank you very much.

Please begin, Google, for five minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, when I heard the comments made by my colleague from Lethbridge suggesting that the artists would not benefit from the reform of the Broadcasting Act, I made a few phone calls. I contacted a few of my artist friends to ensure that the bill would benefit the cultural associations and businesses and not just the broadcasters. They all told me that artists and creators have been awaiting the bill just as eagerly as cultural businesses have.

In all humility, I have to say that I am not the most artistic member of the Bloc caucus. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Caroline Desbiens, had a brilliant career in television and theatre. There is also the extraordinary artist we call “La Marsouine”, the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. She is a songwriter whose work is well known among the international francophonie. There are people in the Bloc Québécois caucus who know what they are talking about.

We were inspired by these people and we fought for this bill on behalf of our colleagues who were themselves part of the arts scene. They can tell us how regulating the broadcasting sector benefits our artists.

Here we find ourselves at another stage of Bill C-11. This may be the last step; we hope it is. As we have seen, our Conservative colleagues are once again trying to kill this bill.

After finding some particularly creative ways to delay its study in committee, yesterday they even brought forward an amendment to completely gut the bill. All this after accusing the Bloc Québécois of failing to stand up for the demands of the Quebec National Assembly.

Let us talk about the demands of the Quebec National Assembly. I found it quite rich to hear the Conservatives say that the National Assembly opposed the passage of Bill C-11 as is when, in June 2022, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution that stated the following:

Whereas the federal government is under pressure from multiple sources to ensure social media is not subject to Bill C-11, while many companies commercially stream musical and audiovisual content;

THAT the National Assembly recall that Québec’s cultural production and its uniqueness are strongly disadvantaged by the lack of regulation of online streaming platforms and social media;

THAT it affirm that it is essential that all online streaming platforms, including social media, be subject to federal and provincial laws, such as C-11, so that all digital broadcasters, whether Canadian or foreign, contribute to the creation, production, broadcasting, promotion and discoverability of Québec content;

I will spare members a reading of the full text of the resolution. It concludes as follows:

THAT, lastly, it urge the federal government to include social media governance in Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act.

Obviously, that does not align with the Conservative position.

I want to talk about Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications, Mathieu Lacombe, who did a bunch of interviews recently, answering journalists' questions about the mandate he took on last fall. When asked, “Should streaming platforms be forced to highlight homegrown content?”, he instantly replied “Yes, this is about Quebec's distinct culture”. Speaking to various media outlets, Minister Lacombe emphasized the importance of discoverability for francophone content from Quebec, meaning how easy it should be to access homegrown content on major digital platforms like Netflix and Spotify, for example. That is what Minister Lacombe said. The National Assembly is hoping for a speedy passage of Bill C‑11.

Certainly, Quebec had demands, legitimate demands, such as being consulted on regulations that will impact broadcasting in Quebec and Quebec culture. The unanimous National Assembly motion that set tongues wagging recently reads as follows:

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge that the federal government could soon pass Bill C‑11, which aims to amend the Broadcasting Act;

THAT it underline that this bill does not recognize the application of Québec laws regarding the status of artists;

THAT it recognize that this bill, as it is currently written, grants Québec no rights of inspection on the directions that will be given to the CRTC, and that those directions will have a significant impact on Québec’s cultural community;

THAT it remind the federal government that Québec’s linguistic specificity must be respected;

THAT it highlight for the federal government that as a nation, it is up to Québec to define its cultural orientations;

THAT it demand that Québec be officially consulted on the directions that will be given to the CRTC regarding the bill and that, for this purpose, a formal mechanism be added to the bill;

THAT it affirm that Québec will continue to apply, in its areas of jurisdiction, the laws democratically passed by the National Assembly;

THAT, lastly, the National Assembly inform the federal government that Québec will use all the tools at its disposal to continue protecting its language, culture and identity.

The minister has the means and the tools needed to respond to these demands from Quebec. The real question is whether he will do the right thing through ministerial directives to the CRTC. We will see over the next few days, but I really hope he does. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue to properly and faithfully stand up for Quebec's demands to ensure the protection of its culture and broadcasting sector.

Recently, my colleagues and I have all been getting a rather impressive number of emails from people who are opposed to Bill C-11. Oddly enough, they are not well-crafted emails written by an organization representative like the ones we received in previous weeks and months. They are very short emails that are more focused on the issue of censorship and control over what Quebeckers and Canadians will be able to watch online once Bill C-11 is passed.

I have no qualms about saying that this is blatant misinformation. However, I want to talk about it a little and explain to the millions of Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching right now what these scare tactics are all about. The word “censorship” is one that has been coming up a lot. People are talking about a law that is going to censor Quebeckers and Canadians and undermine their freedom of speech.

If we stop for a second and think about this, we realize that a person would have to be totally disingenuous or a complete conspiracy theorist to believe that, here in Canada, in our current system, a government could impose censorship with impunity like they do in totalitarian states. Feeding that fear is an act of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty. I am not sure that that is very healthy. It may be politically advantageous, but that is another issue.

People wrote to us with concerns about the control the government will have over what we can see online and what it wants to ban from being seen online.

Bill C‑11 does not say that the government will be able to force people to binge Les filles de Caleb on the weekend. Bill C‑11 seeks to have content produced by creators from here, to showcase stories from here, that our culture and the talent of our creators have their place on streaming platforms. No one is saying that people have the right to watch or not watch this or that. No one is preventing any content from being streamed.

I have lost track of how many times I have heard about the manipulation of algorithms. Web giants talked about it at committee meetings. It was like we were asking those companies for the recipe to build a nuclear bomb. It was a bit excessive. I do not think that anyone at the CRTC is going to tell Spotify to open its code so they can mess with it. That is just silly.

However, we need to give the CRTC the latitude and the tools it needs to ensure that the objectives are met.

Traditional radio used what were known as logger tapes. For younger folks, such as the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, these were reels that turned at very slow speed and recorded 24‑7. It was easy because radio programming was a continuous broadcast on a single frequency. Obviously, the same mechanism cannot be used with online platforms. However, it is important that the regulator responsible for verifying that the objectives are being met actually has the means to verify that they are, in fact, being met. Algorithm manipulation should therefore not be permitted. It is essential to keep the door open to allow future verifications, if this is how verifications must be done.

Then, there is the age-old issue of infringement on freedom of expression. I do not understand how anyone could believe that we could pass laws that literally infringe on freedom of expression. For some, any attempt to address disinformation and ensure that people have access to reliable, verified information amounts to an infringement on freedom of expression. We are certainly going to hear about it at length when we debate Bill C-18, but freedom of expression will not be violated by Bill C-11. In any case, a law passed by the government that would infringe on freedom of expression obviously would not stand up in court and would be quashed very quickly.

I do not see a problem with imposing discoverability obligations, obligations to promote Quebec, Canadian, French-language and indigenous content, and to showcase the distinct nature of the Quebec nation and of Canada on the online platforms of digital giants. I came up with what I thought was a useful analogy. For those opposed to regulating GAFAM, the major online broadcasting companies, I will present the following analogy.

Imagine if, instead of offering cultural content, these businesses were serving food. Would there be any objection to these food service companies being subject to the same health regulations that traditional restaurants are? I doubt it. I doubt there would be any objection if the rules set by MAPAQ, Quebec's department of agriculture, fisheries and food, which apply to restaurants, were also applied to any business that serves food. Even though we talk about a free market on the Internet, there are limits that must be applied there as well. I thought that was an interesting analogy for illustrating the importance or relevance of regulating online businesses as well.

I do not want to spend all day debating this. We have debated it extensively, and we are at the stage where we want to come to an agreement as quickly as possible and return this bill to the Senate so that it ultimately gets approval. Then we can move on to the much-anticipated implementation stage of this bill, which is eagerly awaited by the entire cultural community and by broadcasters. However, I am going to move an amendment in closing. It is an amendment to the amendment moved yesterday by the member for Lethbridge.

My amendment to the amendment is as follows: that the amendment by the member for Lethbridge be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that”; the motion be amended by adding to the last paragraph “further calls on the government to establish a process for consultation with the Quebec government so that Quebec's specificity and the unique reality of the francophone market are adequately considered by the CRTC” and recalls that the federal Status of the Artist Act respects Quebec's jurisdiction and is consistent with Quebec legislation on the status of the artist.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments on Hon. Marc Garneau's retirement.

I was fortunate to serve as his parliamentary secretary when he was the minister of transport. It is funny, when I was appointed someone came to me and said, “Hey, you know, there are a pile of schools in this country already named after Marc Garneau.” It is unusual in this place to meet someone with such incredible history, such incredible service, who has already had schools named after him and had already been appointed to the Order of Canada before coming to this place. He engaged in a lifetime of service through the navy, as an astronaut through the Canadian Space Agency and in this place for 14 years. As was mentioned by many speakers, his absence will be felt significantly.

However, we are here today for Bill C-11, and this bill has had a long journey. In one form or another, we have been debating this bill since the fall of 2020. We have kept working hard and we never give up, because we know how important this legislation is.

Our goal has never changed. From the start, it has always been about making sure Canadian stories and music are available to Canadians. It is as simple as that. The stories and music are the beating heart of our culture, a culture we have always supported and promoted. We are not reinventing the wheel here. We would only be updating our laws to clarify that digital services and platforms have obligations to support our cultural sector.

It is kind of amazing that we would look to Canadian companies like Bell or Rogers and say that of course they have to support Canadian culture. However, some in this place would say that foreign tech giants have no such obligations.

We had an opportunity during the committee meeting to hear from Gord Sinclair of The Tragically Hip. He talked about how the Broadcasting Act helped his band, The Tragically Hip, which comes from a small town in eastern Ontario, to become well known and respected across the country. He spoke in support of the legislation so that there could be more Tragically Hips in the future.

The Broadcasting Act has helped Canadian culture to flourish and grow for more than 50 years. I mentioned The Tragically Hip, but we can think of all the bands and musicians we love, as well as the Canadian TV shows and films that have entertained us and found audiences all over the world, thanks, in part, to the Broadcasting Act. We want to ensure that the success continues to serve Canadians well, now and into the future.

So much about how we produce, engage with and access digital content has changed with the increasing dominance of digital broadcasting. We must act to ensure that Canadian artists, storytellers and Canadian culture do not get left behind. We must act to ensure that all voices have a chance to be heard and to ensure that Canadian culture reflects the realities of our diversity.

We know how important it is to get this right. That is why, from the start, our efforts to modernize the Broadcasting Act have been a collaborative effort. We have worked with and heard from Canadians to find the right solutions. We have held public consultations; heard from key stakeholders in the industry; listened to the ideas and concerns of artists, content creators and everyday Canadians; and worked across the aisle with members of all parties to help shape this bill.

Now, as we know, only one party in Parliament has decided that it knows better than Canadian artists, creators, producers and all the workers in our cultural sector. Conservatives, unfortunately, really went out of their way to protect the interests of web giants, just like they did during the committee study of Bill C-18. When Facebook came to testify, we saw Conservatives stand and act as the PR reps for the tech giants. They did not need to hire lobbyists, since they had, for free, Conservatives standing up and supporting them. I have to tip my hat because the Conservatives were pretty good at it.

They spent hours filibustering. The Conservatives filibustered when the minister was supposed to appear at committee. They filibustered when the CRTC commissioner was supposed to appear at committee after having demanded that the CRTC commissioner appear. They filibustered during clause by clause. They even filibustered their own motions. These committees do not need lobbyists representing them. As I said, they have the Conservative Party of Canada lobbying for them.

I hear an hon. member on the other side heckling because I know he is so upset at his party for acting for companies like Meta and Google. It is the only conservative party in the world that stands with tech giant. The Republicans in the United States and conservatives in Australia or Europe do not. In those countries, political parties are united for their citizens against tech giants.

It is unfortunate that Conservatives here cannot see past partisanship and that they stand with Facebook, Google and TikTok. Shockingly enough, time after time at committee, we heard Conservative members stand and defend TikTok, defend their lobbyists, and stand with and deliver their talking points as if they were coming straight from lobbyists from TikTok. These companies do not need lobbyists; they have the Conservative Party.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge a collaborative effort by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. I want to thank everyone who made a contribution to the long development of Bill C-11. They have helped make this bill stronger and better, and they have done a great service for Canadians. I particularly want to thank our colleagues in the other place for their careful study of Bill C-11 and the amendments they proposed for consideration.

I am pleased to say that the government is fully supporting 18 of the 26 amendments brought about in the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-11. We are also accepting another two amendments with modifications. This is another testament to the truly collaborative work that has gone on.

I think it is important to highlight many of the things we can all agree on when it comes to Bill C-11 and the many ways we have all worked together to make it a better bill. In the spirit of collaboration, we should make it easier to support this motion.

I would like to turn to addressing the proposed amendments. As I said, the government has agreed to adopt 18 of them. There are only eight amendments the government respectfully disagrees with or proposes changes to. Let me take some time to explain the government's position on each of these amendments.

To begin with, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment to the definition of a “community element”. This amendment does not refer to the broadcasting undertakings that make up the broadcasting system, and may cause interpretive issues in the application of the act.

The government also respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendments to compel online undertakings to implement methods, such as age verification, to prevent children from accessing explicit sexual material.

While we understand the importance of this issue and have forthcoming legislation on it, which I hope will address it, we oppose this amendment for the simple reason that it seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill.

To reiterate what I said from the start, our purpose with Bill C-11 is to include online services and platforms, and broadcasting systems. This amendment falls outside the scope of the bill.

Next, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment to clause 4 limiting regulation to sound recordings uploaded by music labels for artists. We disagree here because this would affect the Governor in Council's ability to publicly consult on and issue a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to the distribution of commercial programs.

We need the flexibility to make sure that, whenever an online streamer acts as a broadcaster, they do their part to support Canada's cultural sector. That is really what this bill comes down to. It would also prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time, which ultimately is the very matter we are trying to address with the bill.

The fourth is that the government respectfully disagrees with amendment 6 because of concerns that it could limit the CRTC's ability to impose conditions respecting the proportion of programs to be broadcast that are devoted to specific genres, both for online undertakings and traditional broadcasters.

This could have the impact of reducing the diversity of programming on traditional airwaves, an outcome which goes against one of the primary policy objectives of this bill.

Regarding amendment 7, we are proposing that a change of wording be made to subsection 7(a) in order to better underscore the importance of supporting creators and to sustain and build on Canada's creative sectors.

The government also respectfully disagrees with subsection 7(b) which proposes that no factor is determinative in establishing Canadian content rules. The proposed amendment would impact the flexibility of the CRTC to determine the appropriate definition for Canadian content. Our position on this is simple; we agree with the fundamental principle that Canadian content is first and foremost made by Canadians.

Another change we are proposing is to amendment 9(b) concerning public hearings. Here the government suggests the deletion of subsection 2.1, which calls for a public hearing to be held after a proposed regulation or order is published. The CRTC consults interested parties before a regulation is developed, not afterwards. Requiring a second public hearing after decisions are taken by the CRTC during regulatory proceedings would entail unnecessary delays in the administration of the act.

Finally, the government respectfully disagrees with amendment 11, which seeks to prohibit the CBC from broadcasting an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming. Here, again, our reasons for disagreement go back to the core objectives of the bill. The issue addressed by the amendment falls outside the scope of Bill C-11 and its policy intent, including online undertakings in the broadcasting system.

I have outlined the government's position with respect to the excellent and thorough work completed by our esteemed colleagues in the other place. We have agreed to the majority of the proposed amendments, and we disagree on just eight points. Overall, I see the collaborative efforts that have brought us here, and they were of great success.

We have arrived at this point, just shy of the finish line, thanks to the contributions and hard work of parliamentarians, public servants, industry experts, content creators and Canadians. Now is not the time to abandon the commitment to collaboration. We will continue to listen.

Should this bill receive royal assent, the Governor in Council would issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how the new legislative framework should be applied. This would require a notice period of at least 30 days, during which stakeholders and other interested persons may provide comments, concerns and recommendations regarding policy direction.

The CRTC would hold its own public processes prior to implementing the new broadcasting regulatory framework. This would provide a further opportunity for all stakeholders, including radio broadcasters, online streamers, distributors, artists, producers and industry groups to provide input.

As members can see, we will now continue to move forward together. We will ensure Canadian artists and storytellers thrive and prosper well into the digital age and that the beat of Canada's diverse culture is heard loud and clear, everywhere for everyone.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about Bill C-18 and Bill C-11. There have been many comments from people outside of this place, like experts in the field. Lots of different things have been said, and the reality is this. The government is going to have gatekeepers in place who will tell Canadians what they can see and what they can hear on the Internet. That is what we as Conservatives are fighting against. We do not want the government to be the one to tell Canadians what they can see, what they can read and what they can post online.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, found my colleague from Saskatoon West's comments on Bills C‑11 and C‑18 quite interesting. There will be an opportunity to return to Bill C‑11, likely later. I was particularly surprised by the comments on Bill C‑18, especially in a context where Google is currently blocking access to news content for nearly 2 million Canadians, which is no trivial matter. By the way, we still do not know why.

I have heard so much misinformation, it is outlandish. Bill C‑18 requires digital giants to negotiate agreements. It is not forcing them to do anything other than negotiate agreements to pay the companies that produce the news content they use and get rich off of. It seems quite logical to me.

The point I took the most issue with in my colleague's comments was when he said that Bill C‑18 will allow the government or the CRTC to decide what news people will be able to access online.

Since he seems to be an expert on the subject, I would like him to tell me specifically what clause of Bill C‑18 would allow the CRTC to do such a thing.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have many things to say, but where to begin?

First, Google is one option. There are many other browsers that can be used. If someone does not like one of them, they can go to another. That is the beauty of the free market and companies providing services.

The other thing is that Google's response was a direct response to the government's proposed legislation. The government refuses to admit that there are consequences to what it is proposing. There are significant consequences to the government dictating what consumers in Canada can see. This will affect everybody from consumers themselves to the companies that provide content.

It is an example of the government being completely oblivious to the real implications of what it is proposing with its legislation in Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House.

Another day, another debate about an NDP-Liberal piece of legislation about Internet freedom in Canada. The good folks on the west side of Saskatoon have heard me speak in this place about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, two bills aimed at controlling what Canadians see and post on the Internet.

Today we are dealing with Bill C-27, which is aimed at protecting the online data of Canadians. This legislation is meant to put safeguards around the use of artificial intelligence and establish rules around Internet privacy. Sounds good, sounds noble and sounds like something we should support. To a certain degree I do support these initiatives.

However, I have deep reservations with this legislation as it exempts the Government of Canada from these very safeguards. Do we as Canadians need the protections in this bill from companies? Absolutely, but we also need protections from government, especially this NDP-Liberal coalition government that wants to take away some of our liberties and freedoms.

Some on the other side may accuse me of fearmongering about the NDP-Liberal suppression of civil liberties and freedoms on the Internet; I am not. Let me lay out the facts, and the people in Saskatoon West can decide for themselves.

Bill C-11 is the first piece of legislation meant to strip of us of our rights to free speech on the Internet. Conservatives such as myself and free speech advocates have been warning that the provisions put in place by the NDP-Liberals to have government-appointed gatekeepers decide what is acceptable speech or not in Canada will lead to disaster.

We have already seen that a prominent University of Toronto professor has been threatened with the revocation of his licence and livelihood for tweeting out against this legislation and the current Prime Minister. Imagine what would happen when the Prime Minister has the full weight of the law to simply muzzle this type of speech. Anyone who disagrees with him would be silenced and would be fined, lose their livelihood, and what is next, go to a re-education camp? We all know about the Prime Minister’s fondness for the basic dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China, heck, he does not even mind if the People's Republic of China funnels money to his family foundation and tilts elections towards the Liberal Party of Canada in this country.

How about the second piece of legislation meant to limit our Internet freedoms, Bill C-18? That legislation allows government-appointed gatekeepers to decide what is or is not news in Canada, and forces private companies to block content they do not like from their feeds and search engines.

If there is a story critical of the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Prime Minister, they call it fake news and ban it. If there is another fawning story by Andrew Coyne in The Globe and Mail about the Trudeau Foundation and the Chinese Communist Party, it is forced to the top of everyone’s news feed and search engine, like it or not.

When I spoke about Bill C-18 in December I warned of the consequences that this legislation would have. Specifically, I mentioned conversations I had with Google and Amazon Web Services and the impact on how they deliver services to Canadians. Google flat out told me it would simply get out of the business of delivering any and all news to Canadians as it did not want to become an instrument of the Canadian government to spread partisan messaging for the party in power. Just last month it began beta testing how it could shut down its news services for Canadians.

We need a 21st century solution to this problem, not one based on ideas from 40 years ago. Bill C-27 is supposed to protect people’s data from corporations. We need that but what we need, as well, is protection from this NDP-Liberal government when it comes to privacy.

Bill C-27 completely fails us in that area. The government has dragged its heels on Internet privacy for years, and unfortunately it has been a pattern to consistently breach our digital privacy rights. We saw it when the government waited until just last year to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from operating in Canada while other countries did the right thing years before us.

We saw it with the $54 million “arrive scam” app tracking Canadians border travel up until September 30, and the public bank account freezing for people who donated to the truckers last year. The list goes on and on. In the words of Alanis Morissette, “Isn’t it ironic?” when we hear the government start to talk about online privacy rights. I just hope it learns to start respecting the privacy of Canadians.

Let us take a look and see if this legislation actually protects the online privacy of the people of Saskatoon West. After all, they are rightfully distrustful of government and corporations when it comes to accessing their data

Here are some examples showing why they are distrustful: Tim Hortons tracking the movement of users after they have ordered something on their app; the RCMP using Clearview AI to access a data bank of more than three billion photos pulled from websites without user consent; and we cannot forget Telus giving the federal government access to the movements of over 33 million devices over the course of the pandemic.

When governments abuse their power, it destroys the level of faith Canadians have in their institutions. In fact, if we look at polling data, we see that the number of Canadians that have faith in their government is at an all-time low. With scandals like these, it is no wonder why.

If we want to improve the level of trust held between individuals and institutions, we must look at protecting Canadians' private data. If we dive into this legislation, it seems the intent is to create a level playing field between citizens and companies when it comes to how their data is used. However, if we look into it further, the balance between businesses using business data and the protection of our privacy is off.

The bill, as it is currently written, skews toward the interests of corporations rather than the fundamental rights of individuals. There are too many exceptions granted to businesses in this legislation. Some are so broad that it is like the legislation never existed at all.

For example, business activities are exempt if a “reasonable person” would expect a business to use their data, without including the definition of what a reasonable person is. The concept of legitimate business interests has been added as an exemption to consent. How does one determine if a business interest outweighs the privacy rights of an individual? Finally, the bill does not recognize privacy as a fundamental right. This absence tips the scales away from Canadians and could affect how their privacy interests are weighed against commercial interests in the future.

Artificial intelligence comprises a major component of this legislation. AI is becoming a key tool in today's world, much like engineering was in the last century. In the past, an engineer would sit down and design a bridge, for example. Obviously, the failure of a bridge would be a huge event with the potential for major disruptions, significant costs, potential injuries and even death. Therefore, we have professional standards for engineers who build bridges, but what about artificial intelligence?

In today's modern world, AI is used more and more to perform ever more complex tasks. In its early stages, AI was used as a shortcut for repetitive tasks, but as the technology advances, it is now being used for much more. In the future, it is not unreasonable to expect AI to play a significant role in designing a bridge, for example. Artificial intelligence also needs to have standards, which is why our universities teaching AI put a big emphasis on ethics, as there are huge implications.

I know first-hand the dangers of unregulated AI systems interfering in our day-to-day lives. On the immigration committee, we have studied this issue and looked at how Canada's immigration department is using Chinook, a so-called e-tool to help IRCC bureaucrats assess applications in bulk form. This AI program was introduced in-house by these bureaucrats, which means the software's algorithms are beholden to the beliefs of its creators.

The concerning part of all of this is that there is a known culture of racism within the department, and members do not have to take my word for it. The NDP-Liberal Minister of Immigration said this of his own department at committee: The IRCC “has zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or harassment of any kind. However, we know that these problems exist throughout the public service and in our department...[and] we must first acknowledge this reality.”

There were no outside consultations done on the use or creation of this artificial intelligence application, and rejection rates have climbed since its introduction. Although I am pleased that the government is finally looking to add a framework to address concerns surrounding AI, it needs to get its own house in order first.

I will wrap up with these final thoughts.

If we are going to address concerns surrounding our digital privacy, we must listen to Canadians, and many Canadians are worried that this legislation does not protect them. I have met with Bryan Short from OpenMedia, and he said this:

Bill C-27...only plays brief lip service to privacy being a fundamental human right in its preamble; Bill C-27 fails to do the more important task of inscribing the privacy rights of people as being more important than the business interests of companies.

The bill before us is supposed to be about protecting Canadians' privacy, yet it completely avoids inscribing privacy as a fundamental right. We all know the saying “There is no point in doing something unless you do it right”, and it is quite clear that the government needs to go back to the drawing board once again on some aspects of this legislation since there is not much evidence of it consulting Canadians on how their data was actually used.

I believe the former Ontario privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, said it best in 2020 during the initial Liberal attempts to bring in privacy reform to Canada when she stated:

[With] the Liberals under [the Prime Minister], it's been extremely weak. They have not addressed repeated requests from the federal privacy commissioner to strengthen existing privacy laws.... I'm tired of that. I want a party that will walk the talk. And I'm hoping that will be the Conservatives.

Canadians can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to walk the talk when it comes to strengthening our privacy laws, and Canadians can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to respect their freedom of expression online. We will scrap the online censorship legislation put in place by this tired, worn out, costly coalition. We will allow people to choose for themselves which news they want to consume, not just what the government wants them to see. Under our new leader, we will be the voice of those left behind by the NDP-Liberal government, and we will put Canadians back in the driver's seat of their own life.

Canadian Heritage

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague understands what he is talking about.

If he is talking about Bill C-11, it is simply asking streamers to support Canadian culture. If he is talking about C-18, it is simply asking the web giants to support independent journalism.

One thing remains: the Conservatives keep filibustering things that are absolutely essential for Canadians. If they do not want to help, they should stay out of the way and let us do the job.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To start, I want to say that I agree with Mr. Julian's proposed amendment, which we can't describe as a favourable amendment, because that doesn't exist.

I also agree with Ms. Thomas's proposal, meaning that under normal circumstances, we certainly would have started by inviting Google's representatives. However, in the current context, given the apparent manoeuvring Google engaged in recently, time is short and we want answers quickly. It's rather worrisome. There are some very significant questions to ask, in my opinion.

We are seeing Google use tactics that look like the strawman their representatives brandished during study of the bill. They claimed, for instance, that by passing Bill C‑18, the government would be supporting disinformation. They also argued that the government was giving itself the right to decide what Canadians could and could not see. That argument came up often during study of Bill C‑11.

What Google is currently doing, meaning limiting certain content, is very frightening to me. I find it extremely worrisome. I want to quickly know the real reasons for this operation. It looks more like bullying to me than a business strategy. I also want to know the criteria used to select content Google planned to block or authorize. I find those questions extremely worrisome.

It's not like Google to act this way. I remind you that, even though the company was opposed to implementing this kind of legislation, it always said it would comply with regulations in place, as it does in all the countries around the world where it does business. I find it very worrisome to see Google act this way.

I think we have to summon Google's representatives as quickly as possible, so that they can explain their actions. For me, there's no doubt about it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

This includes everyone specifically in Bill C-18, because to be excluded, let's say, from the bill and not touched by the bill, the tech giants will need to have deals with a huge bunch of media across the country, including small local radio media, which will have the power to negotiate collectively. They won't be negotiating alone. They will be negotiating with other groups, and it will give more balance in terms of discussion. This will allow them, as has been the case in Australia, for example, to get more money for that.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, manpower in the newsrooms.

Also, there's another bill coming, you'll be happy to know, Mr. Vidal: Bill C-18. That's coming. That will ask the big techs that are receiving $8 billion out of $10 billion to contribute to those small newsrooms.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Please, let's not get into an argument. I have something to say briefly.

Bill C‑11 provides opportunities for indigenous people, through indigenous languages programming that reflects indigenous cultures and will enable our indigenous communities to receive more money for culture.

Bill C‑18 will provide them with more money for journalism.

Online News Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Thank you for making that clarification on Bill C-18.

There is a defect in the design of the House. While making your statement, there was much noise outside, quite disrespectfully, when you were trying to inform us of the corrections that are being made to this bill.

I have raised this multiple times, but since this is the first day of the return of our session, I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would be able to ensure that, in the future, people who are walking in the courtyard around this chamber would reduce the amount of noise they are making. I am sure that when the minister rises to make her inaugural speech on the bill she will be moving she would like silence in the chamber, and I would like it as well.

There is too much noise in this chamber that is interfering with the work of members on the floor of this House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair wishes to inform the House of an administrative error that occurred with regard to Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Members may recall that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage made a series of amendments to the bill, which were presented to the House in the committee's fourth report on December 9, 2022. The committee also ordered that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

The House concurred in the bill, as amended, at report stage on December 13, 2022, and adopted the bill at third reading the following day.

Following passage at third reading, as per the usual practice, House officials prepared a parchment version of the bill, which was transmitted to the Senate. Due to an administrative error in the committee's report, which was also reflected in the version of the bill that was reprinted for the use of the House at report stage, the report and the bill both included a subamendment, adding a new clause 27(1.1) to the bill, which had been negatived by the committee and should not have appeared in the bill.

Given the tight timelines between the presentation of the report and consideration of the bill at third reading, the error went unnoticed before the bill was passed. Nonetheless, the decision taken by the committee was clear, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The Chair has no reason to believe that members were misinformed when they adopted the bill.

This error was nothing more than administrative in nature. The proceedings which took place in this House and the decisions made by the House with respect to Bill C‑18 remain entirely valid. The records of the House relating to this bill are complete and accurate. However, the documents relating to Bill C‑18 that were sent to the Senate included an error and were not an accurate reflection of the House's intentions.

Similar situations have been addressed by my predecessors, such as in a ruling on April 12, 2017, found at page 10486 of Debates. Guided by this precedent and others, similar steps have been taken to address the current case.

Once the error was detected, House officials immediately communicated with their counterparts in the Senate to inform them of the situation. The Chair then instructed House officials to take all the necessary steps to correct the error in both the committee's report and the bill itself, and to ensure that the other place has a corrected copy of Bill C-18. A revised version of the bill will be transmitted to the Senate as per the usual administrative process.

Furthermore, the Chair has asked that a rectified “as passed by the House of Commons” version of the bill be printed and that the fourth report of the committee be corrected accordingly.

In light of this situation, the Senate will be in a position to make its own determination as to how it will proceed with Bill C‑18.

I thank all members for their attention.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard on a point of order.

The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I have said, Bill C-18 would, in our view, threaten the independence of local media. It would not allow single-journalist outfits, like those I mentioned in my riding, to qualify. Therefore, we cannot support it.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in debate in the House of Commons on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope.

I do want to take some latitude, as I have noted has been given to other members, to pay tribute to Jim Carr. I had the honour to serve as the critic for natural resources during the time Jim was the natural resources minister. I disagreed vehemently with Jim on almost all of his policies, but it was impossible to dislike him as a man. I had the opportunity to travel with him, as critics and ministers often do, and we spent more time together than I think I spent with many family members over that period of time, in places like Mexico, Rome and China. I got to see Jim shine in those scenarios.

I even got to see him dance at the opening of a Mexican playground. A Canadian mining company had opened a playground for the children in the community near its operation, and he was not invited to dance, but he took it upon himself to join in the festivities. It is a memory I will always cherish. He was a good man who loved his family, and he will be missed, not only back at home in Manitoba, but also here in the House. I want to pay tribute to him, and I think of his family and his colleagues, who have all been devastated by the news.

I will move now to Bill C-18, the online news act. We have been hearing all day about some of the issues Conservatives have with the bill, and we think it would miss the targets. It would not do what it is intended to do, and it has been a bit rich to hear members of the Liberal government and its coalition partners in the NDP talk about web giants hoovering up advertising revenue. If we go through the public disclosures of their MP expenses, we will see tens of thousands of dollars in voluntary advertising payments to Facebook, so forgive me if I think it is a bit rich to be hearing about these web giants swooping down to hoover up ad revenue when members of Parliament are feeding tens of thousands of dollars into Facebook or Meta's bottom line.

Let us not get too self righteous here about what we are talking about, because members of Parliament, when they want to communicate with their constituents, as do many Liberals and NDP members, have no problem giving money to those web giants to use their platforms to communicate with constituents.

Members do not simply give to their local papers. They do not simply give to local online news organizations. They have willingly given money from their member of Parliament budgets to Facebook and others, so let us just spare the self righteous sanctimony about the evil of Facebook, when they are voluntarily giving it tens of thousands of dollars a year out of their own budgets.

In Chilliwack—Hope we now have only one weekly newspaper in each community. There is the Hope Standard and the Chilliwack Progress, which serve those communities respectively. It used to be, when I was first elected, that there were two local newspapers in Chilliwack, the Chilliwack Times and the Chilliwack Progress, and they both published two papers a week. We are down from two organizations with two newspapers, for a total of four editions a week, to one edition per week.

However, if we ask the Chilliwack Progress's editor, he is quite bullish about its current situation. He talks about its various revenue streams, and whenever somebody calls into question the paper's longevity and whether the Chilliwack Progress will survive, he assures his readers and the people in Chilliwack that it is on a strong financial footing and that they will be just fine.

Out of those closures of some of those newspapers came innovation. Journalists who had been employed, for instance, at the Chilliwack Times took it upon themselves to gather a couple of other journalists, and they formed the Fraser Valley Current.

They put together an online news service that actually uses Twitter and Facebook to distribute its product to our community. They did particularly excellent work during the flood and mudslide events that took place in and around my community in November of last year. They were on the ground, providing detailed analysis, things that, quite frankly, a weekly newspaper just cannot do. That was born out of innovation. They did not wait for, or need, a government incentive to create this. They went out into the marketplace and have been very successful in doing so.

We also have the Fraser Valley News, which is an online organization run, as far as I know, by one journalist who used to work, for many years, in different radio newsrooms right across the country, as most radio news people do. They move around from small town to small town, covering small community events that are ignored by the bigger publications. Don Lehn had the final layoff from the local radio station when it was cutting back on its news services, and he took it upon himself to create the Fraser Valley News, which continues today. Again, he has a business model that seeks online ad revenue, etc. He did not need Bill C-18 to succeed.

We have Fraser Valley Today, which is another online news organization that has come out of when other newspapers have left the town and there is a void. When the newsrooms were cut from the local radio station, there was a void, and it was filled by journalists who wanted to provide a service to our community.

That innovation, the unique business model they have sought out, has been one that has worked for them. My fear was echoed by Jen Gerson at the committee, when she said this about the bill:

[I]t is predicated on a lie. The bill adopts a very ancient complaint of newspaper publishers that aggregation-based news websites and social media networks are unduly profiting by “publishing” our content. However, we know this isn't true. In fact, the value proposition runs in exactly the opposite direction. We publishers are the ones who benefit when a user posts a link to our content on Facebook, Twitter and the like. This free distribution drives traffic to our websites, which we can then try to monetize through subscriptions and advertising.

She went on to say:

I suspect that what we see here is a form of rent-seeking behaviour in which struggling media corporations are using every last iota of their dwindling financial and social capital to lobby for subsidies and regulations like Bill C-18.

I fear that Bill C-18 is going to backfire spectacularly, undermining the very problems it is trying to fix.

Peter Menzies, a former CRTC commissioner, said:

Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.

He went on:

If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.

He continued:

Bill C-18 is as likely to kill journalism in Canada as it is to save it. The very prospect of it is already perverting news coverage and undermining trust, the commodity upon which the industry depends most. Bill C-18 will permanently entrench the industry's dependency not on the loyalty of citizens, readers and viewers, but upon the good graces of politicians and the ability of offshore, quasi-monopoly tech companies to remain profitable.

Those are some of the people who have been directly involved in the industry. Jen Gerson used to be involved in the traditional news model and has moved to an online subscriber model. She recognizes that this independence and this business model are what work for her, and that organizations who say they need a subsidy model are in fact distorting that market and are going to be competing with her and her organization, which has gone out into the market to seek innovative solutions.

There are local journalists who are struggling, but I think we need to encourage them to use the tools that are available and, quite frankly, to take a look at some of the entities that have succeeded in this market and are innovating and adapting to changes in the way we consume our news.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is like following a bouncing ball. The Conservative Party said that it liked the Australian model, and put that in its campaign platform. The Liberal legislation is a reflection of the Australian model, and now the Conservative Party is saying that it does not support Bill C-18. The member says that, well, they want to be there for the smaller community newspapers, but a question was just raised that indicated that there has been a greater uptake than expected in the Australian example and community newspapers have benefited by it.

However, the Conservative Party, even though its members talk about the community newspapers, what they are really talking about is empowering Facebook and Google search engines to distribute the money how they feel is appropriate and that they will work with different media.

I wonder if the member does not realize that it is a pretty hard ball to follow because the Conservatives are bouncing all over the place on a very important issue.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, several of my colleagues have spoken in the last day and a half about a member who is no longer with us. Over the number of years I have been here, we have lost a number of members in different ways. It is not just a member from one group or one caucus. It is a member of the House. We are 338 members and it is one of us. We all know the role that we have here. We know the commitment people make to be in this position. It is an honour and a privilege to do it, but we all understand the loss when we lose one of our 338 members. It is always a hardship. I recognize the challenges we have as members and losing one of us is a tragedy for us all.

Moving onto Bill C-18, I had been on the heritage committee before but I came back onto the committee when it was just getting to the bill itself, the amendments and going through the legislation.

There probably is not a heritage minister who I have not seen in committee at one time or another. They all know I speak about weekly newspapers. I talk about how important they are in Canada. There is probably not a heritage minister who does not know that I would be up here talking about weekly newspapers and supporting how critical they are to our communities.

The bill's purpose refers to including the sustainability of news businesses and independent local ones. In my riding I have a minimum of 15 papers, and some other ones that people would say are not weekly papers, in communities in my riding.

These are phenomenal pieces of communication that are important to the riding and important to the communities. We saw what was initially set out in this piece of legislation, as I came to be back on the heritage committee, and there were many amendments that could have made this piece of legislation much better, but it was not improved.

That is the challenge in being on the committee. We are trying to work through it. Our job is to improve legislation. This bill could have been improved, but it was not improved enough.

I have many community newspapers in my riding. We have had Brooks Bulletin since 1910 from one family of three generations. The Strathmore Times goes back to 1909. The Bassano Times is more recent, from 1960. The Three Capital Hills paper is 107 years old. The Vulcan Advocate is from 1913. The Drumheller Mail is from 1911.

These are long-standing weekly papers in the community. They are very important for those communities. They really were hopeful that this legislation would be something that could help them. I have talked to a lot of the papers individually and in groups. They said that we should work for them and make this a piece of legislation that will support them. They are weekly newspapers.

I know my colleague to the west of me has worked for a weekly newspaper. It is an interesting challenge. My father had a weekly newspaper that I had the opportunity to spend time working at, especially during the summers when I was not in university.

It is often a one-person or two-person operation. People are working those deadlines to get those news stories out. They are getting out in the community and taking pictures. They are rushing to make a midnight deadline so the paper can be produced and they can go home before the sun comes up. They can get that local story out and get the local activities out that need to be promoted in the community. This occurs all across the country.

My riding happens to be home to the Brooks Bandits. The Brooks Bandits are a junior hockey team. There are 132 teams in this country in many of the smaller communities. Who covers those 132 communities? It is the hardest hockey championship to win in this country. The teams are in the smaller communities, like Okotoks, Drumheller and Brooks. The Brooks Bandits have won that championship three times in the past. Who is covering that? It is not the CBC. It is not Bell Media. It is the local newspapers.

One could say that it is just local hockey players. Well, guess what? Who was the MVP in the Stanley Cup? It was Cale Makar. Where did he play? He played for the Brooks Bandits. Nobody in the major media paid any attention to him until he was the MVP. That is the level of coverage that local communities do. For the 132 teams across this country, for example, and for many people sitting in the House, those teams are covered by weekly papers.

The weekly papers often have one or two employees. One of the amendments that I was asked to work on was for the owner-reporter, which was the one reporter working there, to qualify for this. Under the legislation, there had to be two journalists, and the owner-operator could not be one of them. What nonsense for weekly newspapers. They are often ma-and-pa operations. Often the editor-owner is a writer and has one other person writing with them. We did get an amendment that reduced it from two to one and a half, but that was not enough. Bassano Times is a one-person operation of a newspaper in that community of 1,200. It is one person, and it does not qualify for this.

The legislation could have been better. It could have met the purpose that it is was set out for, but it does not. It does not do what we need for weekly papers.

I mean, we have heard already that the money was on the table. Am I out there saying that Google, Meta and Facebook should be paying? Absolutely, and we have said to put the money in a pool and let us get it negotiated. Obviously, 75% of the money is gone. People have figured out that they need to negotiate. However, it is Bell, Rogers and CBC that got 75% of the money already. I do not think the Toronto Maple Leafs and that hockey team need more money. That is not what it was for.

This was for supporting journalists at the weekly papers that are the lifeblood in our communities. Those are the reporters of those single papers who are out there on the weekend, out there on a Saturday night or a Tuesday night, and on Sunday, they are writing the stories. Those newspapers do charity advertising for charities in our communities. Communities in Bloom, which is all across this country, is an example. Local papers are writing stories about how great their communities are doing, such as Communities in Bloom, and they doing it often for free. That is how they get promoted. Weekly papers are very crucial, as is this particular one.

As many ministers have known, I have asked, “Where is the money for your advertising?” Many ministers said to me, “Well it is decided by every department where their advertising dollar goes.”

I have said, “I have had many weekly papers where 30% of their income, because they are small, used to come from government advertising, and that is gone. Where did the Canadian taxpayers' money go?”

It went outside of our country to Facebook and Google. To me, that is hypocrisy. We should be advertising in media productions and weeklies in our own country. That is where the dollars should have gone.

I support the idea of creating the fund, working at it and getting it divided up. Obviously, 75% of it could be done without any interference from the CRTC. However, the weekly paper associations have told me that they would be lucky to get $400 or $500 out of this deal a year. All that will be left are crumbs. They will be working hard to get those crumbs, which is all that is going to be left for our weekly papers. This does not make sense.

What it was set out to do could have been better, but it is not, and that is why it is a challenge for me, for our journalists and our weekly papers.

(Bill C‑285. On the Order: Private Members' Business)

June 15, 2022—Member for Niagara West—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C‑285, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

(Bill S‑4. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 21, 2022—Minister of Justice—Consideration at report stage of Bill S‑4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures), as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak in the House once again.

Before I begin, I also want to take a moment to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Jim Carr, the hon. member who passed away, as well as to his colleagues in the Liberal caucus who have worked with him over the years. I want to offer my thoughts and prayers to everyone.

When I decided to run for office in southern Saskatchewan, one of the driving principles for me and generally a lot of people in Saskatchewan was to see less government interference overall in our lives. That is one of the interesting elements in this bill, that it provides an opportunity to have less government interference in people's lives. That is the opportunity that exists with the bill. That is what we are going to get to as we get through the rest of this debate. As the bill has come through committee, we see how some of the interventions at committee reflect that.

Generally, a government bureaucrat in a distant office does not know what is best for individuals in a family given that family's own unique circumstances, so responsibility for those people should be left to the individuals and not to the government.

Usually, when there is a discussion about smaller government in Canada or somewhere else, it has to do with issues of expanding state power, which directly or indirectly restricts people's lives further. This results in less freedom, either because there are fewer options and choices available to make, or because sometimes it gets to the point of trying to plan citizens' lives for them. In this case, the problem with interference is not so obvious when we compare it to something like the situation in George Orwell's 1984, or maybe the other lurking threat that is another government bill, Bill C-11. It got a lot more negative attention in its previous iteration as Bill C-10, and later passed in this Parliament as Bill C-11.

The Liberals want to hand over way too much power to the CRTC with this bill, Bill C-18, which we are debating tonight. The Conservatives stood with the people and policy experts to make our opposition absolutely clear.

When the same Liberal government with the troubling history of Bill C-11 introduces yet another Internet bill, it is reasonable for Canadians to look at it with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, the problem with government does not always come from control or overreach; sometimes it seems friendly and tries to help out with something good, but it can still create problems despite the best intentions. Unfortunately, although what we saw with this bill when it was first drafted was an honest attempt to support small media outlets, it has turned into a large bill that needlessly grows the size of government institutions.

The CRTC already wields a great deal of power in regulating the Internet and the dissemination of information, and now the government wants to further add to it. Should it have the power to determine who is considered a journalist, or the eligibility of a news agency, which is part of the process of this bill?

It does not end there. The CRTC can resolve disputes and issue penalties. As part of that, the bill allows it to set mandatory terms to which both parties, news outlets and platforms, must agree.

What is perhaps most concerning of all is that the CRTC would have the authority to demand information from these platforms and news outlets whenever it pleases.

At the end of the day, Bill C-18 is inflating the size of the CRTC and giving it enormous power, with little accountability, to regulate the news all of us view. This begs the question: What are the impacts of doing this? An important part of a free society is having an independent press and free speech to hold our leaders accountable, but how much can we trust the Liberals to maintain these things? If the government and the Prime Minister want to talk as much as they do about defending democracy and promoting diversity around the world, they need to take these things seriously when it comes to our own country.

Sadly, over the last year they have damaged their national reputation with respect to these values by abusing emergency powers and allowing vulnerable Canadians, including veterans, for example, to be offered death instead of the help they need. They have undermined our freedoms and respect for human dignity.

My fellow Conservatives and I have spoken a lot about the danger of censorship. I also say that I understand the importance of small media organizations and their place in the local communities, because I represent a very large rural riding. To this day, many still rely on these small media organizations to inform them of the happenings both locally and on the global stage, and rural Canada is better off because of it.

There are many of them in my riding, and they all play an essential role. For instance, the Southwest Booster, which is located in Swift Current, has been producing a weekly paper since 1969. We also have the Prairie Post, which covers both southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. North of Swift Current, for example, in the small town of Kyle, we also have the Kyle Times, which has been operating for a number of years. Up in the northwest corner of the riding we have papers like Your West Central Voice and the Kindersley Social, both providing a unique perspective on what is happening in their communities.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands is also home to The Shaunavon Standard, which was founded back in 1913, along with the Maple Creek & Southwest Advance Times and the Maple Creek News, which provide a weekly newspaper and distribute it in the southwest corner. In the eastern half of my constituency, we also find many papers such as the Gravelbourg Tribune, The Herald and the Assiniboia Times. All these papers contribute greatly to the social fabric that we find in rural Canada. In a place where most people do not have access to reliable Internet, these papers are critical to keeping my constituents informed.

However, through the transition into a digital world, these organizations have had to adapt and provide their service online. Before the Internet, papers like the ones I mentioned used a physical newsstand or post office boxes to promote themselves, but today, with the Internet, search engines like Google are the updated newsstands. With Bill C-18 the government is trying to interfere with this updated newsstand, and is going too far in doing so.

In this discussion, we also need to talk about the existing government support for media and how we can fix this framework. As I said, having an independent press is fundamental. However, when our media are receiving multi-million dollar payouts from the federal government, their independence quickly comes into question. The common saying, “Never bite the hand that feeds you,” exists for a reason, and I believe it applies to this situation.

Let us be honest: The job of the media is at times to bite, to seek for answers, to find the truth and to hold those in power to account. However, they cannot fully do this when they know it may impact their subsidy. Many Canadians have seen a subtle shift in the private corporate media, with its reporting starting to resemble that of the CBC, which, as a state broadcaster, receives over $1 billion directly from the government. Because of that relationship, the question is raised as to how much the organization can operate like a PR firm of the federal government. That is why we have previously called for reviewing its funding and mandate.

Having said all this, my concerns with Bill C-18 do not stop with media independence and the newly proposed powers of the CRTC, but extend also to the current government's attempt to interfere in a free market. Bill C-18 would require search engines like Google to pay a royalty to an organization that is putting out information, but the government claims this is only minimal market intervention.

Earlier in my speech I talked about many of the small newsprint operations that we have in southwestern Saskatchewan. Here in the House, we have many former members of the press or journalists or those who have been news anchors or different things over the years. I would submit that the majority, if not all the organizations they worked for, would not receive a penny from any of the funds that would be raised by doing this.

First, the government would allow media outlets and organizations to reach a deal on their own. However, if they failed to do this, the CRTC would force both parties into a binding arbitration process whereby the government would get to set the terms of the deal. If an outlet and the organization reached a deal on their own, but the CRTC officials felt the outlet was not using the money appropriately, they would say the deal was invalid and force the two parties through the arbitration process.

They cannot call this “minimal market intervention” when they are giving an institution the power to force two organizations into a binding arbitration process as well as the power to apply hefty fines. A thing is not market-based when the government needs to step in and force two companies to make a deal or face a large fine from the government if they fail to make a deal.

While the government should aim to support small media outlets, protecting their independence should be front of mind. The implications of Bill C-18 are too far-reaching, and with the lack of guidelines there is great potential for the government to abuse this process. That is why we have opposed this bill and will continue to do so.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the bill does not accomplish what the member asked me if I would support. Yes, I absolutely support indigenous languages having coverage. In fact, I have found it deeply problematic that while the CBC has not faced cuts, it has cut service. I think it highlights a great discrepancy that exists here in terms of what this bill is purported to accomplish versus what will take place.

I agree with the member for Nunavut. There needs to be support for small, local stations, whether they be radio, newspaper or whatever the case may be.

When I read through the bill, the testimony and what the bill is purported to accomplish, the bill purely and simply does not do that justice.

Simply put, would the member trust the Prime Minister to accomplish those objectives, when the framework proposed in Bill C-18 simply does not exist?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place and to talk about the important issues facing Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that I be given a little latitude here, as this will likely be the last time I stand in this place before we all break for Christmas, whether that be tomorrow or in the next couple of days. I would wish you and all members of this place, as well as all Canadians watching a very merry Christmas and many blessings in the new year.

Further, I also want to acknowledge the passing of one our colleagues, the late Hon. Jim Carr. I want to acknowledge his service to this country, his many years in this place. Although we have disagreements on many issues, it is at times like this where we see the true heart of Canadian democracy in looking back at one's legacy and one's record. Certainly on behalf of myself and the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, I would like to pass our condolences along to you and your colleagues, as well as the late Mr. Carr's constituents and family and friends, who I have no doubt are grieving his loss.

As we discuss the issue of Bill C-18, we see before us something that I would suggest is typical of the way the Liberals approach many aspects of government. We hear them making accusations about how the Conservatives are somehow supporting Facebook and other social media companies and their monopoly of the Internet. I would like to take a moment to refute that.

First, I have never heard anybody suggest that social media is overly favourable to Conservatives. I would like to unpack a little as to why the very foundation of this bill is problematic. I am going to unpack that to the very basis that assumes that a government agency, and in this case specifically the CRTC, should become intimately involved and exercise a great deal of authority over something which I think all Canadians, or certainly most Canadians I speak with, truly support and that is freedom of expression, freedom of the press and free expression on forums like the Internet, including social media.

One of the concerns that I have is that the very foundational elements of what is proposed here is to increase the size, scope and authority that an agency of government has. I would suggest that at the very foundation of what this bill is doing, that is deeply problematic.

It has been mentioned that Conservatives ran on a plan to ensure that big tech pays their fair share, and absolutely. However, when we look at Bill C-18 and what is included in this bill, we see that it misses the mark.

Instead of attempting to do what I think many Canadians actually support, the government instead simply increases the size of bureaucracy. As we have seen throughout the committee study, what the Liberals have said this bill would do and how much it would cost versus what the consequences of the bill could be and the actual cost are two different worlds.

Unfortunately, I do find this is par for the course for the Liberals who are great at making announcements, great at doing press releases and even writing preambles to bills. However, in many cases, when we look past the preamble, that is where the concerns and the problems are made very clear.

I am going to cut my speech a little short to ensure that some other colleagues have a chance to speak to this important bill.

I would simply highlight something that has been missing from the conversation, and that is rural voices. Specifically, I think it should be noted, as one of my colleagues did just a few minutes ago, that rural is missing out on the conversation. The biggest beneficiary of this bill would be the CBC. I have about 14 weekly newspapers, some of which do not even have a website, and local radio stations. There are small newspapers, family-owned businesses, and in some cases multi-generational operations that will not benefit from anything to do with this sort of bill.

At the very foundation, I find the bill flawed in how it would grant massive authority and jurisdiction to the CRTC, which has difficulty fulfilling its current mandate let alone a greatly expanded one. I look at almost anything this government touches, and the service outcomes of any department over the last seven years certainly have not been improved. Therefore, I hope members will forgive me for not trusting a massive expansion of the scope of an agency of the government. I find that deeply problematic.

To conclude, more bureaucracy and administration is not the solution. We need to see that freedom of the press is preserved and freedom of expression is preserved in this country. When it comes to ensuring that the big tech players in Canada pay their fair share, I fear this would create a bloated administration that falls far short of the mark that is required to actually deliver on what the objective was when the bill was first introduced.

With that, I will conclude a whole four minutes early and look forward to answering questions from my colleagues.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at Bill C-18, which is what we are reviewing today. One of the more shocking and troubling things about the bill is the government knows full well that this is not going to the people who need the money the most. In doing research for this speech, it came up over and over again that it was not going to my local news media. It was not targeted to them at all. Here we have CBC, Rogers and Bell getting most of the money. What is with that, and why did the Liberals not fix it?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a few Conservative speeches. It is interesting that they line up to be Facebook's PR team. We have not seen that in Australia, whose legislation Bill C-18 is based upon. It was brought in by a Conservative government. Republicans in the United States support similar legislation in the United States.

It is only the Conservatives in Canada who are against this type of legislation, which is especially shocking since they ran on this policy in their platform. It was on page 152 of the Conservative platform. Why was he in favour of it before he was against it?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18.

The Internet is supposed to be a place where anyone, regardless of their wealth, status or background, can express themselves in a place free from excessive restrictions and regulations.

The Internet was designed to be open and free. It was supposed to be a place where one could contribute on one’s terms, where a business can grow on its terms, where society can learn, share and communicate on its terms, free from government overreach.

The absence of government intervention was one of the very reasons why the Internet flourished into what we know it is today, and few other inventions can be attributed to creating such a significant economic, social, and cultural growth as the Internet, but now the Liberal government has made it its priority to regulate the Internet in an unprecedented way.

The Prime Minister has decided to target the free and open Internet, and maybe for those very reasons. First, it was Bill C-10, then it was Bill C-11 and now it is Bill C-18. I believe that the expansion of the government will harm the principles of a healthy media environment for years to come.

When people hear about governments regulating the Internet, few think of Canada, and rightfully so.

At a time when inflation is reaching record highs, when the cost of gas and groceries continues to rise and when heating a home is becoming unaffordable, the Liberal government is fixated on Internet regulations. Maybe the Liberals hoped that Canadians were distracted by real-life pressures and would ignore the Internet regulations, or maybe they do not care about the real issues that Canadians are currently facing in their everyday life.

Here we are, debating another government bill to regulate the Internet. Bill C-18 would force online platforms to give away their revenues to news organizations who choose to upload their content to their platform. Canadians are rightfully skeptical when the government talks about wealth redistribution. Canadians are even more concerned when the government talks about wealth redistribution within the news and media industry.

A free and independent media is critical and important to our nation’s democracy. Whenever the government tries to intervene, elected officials should pay close attention. It is our job to thoroughly examine the consequences of any attempt to hand out money or change the rules for news and media in our country.

Canadians are still questioning the government’s $600-million media bailout, but now the government is trying to create a new revenue source for media with somebody else’s money. I must ask how we can maintain a free market if we indirectly subsidize companies by extracting the profits of their competitors.

It is important to note that no one is forcing news organizations to upload hyperlinks to online platforms. They are free to make this choice. Many publishers upload their content to platforms such as Facebook and Google to benefit themselves. It is no secret that more people are likely to read an article if it is uploaded online because it suddenly becomes more accessible to the public. When an article is uploaded to the Internet for the world to read, it breaks through those geographic walls that a print newspaper is restricted to.

Many writers across Canada have experienced incredible success because of their ability to upload content online. In fact, many publishers pay Google and Facebook to boost their content through ads. Without online platforms like Facebook and Google, many writers and independent news organizations would not exist today.

The Internet has provided a lot of opportunity for media companies who were previously unable to enter the market due to high barriers of entry. Members of the House should be proud of the positive outcomes that online platforms have created for content creators.

Not only is no one forcing news outlets to upload their content online, but also nothing is preventing them from negotiating individual contracts with online platforms. As of today, many news outlets have proactively entered business agreements with online platforms to progress mutual business needs without government intervention, as I heard in a previous speech here from my colleague.

We must also ask who will be eligible to receive the government-mandated shared revenue if Bill C-18 were to become law. The government claims that only legitimate news organizations will be eligible for these funds, but who does the government deem as a legitimate news organization? According to one of the government-written criteria in Bill C-18, a legitimate news organization must produce news “primarily focused on matters of general interest”.

However, I must further ask what the matters of general interest are and who determines them. I can assure members of the House that the general interests in rural Canada are different than in urban Canada, and general interests in Atlantic Canada are different than those in northern and western Canada. These are important questions that Canadians deserve the answers to.

Instead, the Liberals have left these important decisions to the CRTC, the same CRTC that is already bogged down in a mountain of responsibility from other Internet regulations that the government has initiated.

I should note that, if Bill C-18 passes, Canada's government-funded media outlet, the CBC, will be eligible for compensation. Members heard that right. There will be more money for the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money will go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell.

The government claims that Bill C-18 is to share the wealth of online platforms to smaller media outlets, such as newspapers. As an MP who proudly represents many small-town weekly newspapers, I understand that these businesses have experienced significant market pressures in recent history.

The reality is that most of the money redistributed by Bill C-18 will only go to the media giants, such as The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail. They are the ones that have the most content online, and therefore, they will get the most money from this legislation.

Many local newspapers I represent do not even upload their content to online platforms. That means they would not see any of the money the government claims they will get. I wholeheartedly agree with local newspapers across this nation that are frustrated. However, Bill C-18 is not the silver bullet. In fact, many are warning that Bill C-18 would be detrimental to Canadian journalism.

At the beginning of my speech, I spoke about the importance of free and open Internet. It is a principle that I, and many Canadians, strongly believe in. However, Bill C-18 breaks the concept of a free and open Internet. Bill C-18 is bad for independent media, and it is bad for competition.

At a time when many Canadians believe the freedom to express oneself is threatened, the Liberal government continues down a path of unprecedented Internet regulation. It would be nice to see the government put as much effort into reducing Internet and cell phone bills as it is putting into regulating the Internet, but I digress.

I will end with a quote from Vinton Cerf, a founding father of the Internet. He stated, “if all of us...don't pay attention to what is going on, users worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet that has brought so much to so many and can bring so much more.” That is very true.

The Internet, a creation that was built on the principle of being open and free, is now threatened. We can either allow the government to expand its power over the Internet, or preserve the principles it was founded on. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-18.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, Edmonton was the place I had my start in journalism in 1998 at the Edmonton Journal, and at the time there were several newspapers in town, along with several radio stations and several TV stations, which were all producing news for the city of Edmonton. Over the past 20 years, the media landscape has really shrunk. There is not the same number of journalists out on the street reporting the news.

This is because of what the Public Policy Forum calls “vampire economics”. Facebook and Google take 85% of the funding that used to go to news for advertising. That now goes to Facebook and Google, and at the same time, they take the content produced by journalists and distribute it for free. What we have learned is that, yes, Facebook and Google are making deals with these outlets ahead of legislation similar to Bill C-18. They did it in Australia. They are doing it now in the U.S., and in Europe they are also considering similar legislation.

These are deals that are completely without government influence. They are business deals between organizations and Facebook or Google, so there is no government interference, and what we have learned is that Facebook and Google probably would not make these deals, if the legislation were not already on the table.

I am wondering if the member opposite agrees that it is a huge threat to our democracy to see this demise of journalism in our—

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, 50 years ago there were metal boxes on city street corners where, for 25¢, one could buy a newspaper. Each box had a window showing the top half of the front page if it was a broadsheet and the whole page if it was a tabloid. If one wanted to read anything more, one had to put a quarter in the box and remove a copy of the paper. In our cities, it was common to find three or four such boxes for competing newspapers on the same corners of the downtown of any city. Those newspaper boxes are, for the most part, long gone as the nature of the news business has changed.

Home delivery, one of the mainstays of the newspaper industry, has declined drastically. These days, most people get their news online. The news industry has changed in how news is gathered and changed in how it is delivered to consumers. Gone are the days where most people subscribe to home delivery for the morning and the afternoon.

For those in the news media, the challenge has always been to provide a public service while ensuring sufficient revenue to continue their function. Canadian journalists and publishers have always risen to that challenge.

This is not the first time technology has upended the news industry. As television became popular in the 1950s, many feared the end of print publication or journalism. Newspapers survived the challenge posed by this new medium by concentrating on in-depth reporting, which television, with its constraints, could not do. Quality journalism was still possible back then.

One could say that Google and other search engines function today as the newspapers did in the 1970s. They show the headlines but not the whole story. They provide a link for people to click on. Facebook, the other online giant the Liberals seem to be most concerned about, does the same thing. Providing a link that allows people to access and use websites could be considered by some to be a public service or an aid to the news industry. If people want to read the full article, they have to follow the rules set by the news organizations that publish it.

In the early days of the Internet, many news organizations placed their material online free for anyone who wanted to read it. Most of those now allow limited access to non-subscribers. In some ways, one could argue that the news industry should be paying the tech companies for attracting readers to their articles or their content.

Facebook and Google sell advertising on their websites and have lots of advertisements. Perhaps some of that might have gone to other media in the past. Given the way the Liberals think, it is possible and only natural that the government wants to intervene in what would be a private commercial industry.

Canada's Conservatives believe that the Canadian news media should be fairly compensated for the use of its content by platforms like Google and Facebook. The issue here is how that should happen and what should be the role of government, if any, in the process.

Media companies could inform Google and Facebook that linking to their news sites is no longer allowed and that breaking that rule without permission would be a copyright violation. Media companies deserve compensation for their work, and some have negotiated agreements with the tech companies for the online use of their content, which has me wondering why government feels the need to intervene.

The government, which has in the past shown its willingness to give taxpayer dollars to the news industry, does not seem to understand the difference between public and private. One would think that a billion dollars a year to the CBC would be enough to exempt it from receiving more money under the bill, but it is not.

This is flawed legislation. It seems as if this government has taken a worthy idea, which ensures that Canada has a healthy, free and vibrant press, and brought in a bill for which the ramifications have not been considered.

Why is the CRTC being given oversight? Despite what some Liberals may think, the Internet is not broadcasting. Print media are definitely not broadcasters. Where is the logic in asking the CRTC to oversee something when it neither has the expertise or the resources to do so? Is this all about building a new bureaucracy? Indeed it is.

The online news act is supposed to protect the struggling Canadian news industry. How could anyone disagree with such a noble purpose? Would this bill solve any problems, or would it create new ones? How would fair compensation be determined? Who would be compensated under this act and who would be excluded? Why should a government agency be making such determinations?

The tech giants have widened the reach of Canada's news organizations by bringing their materials to the attention of the people who might not otherwise know of them. I am sure this increased audience has been beneficial to all sides. Mechanisms already exist through which media can be compensated by those using their materials. We have a Copyright Act. Some companies have come to an agreement with the tech giants, so why is more government needed?

There is no need for this bill, except that the Liberals love to meddle in things that do not concern them at all. What other areas does the government wish to shove itself into rather than letting companies work out their own agreements?

If these technology companies feel there is value in linking to Canadian news organizations, why can they not negotiate contracts without government interference? If Canadians are turning to these tech companies for news, then the companies need to find a way to provide content. Short of starting their own news organizations, which strikes me as an unlikely possibility, they have to turn to existing news organizations. If they find value there, they will pay for it. It is very simple.

This bill defines a news outlet as “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”. It is a very nice definition. Those words, however, do not reflect reality. This is a dispute about money, pure and simple.

Producing news content may be the goal of those in the newsroom, those seeking to produce quality journalism for the public good. It may even be why a given publication was first founded, but is not the reason for its existence. The reality is that news outlets, like the big tech companies, exist to make money. This bill is about who gets the biggest slice of the advertising pie, pure and simple.

If news organizations perform a service by keeping the public informed about important issues, that is, in many ways, only a by-product of the business. Those running news organizations are rarely, if ever, journalists themselves. If news organizations thought they could make as much or more money by publishing only chocolate cake recipes, they would do so. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise.

Bill C-18 is flawed and probably unnecessary legislation, which puts it in line with the rest of the current government's legislative agenda.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned. I said that right off the top. When Bill C-18 was introduced over a year ago, the bill was designed to help local newspapers in this country. Now we find out when we peel back the onion that public broadcaster CBC, Rogers and Bell, are going to get 75% of the funding from Meta and Google. Why are they at the trough?

We dealt with Bill C-10 and Bill C-11 before, which pertained to those industries. Bill C-18 was designed for newspapers, as we have found out with the department saying only $150 million will be raised. Is it $150 million, or what the PBO said is a bigger pot of $239 million?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this important issue, Bill C‑18.

I sense that he is concerned about the issue of local and regional media, and I share that concern. I have had the opportunity to talk to people in the media back home who have told me to do something, but we clearly continue to have concerns about Bill C‑18.

Nevertheless, should we not help our local media by moving forward with Bill C‑18 and making sure that our small media outlets are really covered by this plan? The other option is to do nothing at all, slow down Bill C‑18 and throw the door wide open to the libertarian model embraced by GAFAM and their ilk. Should we not make sure they are fully covered by the bill?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, right off the top, I want to state the Conservatives agree that Meta, Facebook and Google should pay. I keep hearing the Liberals, NDP and Bloc say that the Conservatives do not believe that. We do. I will talk about it in my speech, because we do believe that Meta and Google should pay. As for what they are going to pay, let us find out, because there is a big difference between what the government thinks publishers are going to get and what the PBO thinks is going to be available.

Bill C-18 came out of committee just last Friday, and this week I think we are going to see its quick passage. I really enjoyed the intent of the bill when it came out. When it was first introduced over a year ago, I loved it. It was all about helping local media. I was part of that media back in Saskatoon for years on the television side. However, Bill C-18 was about local newspapers then. That was the objective of Bill C-18 when it was first introduced over a year ago.

Our Conservative team then invited Saskatchewan and Alberta newspaper associations to testify at committee. We need Meta, Facebook and Google to pay for news. I have stated that. However, what we heard from Steve Nixon, executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, was that the bill needed to include one-person operations to really make an impact on saving the news industry in Saskatchewan. Steve Nixon mentioned in committee that only four or five operations are going to be eligible in Saskatchewan. Through amendments, those with one and a half people and over will get money from Meta and Google. We wanted it at one, but we did not get that in committee.

Dennis Merrell of the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association said that only 50% of Alberta weeklies would qualify for money under Bill C-18. There are one-person newsrooms in Alberta, but they do not count. They would get no money out of this bill. Two people are needed to qualify.

The bill had all the right intent to preserve rural reporting of news, yet we did not get there. Unfortunately, the bill was hijacked early with the lobbying of the CBC, Bell Media and Rogers. They found a way to convince the Liberal government that they needed more money.

Many already made deals with Meta and Google before we even started in committee. This was kind of funny, because Colin McKay, representing Google, came to committee and admitted it already had 150 publishers signed up. Those with the ability to make the deals beforehand have made the deals. They saw what happened in Australia, so they made deals before the bill was even introduced, and they get the first cut of the money.

How much did these agreements go for? We do not know and probably will never know. Torstar, The Globe and Mail, National Post, Le Devoir and others have made one-off agreements with the tech giants. The little guys, whom I feel for, are left to defend for themselves. They may have to join others to negotiate. If not, they are done and will close.

We agree with Kevin Desjardins, president of Canadian Association of Broadcasters, who said there will be winners and losers with Bill C-18. It did not have to be this way, but I would say before we got started on this bill, it was all decided beforehand.

I believe, as the Conservatives believe, that the CBC should not be involved at all in Bill C-18. The CBC is already funded by the taxpayers of this country to the tune of $1.2 billion, yet the government, in the fall economic update, gave it another $42 million, with $21 million to deal with this year and another free $21 million to deal with next year.

Let us level the playing field. How do we do that when the public broadcaster already gets $1.2 billion and an additional $42 million? We can say we are going to level the playing field, but tell that to rural Manitoba. Tell that to rural Saskatchewan, Alberta or even Ontario, where they are trying every day to make payrolls.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the public and private broadcasters would get $248 million of the $329 million paid out annually through this bill. It is possible that the CBC will be the single biggest winner. Why should that happen? As I said earlier, it gets more than enough funding through the taxpayers of this country.

An interesting note is that heritage department officials came up last week with the number that they thought Meta and Google would pay newspapers and those involved in Bill C-18. Their number was $150 million, which kind of surprised me a bit because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a long time ago, said there was going to be a pot of $329 million. However, 75% of the $329 million will go to CBC, Rogers and Bell. The little guys will fight over the rest.

Unfortunately, these local newspapers are struggling now, and the national players have already lined up and made their agreements with Meta and Google. With the one-horse show we are seeing in rural Canada, too bad for local newspapers. They thought they were going to get help in Bill C-18 because the Liberals talked about it a year ago, saying this is a bill for newspapers. However, it turned out to be anything but.

Instead of looking through the classifieds, we know that everyone goes to social media. People sell their furniture on Facebook Marketplace. Companies put jobs on LinkedIn. Service classifieds go to sites like Craigslist. It has all changed; we see it. Papers have always made their money through the classifieds, but that no longer happens.

Then there is the concern about subscriptions. They are getting cancelled because everyone wants free stuff and they are getting it for free online right now with Facebook, Google and so on.

Finally, there is advertising. The Liberal Party of Canada spent $4 million on Facebook. It could have helped rural Canadian newspapers instead of spending that on Meta last year. The federal government spends a lot of money on Facebook, Google and so on.

Local papers used to be a primary target for government advertising and information about government programs. Years ago, they got some advertising and it helped them a lot. However, they got very little this time. When the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act was passed by the government, it gave most of the money to the big boys, such as Facebook, Google and so on. Much of the traffic does not go to the local newspapers now.

We have heard from industry on more than one occasion, both large and small outlets, that the government simply does not advertise as it used to. It does not make its way down to the local newspapers or outlets in any meaningful way. Instead, the government has turned more and more to online advertising on social media.

I heard about the issue when the government was advertising the COVID relief programs. Most of the money went to the big tech conglomerates, which is a bad outcome for local news. Many papers across this country have been forced to close up, leaving a void in their communities.

I am especially worried about the archives when a newspaper closes in a community. Where do the archives of that newspaper go? We should all be concerned about Canadian heritage. When a newspaper closes its doors, so does the history of a community. It is not replaced by Facebook and it is not replaced by Google. That should concern everybody in this country.

We heard testimony from department officials that funding is only afforded to the outlets with one and a half journalists or more. Many of these outlets will be left behind to perish. This is tough because we had a newspaper in Davidson, Saskatchewan, that sold for one dollar. It is still operating. Two years ago, it sold for one dollar and it is still producing local news in the Davidson area today. I feel that many of the papers in rural Canada will sell for one dollar, but the problem is that instead of selling, they are going to close their doors for good.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is clear is that we want to keep the Internet free and we do not want the government choosing what needs to be done there. To do that, the best thing to do is get rid of Bill C-18 and allow the tech giants to fund something that small media outlets could themselves divide.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, in turn, congratulate our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for Saturday's happy occasion. I wish her many years of wedded bliss.

I heard my colleague express some concerns about the eligibility of news businesses. I just want to distinguish between Bill C‑21, which we have also been hearing a lot about, and Bill C‑18. Unlike the first bill, in Bill C‑18, the government did not include a list of businesses that are excluded or included.

On the contrary, the bill has a list of criteria that businesses must meet to be eligible. This clause was improved by an amendment that requires eligible businesses to also follow a code of ethics based on fundamental principles of the journalism profession.

I want to know if my colleague, who voted against this amendment with her Conservative colleagues, believes that this amendment actually guarantees that eligible businesses will be serious, rigorous news businesses. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, no, I do not believe the bill would do what its purpose intends.

Let us be clear: Facebook, Meta and Google have publicly said they are willing to donate funds that could be split up among smaller local news media. That would involve no government bureaucracy. It would mean the government is not picking who can be in and out. There would be nobody saying something is a violation of freedom of the press or freedom of the Internet. That could still happen, and my recommendation to the government is that it ought to happen.

That being said, I certainly do not think Bill C-18 in its current form would do anything more than give the nests of CBC, Bell and Rogers more money.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-18, in part because there has been so much misinformation and disinformation being spread by the government, including the minister and the NDP, about the bill.

First, let us talk about the situation that brought us the need for the bill.

Across Canada, local small media organizations have been disappearing. Many of them have gone out of business, in the hundreds. Even before the pandemic they were in disarray. The idea behind the bill was to try to help these local small media organizations.

When we look at clause 4 of Bill C-18, which I will read because it is important and it is the only clause I voted for, it states:

The purpose of this Act is to regulate digital news intermediaries with a view to enhancing fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contributing to its sustainability, including the sustainability of independent local news businesses.

That is the intent of the bill, and I am very much in favour of that. A lot of the local media outlets, like the ones in Sarnia—Lambton, are going out of business. Where else are we going to get the local news content that we all want to have?

The idea was to somehow create a fund that would then be shared among local media outlets. The problem started there, because then the idea was to make tech giants, the digital network intermediaries like Facebook, also known as Meta, and Google pay every time somebody shared a news link.

The Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that there was no value in sharing a link. In fact, the whole purpose of the Internet is the freedom to share information that is of interest to us and others and there should not be a value put on it. As soon as we start to put a value on it, for example, that we will only charge a value and give to the news intermediaries, it is a very short step to say that everybody who shares that is sharing something of value and why should it not happen with all of them. That was the problematic premise of the bill, which just got worse. The definitions with respect to who is included or excluded are being made by the government.

Freedom of the media is a fundamental principle in Canada. That means we cannot have the government determine who is in and who is out, who can participate in this and who cannot, yet that is exactly what has happened in Bill C-18.

To make it worse, there are so many vague definitions in the bill, which have been criticized by critics, people who are copyright experts and many others. They have said that a lot of these things will need to be clarified. The government's response was not to worry, that they should trust it because it would define them in regulations, with no parliamentary oversight. That is a very dangerous situation.

The reality is that Canadians do not trust the government. Polls of late show that only 22% of Canadians have trust in government or politicians. That is four out of five who do not trust the government to do what is right, and I am in the four out of five. There was no willingness to take amendments that would have clarified the definitions and put some of these things down, with the oversight of the different parties at committee. That was the first thing.

Then the Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study that said that with the money that Facebook and Google would be giving and the approximate volume of the different links that would be shared, there would be a certain pot of money to be shared. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was $350 million and the department officials said it was more like $150 million. Therefore, it is somewhere between $150 million and $350 million.

However, the most interesting finding was that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that 75% of the money would go to Bell Media, Telus and the CBC. The whole point of this bill is to try to help the local small media outlets. If Bell, Telus and the CBC walk off with the lion's share, that leaves very little money left to share among the little ones.

Why should we be giving any more money to the CBC? The government already gives billions of dollars to the CBC. In fact, it just figured out that the CBC should not have to go looking for advertising money and, really, should be publicly funded for another $400 million.

There is CBC, which is likely to get the lion's share, already being funded and now taking away from the very individuals we want to benefit in this bill. It makes absolutely no sense.

In terms of trying to keep the government from excluding the voices it does not want to hear, we tried to bring some clarity to the definitions. At the beginning, it said there needed to be at least two journalists. Other than being recognized in the Income Tax Act, there was not a lot of clarity brought. Some of the amendments were brought to keep out foreign interference, but there were many ethnic and smaller outlets that were mom-and-pop shops, where maybe the owner was the blogger.

We were very happy to support that concept, but unfortunately it was tangled in with a bunch of things we could not support.

The government has the ability to fix that. It has since excluded any organization that does not have more than two journalists, and I think that is a problem.

The other thing is that the Governor in Council will get to decide everything, and then the CRTC, once it has decided who is eligible to play in the game, is going to provide the oversight for this process. When the CRTC officials came to committee, I asked if they had a lot of experience with regulating oversight of digital news intermediaries. They fully confessed that no, they have no experience in that area. It is ridiculous for the government to want to decide who can win and lose and play in the game and then put the CRTC, which already said it does not know anything about managing this, in charge. This is just a recipe for disaster.

Facebook, Meta and Google have been very clear that they want to help small media outlets in this country and would be very happy to donate that $350-million pot and let a consortium of small news media outlets decide among themselves how best to split it up so that there is sustainability. There needs to be fairness.

We introduced amendments at committee to include indigenous voices. I think there are other ethnic voices in our country that have been excluded by the definitions, but if we took the money and had a panel that was looking at the local small media outlets, it could be fair in making sure there was an equitable dispersion.

Instead, Bell Media, which already shut down a whole bunch of small media outlets, is going to get part of that, 75% of it. What do we think giving it more money is going to do? It is going to continue to shut down small media outlets, and it is not going to achieve the purpose of the bill.

There were concerns expressed after Australia implemented a similar legislative model. Facebook at that time threatened to shut down content. It said it did not want to participate in this. It did not want the government regulating the Internet and regulating free speech. There was a shutdown, and then there was a renegotiation and changes were made.

When we recommended that those changes be brought to the bill and that we could learn from what was problematic in the Australian experience, we learned that it was about this phrase “undue preference”, which meant it was going to be illegal in Bill C-18 for those platforms to do what they do, which is using algorithms to upvote and downvote content. They try to keep hate speech down and things that are misinformation down, and they try to upvote things that people are interested in, things that are popular, so they need to be allowed to do that.

That was another problem we saw with this bill.

Then there are the privacy concerns of sharing information. The CRTC has a broad ability to ask people for any information it needs in order to verify that they are eligible, and then there are going to be arbitrators involved, who are not necessarily bound by the same codes of confidentiality. I have a privacy concern about that.

When it comes right down to it, we did everything we could to recommend that the government abandon this bill and instead work with the big tech giants to get a fund, get it together and divide it up among the local media outlets, so that the people who really need it will get that help.

However, here we are, in the middle of the Christmas season. Love did come down at Christmas, and not just for everyone in general but for me specifically. I am very happy to announce that I got married and so, with that, I wish everybody a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I invite Conservative members to read the bill. It is always very important to read the bill before coming into the House.

What Bill C-18 does is provide an obligatory process of negotiation. Big tech has been vacuuming up money from communities right across the country, including Pembroke, Burnaby, New Westminster and communities across the length and breadth of this land. Big tech is now obliged, as it is in Australia, to fund local journalists and local publications. Big tech has benefited enormously from the journalism that has been done in communities across this country. It is now obliged to pay its fair share, because there is an obligatory negotiation process.

I am particularly proud of the NDP amendment that puts in a strict timeline, so big tech cannot play around. It cannot skate around in circles. It is obliged to negotiate fairly and fund local journalism. I am proud of the NDP amendments that were adopted. I am proud of the committee members for working together.

Bill C-18 is a bill that will benefit all Canadians, including indigenous people.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his work. The amendments that were adopted expanded the scope so it would apply to all indigenous communities and to indigenous journalists. Bill C‑18 now allows indigenous publications and indigenous journalists to receive funding. That is a big improvement. Transparency and accountability are in the bill now, thanks to the NDP's amendments. The member for Drummond also proposed some very valuable amendments.

As far as transparency is concerned, the most important amendment is the one that ensures that owners who operate a small publication somewhere in Saskatchewan or in Alberta are now eligible even if those operators are also journalists. Even if they work part time, they are eligible. Every party around the table voted in favour of that amendment. The only party that voted against it was the Conservative Party.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is asking me to imagine what it is like to be in the mind of a Conservative and I have great difficulty in doing that.

I found a bit of a muddle from the Conservative side, and we have seen this before in other legislation. On the one hand, Alberta community newspapers and Saskatchewan community newspapers stepped up. These are newspapers that basically represent nearly half of the Conservative caucus. Their representatives came to committee and said that Bill C-18 has to be adopted, but to improve the aspects from journalism so that more journalists and more Canadian newspapers can benefit from this.

Conservatives should have taken their marching orders from their constituents, including the local community newspapers across Alberta and Saskatchewan who said that Bill C-18 was needed but improvement needed to be brought. The NDP brought forward that improvement. The NDP brought forward an amendment that would allow for a two-person operation, even if they are owners and operators of that business, to access the money that would come from big tech and those negotiations. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against the NDP amendment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude my remarks by thanking members of the committee. The 16 amendments from the NDP that were adopted have improved Bill C-18 immeasurably, and we have a much better bill coming into the House.

I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I will be having to split my time before and after question period.

I wanted to start off with a tribute to Jim Carr. We have this tradition in place that we refer to members of Parliament by their riding names, like the member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre. When they pass away, as Jim did, and we received the sad notice of that yesterday, we can use their real names as opposed to their riding names. It is a sad moment, and we have been through this over the last few years with a number of members of Parliament.

With Jim, it was particularly saddening, because tomorrow we would have been paying tribute to him in the House of Commons with a round of speeches. We were aware that we needed to do that, and I think all 337 of us would have loved to have had Jim hear those words of praise for him. We will now be doing that in his absence and in his memory.

It is important to note that his popularity was such that within the NDP caucus a number of members of Parliament wanted to rise to speak. The tradition is one speaker from each party. We had difficulty determining that in our caucus, because people respected Jim so much. He was a gentleman. He was very eloquent. He was passionate about Canada. He will be sorely missed, and I want to pass on my condolences to his family. As we pay tribute to him informally through the course of our work today, having had to suspend the House yesterday, I know that through the course of the week and tomorrow, we will be paying more formal tributes to him. He will be missed.

The object of the debate for the next few minutes is Bill C-18.

My first letter as Canadian heritage critic to the Canadian heritage minister right after the election in 2021 was to push the government to bring immediately to bear a bill that would force big tech to start making its contributions to Canadian society.

As members know, over the past few years we have seen a hoovering up of ad revenues, which have decimated our community news, whether we are talking about radio stations or newspapers, right across the country. My community of New Westminster Burnaby has lost two publications: the New Westminster News Leader and the Burnaby News Leader. We continue to have Burnaby Now and the Royal City Record. We also have new online publishers and two community online publications that do a terrific job: the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor.

The reality is that the impact has been felt right across the country. It has decimated local news and it has meant fewer journalists. What has been worrisome about this is that at the same time we have seen a parallel rise, because big tech has not taken any sort of responsibility for the rise in hate, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia. These two trends are connected.

On the one hand, there is pressure on local community media that brings us together in the community and ensures that people understand that even if their neighbours are different, they all share the same values and goals in the community. Second, there is what I would not even say is big tech's reluctance to curb hate. What it has actually done is promoted it, because extremism, hate and disinformation help to fuel revenues for it. It has been proven many times that the algorithms big tech uses help to foster hate and conflict in the community. Big tech profits from that. The increase in so-called “engagement” leads to more revenues for them.

The importance of bringing forward a bill like Bill C-18 to force big tech to start to provide that support for local community journalism is absolutely fundamental.

That is why the NDP, right after the election, told the government it had to bring forward this legislation on the Australian model. Although it has many weaknesses, which I will perhaps address in the second half of my speech, the Australian model is also a good one, because it stared down big tech. The Australians decided that even though big tech was threatening to withdraw, they were going to push companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to take responsibility and provide funding for journalism. It paid off.

Therefore, we pushed the government, and it introduced Bill C-18, which represents a significant step forward in forcing big tech to provide supports for local journalism and journalism right across this country.

The reality is that when Bill C-18 was tabled, it was a bill that we supported being brought to committee, but at committee we wanted to improve the bill. There was much that was missing in the bill regarding transparency, supporting local community press and journalism, supporting non-profit journalism, and allowing indigenous news outlets to have a role. There was radio silence regarding indigenous news outlets.

We had to fight to get all those things into the bill. We brought it to committee, and I am pleased to announce today that 16 NDP amendments were adopted by the committee working together to ensure just that, a better Bill C-18, one that we can be proud of. It includes, in a comprehensive way, indigenous journalism and indigenous news outlets. It ensures community supports. It ensures that the community radio and non-profit outlets can benefit, and it ensures transparency. Therefore, I am pleased to say that because of the NDP's work, and working with committee members from all parties, Bill C-18 is better than ever, and I am proud to support it in the House of Commons.

I look forward to the second half of my speech after QP.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments and also for being such a pleasure to work with. We enjoy ourselves, but we also work efficiently. I think he too has a strong desire to improve the bills that are brought before us. That was certainly true of Bill C-18.

Several very important amendments were made to this bill, which is much better today than it was in April, when it was introduced in the House. Obviously, I have a soft spot for the amendment I proposed to demand a certain quality of journalism by imposing, as part of the eligibility criteria, a code of ethics that must be followed, with the basic principles of journalism.

My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby also proposed some very significant amendments on which we were in complete agreement, particularly on the recognition of community media and the importance of indigenous media in Bill C-18. Some very important progress has been made.

Now, how will this work out in practice? I look forward to seeing how the businesses in question will benefit. However, one thing is certain. The amendments have considerably improved the bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond for his great work. The committee members worked really well together.

We made a number of changes to Bill C-18. Which of the amendments that were made to improve Bill C-18 does my colleague think is the most important?

I think that the original bill was good and that the bill now before the House is much better. I know that the member also helped a lot with that.

In his view, which of the amendments that were adopted is the most important?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his comments.

I reminisce about the handshake my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and I shared with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. It was a poignant moment. I did not realize things would happen so fast after that, and I thank my colleague for his kind words.

In answer to his question about publications left stranded by Bill C‑18, I think we will have to come back to that and consider publications and magazines with specialized content that have also been taken over by digital intermediaries, by web giants. We need to have a thoughtful conversation about those types of media too.

At this point time, I think it was urgent to deal with news media. We really had to take action to protect news content creators. I think this is the first step, but it paves the way for us to keep working on this, which is what I think we need to do.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by saying that on entering the House of Commons earlier, I felt a twinge of sadness at seeing the bouquet of flowers placed on the desk of our departed colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre. Last week, I was lucky enough to have the privilege of shaking his hand after his very moving speech on the bill that he was sponsoring.

The bouquet of flowers placed on his desk today is a lovely tribute to him. I think that the thoughts of all members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, are with Mr. Carr's family, to whom we offer our deepest condolences.

We are now at third reading of Bill C‑18. Earlier, I was listening to my Conservative colleague answer questions after his speech, and I noted that the Conservatives, in good or bad faith, are lumping Bills C‑11 and C‑18 together. Perhaps it is a matter of opinion or belief, I am not sure. They are lumping them together using the same unfounded, fallacious and somewhat warped arguments. One claim in particular is that, through these bills, the government is going to be able to control the news, entertainment content, music content, and so on that Quebeckers and Canadians consume on the Internet.

Perhaps it is time people heard the truth. I am not saying that there is no need to discuss these issues, because they are concerning, but it should be done using facts, not just the spin coming from those who oppose regulating the companies that have been running the show online for too long already.

Let me summarize briefly. Since day one, Facebook, Twitter and Google, but especially Facebook and Google, of course, have been appropriating news articles and reports without compensating the authors, media outlets or journalists. For too many years, these digital giants have been instrumental in methodically dismantling our traditional media. They may have done so involuntarily, but because they are corporations whose sole purpose is to generate revenue, they can hardly be blamed for doing so by any means at their disposal.

That is why the time has come to set up a framework to govern these sectors, which can no longer develop in a healthy way for everyone involved. A legislative framework is a must. We need rules. Contrary to what some of our colleagues would like, it cannot be a wild west. Some advocate for a free market, free access, and no rules governing these web giants, but the impact on some people is major and, in some cases, devastating.

Web giants like Facebook and Google have appropriated advertising revenue from local advertisers. This revenue is often the bread and butter of regional media and small weekly papers in small rural communities. In fact, it may even be their only means of keeping the lights on, paying their staff and journalists and providing high-quality news. In short, it may be their only means of survival.

It is estimated that web giants appropriate, or essentially swipe, 80% of advertising revenue, to the detriment of our regional media. Those web giants have never been asked to pay anything. Their revenue has never been taxed. They are not held to account. Even though it took some time, I think that we need to commend the government for taking the initiative, even at this late stage, to legislate and put its foot down. Oddly enough, there is only one party in the House that opposed this initiative and stood by its point of view throughout the study of Bill C-10, which became C-11, and of Bill C-18, which is currently before us.

There are dozens of media outlets, dozens of small newspapers that closed their doors over the past few years because of this crisis. Since I took office as the member for Drummond and as the communications critic for my party, not a week has gone by that news media stakeholders have not expressed their concerns to me.

One weekly newspaper in a region represented by a colleague wanted to be reassured. I was asked where we in the Bloc Québécois stood and what we were doing. I was asked if they would get what was rightfully theirs and if we would create a more balanced market. That is what Bill C-18 does. This is not at all about controlling what people see on the Internet. We will refute those lies. I will do that a little later.

Let me digress for a moment to talk about newspapers. Everyone has noticed this. My children are puzzled by the thing that lands on our doorstep every Saturday. I renewed my subscription to a newspaper that is delivered every Saturday, and my kids ask me what it is. The media world has changed. Printed newspapers are rarely seen anymore. Until very recently, the Journal de Montréal was the only newspaper that still distributed a paper version seven days a week. Quebecor announced last week that it could no longer continue publishing print editions seven days a week beginning in 2023. It is going to stop delivering the paper version on Sundays. The entire industry is changing. News organizations keep us informed and up to date, but in order to keep doing that, they will need to have the best possible resources and take advantage of the technology that is becoming the primary means of transmitting information, whether we like it or not.

Quebec and Canadian news media moved very quickly in 2020 to ask the government and elected officials for regulations. At the time, the government had commissioned the report "Canada's Communications Future: Time to Act". No one remembers the real name. It has been referred to so often by its other name that it is now known as the Yale report.

It was an excellent working document that suggested that part or all royalties should contribute to the production of news. Then the COVID‑19 pandemic hit, exacerbating the difficulties facing news media, and that increased the urgency for and the pressure put on the government by these businesses to follow Australia's lead and put in place a code or legislation similar to what was enacted there. Paul Deegan, president and CEO of News Media Canada, said at the time that the negotiating framework with arbitration, inspired by the Australian approach, is the best solution to the news media crisis.

Initially, the Bloc Québécois proposed an idea that I still think is excellent. It was not what the industry wanted. It was not in keeping with the existing consensus within news media groups. We proposed taking a percentage of the web giants' revenues. The exact amount had not been determined, but around 2%, 3% or 4% of their revenues earned on Canadian soil would have been used to create a fund from which we could have generated royalties based on needs that we consider essential, such as protecting regional news companies, which are often the most affected by the arrival of web giants.

The industry preferred something inspired by the Australian model. I think that I speak for my 31 colleagues in the Bloc when I say that we are committed to representing the people who elected us. We will not go against the will of those we want to represent, so we went with what was proposed, namely legislation inspired by what was done in Australia.

Bill C‑18, the online news act, requires digital platform businesses, that is, digital news intermediaries, to negotiate agreements with news businesses. That is a pretty broad summary. From there, we had to determine which news businesses are eligible to negotiate, which created an interesting challenge. In clause 27 of the bill, eligibility for news businesses relies mostly on fiscal criteria, the same criteria used to determine eligibility for various journalism assistance programs.

All of this is reasonable, but there are some gaps.

News businesses eligible for compensation were originally required, and still are, to be designated as qualified Canadian journalism organizations, or QCJOs, under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. A non-Canadian company could also qualify if it meets certain criteria of a QCJO, namely, if it regularly employs two or more journalists in Canada, operates in Canada, actively produces news content, and is not significantly engaged in producing content that promotes the interests or reports on the activities of an organization.

That said, the bill also excludes magazines, companies that make specialized news content. For example, companies that publish automotive or sports magazines are not considered eligible under Bill C‑18.

The Bloc Québécois succeeded in getting what I felt was an essential amendment made to Bill C‑18. We want to protect news, but news evolves. The definitions of news and journalism have been watered down in recent years. There seems to be a lack of understanding, some difficulty distinguishing journalism from opinion pieces, columns and editorials. I felt it was very important to make that distinction.

In essence, what we want to protect is journalism, journalistic coverage, news, especially regional news, and weekly papers and small media outlets, which are vulnerable. These tend to be in the regions we represent that are more rural and located outside of major centres. Their reality is very different from that of big media outlets.

We felt it was important to have criteria relating to the quality of journalism, so we proposed an amendment after consulting with media organizations, such as the Quebec Press Council. We suggested adding the requirement that a news organization be a member of a recognized journalistic association or that it follow the code of ethics of a recognized journalistic association or that it have its own code of ethics that adheres to basic journalistic principles.

This is where the basic criteria and the principles of journalism need to be defined. We must not be too precise in doing so, because trying to be too precise can sometimes leave the door open to interpretation, which we do not want to see in this kind of legislation.

The three basic principles of journalism are as follows. The first is independence, which means avoiding conflicts of interest, ideological influences and commercial policies. The second is rigour, which refers to the accuracy of information, impartiality and the presentation of balanced and complete information. The third is fairness, which refers to respect for privacy and dignity, the absence of discrimination, openness to the right of reply and prompt correction of errors. These are the three basic criteria for journalism.

In the discussions on our amendment, some people raised certain fears. People wondered what would happen if, for example, a particular media outlet expressed an opinion that was not in line with what the government wanted to hear.

Once again, I want to come back to the difference between journalism produced in a newsroom that applies these fundamental criteria from the outset and opinion journalism, such as columns and editorials, that are based on opinion, a bias or a biased or different point of view. They certainly do not constitute impartial news coverage or information.

That gave rise to some interesting discussions both in society and in the journalism community, which is an ever-evolving environment.

It was very important for us that this amendment be included in Bill C-18. It was important that these rigorous criteria, namely the basic principles of journalism, be included in the eligibility criteria for companies that can benefit from the bill's legislative framework.

Bill C‑18 does not solve all the problems. I think everyone knows that. There are still major challenges facing news organizations, as is also the case for the cultural industry and any business working in an industry affected by web giants like GAFAM. That basically means every business because these days pretty much everyone is affected by the web giants.

What will have to be done to again protect regional news media? The government will have to continue supporting them and maintaining its programs.

Clearly, this is not an easy task, and this bill will not suddenly and magically address all the problems the industry has been grappling with over the past 25 years. The sector still needs to be given a huge amount of financial support through existing programs, which will have to be enhanced, tweaked and made permanent. That remains to be done.

What also remains to be done is to see what will happen to specialty magazines, such as consumer, automotive or sports publications. We will have to see how these magazines, which publish content shared by digital intermediaries, will fare in the digital world. We will have to watch them and possibly support them.

We will have to ensure that we stop believing all the lies and disinformation and that at some point we use common sense. We will have to stop believing everything we hear.

This is not a dictatorship or a banana republic, despite what we may think from time to time when we see some of the programs managed by the government. I do not have an example. If I gave examples, I would be here all night.

No one is going to start controlling what people can and cannot watch online. When we talk about giving our media, our companies, a place, that simply means rebalancing a market that clearly disadvantages our local businesses. Hundreds of our news businesses and media outlets have shut down. Billions of dollars in advertising revenue for those companies have been lost.

That is what this legislation seeks to correct. In that sense, it is very good. This is not going to penalize Google and Facebook. Believe me, they are not short on money.

The other lie or disinformation—whatever we call it—is that the lion's share will go back to the major industry players, while the little guy will be left behind. There is no set amount. Nowhere does it say that $500 million will be shared and that the bigger companies will take the largest share, with nothing being left for the smaller companies. It does not work like that.

Should this not work, there will be a negotiation process with arbitration. That model seems equitable for both smaller and major players. What is more, if the small players wish, they can come together and stand united to have more weight in the negotiation. I think everything is quite clear, that everything is in place to give the smaller players as much of a chance to get ahead as the major players.

I will conclude on the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada. I heard my Conservative colleague mention it earlier. It is a good question. Do we allow CBC/Radio-Canada to have the same negotiation rights and earn revenue from sharing their content on digital intermediaries or not, given that CBC/Radio-Canada is publicly funded? The principle here is not how the CBC is funded. The issue is whether those who produce content shared through digital intermediaries should be paid for it. The answer is yes.

I am open to the idea of having another debate on funding for CBC. I am sure there will be some good suggestions.

However, for now, this is how Bill C‑18 is structured. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good one. It is a good starting point, and we will support it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to wish everyone in this chamber and all of the people of Saskatoon a merry Christmas and a very happy new year.

This is the time of the year that many of us get to spend with family, friends and other loved ones. For some of us, it is truly a joyous season full of wonderment. For others, the holiday season reminds us of people lost and of relations lost. It is a hard time for those individuals.

As we all reflect on the past year and look forward to the next year, I want to offer these words of hope to all of the good folks throughout Saskatoon. May 2023 bring new beginnings, peace, good health and prosperity to members and their families.

As the member of Parliament representing the west side of Saskatoon, I will continue to work hard to raise up our city, our neighbourhoods and each of us to the best that we can be in 2023.

As we get into these last days of 2022, Bill C-18 has landed back in the House of Commons for its final round of debate before being shipped off to the other place. This legislation is one of three Internet censorship laws that the NDP-Liberal government has brought in since the last election.

Its goal is to ensure that voices other than its own, and news stories it does not like, are silenced in our democracy. I had the chance to speak to Bill C-11, which would have given almost dictator-like powers to a branch of the federal government to decide what people post on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and other Internet platforms.

If the content is not in line with the NDP-Liberal messaging of the day, algorithms would be manipulated to remove that content from one's feeds and searches. Members do not have to take my word for it. The head of that very government agency admitted as much to the Senate committee when it took up that legislation. What is worse, the NDP-Liberals just shrug their shoulders because that was the very point of the legislation.

This legislation, Bill C-18, is the second Internet censorship law that the NDP-Liberals are forcing down the throats of Canadians. Simply put, this law would force Facebook, Google and other Internet companies to prioritize CBC and other government-approved news outlets on our feed over the smaller alternative news media platforms that may be more critical of the NDP-Liberal view of the world.

The third piece of legislation currently before this Parliament is Bill C-27, which I hope to address in the new year. That legislation is the so-called digital privacy legislation, which is a laughable topic from an NDP-Liberal government that tracked millions of Canadian’s cell phones during the pandemic without their consent and has been responsible for the personal data of hundreds of thousands of Canadians ending up on the dark web.

The truth is that the Internet and social media are an integrated part of our lives today. Until now, they have been an unfettered part of our lives. Canadians use social media platforms to access and share a variety of different news articles and information among colleagues, family and friends. Canadians I talk to are very worried that these three laws will limit their ability to have open conversations online.

For legislation that is supposedly about promoting online news, the NDP-Liberals and their allies in the CBC and traditional media have been spreading a lot of misinformation about it. The current government wants to have Bill C-18 so it can use algorithms to keep information it does not like away from our feeds and Internet searches.

Bill C-18 essentially grants the government the ability to force online platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to sign deals under the duress of government penalty to promote government-approved content. These commercial agreements do not just have to be acceptable to the platform and the news organization but to the government as well.

The government agency in charge of implementing Bill C-18’s censorship provisions is called the CRTC, and it would oversee every step of this process to ensure they are satisfactory to the NDP-Liberals. Surprise, surprise, all nine members of the CRTC are appointed by the Liberal Minister of Heritage.

I am not the only one seeing past the government’s spin on this. Outside experts such as Michael Geist, who is the research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said this at the heritage committee in relation to Bill C-18, “Bill C-18’s dangerous approach…regulates which platforms must pay in order to permit expression from their users and dictates which sources are entitled to compensation.”

The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, told the committee how the government can influence news companies:

You could end up with companies wishing to please the CRTC or the CRTC feeling pressure to make sure money in newsrooms is spent on certain topics, and they might be good topics, but it's frankly none of their business to have.... An independent press spends its money on whatever it wants.

Who are we to believe, the independent experts or the CBC, which is already in the pockets of the NDP-Liberal government?

A question that comes to mind is who benefits the most from this Internet censorship? It certainly is not the average everyday user of the Internet who is logging into their feed to keep up with the news. It is definitely not the independent journalists trying to make a living and provide accurate news. It could be no other than the legacy media, more specifically the folks at the CBC.

The CBC and other legacy news organizations have been complaining for years about their inability to keep up with the modern online news media. Then they proceeded to lobby the government for $600 million in bailouts. CBC, for example, rakes in $1.2 billion in federal funding and receives $250 million in combined TV and online advertising revenue, yet it still struggles to survive in the Canadian market, as it cannot keep up with the modern tech era.

This is where Bill C-18 comes to play. The government is looking to tip the scales further in CBC's favour. The government has decided that it is a bad look to continue giving more billion-dollar bailouts to the CBC, so now the government is forcing tech companies like Facebook and Google to make NDP-Liberal approved commercial deals to fund the legacy media.

Instead, the legacy media should be competing on the open market, as many independent journalists are doing as we speak. At the end of the day, online platforms and Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill if the legacy media is unable to keep up with the times.

Let us talk about how this legislation would affect the news Canadians access.

Bill C-18 would prohibit digital intermediary operators from giving what the CRTC determines as “preference” in news ranking. That sounds relatively fine, does it not? No, it is not. With this unclear language added into the bill, just about anyone could call up the CRTC to contest their ranking and be brought up to the top of any search engine or platform.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Trying to regulate content on the Internet will always introduce bias into the conversation. At best, it is an innocent hassle. At worst, it can be used by the government to suppress real information and control people. In my view, the risk of the worst case is not worth it. As they say, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Let us talk about Google, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and the Internet in general.

First let me say that Elon Musk's recent purchase of Twitter has shaken up Silicon Valley and the status quo in big tech quite a bit and has perhaps breathed some fresh air into what was becoming a stale industry. His commitment to free speech and his willingness to stand up to the powers that be show how big tech can directly influence elections or stay neutral, as they should.

Of course, in Canada, this legislation has the potential to tip the scales toward the NDP-Liberals during elections. Big tech recognizes that and they do not want to be tools of censorship in Canada or anywhere else.

Last spring, I met the executives of Google and it was an eye-opening experience. They are concerned. They worry that Bill C-18 does not have the tools to provide relief to smaller news outlets. After all, it was not the small independent news outlets that wanted this in the first place. It was the large media networks that lobbied for this to get done and that are now foaming at the mouth to get this legislation rammed through Parliament.

Members should not kid themselves. Google is not just afraid for its bottom line. It is a multi-billion dollar business and will absorb the costs associated with this legislation. Its real fear is about freedom of speech on the Internet. They may run worldwide organizations, but the Silicon Valley boys are still hackers at heart, living out of their mothers' basements playing Halo, sharing on Twitch and posting on Reddit. Google is concerned that the government is making it more difficult for Canadians to access quality information.

I also met with Amazon World Services in the summer, and we talked about a variety of issues related to this legislation. I can tell members that Google and Amazon do not just meet random opposition members from Saskatoon unless they have real concerns about where this country is going. It is Canadians who are the best judge of what content they want to consume, not some government bureaucrats.

We have seen Canadian content creators thrive in an open and competitive market, one being Hitesh Sharma, a Punjabi hip-hop artist from Saskatchewan who built up a large following on TikTok and later made it to the Junos. He did not need the CRTC to give him a path to fame.

It is very important that we allow our creators, whether they are influencers or media, to flourish against the top creators in the world. That is not to say we should not support our local media when we can, but we should recognize the talent we already have, all of whom have succeeded without the involvement of big government interference.

With Bill C-18, local Canadian content creators could be squeezed out of our newsfeeds and replaced with the CBC. I guess that is fine for the few people who tune into CBC on a regular basis, but for most people, especially younger people, the desire is for a free and open Internet where we can search for whatever we want, free of interference by government or anyone else. That is what Canadians want.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and commend her on her speech.

Bill C-18, which was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, sets out which major platforms will have to negotiate with local and regional news businesses so that they get their fair share. It is important to understand that the web giants are taking content from regional and local media outlets and sharing it on their platforms without paying royalties.

The Bloc Québécois fully supports this bill. Of course, we expected it to be introduced sooner, but it is never too late.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. We noticed that the digital companies targeted by this bill are the large, dominant platforms in Canada. This bill mainly targets Facebook and Google. However, we know that other platforms are using the content of local media outlets. Why then does this bill target only Facebook and Google?

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the possibility of continuing these negotiations in order to broaden the scope of the bill to include platforms other than Facebook and Google.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and speak to Bill C-18, which proposes a regime to regulate digital platforms and act as an intermediary in Canada's new media ecosystem.

In order to understand what this really means, it is like coming across a newspaper left in a coffee shop, waiting room or staff lunchroom. Dozens or hundreds of people might read that paper throughout the day, even though it was only purchased one time. Should the readers be required to send money to the newspaper each time it is read? Of course they should not. That would be ridiculous. However, the outline of what I just said forms the basis of this Liberal bill, Bill C-18.

The Liberals claim that Bill C-18 would uphold the survival of small community publications and newspapers. The government and the largest organizations say they are looking out for the little guys, but in most scenarios it always seems to be the little guy who ends up losing.

Bill C-18 would allow the news industry to collectively bargain for revenue from social media platforms that the government says are “stealing” journalistic content through users sharing links with friends, family and followers. However, like much of the current government's supposed small business policies, it would be the most prominent companies that would benefit the greatest. The more content they put online, the more money they would make with no effort.

The notion that linking articles is the equivalent of theft has already been ruled out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Abella wrote in Crookes v. Newton, a decision ruling that says links do not carry commercial value. She said:

Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other [aspects] of “publication”....

A hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers.

Conservatives believe in a robust local media ecosystem in this country. Should a Canadian newsmaker or collective group of small publications seek to negotiate with Facebook or Google for revenue, they could do so. Smaller organizations are always more nimble. We see this whether it is a municipality versus the federal government or a local credit union versus a bank.

The news industry is in transition with publishing methods and business models. Like its sister regulation in Bill C-11, this bill seeks to reject that kind of innovation in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach and enrich old, outdated and predominantly large organizations currently being outrun by technological change. Also, just like in Bill C-11, the Liberal government has called upon what it appears to view as its most agile, efficient and modern government agency, in their minds, to do this: the CRTC.

The government's prescription of new and continuing roles to the CRTC has stretched its mandate beyond all recognition and ability, and there are many questions on definitions in this legislation and how it would be implemented.

The CRTC is an agency that took over a year to produce a three-digit mental health number. The CRTC had no proactive oversight or risk assessing of telecoms that potentially could have mitigated the massive Rogers outage.

Its 500-plus employees are already charged with the management of large portfolios, including cellular networks, data plans, advertising standards, television services, radio broadcasting, closed captioning, described video, satellite content and now, with Bill C-18, the entire Canadian online news and digital industries. If Bill C-11 is passed, the CRTC will also be asked to measure the Canadianness of 500 hours of uploaded videos posted to YouTube alone every minute.

The government originally tried to shy away from the CRTC's role in this legislation. Now, we hear that the heritage minister is openly promising to “'modernize' CRTC so it can regulate Big Tech” with an unexplained $8.5-million price tag. Bill C-18 would massively stretch the already massive mandate of the CRTC, which one could argue it is already not fulfilling. Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair, states, “It seems like they [Canadian Heritage] want to have the most expansive, most intrusive, most state-involved legislation in the world in everything they do.”

The CRTC would have a central role in the government's prescribed arbitration process, starting with selecting the pool of arbitrators and ending with the ability to impose settlements outright. The large digital platform negotiations with every Canadian media outlet needs to be completed within six months or then forced into arbitration.

Can the government credibly claim that such an arbitration process would favour small regional publications over giants such as Torstar, Postmedia, Bell, Rogers or the CBC? No, it cannot, which is why, in a technical briefing with reporters, the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s staff acknowledged that the largest beneficiary of this legislation would be the CBC, a news organization the government publicly funds.

Here is how it would work: In this legislation, news outlets would be paid based on content shared or streamed. All the state-owned CBC would have to do would be to livestream 24 hours a day on the likes of Facebook or other platforms, and it would be raking in the cash. Small producers do not necessarily have the content or capacity to do this. This, in fact, would rank up these large organizations even higher due to the amount of content they would put on social media, and it would be funded by the structure of the legislation. The CBC’s advertising revenue is low compared to its massive budget, so this would be an easy way to bring in the cash with literally no effort.

We have heard the government cite Australia as the model to follow. However, our research shows complaints have been made by small media publications in Australia about its news media bargaining laws, the same laws the Canadian government is seeking to copy here.

In a submission to the Australian senate economics committee, the Country Press Australia association, a bargaining group of small regional publications, precisely the kind of group the large media organizations and government say would likely emerge to represent smaller publications in Canada, said of Australia's own Bill C-18, “The Bill is weighted to large media organisations and does not take into account the ongoing need for a diversified media across Australia.” It also said it “could in fact lead to an outcome that is opposite to the intention of the bill, i.e. a reduction in media diversity”.

I am very concerned with the unintended consequences that would be created by this bill, especially with the largest of organizations and the Canadian state-owned media being the biggest benefactors. Sports media companies such as The Athletic have found innovative ways to uphold local sports coverage under the umbrella of an international publication.

Copying Australia's homework would not help us very much if it has already gotten a failing grade. Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd testified that Australia’s legislation would be “enhancing the power of the existing monopoly”. Joshua Benton, the founder of Harvard University’s Nieman Journalism Lab, called it “bad media policy”. The inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, said laws like Australia’s could make the internet as we know it “unworkable”. Vint Cerf, another founding father of the Internet, once attributed its astonishing economic success to two words: “permissionless innovation”.

Regulations such as Bill C-18 are a permission, and they are the swiftest killer of innovation and the greatest tool of existing media powers to kill competition. We can forget Internet searching as we know it. Calling upon the threadbare CRTC to enforce a dysfunctional Australian-like media policy would do nothing to help the small media markets in places such as my community of Kelowna-Lake Country. It would make permanent the actions of the government to bail out legacy media giants from their own business model mistakes and lack of nimbleness.

If the government was so interested in ensuring that small, regional and rural media have their share of ad revenue, it should stop pumping millions into mainstream media, which gives them the ability to reduce advertising rates and remove $1.3 billion a year from state-owned media. If it is so valued by the Canadian public, it should be able to attract advertisers and fundraise, just as other public broadcast organizations do around the world.

The biggest winners in this legislation would be the biggest media outlets, which is why we see them advocating so strongly for this. In my life experience, anytime I hear the largest of organizations say they are looking out for the little guys and they have their best interest, it is always the little guy who ends up losing.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that 450 news outlets in Canada have closed since 2008. At least one-third of Canadian journalism jobs have disappeared. The member spoke a bit about this. We know it is vital that Bill C-18 includes small-sized media outlets. However, we are hearing from unions, like CUPE national, for example, raising concerns of layoffs. When the NDP proposed the amendment in clause 29 to require news organizations to publish a list of the number of journalists employed, the member's party voted against it.

Can the member explain to the chamber today why that is?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to enlighten us a little.

It is our understanding that with Bill C‑18, major content providers, major news outlets, will have the power to negotiate with major platforms. That might work.

However, there are also the small media outlets to consider. In my riding, one newspaper has lost all of its journalists over the past few years, mainly during the pandemic, because advertisers shifted to the major platforms. One small radio station is also struggling to survive because advertisers have left. These people are worried because they belong to small groups, not major groups. I am talking about a small newspaper and a small radio station.

How does Bill C‑18 ensure that our small regional advertisers, our small regional newspapers, will be able to hold their own in the kind of high-stakes bargaining that will take place under Bill C‑18?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, if I may, I would like to speak about the passing of Jim Carr, a dear friend and someone I have known for a number of years. I would like to extend my condolences, prayers, love and best wishes to his family and friends.

I had the opportunity in 1988 to be elected at the same time as Jim Carr. He was appointed as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba. I was the deputy party whip. From virtually day one to what we witnessed just a few days ago in the House, he served as an inspiration to me personally. I genuinely believe that, no matter where Jim went or what he went through in his life, he left a large footprint. He has deep respect in all corners.

I do want to make quick reference to what he said in his last speech in the House, because I think it embodies many of the wonderful attributes Jim brought not only to the chamber but beyond. He stated:

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing some deeply held emotion. I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived.

He went on to say:

In wrapping up this debate, I want to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, without whose confidence this would never have been possible.

He concluded his remarks by saying:

It is with gratitude, thanks and a deep respect for this institution that I humbly present this bill to my colleagues in Parliament.

I am very grateful for the fact that the building a green prairie economy act passed. It was something I know Jim spoke at great length about both inside and outside the chamber. It was one of a number of visions he carried, one of a number of ideas that he shared with so many Canadians in many different ways.

I appreciate the opportunity to share those few thoughts.

With respect to Bill C-18, the online news act, this legislation is an absolute must. The minister made reference to Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act and now Bill C-18, the online news act. These would assist us in modernizing our systems. So much has changed in regard to Internet accessibility, from what it was to what it is today. The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. It continues to grow as an essential service, and we need to overcome some challenges that are there.

As we look to the weeks, months and years ahead, in terms of conquering some of those challenges, one of the biggest ones is getting that fast, reliable Internet service into our rural communities. We have made significant progress over the last number of years, ensuring that it is taking place. I believe we are on the right track and are aggressively pursuing better interconnectivity for all Canadians. It is absolutely essential.

The act itself is something absolutely essential. I am pleased to see it is at the third reading stage. I was listening to what the minister was talking about. One can sense the passion and urgency just by listening to the minister. When we think about Canada and our democracy, one of the fundamental pillars of democracy is to have a free, independent media.

I recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature and seeing at least 10 or 12 members of the media in the gallery. There were representatives from all the major networks and local community newspapers. There might even have been a few others. When I left the Manitoba legislature back in 2010, I might have seen one or two reporters in the media gallery.

When we look at what has happened to our media and our news sources over the last 10 years or so, we have seen a mass reduction in the number of professional journalists. We have seen literally hundreds of news outlets in one form or another close. I do not believe for a moment, and I do not think anyone would even attempt to suggest, that it is nothing more than what we have been witnessing taking place on the Internet. We have seen a tremendous rise in things such as fake news.

The minister made reference to the war in Ukraine, and we talk about what happened during the pandemic. Canadians and people around the world, but particularly here in Canada, are very dependent on that essential service and ensuring what we see and read is factual. One of the ways we can ensure that is by going to the mainstream media.

One of my colleagues made reference to that fact that we have a wonderful ethnic media. I often look at the Pilipino Express, CKJS and numerous Indo-Canadian newspapers. There is the Portuguese community, the francophone community, the indigenous community and all of those different independent news outlets. For our community newspapers, whether rural or urban, there are things we can do to ensure they continue to be independent and continue to be supported, rightfully so, because of the Internet.

These are some tangible examples. Google and its search engines have benefited from mainstream media and from our media outlets. All the work has been done at one level, which is the creativity and reporting, and Google has directly benefited from that. There is advertising on YouTube, and in social media there are things like Facebook. The amount of advertising done through Facebook has been estimated to be, in terms of the advertising dollars going into media, as high as 80% in those giant companies.

This legislation would ensure, by utilizing the CRTC, that we can level the playing field. We could ensure that, for the information being conveyed by these giants like Google, Facebook and YouTube, they are paying their fair share. There would be an obligation in the legislation. By doing that, there would be better, more appropriate and more fair compensation for those media outlets. It would ultimately ensure that we have a healthier and stronger independent media. That is good for Canada and good for our democracy. It is the type of legislation that is necessary to get us back on track with regard to what we have been witnessing over the last number of years with the reduction of news media.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I also want to thank the Bloc Québécois for all the rigorous work they did on Bill C-18 and for their support of the bill.

As I have said many times, this bill is not a panacea or a goal in itself, but it is an extremely important tool that essentially calls on the dominant platforms, the ones that control a substantial portion of the market and advertising revenues, to contribute to the production of local content. Many news media outlets, including radio stations, newspapers and television networks, have shut down. The bill needs to ensure that platforms also contribute to the growth of local journalism, especially smaller media outlets in the various provinces and regions, including of course in my colleague's riding. That is why Bill C-18 is so important.

It is not the only one, since the government has brought forward several other measures to support a free and independent press, including the payroll tax credit and other programs.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑18 has been introduced at last. I would be remiss if I did not mention from the outset that we have been waiting a long time for a bill to help local journalism and our media. This is a good thing.

One could say it is a shame it took so long. Here it is 2022, and it is not as though web giants showed up just last week. They have been around for years. It took the government a very long time to take action. Now, I can only hope that we will manage to get Bill C‑18 passed so it can come into force.

That said, Bill C‑18 has some issues, such as the requirement to have two journalists to be eligible for these agreements. Many news media organizations have just one journalist. More and more of our cities and towns, including some in my riding, are becoming media deserts.

Does my colleague really think that Bill C‑18 will be enough to resurrect them and bring media back to places that do not currently have any, or are there any further measures his government should take? I think more measures should be taken, but at least the Bloc Québécois will vote for this one.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased to be here today to talk about the online news act.

I want to take a moment to express my sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of my friend and colleague, Jim Carr. Jim served Canadians with pride and dedication. He will be profoundly missed.

As I have been saying from the beginning, with Bill C-11, the online streaming act, and with Bill C-18, the current bill, Canada is leading the way. The whole world is watching. On the surface, the bill we are debating now is simply about ensuring fair compensation for Canadian media, but the issue is actually much bigger than that.

It is about protecting the future of a free and independent press. It is about ensuring that Canadians have access to fact-based information. It is about protecting the strength of our democracy, one of the most important legacies that we can leave to future generations, who will see the Internet and new technology play an increasingly larger role in their lives.

When the Internet first came along, we thought it was amazing. It was, and it still is. We were suddenly able to access information from around the world in a few simple clicks. Suddenly, we had an infinite number of possibilities at our fingertips, and we still do. We all love that.

That being said, it also brought incredible challenges.

The Internet has fundamentally changed the way we create, search and consume content, especially when it comes to news. Right now, our news sector is in crisis: 468 media outlets, newspapers, television, radio stations and news websites, closed between 2008 and last August, 84 of them since the beginning of the pandemic.

Why is this happening? More and more Canadians are turning to digital platforms like search engines and social media networks as gateways to find news. At the same time, the number of Canadians who read their news in print or watch it on TV is rapidly declining.

Right now, the news is largely disseminated by these platforms, but the companies creating that news are not benefiting from it as they should. The impact on our press has been devastating.

The numbers speak for themselves. Since 2010, about one-third of journalism jobs in Canada have disappeared. In the last 12 years, Canadian television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines, which depend on advertising revenue, have lost $4.9 billion, even though online advertising revenue in Canada surpassed $10 billion in 2021. The lion's share of that $10 billion went to the tech giants, which pocketed 80% of the revenue. The digital platforms dominate the advertising markets, so they can set their own terms, which are often unfair. In the midst of all this, the media has lost its economic influence. Right now, the digital platforms have absolutely no incentive to fairly compensate the media for its content.

The status quo is not an option and it never will be. There is absolutely no doubt that a free press, an independent and thriving press, is absolutely essential to our democracy.

We all rely on timely and accurate news to make rational decisions, to counter disinformation and to fully participate in our democracy. In these challenging times, we need it more than ever.

The pandemic gave us a strong reminder that access to quality information could literally save lives.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the global protests inspired by Mahsa Amini are also devastating reminders that we must never ever take our freedom, our democracy, for granted. We must fight for it every day.

Dominant platforms have a responsibility to support news and journalism in our democracies. Tech giants have a choice to make, and I want to work with them. We want to work with them, but we must act now.

What will the online news act do? It will help build a fairer news ecosystem, one that supports a free and independent press, one that will hold the tech giants accountable to Canadians.

How will it work? The act proposes a simple, practical and market-based approach. It is not complicated. Digital platforms will have two options. Either they enter into fair agreements with news media, or they will be forced to negotiate based on specific criteria.

The agreements will have to satisfy seven criteria. First, the digital platform must pay fair compensation to the news media. Second, an appropriate portion of the compensation must be used to support the production of local, regional and national news content. Third, the agreements must show that they defend freedom of expression and journalistic independence. Fourth, the agreements must contribute to the vitality of the news sector. Fifth, the agreements must reflect the diversity of the Canadian news sector, including with respect to language, racialized groups, communities and local characteristics. Sixth, the agreements must support independent local news businesses in Canada. Lastly, the agreements must contribute to the vitality of indigenous news outlets.

News businesses would also be able to negotiate collectively, giving smaller news outlets more bargaining power. This is extremely important. If platforms and news outlets are unable to reach voluntary agreements, then, and only then, would the act mandate negotiation, with final offer arbitration as a last resort.

Members may say that this model is very similar to the one introduced in Australia, and they are right. However, we have learned from its experience, considered the feedback from stakeholders and adjusted it to fit our Canadian context. As I have said before, Canada is paving the way.

Canadians expect us to act to protect their local journalism and to do so transparently.

This is a complex task. We are hearing concerns and criticisms, and that is normal. Unfortunately, we have also seen misinformation in connection with the bill.

Our job as a government is not to stand up for the web giants or repeat their talking points like the Conservatives are doing. Our job is to be there for Canadians. It is the right thing to do. We will face challenges, because we are breaking new ground and that is never easy.

The online news act is one piece of a large and complex puzzle that aims to build a safer, more inclusive and more competitive Internet for all Canadians.

I have spoken with my G7 colleagues about all of this and I can say one thing: The whole world is watching Canada right now.

I hope that together we will rise to the occasion. We must never take our democracy for granted. We must do whatever it takes to preserve it. This is why I am asking all colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canadian Heritage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C‑18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Before we move on to discuss Tuesday's business, I just want to let everyone know that this afternoon I will be reporting Bill C-18 as amended to the House.

I want to echo what everybody has said. For a chair, the process is sometimes bumpy, but that is par for the course in terms of many political parties having different points of view. However, I would like to say that overall the ability of the committee to come together as a standing committee, to get this bill moving and to finish the clause-by-clause took a lot of collaboration. I want to thank everybody for collaborating so that the process went smoothly at the end of the day and so we can send this bill to the House before we rise for Christmas.

I also want to thank Kevin for pitching in there for me when I was in Poland and for pitching in when my computer did not want to work last week. I want to thank him for that.

I also want to thank everyone, including Mr. Méla, for giving me all my little pieces of things so that I could do it efficiently and effectively. I want to thank the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage who came here and answered so many questions to actually make sure that everyone understood exactly what the bill is meant to do, what amendments are meant to do, etc.

I want to thank everybody and, of course, our clerk, Aimée, for making this process move very smoothly.

Finally, I'll ask Aimée to comment, but on Tuesday, as the committee had decided, we have asked Mr. Cromwell to come.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank everyone around the table.

It will be interesting. I totally agree with the Globe and Mail's article today, which refutes what Mr. Julian has said all along. It was the Liberals under Chrétien and Martin who destroyed the CBC funding, not Harper. I want to thank Konrad Yakabuski for the Globe and Mail report today. It clearly says, “Under the Trudeau Liberals, the CBC keeps cashing in”, as we're up to $1.3 billion plus the $42 million that they gave in the fall economic update.

The numbers are going to tell the story on this bill, if you don't mind my saying. The PBO has the number inflated to $180 million more than the department. They have $329 million that they feel is coming from the tech giants, and the department only had $150 million. When you get the big boys at the table spreading the $150 million, I think we're going to see the demise of local newspapers in Canada more than ever after this bill has passed.

You know, the Saskatoon berry pie used to be very big, and now the Saskatoon berry pie is only a tart, when we're going to leave Bill C-18. I think the future does not hold very well for small and medium newspapers. I'm really disappointed, as everybody knows, about the two reporters. I think it's going to have a big effect on the country. However, we'll see where it goes.

I want to thank everyone, as we head out of here before Christmas with Bill C-18.

Before we leave today, we do need to discuss next Tuesday and whether the judge is coming to talk about Hockey Canada.

Thanks, everybody.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I want to join my honourable colleagues in congratulating the committee on the work we have done.

Despite what our Conservative colleagues say, Madam Chair, we've just established a [Technical difficulty] that will help our media outlets to negotiate agreements and ensure that several media outlets will survive the crisis they have endured for too long now.

There are certainly losers in this story. I understand that the Conservatives are disappointed. Google and Facebook certainly won't be pleased with the outcome of our [Technical difficulty] today, but that was to be expected. Conservatives can rest assured that Google and Facebook will continue to be [Technical difficulty], because they did a great job representing them as we considered Bill C‑18.

Having said that, I want to send a message to the small media outlets, the regional newspapers and the local media in Quebec and Canada. If this bill doesn't work as well as we would like, although I feel it will, we will be there. Bills are never perfect. They can always be improved. We will be watching its implementation and are going to be there to monitor the activities between the businesses under this new law that's coming into force. I want them to know that we will never stop looking out for Quebec and Canadian media outlets and news businesses, especially the smaller ones.

On that note, Madam Chair, I also want to congratulate you for your work. I thank my colleague Mr. Waugh for his work as vice-chair. I salute all of my colleagues, because the atmosphere has generally been respectful, and I'm really proud of what we've accomplished, whether we agree or disagree on the outcome.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I did commit to the Conservative House leader that I wouldn't say anything negative about Conservatives, but I will just note their ongoing hostility to CBC, which I find quite perplexing. We certainly saw it during the Harper years, during which CBC funding was absolutely gutted.

However, coming back to what we've achieved, we have adopted amendments that have helped to ensure that indigenous journalists are included in a very meaningful way in Bill C-18 and that they will benefit from that. We have ensured a lot more transparency in Bill C-18, which is certainly a lesson that has come out of the Australian model.

I want to note that of the 16 NDP amendments that were adopted by this committee, the most important one to my mind—and certainly to that of the independent online news publishers of Canada, the small players who are starting up right across the country and who are present in every community, including the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor—is an amendment that allows journalists, even if they're part-time, to own or be a partner in a news business and not to deal at arm's length with the business. They are now open to Bill C-18, the online news act.

I am being heckled, Madam Chair, but I'll continue just the same.

What we've done is open the door to independent online news publishers right across this country. Dozens of publications, the community newspapers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, asked for this. They got that amendment, and that means that a two-person operation, even if they're working part time, even if they're partners and owners of the business, has access to Bill C-18. It is significant that small players right across the country, including those community newspapers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, will be able to get that access.

That is a significant amendment, Madam Chair, and I would note that the Conservatives voted against it, which is, I think, quite astounding, given what they have been saying about the act. Why would they oppose something that so clearly opens the door to the vast majority of the ethnic press, to community newspapers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and of course to online news publishers?

I agree with Mr. Housefather that the bill is much improved. There are some aspects of transparency that I would have liked to see but that were not adopted by this committee. Generally the processes for Bill C-18 worked well. All members have tried to work in a constructive way, and we have a much better bill coming out of committee than we had going in.

I'd like to thank everyone who was involved in that, particularly the analysts, the clerks and the interpreters, who have helped us all through, and our officials from Canadian Heritage who have answered the questions in such a clear and effective way.

Thanks to you, Madam Chair, for your chairing and to Mr. Waugh for chairing part of this process as well, because that has helped us to bring this bill to a conclusion at committee as well.

Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Well, this is the end to Bill C-18, and it will now be forwarded to the House, so I would like to go on the record as saying this bill started out with the intent—or the stated intent—of wanting to help newspapers, particularly those in rural areas that are of a smaller nature, along with ethnic media outreach or newspapers.

Unfortunately, in the way this legislation has developed and the way it is going forward to the House, it will reward the big players, such as the CBC, which already receives over a billion dollars in taxpayer money. This legislation will support Bell Media, and this legislation will support Rogers. Together, they will take about 75% to 80% of the money available through Bill C-18, which leaves a very small cut for newspapers to take. Once the larger players, such as Postmedia, Torstar and The Globe and Mail take their portion, it leaves an even smaller piece of the pie—if any—for those small players that function within our rural areas, particularly in western Canada.

It's a sad day for those news outlets, and it's incredibly hypocritical that this bill leads out with a preamble that wants to look after the sustainability of news and support good journalism, and yet it has gutted the ability for these smaller outlets to exist.

It's shameful that the NDP member actually ended up withdrawing his amendment that would advocate for those smaller players yet continues to use talking points as if he is advocating for them. He does not have their backs. He had an opportunity to vote for amendments that would allow entities with one journalist to be considered, and again I'll repeat that he withdrew that. Instead, he went into the pockets of the Liberals, as is the mode of operation of what the NDP are doing in this House at this time.

Again, it's a sad day for those smaller news outlets. My condolences to them.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't believe CBC should be included in the framework of Bill C-18. I think it's not going to help small and medium outlets, so of course I won't be supporting it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I don't believe CBC should be part of Bill C-18. They shouldn't be getting the lion's share of the money and keeping it from the local small media organizations. I won't be supporting this.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think we've been clear. We don't think CBC, which is getting billions of dollars already from the government, should be a part of this framework in Bill C-18. This will certainly not help the small media organizations that we're trying to help. It would give CBC the lion's share of the money, so I will be voting against this.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to move only part of NDP-28. I will be moving the part that Bill C-18 be amended by adding after line 30 on page 17 the following new clause:

53.1(1) If an eligible news business enters into a covered agreement, the business must file a copy of the agreement with the Commission within 30 days after the day on which it enters into the agreement or 30 days after the day on which an arbitration panel makes a decision that is deemed to be an agreement under section 42, as the case may be.

(2) The Commission must maintain and publish on its website a list of covered agreements, including the names of the parties and the commercial value and terms of the agreements.

(3) The Commission must add a covered agreement to the list within 90 days after the day on which a copy of the agreement is filed under subsection (1).

I am moving those three portions. I am not moving the fourth paragraph. I wanted to be clear about that. We have consulted the legislative clerk. I want to make sure that it is clear to everybody that I am not moving the fourth paragraph.

The three paragraphs that I am moving are reflected in testimony that came from both Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, which represents so many journalists across the country, and the independent online news publishers of Canada, which publish so many of the terrific online publications, including, in my community, the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor.

What this does is help to set that level playing field to ensure that there is more transmission of information and that particularly the small players have the information they need to ensure they get the best possible agreement, so that the hoovering up from big tech of all the journalistic ad revenues will actually serve to benefit both community publications.

Thank you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you for your availability.

NDP-25 was originally proposed by Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, which represents many of the journalists across the country.

What NDP-25 is seeking to do is broaden the transparency of Bill C-18 to ensure that we know about the value of the deal. It allows arbitrators to request information when they're making decisions in the arbitration process. That helps in terms of structuring decisions to be as informed as possible, hopefully, so that the new negotiations with big tech will result in more supports for community newspapers, for online publishers, and for the ethnic press across the country so that we can have more journalists doing the excellent work they do.

I move NDP-25.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is an amendment that was suggested by APTN and Dadan Sivunivut. This is part of the series of amendments that we have adopted so far that include, within Bill C-18, a very strong proponent in support of indigenous people and indigenous journalists.

This amendment would ensure that the roster of qualified arbitrators also includes indigenous persons.

I move amendment NDP-23.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We will continue our discussions about when the House will adjourn for Christmas. This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion.

After that, we will vote on the adoption of the supply for the current period. Tomorrow, we will be begin debate at report stage of third reading of Bill C-9, the judges bill.

Next week priority will be given to Bill S-8, the sanctions legislation; Bill S-4, COVID-19 justice measures legislation; and Bill C-18, the online news act.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

If you're sincerely concerned, stop filibustering on bills C-11 and C-18. That's part of the answer.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Ms. Ashton, once again, if you're asking a question specifically about official languages, my colleague will be pleased to answer it. And she's here.

I can tell you that Canadian Heritage has introduced a set of measures. For example, we have bills C-11 and C-18. Other measures concern the Canada Council for the Arts. Telefilm Canada has just funded a number of French-language productions both in and outside Quebec. The National Film Board and other institutions that report to Canadian Heritage and are thus under my responsibility can help support the vitality of French both in and outside Quebec.

I can answer questions about those measures, but my colleague will be pleased to answer questions specifically about official languages.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's a very good and important question. Once again, I'll ask the minister responsible for official languages to give you the details. I'll simply tell you that the bill concerns language of work and access to services, but it also contains a whole set of other measures.

Under Bill C-11, streaming businesses such as Disney and Netflix will have to contribute to the creation and production of content in English and French in Canada, and especially in French in Quebec. That bill will have a direct beneficial impact.

Furthermore, Bill C-18 will protect local journalism. Money will be invested in our small newspapers in the regions and elsewhere by Google, Facebook and the web giants, which currently benefit from content without paying for it. The bill will support francophone content creation both in and outside Quebec.

Unlike Mr. Beaulieu, I'm convinced we can reinforce the French fact without attacking the anglophone minority. That's the major difference.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Through Canadian Heritage, I support the cultural sector, our artists and creators. That's what you and your party are obstructing by filibustering on Bill C-11. That's what you're obstructing as we want to assist journalists through Bill C-18. That's what you're doing, Mr. Godin. Acknowledge it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chair, billsC-11 and C-18 would provide tools to promote the French fact. The Conservatives are filibustering on those two bills.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was going to to be taken to task by the Liberals after my speech, but instead, in hockey parlance, they are giving me an assist. I thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He knows where I stand on the media, artists and the cultural industry.

There are two extremely important bills that really should be passed quickly. One is stuck in the Senate, which is outrageous. The Senate needs to stop playing games with Bill C-11. The cultural industry is depending on it. The web giants need to pay their fair share in every sector in which they are making a profit in Canada and Quebec, and that includes both the cultural industry and the broadcasting industry. This is also about protecting our news media.

We are working hard on Bill C-18, which is currently being examined in committee. Things are moving along well, and there is goodwill. I completely agree with my colleague. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the web giants contribute in sectors where they are making exponential profits.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the fall economic statement this afternoon.

I have to say that I am, along with many Canadians, deeply disappointed in the fall economic statement because it was an opportunity to provide real leadership to Canadians, give relief to small businesses in this country and take action to address the rising costs we are seeing coast to coast to coast.

It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten that we are in the worst cost of living crisis we have seen in a generation. Inflation, as we have talked about for months in the House, is at a 40-year high. Gas prices are still at record levels, especially diesel. Housing is more expensive than it has ever been.

Where did this crisis start? This time, the Liberals cannot blame the person by the name of Stephen Harper. They have had seven years to correct this. They want to blame global economic conditions, and sure, maybe that has a bit to do with it. However, what is the real root of the inflationary crisis we find ourselves in today? What has made everything worse in this country? The Liberals know, but they do not want to say. They know that the crisis has been caused by years of massive out-of-control Liberal deficit spending.

I was here in 2015 when the Liberals came into power, and Conservatives left them with a balanced budget and a very good economic forecast. That was left to them by a responsible Conservative government. They, in seven years, squandered it. I get it. The Prime Minister could not help himself. His agenda was failing, so he needed to try and buy votes every way he could think of.

However, the chickens have now come home to roost. The price of chicken, by the way, has doubled since the Liberals took office in 2015. All that spending they have done in the last seven years has driven inflation to a 40-year high. Canadians coast to coast to coast are struggling mightily.

Canadians are having to choose between filling their cars with gas, putting food on the table and heating their homes. A paycheque today does not go as far as it used to. Liberal inflation, combined with Liberal tax hikes, means that Canadians need to do more with less.

What does the government propose? It proposes to make everything worse in this country. This economic statement introduces another $20 billion of inflationary spending to drive inflation up even further. It also includes hikes to EI premiums next month and to CPP contributions, taking more money off of everybody's paycheque.

Instead of stopping their tax hikes, the Liberals are pushing forward with their plan to triple the carbon tax in 2023. That is right. In the dead of winter, the Liberals will be raising the cost of fuel, home heating and groceries.

Food bank usage, as we all know, is already at an all-time high in this country, with a 35% increase in the last year. In my city of Saskatoon alone, with a population of about 250,000, about 20,000 people a month visit the food bank. The city of Saskatoon used to be the economic engine of Canada.

Executive director, Laurie O'Connor, admits the numbers she sees coming through her door every day are very concerning. The donations of food and purchasing power have significantly decreased because food is so expensive. It is going to only get worse.

Members may recall that the 13th edition of Canada’s Food Price Report came out yesterday. It says a family of four will see their food bill go up by over $1,000, reaching about $16,000 a year. According to Stuart Smyth from the University of Saskatchewan, who helped in the report that was released yesterday, a family of six will pay over $21,000 in 2023 for food.

The problem is right in front of the Liberals' faces, and they have simply ignored it.

In Saskatchewan, the temperature today hit between -30°C and -40°C, and it is early December. People of my province are trying to figure out what temperature they can afford to set their thermostat to. If we think about it, in the last week in Saskatchewan, it was -30°C to -40°C already, and we are not even at January temperatures.

I want to know what the Prime Minister would say to the families who are already struggling to put food on the table when they see the last few dollars they have being used up when they move the thermostat up. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government has failed those families. They have failed retirees and the people living with disabilities who are on a fixed income.

What should the government be doing today?

First, without question, it should cancel all planned tax hikes and stop any government-mandated increases to the cost of living, with no hikes at all to payroll taxes and no tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians simply cannot afford any more of this Liberal tax increase.

Second, it needs to stop creating new inflationary spending. We know that government spending is only going to make inflation worse. If a minister wants to spend more money, he or she should have to find the equivalent savings in their budgets. Even the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that a bit in the fall economic report. However, while she did mention it, the Liberals gave the CBC an additional $42 million over two years. Why? It is because the CBC had a tough time during the pandemic.

This is the type of spending that has got to stop in this country. The CBC, the public broadcaster, already gets between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion, but they will then be given an additional $42 million over two years. Plus, we found out today that it is going to be at the trough when Bill C-18 gets cleared through the House. The public broadcaster will be one of the biggest beneficiaries from Google and Facebook when that bill passes through the House.

When the Prime Minister was first elected he promised that deficits, as we all recall, were not going to exceed $10 billion and that he would balance the budget by 2019. We all know that was a farce.

The pandemic is not the only thing to blame here. Forty per cent of the government's new spending measures had nothing to do with the last two years of COVID. Since coming to power, the Prime Minister has introduced $205 billion in new inflationary spending, which had nothing to do with COVID, and I just mentioned the public broadcaster.

The cost of the interest payments on the federal government's debt has doubled. The payments are nearly as high as the cost of the health transfers to the provinces. Imagine what could be done today if that money were directed elsewhere.

Instead, due to this Liberal mismanagement, we have interest rates that are increasing faster than they have in decades. In fact, we expect another 50 basis points tomorrow by the federal Bank of Canada. Mortgage payments, as we all know, are going sky high. Therefore, anyone who bought a house a few years ago and has to renew their mortgage could pay up to $7,000 more a year. Many Canadians cannot afford that. Some, unfortunately, are losing their homes.

While the Liberals are focused on making the problem worse, Conservatives are going to propose some solutions for Canadians. Instead of printing more money, a Conservative government would create more of what money buys. We will get more homes built and make Canada the quickest place in the world to get a building permit. Young Canadians who have never been able to afford a home and start a family under the Liberals will find a more competitive and more affordable market under our Conservative government.

A Conservative government will make energy more affordable. We will repeal the anti-energy laws and axe the carbon tax. We will not punish Canadians for heating their homes or simply driving their kids to activities, if they can even afford those activities in 2023.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Chair, I'll just throw this out there.

Yes to three hours on Friday, and is there any way that we could then maybe squeeze in a Monday committee meeting for Bill C-18 if possible, even if it's an hour—if we see on Friday that we're close but not there—or up to two hours on a Monday?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think this will be very controversial. It strikes at the heart of our objectives around Bill C-18, which is to foster journalism. This amendment would ensure that lists are published for public transparency that include “the number of journalists employed by each eligible news business in each year that it has been eligible.”

Through the transparency that comes with NDP-20, we could see, visibly, news outlets reporting back to the public about the number of journalists employed. That is what we seek to do through this legislation. I think all parties agree on that point. This is a way of ensuring more transparency and accountability from the news businesses that receive the funding.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My concern is that, if you have a provincial public broadcaster that is acting inappropriately, not respecting the journalistic standards we are setting throughout Bill C-18, and this amendment isn't passed, would there be any ability for the Governor in Council to take action if those standards were not adhered to?

Doesn't this amendment offer an additional level of protection to ensure that, with what I consider to be a perversion—I will withdraw the word “trash” and say it's more of a perversion of journalism that the UCP is doing—there's some regulatory oversight through cabinet, additional reasons, to ensure they don't have access to the funding from Bill C-18?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

They are already broadcasting legislative business on channels throughout the country. Are they eligible?

For instance, Saskatchewan legislature has a channel through Shaw. I think it's channel 118 in my city of Saskatoon. Are they all eligible then to get funding out of Bill C-18? They go all day when it sits. They televise everything from the legislature.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

This is my last question: Could provinces—and we're seeing this in certain jurisdictions, namely Alberta and Saskatchewan—then buy a radio station or a TV station, turn it into a public broadcaster and be eligible for this?

I say that because for my province—and we have The Saskatchewan First Act—and also for Alberta, with what's going on there, this would be a loophole, I would say, whereby they could now simply buy some TV stations or buy media outlets and have their own conglomerate.

Could that happen under Bill C-18?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be quick because I was at Bell Media for 40 years. We cut more than CBC, Mr. Julian. When Harper was in government, they cut 10% of the budget from CBC. I can tell you right now, Bell Media cut a hell of a lot more than 10%. I was part of a newsroom that at one time probably had 500 people in Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw and Yorkton. We'd be lucky to have 100 now, so don't give me this about Harper cutting 10% out of a $1 billion budget that CBC had for 10 years, because I can tell you that Bell and Global cut a hell of a lot more in those 10 years from 2010 to 2020.

What I'm saying with this bill, and I'll wrap it up in a second, is that if this does go through and CBC gets the majority of the money from C-18, you will see more cuts out of Bell and you will see more cuts out of Global. You will see more cuts out of all media but CBC.

To say that Canadians want CBC is a misstatement. Their ratings television-wise are 1%. Ms. Hepfner worked at CHCH Hamilton. How many cuts did they have in the last 10 years? A lot. More than 10%, absolutely. An independent station like that probably lost 40% of their people in the last 10 years.

All I'm saying here is let's level the playing field. If this goes and CBC is allowed to get access.... We on this side also believe tech should pay, tech being Google and Facebook, but I'm really upset that CBC is going to get the lion's share because, if you want to see media go down the drain in this country, allow CBC to get the majority of the money that we're going to see from tech in C-18.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We know that CBC is subject to the other aspects of the bill. The issue of whether or not we want to give the cabinet future control over CBC is a very valid one. As I mentioned before, that's why I will be voting against the passage of clause 28, though the next amendment coming up does help to address my concerns and the concerns felt by many people who saw, under 10 years of the Conservatives, how the CBC was gutted, absolutely gutted.

We've gone through and improved this bill substantially. We saw an NDP amendment that would give a two-person part-time operation the ability to access C-18—the little guys, as Conservatives like to champion. In fact, that's exactly what Alberta and Saskatchewan community newspapers asked for, and Conservatives voted against enlarging the mandate so that those little guys in communities right across Alberta and Saskatchewan could actually access funding from big tech.

I'm very confused by the Conservative strategy on this. They're attacking CBC, which is what they did when they were in government, so no surprise, but they have also been voting against amendments that broaden the criteria so that a two-person part-time operation, even if they were owner-proprietors, could actually access funding. Conservatives voted against.

It's incomprehensible to me how Conservatives are approaching this bill. They said they were opposed, and they essentially have been contradicting themselves all the way along. I fail to understand their intense refusal to really put in place the kind of funding that people want to see for CBC—that sound financial foundation. The reality is, in addition to the NDP amendments that have given access to the little guys, C-18 should not be excluded for a public broadcaster like CBC, which has also suffered from the lack of advertising that has been hoovered up by big tech.

To my mind, again, I will be voting against this amendment. I certainly will be supporting the following amendment, but if neither of those amendments pass, I'll be looking for deletion, and I hope we get a majority of the committee to delete clause 28.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I have proposed this amendment for exactly the reason Mr. Coteau is talking about. It is taxpayer dollars. Therefore, give it back to the taxpayer, and if Google can help facilitate that, great. If Facebook can help facilitate that, great. If Twitter can help, great. Whoever can help get that taxpayer-funded material back into the hands of the taxpayer, great. I'm not sure why we would want to hold that back. It's for the public good, so why the CBC would be scoped in with this legislation is beyond me.

The taxpayer is already on the hook for $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion with regard to CBC and making sure that news is produced and put out there. We should want that to be spread as widely as possible, but scoping the CBC in under this legislation means that their content could potentially be excluded from Facebook, let's say, if Facebook chooses not to participate in Bill C-18 and not to carry news anymore. That's a problem because taxpayers then are not able to access the media, the news they paid for.

Further to that, the entire purpose of Bill C-18 is to make up for lost ad revenue. This government in February of 2022 said that the CBC actually shouldn't be reliant on ad revenue and that it actually was against the public good, so this government committed to giving $400 million to the CBC in order to help them not be reliant on ad revenue.

If they're not supposed to be reliant on ad revenue, and that's the foundation that's being set by this government, then why are we are we scoping them into Bill C-18, where they can claim to be hard done by because they don't have ad revenue, even though this government says they shouldn't have ad revenue to begin with. Now they should be able to come to the bargaining table under Bill C-18 and enter into bargaining in order to make up for the lost ad revenue that this government says they shouldn't have to rely on to begin with. It just makes no sense.

The government is speaking out of both sides of its face by keeping this within the legislation. I just would ask, which one is it? Do we support that the taxpayer is putting out over $1 billion on the CBC and, therefore, should have access to the material, or should the CBC be scoped in this legislation and, therefore, withheld from some Canadians, potentially?

The point is that this is the public broadcaster; the public paid for it. It's already been paid for, so why does further negotiation need to be made with big tech companies to get them to pay even more? The material's been paid for. It was paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. It's a done deal, so it's crazy to me.

When I look at the spending of the CBC as well, I see that more than $30 million was spent on retention bonuses alone during the pandemic—$30 million just on bonuses, just to retain. I could keep going down a long list of wasted spending by the CBC, and this is the organization that we think should have the ability to continue to enter into negotiations and take 75% to 80% of this money when combined with Bell and Rogers. That's crazy.

The CBC, which is already taxpayer-funded, is going to be able to elbow out the little guys and get more money because of this bill. Meanwhile, those small rural papers are out. This government made sure they're out because they made sure that there has to be at least two journalists. Ethnic media—they're out, but don't worry. CBC, with more than 1,000 employees—you're in. Already $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion of taxpayer money—no problem. We'll keep you.

That's shameful and incredibly disingenuous, especially when the minister brought out this bill saying that it was supposed to help out newspapers and keep them in business, and especially when it uses words like “sustainability”. It's crazy. The little guys are getting killed by this bill. It's shameful.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm concerned about CPC-23, and I'll explain why, Madam Chair, having lived through what was a very difficult decade for public broadcasting.

When Mr. Harper was running the government, we saw a marked reduction in funding for journalism at CBC, and newsrooms closed right across the country. In smaller markets, where CBC, and CBC journalists, had served faithfully for many years, newsrooms were basically closed. In other cases, in larger markets, there was sort of a skeleton crew that was applied. That had a profound impact on CBC's ability to do the excellent work that it does as a public broadcaster.

I'm concerned about the idea that we would not have CBC as part of C-18 to start with because, fundamentally, what that might mean is that, if the next government in this country is going to do the same thing the Harper government did, we would see the same massive cuts in funding and in journalism from CBC serving the country, and there wouldn't be C-18 and that support from big tech. Our public broadcaster, a broadcaster that is respected across the country and around the world, would be receiving that death by a thousand cuts—cuts in funding for CBC journalism and no access to big tech funding either.

Of course, big tech vacuuming up all of the advertising revenue has an impact on CBC, as well as the vast majority of other news businesses across the country.

I'm concerned about CPC-23, and I won't be supporting it on that basis. I think it opens the door for what some Conservatives have mused on and the Conservative Party fundraises on, which is to kill CBC because it's the fair journalism that often puts the Conservatives in opposition. CBC has that solid, established reputation of journalism that often provokes a reaction from Conservatives.

I'm also concerned about clause 28 of the bill because what it does is provide additional conditions and regulations made by the Governor in Council. What that basically does is provide an opportunity for this government or a future government to impose additional conditions on CBC, and I'm not convinced that would always be used on a good-faith basis.

I don't believe that we should carry clause 28. I think we should be looking to remove that clause from the bill. I think what that would do is provide for CBC's independence. It's still subject to CRTC regulations and still subject to all the other provisions of the act, but it eliminates the possibility of a future cabinet saying, “Hey, we're going to impose a whole range of conditions,” and those conditions may be in a bad-faith way designed to strangle CBC.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of Canadians support the CBC. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Canadians respect the high standards of journalism that are set by the CBC. I think we have a duty as a committee to ensure that CBC has the ability to access the funding that big tech has been hoovering out of this country for years in the same way that all other journalists have the ability, but we also have to remove the potential for a future cabinet to say, “Hey, we're just going to provide that death by a thousand cuts to CBC so that our national public broadcaster is no longer on a sound footing.” We saw over a number of years how quickly journalism can be gutted at the CBC when a government, like the Harper government, cuts funding.

It is also important to talk about francophone journalists across Canada. In British Columbia, CBC/Radio‑Canada has excellent programs and journalists. This bilingualism in journalism is important across Canada.

The reality is that if we deprive the CBC of this potential funding from the tech giants and still give the Governor in Council, through section 28, the ability to change regulations very significantly and unilaterally, it risks taking us back to the days of the Harper government, which slashed funding to CBC/Radio‑Canada. Journalism suffered in newsrooms across the country, especially on the French side, where the number of journalists declined.

For this reason, I will vote against this amendment proposed by the Conservatives, and I am voting against clause 28 of the bill. It should be eliminated to avoid jeopardizing the future of CBC/Radio‑Canada.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I share some of the concerns that Mr. Waugh expressed earlier about the funding of the CBC. However, as Mr. Ripley said, news content generated by public broadcasters is news content that is eligible.

We want to regulate companies that produce news that is accessible to Canadians. In that sense, I tend to agree with the concerns of private companies, who ask why CBC/Radio‑Canada, which receives public funding, would also be entitled to benefit from this legislative framework.

However, I don't think we need to start questioning the funding of CBC/Radio‑Canada in depth now. I'm much more concerned about the fact that CBC/Radio‑Canada can add advertising left and right and subscription levels for some of the services it offers, when it already receives public funding.

I think ultimately there will have to be some in‑depth work done. Often we put this off until later. But we will have to look at it, because it causes a lot of frustration.

Personally, I don't think CBC/Radio‑Canada should be excluded from Bill C‑18, because of the nature of the bill we're dealing with, but I would be very supportive of looking at the various business practices of CBC/Radio‑Canada that are causing harm to private companies soon.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I would agree with you on CBC/Radio-Canada. It's a very good organization in this country.

CBC television.... I look at the numbers across the country, and they're not as powerful as they once were. I would imagine that the CTV network is finding that out. So are Global TV and others in this country too. The numbers that they once had have diminished greatly.

I just go back to the private versus the public. I worry, with Bill C-18 and with CBC involved with unlimited resources now and getting extra money from Google and Facebook, about what that will do to the medium and even small and large networks. It's hard enough today for them to compete, and with the extra revenue, considering what the PBO report said.... We'll say $150 million. I'll go with your number. That's a big number to the CBC, and the rest compete against that monstrosity of a news network that we do have.

They do good work; don't get me wrong. The CBC does good work. At the same time, it's taxpayer-fed, as we found out in the fall economic update, where they got $42 million, thank you, from the federal government for no reason whatsoever. That's where I'm coming from. It's going to be very hard for private companies to compete against the public broadcaster going forward if, in fact, CBC is going to be at the trough, as we expect they will be on Bill C-18.

That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When Bill C-18 was introduced, it was supposed to level the playing field. Here we have a public broadcaster that has between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion. I see recently, in the fall economic update, it got $21 million for one year and another $21 million for next year, so a total of $42 million. That is not levelling the playing field.

The public broadcaster is absolutely destroying the digital sphere—if you don't mind me saying so—in this country. In Britain, BBC is allowed to spend a certain amount on digital. Here, CBC can spend a billion dollars on it if they wish. I think this is where, when we look at Bill C-18 and how small and medium newspapers, and small, medium and even large television and radio stations.... Right now, they really can't compete with CBC on the digital. CBC is killing them. CBC is hiring—as you've heard me say many times—the best journalists throughout Canada, throwing them on their web page, and they are doing very well on that.

We really have to have a long discussion around the table on this one. Should the public broadcaster be involved in any fees on Bill C-18? If they are, let me throw this out. Would the Liberal government reduce the budget of CBC by the amount they're going to get from Google and Facebook? There's the starting point.

I, for one, feel that the public broadcaster should not be included in Bill C-18. I'm trying to level the playing field. We have a public broadcaster that gave out bonuses during the pandemic. They gave out $15 million in bonuses. You tell me a station or a newspaper in this country that would give out $15 million in bonuses in the last two years. As you can see, the level playing field is not level at all. The public broadcaster is at the trough, and it's a big trough on Bill C-18—them along with Rogers and Bell. They're going to gobble up 75% to 80% of the money that....

Mr. Ripley, can you confirm those numbers with me for CBC, Bell and Rogers—the big media outlets in this country? Out of the $330 million that we suspect Facebook and Google will give through Bill C-18, they in fact will gobble up 75% of that. Can you confirm those numbers, please?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Sure, if you feel that I need to read it into the record. It is that Bill C-18 in clause 27 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 10 the following:

(3.1) Despite subsection (1), a news business might not be designated as eligible if

(a) the news business is the subject of sanctions under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), or is owned or controlled by an individual or entity that is the subject of such sanctions; or

(b) the news business has its headquarters in a foreign state, as defined in section 2 of the Special Economic Measures Act, that is the subject of measures under an Act referred to in paragraph (a).

Then subclause (3.2) would be after that, which says:

(3.2) If a news business described in paragraph (3.1)(a) or (b) was previously designated as eligible, the Commission must, by order, revoke the order designating the business as eligible.

Madam Chair, I will just explain it.

I think the previous Conservative amendment had some very good ideas, but I just didn't agree with the whole motion. I do believe that if you have an American owner of a small Canadian newspaper with four journalists and they're covering local Canadian news, I don't see why it would be excluded. Even if The Wall Street Journal has a Canadian bureau, why would it be excluded for the purposes of the cost of the Canadian bureau?

However, we don't want Iranian, Russian or Chinese.... To me, if there's a country that is sanctioned or if there are people who are sanctioned, then I think they should not be eligible. I tried to draft it that way using existing federal legislation that specifies people, countries, actors and organizations.

I'm happy to entertain amendments if people can improve it, but that's sort of how I was looking at it. It's to get rid of the bad actors, but not to get rid of potentially eligible or fairly eligible news businesses.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Always, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure, though I will be brief.

We've spoken to this issue, and I think the committee a number of times has intervened to improve Bill C-18 through these amendments. We have intervened to provide supports for indigenous news outlets. This is another amendment in that sense. It would ensure that indigenous news outlets are eligible for the purposes of being designated as a news business under the act if they operate in Canada and produce news content of general interest.

News content would include the requirement that the content report on, investigate or explain current issues or events of public interest. This language includes greater specificity in relation to the coverage of rights of self-government and treaty rights, which are particularly relevant, as you know, Madam Chair, to indigenous communities.

This language mirrors the language regarding the coverage of democratic institutions and processes for the purposes of recognizing non-indigenous news businesses. What NDP-18 serves to do is to incorporate that amendment into page 10, saying the following:

operates an Indigenous news outlet in Canada and produces news content that includes matters of general interest, including coverage of matters relating to the rights of Indigenous peoples, including the right of self-government and treaty rights.

I move that amendment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to see you take over the chairmanship.

I know that Mr. Champoux's amendment is extremely important. Just before we adjourned the last meeting, I tabled a subamendment, and I hope it will have the support of the committee. It seeks to add the following paragraph:

(1.1) The code of ethics referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv) [this is the one proposed by Mr. Champoux] must include measures for ensuring that no news content that promotes hatred or misinformation against any identifiable group is produced or made available and that errors of fact are corrected promptly and in a transparent manner.

This would, through the code of ethics in the excellent Bloc Québécois amendment, reduce the hatred and misinformation we see in society.

Mr. Chair, as you know very well we have unfortunately been witnessing an increase in incitement to hate-based violence for several years. It's disturbing to see this across Canada. It is therefore important that the journalistic content that is supported by Bill C‑18 be subject to this code of ethics so that hate and misinformation are not part of it.

We've seen a disturbing rise in hate, a disturbing rise in racism and misogyny, a disturbing rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and a disturbing rise in homophobia and transphobia. This is something we have to take action on. Journalism plays a key role in that. We've already talked about Bill C-18 playing a role in encouraging local journalism in a way that counters that hate and disinformation.

The reality is that what is foreseen in the Bloc Québécois amendment on a code of ethics is a code of ethics that must necessarily take into consideration hatred and misinformation against any identifiable group. This is something that I feel keenly is an important improvement to BQ-4, which is an excellent amendment that I'm prepared to support. This would ensure that the journalism supported by Bill C-18 is subject to that code of ethics that counters hatred and disinformation.

We have to take a stand. It's important. Bill C-18 provides a lot more community support. The improvements that we've provided to Bill C-18 provide for a lot more community journalism. It's important that this community journalism be subject to a code of ethics. It's important that this code of ethics includes measures that ensure that journalists at the community level and across the country are in no way promoting hatred or disinformation.

On that note, I will move the subamendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I'm going to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 59 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.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. I know you're all familiar with this, but please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Those in the room have the earpiece and self-desired channels. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair, if you don't mind, this morning.

In accordance with the routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses are present, except Mr. Ripley. Therefore, no connection tests in advance of the meeting were required. I don't think Mr. Ripley is on Zoom. He is coming a little later.

I now would like to welcome the witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage who are present to answer any of our questions about about Bill C-18.

Welcome again to Michel Sabbagh, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch. We also have Joelle Paré, acting director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Pierre-Marc Lauzon, manager, legislative and parliamentary issues. We'll wait for Mr. Ripley when he decides to come.

Again, we have votes later in the hour, but we are resuming consideration of clause 27, amendment BQ-4, and consideration of Mr. Julian's subamendment.

(On clause 27)

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm moving it. We have another minute, so I'm going to move that it be added as a subamendment.

It would add a new subclause 27(1.1) to Bill C‑18, which reads as follows:The code of ethics referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv) must include measures for ensuring that no news content that promotes hatred or misinformation against any identifiable group is produced or made available and that any errors of fact are corrected promptly and in a transparent manner.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, it's a wise decision on the part of my colleague Mr. Julian. I thank him for it and salute him.

BQ‑4 is near and dear to me because it adds journalistic rigour to Bill C‑18.

In preparation for the committee's work, I had the opportunity to speak with various journalism associations, including the Quebec Press Council, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec and other stakeholders.

I was wondering how we could incorporate the basic principles of journalism, which are rigour, independence and fairness, into Bill C‑18. We have racked our brains to try to find the best possible wording—I know others have tried—but simplicity is always the most effective solution.

Therefore, through this amendment, I propose to add the following subparagraph to paragraph 27(1)(b) to require the following from an eligible news business:(iv) is a member of a recognized journalistic association, follows the code of ethics of a recognized journalistic association or has its own code of ethics whose standards of professional conduct require adherence to the recognized processes and principles of the journalism profession, including fairness, independence and rigour in reporting news and handling sources.

In my opinion, it makes perfect sense to ask businesses that will benefit from the framework put in place by Bill C‑18 to adhere to these ethical principles. If they are not members of a recognized journalistic organization or association, they must at least adhere to a code of ethics that meets those criteria if they do not have one. This amendment is quite permissive and quite broad. We're not requiring companies to be members of an organization or an association, but we're asking them to adhere to these principles and to commit to them.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Housefather's proposal still allows for foreign news entities to receive funding by entering into negotiations protected by Bill C-18. We're just not able to support that, because of course outlets have asked that this not be the case, so no.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Okay.

It seems to me that Mr. Housefather's amendment would be worth considering. As Mr. Champoux pointed out, the Conservative Party's amendment CPC‑21 was intended to make an acceptable, if not desirable, change to Bill C‑18, but I too think Mr. Housefather's amendment is clearer, although I have some questions about that.

I'd just like to know when we can consider Mr. Housefather's amendment. It seems relevant to me, given that we're already debating these amendments.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak to this amendment.

CPC-21 is meant to make sure that this legislation carries out its stated intent, which is to support.... Actually, I think we're not unfortunately going to end up supporting the little guys with this. The stated intent, at least, was to support local newspaper outlets. Then of course it got expanded to broadcasters.

The point here is that funding would not be going to entities that are foreign in nature, from a foreign state. Those entities, those news businesses, would not be supported or able to bargain within the framework of this legislation, Bill C-18. That is the intention behind CPC-21.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I might need some help from Mrs. Thomas, who's on the floor. That's where I would like to add it. I'm just trying to find where we could add that, because there are flaws, as we've heard from Mr. Ripley and department officials, and to strengthen Bill C-18, we would like to add that. I would just like to add the subamendment that one journalist would qualify.

Rachael, can you help me out? You're on the floor, and you have people around you there. Is there any way that we can work this subamendment in?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I want to thank Mr. Ripley for clearly identifying a flaw in Bill C-18.

Madam Chair, I would like to have a subamendment to add “one journalist”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I thought it was a rhetorical question, Madam Chair, but I am pleased to respond to the Conservatives' incomprehensible strategy on Bill C-18.

I am stunned by the whiplash we get from them not supporting it all, trying to stop it, trying to block it completely, and then all of a sudden saying they're in favour of it, but now they're saying they're opposed. I mean, they're doing this sometimes on the same amendment, being both opposed and in favour of Bill C-18. It's just mind-blowing.

I don't where they're going on this. All the witnesses they lined up were folks they wanted to get to say they opposed Bill C-18. It has been incomprehensible to determine where Conservatives are going on this bill.

The reality is that when the Conservatives were in power in that dismal decade we lived through under Harper, these news businesses were collapsing because the Conservative government refused to make sure we were putting in place protections against big tech, so big tech, big banks, big oil and gas had a field day, and regular people really suffered.

I hope this means the Conservatives will support NDP-16. We now know the vast majority of news businesses will benefit from this. This essentially ensures that many news businesses will benefit. The independent online news publishers of Canada strongly support this idea. I hope Conservatives will get with the program; however, I'm mystified by where they are on this. Either they don't understand the bill or.... I don't know what. The confusion around where the Conservatives stand on Bill C-18 has been mystifying.

I hope they will vote and support NDP-16. There's a wide variety of media calling for it.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

This is my last intervention.

I'm really disappointed, Mr. Ripley. We have a chance to perfect Bill C-18. We're passing a bad bill. Is that better than not passing this bill at all?

You have just admitted there will be organizations that do not meet the criteria of Bill C-18. We have a chance right now, all parties around this table, to correct this. You have heard from many stakeholders that they need one journalist—not two; one. You cited the Canadian Periodical Fund and the local journalism fund. You've also said there is shrinkage. We all know around this table that there has been a lot of shrinkage. I can bring a newspaper from my province that sold for $1.

Would Mr. Julian accept an amendment to make Bill C-18 even better for all Canadians by having one journalist instead of two? Would Mr. Julian agree to that to make this bill what it should be, a good bill for all Canadians, instead of leaving out many rural Canadians in Bill C-18?

Would you amend the bill to accept all Canadians and businesses trying to make a living in this country, Mr. Julian?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm glad to hear Mr. Ripley tell us that if Bill C-18 doesn't go forward, there are other forms of help that are already in place. I think it bears repeating that Facebook and Google are on the public record saying that they would be willing to donate funds that could go into a fund that would be managed by representation from the different provincial, indigenous and territorial small media outlets across the country. That would avoid all of the government bureaucracy and the tendency to interfere with the freedom of the media.

That said, we had some examples that Mr. Ripley cited of organizations that have fewer than two journalists that would be excluded and impacted.

Mr. Ripley, do you have a number of how many organizations in Canada would meet the other criteria, like being journalists or news organizations as part of the Income Tax Act or being licensees with the CRTC?

How many organizations would have fewer than two journalists and be impacted?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the question, MP Julian.

What I can share with you is what has been shared with the department by certain news associations. Representations have been made here by a number of folks.

One is the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada, which is an association of smaller news outlets with membership in the hundreds. They have been concerned by the criterion of having two regularly employed journalists.

The amendment you're moving, Mr. Julian, would certainly help a proportion of their membership. It will not help their entire membership. They have indicated that having the amendment specifically with respect to the arm's-length nature of the relationship, as well as including the owner and publisher, is a meaningful change.

News Media Canada has indicated—they have membership in the hundreds as well—that currently about a hundred of their members would face a hurdle when it comes to the two-journalist criterion. Again, the change that you are moving is a meaningful one, recognizing that the owner or publisher can be included in that two-journalist criterion.

Finally, we have certainly heard from online news publications. Again, they have flagged that the two-journalist criterion is a barrier. They have advocated that it be reduced to one, as well as recognizing that news publishers and owners should be considered as part of that criterion.

From the government's perspective, I would simply underscore that if Bill C-18 passes, it's an important intervention, but it's not the only intervention that the government does in this space. There are several departmental programs that are specifically designed to support news outlets.

For example, the Canada periodical fund supports approximately 750 periodicals on an annual basis, including 385 print magazines, 291 print community newspapers, 65 digital magazines and 14 digital community newspapers.

Over the last several years we have also had the special measures for journalism component, which has expanded the eligibility to include free publications. That has supported an additional 792 recipients, which include free digital and small circulation periodicals, and has had an important impact in western Canada, where the free subscription model is more prevalent than perhaps in Ontario, Quebec or some of the other provinces.

The final piece I would highlight is the local journalism initiative, which has supported the hiring of 435 journalists in 2020-21. Again, that's a program specifically designed to help scale up news businesses to hire additional journalists in underserved areas.

From the government's perspective, we recognize the challenges faced by smaller outlets. The two-journalist criterion currently in the bill—I certainly recognize that it's being debated right now—was fundamentally about recognizing that the goal is to support news businesses, just as the labour tax credit is, and that you have to find a way to make that distinction between an individual citizen journalist, a blogger, and individuals who are really committed to growing a news business.

Mr. Julian, on your second question, I would simply highlight that news businesses continue to see shrinkage in the news sector in this country. While we have seen news outlets open—particularly in the digital space—we're still seeing overall shrinkage. Bill C-18 is fundamentally about supporting the sustainability of the sector as these news businesses adapt to a digital news model.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have the Conservatives throwing out a whole bunch of figures left, right and centre. I have no idea where those figures come from, so I wanted to ask our officials to what extent NDP-16 would enlarge the number of small community newspapers and online news publishers. Would it be able to benefit from this money from big tech?

Secondly, my question is simply this: If we just stop moving forward on Bill C-18, which is what the Conservatives want, what would that mean in terms of those newspapers and online publishers across the country? If we don't have Bill C-18 at all, how many news publications would go bankrupt in the coming years?

I've certainly seen big tech taking so much money out of my constituency that we've lost half of the community newspapers over the last few years.

I'm asking the officials, I guess, three things.

Where do these figures come from, or are they aware of these figures that are being thrown around by the Conservatives? What is the impact of not adopting Bill C-18? What is the impact of NDP-16 in terms of enlarging the number of publications that benefit from big tech finally being forced to provide support for journalism in this country?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My concern still is the one journalist in this conversation on Bill C-18.

I will go back to the testimony once again from Alberta and Saskatchewan. The majority of newspapers in these two provinces.... I can't speak for B.C. because we didn't have anyone come forward for B.C., Ontario or the Maritimes. These issues in this province and in Alberta are not good. Eighty percent of the money that comes from Bill C-18 will go to the public broadcaster, along with the big telcos.

What they have left here, and the discussion that we're having on NDP-16, is that we still need two journalists, which of course can be the owner and can be an investor. The QCJO status is an issue. I've talked to many journalism universities in this province. Fewer and fewer people are getting into journalism, so this is another issue that we're going to have.

To survive in rural Canada today, one journalist is required. Two would put many of these operations out of business when they're thinking they're going to get $30,000 to $50,000 per year, when in fact they'll get $300 to $500 per year because there's nothing in it for them from Google and Facebook. It's all eaten up by the big boys.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Previously, I did state the point about supporting.... We need to make sure organizations that had the owner or a partner as a journalist were included, so I've already said that.

Mr. Julian continues to try speak on behalf of the Conservatives' intention with respect to this bill, so I want to reiterate that I do not support Bill C-18. If you were to look to the voting record, you would see that clause 3—the clause regarding the purpose of the bill being to help small media organizations—is the only thing I voted for. I do agree that we should do that. I just don't think this bill will achieve it.

Mr. Julian has put it out there that if we vote for his amendment, we're essentially supporting Bill C-18, so naturally I wouldn't be able to support his amendment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Subparagraph 27(1)(b)(i) of Bill C‑18 is still useful. It shows the importance of discussing and reflecting, and then speaking with the various stakeholders involved in a bill, as this can produce results.

In this case, I must confess that I was concerned from the outset about the situation of very small regional media, which are no less rigorous because they are small. They are struggling these days, and have been for years now, since the arrival of the web giants.

However, I also have a very serious concern with Bill C‑18, and that is that we need to ensure that the news businesses that will be regulated by this bill are serious and rigorous businesses. We will come back to it with other amendments later.

So I think it's important to set some parameters. Employing two journalists certainly shows that the news business is serious, or so one would hope. If a business hires more than one journalist, it's certain that you're not dealing with a blogger who is merely commenting on the news in their basement. So I think it's important to set some parameters to prevent people from falling through the cracks and taking advantage of Bill C‑18.

A compromise was reached by allowing that one of the two journalists could also be an owner or have an arm's length relationship with the business. This compromise will certainly cover a fair number of small regional media, which are the ones we want to protect with this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madame Chair, and I'm very pleased to move NDP-16.

I think it's important to note that the independent online news publishers of Canada have been the instigators of start-ups right across the country, including two very important publications locally in my community, the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor. They do terrific work. They employ a number of journalists, and they're the ones who have been the standard-bearers looking to have that critical improvement in Bill C-18. Their concern was around journalists who are partners in the business themselves or owners of the business themselves or who don't deal at arm's length with the business. Bill C-18 in its second-reading form excluded them from accessing the funds that are going to be so important for building journalism locally. Of course, the community newspaper associations like Alberta community newspapers and Saskatchewan community newspapers also spoke to this. This is an extremely important improvement.

What it does is it replaces line 9 on page 10 with the following:

Canada, which journalists may include journalists who own or are a partner in the news business and journalists who do not deal at arm's length with the business,

This amendment is a very important and critical one for improving the bill to make sure it's accessible to community newspapers, to online news publishers right across the country, to the media that provide supports in third and fourth languages in this country. We have an ethnic press that is extremely vital and energetic. What this does is provide that ethnic news publications that have owners who are also operators who are also journalists can access this regime. It's extremely important.

I became very confused by the Conservatives in the last discussion around the amendments. They've been opposed to Bill C-18. They've tried to fight Bill C-18. They've tried to delay Bill C-18, and then all of a sudden they spoke in favour of the benefits that come from Bill C-18. This is the litmus test. If they vote for NDP-16, they are showing the importance of improving the bill and making sure that it's accessible to community newspapers and online news publishers right across the country.

With that, Madame Chair, I hope that this passes unanimously. This will be an important improvement to make sure Bill C-18 really does what it needs to do, which is ensure that the big tech giants actually start funding journalism right across the country, including in communities throughout the length and breadth of Canada.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

On this bill, when it does come out, in Bill C-18 clearly the losers are local newspapers in our communities in Canada. They expected a lot more from Facebook and Google.

On the Conservative side, we realized that you can't hire anybody for $300 to $500 a month. These people in rural Canada expected $30,000 to $50,000 a year to hire the reporters needed in this country.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just going to say this because we heard testimony from Saskatchewan and Alberta on the one journalist. The point I want to make is that Bill C-18 has favoured the public broadcaster and has favoured the big broadcasting outfits that we have in this country.

First of all, in rural Canada, they expected maybe $30,000 to $50,000 to help them to hire an employee through Google and Facebook. That's what this bill set out to do when we first started: to give these little newspapers, ethnic newspapers and other media a lifeline for a reporter. Unfortunately, with the NDP joining the Liberals, what we're now seeing is you can lop off a zero. They're going to to get $300. They're going to get $500 instead of $30,000 a year or $50,000 a year to hire reporters.

It's despicable, Madam Chair, that when I look at ours and we heard from groups like Saskatchewan and Alberta.... I know we didn't hear from B.C., but I brought Alberta and Saskatchewan to the table. We clearly heard from them that—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I want to clarify for Mr. Julian that I do not support Bill C-18. I share the concerns that have been raised by constitutional lawyers and by our friends in the U.S. I do not think it will achieve the purpose for which it is intended.

However, it is clear that the NDP-Liberal marriage is going to force this bill through, so my attempt here is to minimize the damage that will be done, to try to get the benefit for small media organizations and to try to prevent some of the unintended, hugely negative consequences that will happen.

It's too bad the government wouldn't just take money from Facebook and Google, which are willing to give it, and give it to a consortium of small media outlets and let them divvy the pot, and not let CBC, the Bell news media and Rogers walk off with 75% of it.

Thank you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm exuberant at the Conservatives' sudden support for Bill C-18. That's wonderful.

As you know, I've been raising for weeks and weeks the issue of the Alberta community newspapers and the Saskatchewan community newspapers while Conservatives pooh-poohed the bill and the legislation and then filibustered it to draw it out. If they are now coming on board and saying they're going to support Bill C-18, that is great news.

We've made a lot of improvements to the bill so far. NDP-16 addresses the issue of those journalists who are partners or who own the business, which was a concern of community newspapers, and I'll be supporting NDP-16. The CPC amendment does not do the job that NDP-16 does.

That said, I think it's very important as well that the government continue to provide supports to businesses that are just starting out, and there are programs available for those businesses that are just starting. I'm going to be voting against CPC-19, but voting for NDP-16, so that we're enlarging the scope of eligibility. I will say that the amendments that have been adopted so far do that as well, so that's all wonderful.

I'm very happy about the support of my Conservative colleagues now for Bill C-18. That's very good news. Let's keep going on, getting NDP-16 adopted and building more improvements into the bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

BQ‑3, relating to eligible news businesses, proposes to amend paragraph 27(1)(b) of Bill C‑18, by replacing line 4 on page 10 with the following:(b) produces news content of public interest that is primarily focused

It's a principle of journalism to serve the public interest, and it's recognized as a function of a news business. We want to add the words “public interest” to the term “news content”, as the latter is rather vague and imprecise.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Before we get under way here with clause-by-clause consideration, out of courtesy to Justice Cromwell, as we have a motion to bring him to committee, I'm wondering, Madam Chair, if I could suggest the following. Because we are progressing pretty well on Bill C-18, I suggest we ask the clerk to arrange for Justice Cromwell to come to committee on December 13 out of respect for his time.

As you all know, Hockey Canada's new board will be announced on Saturday, December 17, and we wanted Justice Cromwell here before it proceeds with its new board.

If that's okay with everyone, I circled the date of Tuesday, December 13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 58 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.

Today's meeting is taking place pursuant to the order of Tuesday, May 31, 2022. The committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members attending in the room know by now what to do to get your interpretation. Members who are in the hybrid format, because we've been doing this for a while as parliamentarians, also know what to do to find your interpretation with that little globe thing at the bottom of your screen.

Please wait until I recognize you by name to activate your microphone, and turn it off as soon as you have spoken. Otherwise, we have that horrible clashing sound of my voice ringing like a banshee in the meeting when I try to speak.

We have with us today witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have Thomas Ripley, Michel Sabbagh, Joelle Paré and Frederick Matern. They are here to advise, to facilitate and to interpret any of the clauses of the bill with which you wish to deal.

We'll begin with BQ-3 and Monsieur Champoux—

Mr. Waugh, go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I did want to ask something of you and the clerk.

We've been working now on amendments for two weeks. This is important legislation that needs to be improved, and I think everybody has been working co-operatively to do that. I also realize that if we are not able to complete our improvement of the bill and it delays over the Christmas break for three months, the provisions of Bill C-18 could take up to nine months, so we're basically putting off for a year the supports that local media organizations vitally need.

I would ask you if it's possible to schedule double meetings in the coming weeks so that we have more time to consider amendments and to work through the amendments. I think it's an important legislative process, but we need to have more time. There's also a certain urgency, as we've heard from many media organizations around us.

If it's possible to put in place extra meetings, I think it would be warranted and welcome, given all of these things.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Good catch, Mr. Waugh, thank you.

I just wanted to say that Mr. Bittle was kind enough to give me a heads-up on the amendment, and I support his subamendment. I think it does allow for some scope in the future around these non-profit entities of community radio and campus radio. It does allow some ability for them to be incorporated into Bill C-18, which I think is the objective of all of us, and that's why we adopted the language around non-profit entities.

I thank Mr. Bittle. I support his amendment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Now it's my time to wax eloquent and talk about the national campus and community radio fund. These are community broadcasters across the country that provide a great deal of local news and information, but they're not defined in the QCJO definition, the qualified Canadian journalism organization definition. This is an issue we've even had within the tax framework, because these are non-profit stations. They've applied for QCJO status and have been rejected because this is defining broadcasting through the Income Tax Act.

The NDP-12 amendment is simply adding that news media either be defined by the QCJO definition or be “licensed by the Commission under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act as a campus station, community station or [indigenous] station as those terms are defined in regulations made under that Act”.

What this would do is simply allow for the non-profit sector to have a place within Bill C-18. You'll recall, Madam Chair, that we've already adopted amendments that apply to both for-profit and non-profit entities.

In terms of news media, we need to support community broadcasters. I think the committee, as a whole, has already indicated that direction in the amendments we've adopted so far.

I'd like to thank national campus and community radio for the work they do right across the country every day. What this would do, without creating a free-for-all, is slightly broaden the categories of entities of news media organizations that could benefit from Bill C-18.

With that, I move NDP-12.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

For further clarification, without the link, is it your understanding that Bill C-18 would not give rise to or provide opportunity for Facebook, in this example, to be determined a DNI and therefore scoped in by the CRTC or even perhaps penalized by the CRTC?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

This amendment was written with the idea that Bill C-18 somehow violates international copyright agreements like the Berne Convention, but I'd like to remind some colleagues of the testimony we heard that dispelled copyright-related concerns about the bill.

This is from Professor Stephens, who said, “criticisms that Bill C-18 will violate Canada's international trade obligations, including the Berne copyright convention...do not stand up to scrutiny.” He also added there is no “strong legal argument to challenge the bill under either CUSMA or Berne.”

Further, Mrs. Thomas talked about the charter. I don't believe we heard any evidence about charter concerns either. This is a respected expert on the subject.

We are opposed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I guess my comments relate to both NDP-11 and PV-3, if we get there.

In Bill C-18, platforms must negotiate over the ways they make news content available. It allows parties to reach the deals that focus on the use of content that benefits them both.

This amendment shifts the focus of compensation from a broad conception of the value of news content to the DNI, to a narrow concept of cost of production. Editorial expenditures, as a measure for fair compensation, could be perceived as a tax on platforms, which could lead to trade and legal concerns. It could also discourage innovation by only rewarding established forms of news production, such as conventional newsrooms. This will likely undermine the compensation that is paid through the regime.

As we've said before, we should leave it to the parties to negotiate freely. We shouldn't be too restrictive in this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The paragraph we propose to add is:

19.1 Any provision in a covered agreement respecting payments to be made by a digital news intermediary to a news business must be based solely on the editorial expenditures of the business.

This proposal comes from Canada's independent online news publishers, which include new media, metropolitan media and several publications from across Canada.

The independent online news publishers of Canada have made this suggestion in terms of improving the fairness around the formula. I think we've succeeded as a committee, Madam Chair, in adding transparency to Bill C-18 and closing a lot of the loopholes.

The fair-funding aspect is extremely important to the independent online news publishers of Canada right across the country. I wanted to shout out to the Burnaby Beacon and the New West Anchor, two of those online publications that do very good work in our community.

The essence of the amendment is to focus on editorial expenditures, on journalists. The payments should really be made in terms of setting staff time and freelance contract labour in journalism. That is why they made the suggestion to put in place a level playing field.

In terms of the appropriate number of editorial expenditures to be covered, we saw in the Australian example that we're talking about 30% to 35% of editorial expenditures. In other words, what this amendment would do is put in place a fair-funding formula based on editorial expenditures, something that is alluded to in the bill but isn't as clear as this amendment would make it.

With thanks to the independent online news publishers of Canada, I move NDP-11, an amendment that would ensure that payments are based solely on editorial expenditures, on the actual provision for journalism in the business.

Thank you.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

We've discussed this aspect of Bill C-18 a lot. It allows parties to reach deals that focus on the use of the content and benefit them both. This amendment, we believe, narrows the scope of what compensation is. We think this may actually lower the value deals for publishers. We've been clear that it's not for the government to determine the conception of value; it's for the parties to come to the table and negotiate on what value is.

Like previous amendments we've seen before this committee, this amendment only benefits the platforms and foreign tech giants. Unfortunately, time and time again, as we're slow-rolling through this bill, the Conservatives seem to want to give platforms the ability to tell news organizations how much they'll get.

I think the rest of the parties have demonstrated that we believe we need to rein in foreign tech giants. It's unfortunate that there's one party here that doesn't share that belief.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

What NDP-10 sets out is a bargaining process in terms of timing. It closes a potential loophole within Bill C-18. Right now, the amount of time that it would take for each step is uncertain. What that would lead to is a modification on page 8, lines 2 to 11, starting off with:

(a) negotiation or bargaining sessions over a period of up to 90 days;

(b) if the parties are unable, within the negotiation or bargaining period, to reach an agreement, mediation sessions of up to 120 days, beginning on the day after the end of the negotiation or bargaining period; and

(c) if the parties are unable, within the mediation period, to reach an agreement and at least one of the parties wishes to initiate arbitration, final offer arbitration for a period of up to 45 days, beginning on the day after the end of the mediation period.

This amendment also foresees that “the Commission”, upon “request of the parties” can extend any of the periods that are set out. Basically, it pushes big tech to reach agreements. They can't skate around the ice and rag the puck. Because it does go to final arbitration after each of these periods is completed, it does compel that level playing field. I think so many of our small media across the country are looking for timelines that push big tech to negotiate those agreements.

That is the intent around NDP-10. I believe Mr. Housefather has a technical amendment that I believe I'll welcome. Hopefully we can pass a vote on NDP-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 57 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members attending in the room know what to do. You've done it so many times before. Members with us virtually also know what to do, as they've done it so many times before as well.

Please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating by video conference, click on the icon at the bottom. Please remember that all comments should be made through the chair.

Before we start, I wanted to convey on your behalf our condolences to Peter on the passing of his mother. Peter, our thoughts are with you. It must be very hard losing a parent. I know. We are all thinking about you and are with you in this moment of grief.

Mr. Housefather, your hand is up.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Again, my thanks go to Mr. Housefather for his brilliant and methodical approach on this issue. I want to thank CACTUS, which indicated to us the importance of the subamendment that we just adopted.

As far as NDP-7 is concerned, I want to underline that APTN, Dadan Sivunivut and the Fédération nationale des communications and de la culture all offered this important suggestion to ensure that indigenous news outlets are a part of clause 11 and part of the obligations that the web giants have before they can apply for an exemption.

In other words, they are something that needs to be considered. The obligations would include ensuring that a significant portion of indigenous news outlets benefit from them and that they contribute to the sustainability of those outlets in a way that supports the provisions of news content by and for indigenous peoples.

It also includes that these agreements have been entered into business models that provide services to all markets and diverse populations, including anglophone and francophone communities, official language minority communities and Black and other racialized communities. There's no doubt that this amendment helps to strengthen the diversity component of the legislation.

I want to thank all those who testified before us and made those important suggestions. I hope that this amendment will be adopted and improve Bill C-18.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Again, I know that with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 there have been concerns raised that the CRTC is going to regulate content. Nothing in the bills, and no amendments, do that. This is the only amendment we've seen in those two bills that would put the CRTC in a position to regulate content, which is, again, surprising.

We're opposed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'll be very quick, Mr. Chair, as Monsieur Champoux said it much better than I possibly could have.

My only comment is that it's a little surprising that the Conservatives want to expand the scope of this bill so that the CRTC is in the position to evaluate the ideology of a news organization when granting an exemption order. It seems to go counter to everything we've heard on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, but here we are.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C‑18 seeks to address the existing imbalance in the news industry. It's an attempt to keep the web giants from encroaching upon businesses that produce news content. The objective is to save newsrooms. We must keep that in mind in the amendments we vote on today.

There are certain fundamentals in journalism. For a journalist to be recognized as such, he or she must meet certain standards of excellence, including independence, fairness and rigour. If anything should be excluded from the journalism profession, it's opinion and ideology. While these publications must also have their fair share of the pie and the playing field must be relevelled in relation to the web giants, that's not the purpose of Bill C‑18. The bill instead seeks to support news and information itself.

Therefore, I won't support this subamendment because it will just open the door to all kinds of opinion and ideology media. I do not consider that to be journalism. I may be a bit of a purist, but we need to ensure that journalistic standards are upheld. That's what Bill C‑18 needs to protect. That's why I won't support this subamendment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I won't go over it too much because I discussed it with the previous amendment by Mr. Julian. Again, I think it's really coming from a very good place in terms of Mr. Julian's desire to protect workers, but the goal of Bill C-18 and the reason for the exemption is that the benefit is to encourage foreign tech giants to enter into as many negotiations as possible and to also, at the same time, encourage collective bargaining.

Again, I'm worried about this amendment undermining the regime and jeopardizing the bill. There's a possibility of a trade risk. The amendment is unnecessary and has the same outcomes that could be achieved through collective bargaining, or news organizations can band together and seek deals, which was what we saw in the Australian model.

I appreciate the effort to try to increase the number of deals, but I think that at the same time, the intention may reduce them or may drag things out and highlight what Mr. Housefather said before.

I'm rambling a bit at this point in my own remarks.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

The exemption criteria set out in the bill are some of the primary tools of Bill C-18. That's the premise.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

We heard from experts like Professor Owen that the exemption criteria set out in the bill are the primary policy tools in play for Bill C-18. They ensure that smaller players would benefit and they ensure that the deals would not allow corporate influence over news coverage.

This amendment takes away from that, and once again we see the Conservatives presenting what seems like a reasonable amendment but one that again takes the side of big tech over Canadian news organizations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm filling in for our chair, Dr. Fry, who is not with us this Friday. For the next two hours, you're stuck with me as the vice-chair. Thank you very much, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 56 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. First off, I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is, in fact, taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, as we see them on the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking if you can. For those participating by video conference here this afternoon, as you know, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

Interpretation is available for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses are present here this afternoon; therefore, no connection tests in advance of the meeting were required.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses, who are present to answer any technical questions we have about our Bill C-18 today.

I'd like to welcome, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, as always, Owen Ripley; Joelle Paré, acting director; and Pierre-Marc Lauzon. Thank you very much for joining us.

With us, as usual, is the committee clerk, Ms. Belmore. We also have the legislative clerks today. They are Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé.

That's everyone in the room.

Marion, you're at the back there. Thank you for also joining us here today.

We were waiting for Mr. Shields. He is on now.

We'll start where we left off on Tuesday, which was at amendment CPC-12. That's by Mrs. Thomas. Perhaps she could lead us. That's on page 18 for everybody. It's clause 7 on page 4.

Mrs. Thomas, lead us off on amendment CPC-12.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Very briefly, it's really disappointing to see the misinformation back on Bill C-11 with respect to user-generated content. It is not part of Bill C-11. I don't know why we're returning to this, but it needs to be stated. It's ridiculous, and it continues to play out.

That being said, I'll speak to CPC-5, but my comments will apply to CPC-6, CPC-7, CPC-8 and CPC-9 so that I'll just say this once.

I guess it's not surprising; it seems like a reasonable amendment, but it is creating a loophole big enough for Facebook and Google to drive a truck through. Again, that is unsurprising, given what the Conservatives have been doing throughout this entire process, which is to be the PR reps for big foreign tech companies. These companies have been very good internationally in exploiting loopholes and avoiding regulation. Adding specific revenue thresholds would prevent the bill from adapting to an evolving technological landscape and changing markets.

The current approach in the act provides the government with the most flexibility to evolve with the changes. A flexible approach is better for the online news act, as we've seen foreign tech giants in other jurisdictions try to avoid responsibility under those countries' legislation. Thresholds will create loopholes for platforms that they can exploit. We're starting at $100 million. As the numbers get lower, we're scoping in so many organizations. This is about dealing with a specific imbalance. We've heard from organizations. We've heard from small organizations in Alberta and Saskatchewan about this imbalance and about the loss of ad revenue from certain organizations.

I don't know why the Conservatives want to scope in so many different organizations and so many other platforms. I thought they wanted to limit the scope of the bill, but the lower we get, in CPC-9, the number of.... I hear concerns from the opposition about blogs and other items. The more we get down, the more likely you are to scope that in.

If we want to ensure that Bill C-18 benefits news organizations, we can't create loopholes that will allow the tech giants to avoid the law, which is what they are going to try to do. Even with these numbers that the Conservatives created, there's no basis for them. They picked numbers out of the air. It's not contributing to this debate. It's just serving the interests of some of the largest companies in the world.

Once again, through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, the Conservatives are lining up side by side with foreign tech giants.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I've been waiting for this moment all my life.

The purpose of Bill C‑18 is obviously to restore balance to the market, regulate digital news intermediaries and increase fairness in the Canadian news market.

However, I think the viability we're looking for in the news sector, particularly local and independent businesses, is also about the viability of Canada's news companies. This amendment seeks to make a simple adjustment to the definition of the purpose of the act so that it includes the obligation to contribute not only to the viability of the Canadian digital news market, but also to the viability of news companies in Canada, including local and independent businesses.

That's what we call adding suspenders to a belt.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Oh, Madam Chair, I never give up an opportunity to speak, but I won't speak for 16 hours, which is what I did to one of the amendments in the softwood lumber sellout. I will keep my remarks brief.

We had a number of witnesses, including APTN and Dadan Sivunivut, who indicated the importance of this measure. This amendment broadens the scope of the definition of news content to recognize that indigenous storytelling is a traditional means by which indigenous news outlets may communicate news stories to indigenous communities. The amendment ensures that the act recognizes the particular cultural approach of indigenous peoples to news and information content, which could encompass storytelling techniques.

Now, Madam Chair, you will recall that last Friday we adopted NDP-1, which provided for a definition in the bill itself. The two amendments, NDP-1 and NDP-2, should really be seen as working together to ensure that indigenous peoples are recognized by Bill C-18, and that there is potential for negotiation for indigenous news outlets.

Hopefully, given that we adopted NDP-1, we will adopt the second part of that tandem, which is NDP-2.

I move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Again, for those who are virtual, you know by now how to get the interpretation. It's that little globe thing at the bottom. Again, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses are present; therefore, no connection tests in advance of the meeting were required.

I want to welcome the witnesses who are present to answer any technical questions about Bill C-18 that the members of the committee might have.

We have the Department of Canadian Heritage here. We have Thomas Owen Ripley, associate assistant deputy minister of cultural affairs; Michel Sabbagh, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch; Joelle Paré, acting director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Frederick Matern, manager, marketplace and legislative policy.

Now we're going to begin. If you recall, at the last meeting, we went through three amendments. One was not carried, and two others were carried.

(On clause 2)

We will begin with amendment CPC-2. We didn't vote on it, I don't think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 55 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.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Of course, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House of Commons order of Thursday, June 23.

I have a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating on video, there is a little icon at the bottom to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Bill C‑18 is another bill that we are working on. The principle of this bill is to help small media organizations. This is another example of the Liberals saying one thing and doing another. This bill will not really help small organizations because Bell Media, Rogers and CBC will get all the money. I would prefer that Facebook and Google put money into a fund and that the small media organizations sign an agreement to share the money.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the fall economic statement, and I am lucky I got the chance before the government shut down debate, which it is doing today. In my usual format, I will look at the different sections of the fall economic update and tell members what I think about them.

To start off, the first section is called “Sound Economic Stewardship in Uncertain Times”. That sounds like something everybody would want. These certainly are uncertain times, so sound economic stewardship sounds like just what we need. The problem is the document has nothing to do with sound economic stewardship.

We have more inflationary spending, after economists and experts have said that more inflationary spending is just going to cause more inflation. We have the highest levels of inflation we have had in 40 years. I am not sure why, but I expected more from a Prime Minister who has spent more money in his term in office than all other prime ministers have spent put together. The earning power of Canadians is at the lowest point it has been in decades, and I am very concerned that we have not taken the appropriate actions in the fall economic statement to address sound economic stewardship.

Our debt is so large that we will pay $22 billion of interest on the debt next year. In two years, we will be paying $44 billion for interest on the debt. That is not the debt itself; we are not paying the debt down. Just the interest on the debt will be $44 billion. That is more than all of the health transfers to all of the provinces. I really think that was a missed opportunity.

Let us move on to the second part: “Making Life More Affordable”. Again, it sounds like a really good idea. I think Canadians would say they need life to be more affordable. However, this is what the Liberals always do: What they say sounds good, but what they actually do is not that good.

Fifty per cent of Canadians cannot pay their bills. Personal debt is at an all-time high. What do the Liberals do? They increase the tax that is going to drive up the price of groceries, gas and home heating. Is that going to make life more affordable for Canadians? No, it is not; it is just going to make it worse. I really think the government needs to listen to what Canadians are saying and understand the dire straits that many Canadians are facing in losing their houses and having to choose between heating and eating. Something needs to be done and the “something” is not what was in the fall economic statement.

There is a lot of wasteful spending going on, and I was shocked to find out about the $450 billion we pumped out the door during COVID. Some supports were definitely needed during the pandemic, but I heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that 40% of them had nothing to do with COVID. That is an incredible amount of money. We have to stop wasting it.

I agree that climate change needs to be addressed and I agree we need to reduce emissions, but we have spent $100 billion and the Liberal government has failed to meet any of its emissions targets. We are number 58 out of 60 on the list of countries that went to COP27 with Paris accord targets. We spent $100 billion, but what do we get for it? We get absolutely nothing.

We have to do better about spending taxpayer money to get results. Members today were saying that it is a real emergency; we have flooding and wildfires. They can ask themselves how high the carbon tax in Canada has to be to stop us from having floods or stop us from having wildfires here.

As a chemical engineer, I will say that Canada is less than 2% of the footprint. We could eliminate the whole thing and we are still going to have the impacts of floods and wildfires until the other more substantive contributors in the world, such as China, which has 34% of the footprint, get their act together. We can help them get their act together. If we replace with LNG all the coal that China is using and the coal plants they are building, it would mean jobs for Canadians and would cut the carbon footprint of the whole world by 10% or 15%. That would be worth doing, but it was not in the fall economic update.

I do not know if there are problems with math on the opposite side, but the Prime Minister ordered 10 vaccines for every Canadian. I do not know if he knew that two or three vaccines, or four or five maximum, were all we were going to take. Now all the rest of the vaccines have expired and have all been thrown away. What a huge waste that is. They could have gone to countries that do not have vaccines or that cannot afford to buy them. That is just one example of the wasteful spending.

The next section was called “Jobs, Growth, and an Economy That Works for Everyone”, and I think that sounds like something everybody would like. Every Canadian wants jobs, growth and an economy that works for everyone. However, in the fall economic statement we saw that we have only half the GDP growth we expected and predicted earlier this year, so we did not get the growth, and we have lost a lot of jobs and gotten a few jobs back, but it did not work for everyone.

If someone was unable to take a vaccine due to a medical issue or because they made a personal choice, they got fired, lost their job. Just to make the pain double, even though they had paid into an employment insurance program, paid the premium and should get the benefit, the government made sure that nobody who refused a vaccine could get that, so it does not work for everyone.

The last section is called “Fair and Effective Government”. Again, who could disagree with fair and effective government? I want the government to be fair. I want to live in a fair democracy, and I want the government to be effective. That would be wonderful, but today we have passports taking seven months to process, and there are 2.5 million immigrants caught in the backlog at IRCC. The average wait time for some of those types of permits is 82 months. We have the Phoenix pay system and the ArriveCAN app. Everything is broken all over the government. There is not any effective government happening. Yes, I think we should have it, but it is not in there.

With respect to a fair government, this is the Liberal government that brought in the Emergencies Act. We are waiting for the final word on it, but a lot of people have said there was no threat to national security and there was no emergency. The law enforcement people did not ask for it and the provinces did not ask for it, yet the government froze the bank accounts of Canadians without any warrants. That is not a fair democracy.

There is a freedom of speech war going on in our country. Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and all the bills the government brings forward whereby the government is going to get to control the speech of Canadians and the media, are not fair. We have evidence that CSIS talked to the Prime Minister and said Chinese money from Beijing was funnelled to 11 election candidates, with no transparency on who they were, and that there was interference in the 2021 election, again with no transparency. That is not a fair, democratic government.

I could go on about rental and dental, where the government has driven up the cost of housing. The average cost of housing rental was $1,000 in Canada, and now it is $2,000. With one hand the government is going to give a cheque for $500, but with the other hand its policies cost an increase of thousands of dollars, $12,000 a month on average in Canada. That is the way the government is working. It gives a little but takes a lot back, and that is not what we want to see, so I cannot support the bill that goes with the fall economic statement. I think we have to do better.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

I understand where Mrs. Thomas and the Conservatives are coming from, but we're concerned about the enormous loopholes that this is going to create. Bill C-18 requires the parties to bargain over all the ways that content is made available, and restricting that only hurts news organizations.

Eliminating hyperlinks risks cutting out an important way in which news is shared. We saw what happened in Spain when they eliminated hyperlinks in their legislation. It provided foreign tech companies with a giant loophole to drive a truck through and just show news as hyperlinks, avoiding payment.

I think the intention is good. I hope the intention is good, even though I believe this is something that the foreign tech giants are calling for. We've seen the CPC act as a cheerleader for the foreign tech giants to this point, but this amendment risks gutting the entire bill. It's disappointing, again, that we're seeing the Conservative Party cheerlead for Facebook and Google.

We'll be opposed to it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I certainly will. The Conservatives have indicated they're going to spend an hour and half on each one of their amendments to block this with a filibuster. It's tragic, because the Alberta and Saskatchewan community newspapers, the papers that serve their ridings, are saying Bill C-18 needs to be adopted and it needs to be improved.

This amendment proposed by the NDP is an attempt to improve the legislation. As you recall, Madam Chair, it was suggested by APTN and Dadan Sivunivut that for the indigenous peoples, it's extremely important that it be recognized in the legislation that news media is central to the identities and well-being of indigenous peoples. Legislation like this, designed to support the news media hemorrhaging that we've seen in communities across the country, should reflect the rights of indigenous peoples to operate their own media and should reflect the languages and cultural characteristics of indigenous peoples.

What this amendment does is add a new definition for indigenous news outlet. For the purposes of the act, the definition specifies that an indigenous news outlet must be operated by an indigenous person and produce content for indigenous peoples.

To support the definition of indigenous news outlet, a definition for indigenous peoples is included, and the definition for news outlet is amended to specify that it includes an indigenous news outlet.

I so move NDP-1, reference number 12021983.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

My clarifying question, then, for the officials is this. It has been brought to our attention by a number of legal experts that perhaps this is setting Bill C‑18 up for a constitutional challenge. I'm wondering if you can comment on the constitutionality of this bill and whether or not that has been weighed, and what that process of evaluation looked like if it did in fact happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll go ahead with the vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. It's unanimously passed.

Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for that motion.

We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Obviously, the MPs have the correct headsets. I need to ask that because it is part of what we're trying to do now to protect our interpreters.

I would also like to make a point that there should be no photographs or recordings taken of the proceedings.

Now, in accordance with our routine motion, I want to welcome the witnesses who are present to answer any technical questions about Bill C-18 that the members of the committee might have.

We shall proceed to our clause-by-clause consideration. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, is going to be postponed until the end of the clause-by-clause.

Clause 2 has the Conservative amendment CPC-01.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 54th meeting of the 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.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by this House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, and is commencing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill today.

I just wanted to give everybody a bit of a heads-up on some of the things that we need to be careful about.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Those of you who are on Zoom, please check the bottom of your screen and you will see a globe, which is an interpretation bar. You know that you can press it to get English or French as you choose. Those of you in the room are already familiar with what to do to be able to get your translation going.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Please mute yourselves when you're not speaking. When you want to speak, the clerk will recognize you for me if you're on the floor. I will see your hand up in the bar, if you're not. I want to remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I also wanted to ask the clerk one question. Has everybody been using the approved headsets?

Freedoms in Canada

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, freedoms are under attack in this country, from the freedom of speech, with a censorship bill, Bill C-11, that would control Canadians' online content, to freedom of the press, with Bill C-18, which may result in news content being blocked from Canadians or may disadvantage small, independent news outlets.

Then there is freedom of religion, with the infamous Canada summer jobs attestation, the burning of 15 Christian churches in Canada without a word from the government and the hiring of an anti-Semitic racist to advise the Liberal government on anti-racism. Also, our freedom to enter and leave Canada and freely move between provinces was violated for two years during the pandemic for the unvaccinated.

As for freedom from unlawful search and seizure, the Liberals will be confiscating the property of lawful gun owners.

I am here to stand up for our freedoms, and I hope others will do the same.

Government Business No. 22

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

Here we are again. I was in the process of recapping a bit of history on the draconian motions the Liberal government continues to bring. I had described Motion No. 6 in 2016. It was the same thing of wanting to extend the hours and basically obstruct, and that of course was where “elbowgate” came from. The Prime Minister was upset because there was legislation pending and many amendments were brought, so that evening turned into a fiasco.

The government then withdrew Motion No. 6. It realized it had pushed everyone too far and it was very undemocratic. In fact, I quoted the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who said that the motion was fundamentally anti-democratic. The NDP seems to be supporting its costly coalition now, but at the time he said that it was fundamentally undemocratic.

Then the government came forward with Motion No. 11, which was about sitting until midnight, but not for everybody to be sitting until midnight. The Liberals and the NDP would have been able to be home in their pyjamas with Motion No. 11, because there would not need to be quorum. They would not need to have a certain number of people in the House, which is actually a constitutional requirement to have 20 in the House. They were recommending something that was not even constitutional back on Motion No. 11.

The irony is they have now brought Motion No. 22, which is twice as bad as Motion No. 11, and mathematically, people will see the irony there. On the one hand, we hear Liberal members say they are trying to give us more time to debate, but actually that would only happen when Liberal and NDP members would be here, and they would not need to be because we would not need to have quorum. It is a little insincere.

The other thing is that the government continually moves time allocation. It promised not to do that when it was first elected in 2015, back in the old sunshiny days. Its members said they would never move time allocation, and now they are moving it all the time.

Rushing things through the House can be disastrous. We saw that with Bill C-11, where all kinds of draconian measures were used. It was forced to committee, and it was time allocated at committee to get it over to the Senate. Now we can see there are so many flaws in the bill that the Senate is taking quite a bit of time with it and is likely to bring numerous amendments.

That is why we need to have time here in the House for reasonable debate. Debate means people need to not just speak but also be heard. For that to happen, one needs to have an audience, which of course Motion No. 22 would eliminate. The role of the opposition is to point out what is not good about legislation that comes before the House. It does no good at all for us to point it out if nobody is listening to what is being said.

I find it particularly awful that the Liberals talk about family balance and try to promote more women to come into politics. The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and the member for Shefford, who are young mothers, have stood up and said that this motion is not good for family balance. It is not that people do not want to work, but if we want to encourage more women to come in, these kinds of measures are not encouraging them. There is a lot of hypocrisy for the government to talk on the one hand about getting more women in politics and promoting that and on the other hand putting draconian measures such as this in place, where mothers with young babies would need to be here at 11:30 at night debating legislation.

I am very concerned about committee resources, and so that is really the amendment the CPC has brought. We have seen there has been a lot of trouble at committees getting interpreters and committees not being able to extend their hours when there are important issues because there are just no resources. A valid concern brought by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was that we want a guarantee we are not going to be shortchanged at committee. Perhaps at the end of the day, that is what the government is trying to do, which is to escape the examination it gets at committee. In a minority government, we can actually try to get to the heart of the issues the government would like no transparency on.

The amendment that has been brought forward is a good one. Overall, I have seen an erosion of our democracy. I think this motion is fundamentally undemocratic, but I would add it to the list of attacks on our democratic rights and freedoms in this country.

We talk about freedom of speech, but we have seen a continual onslaught against it from the government through Bill C-10, Bill C-36 and Bill C-11, including when it comes to freedom of the media and freedom of the press. We have Bill C-18 at the heritage committee right now, and I have lots of concern about that bill. There is an erosion of freedom of religion in this country, from hiring a consultant who is an anti-Semite to advise the government on anti-racism, to having 15 Christian churches burn down in Canada, yet crickets are coming from the side opposite.

I am very concerned. I see the rise of Chinese influence in our elections. There are three police stations that China has claimed in Toronto. What is the government doing about any of this? Nothing.

This motion is just another in a long line of motions eroding our democracy, so I am certainly not going to support it. I cannot believe that the NDP is going to support the government when previously the New Democrats said this kind of motion was fundamentally undemocratic. I understand in no way why this costly coalition exists. The NDP got in bed with the Liberals to get 10 sick days, through legislation that was passed in December last year and was never enacted, and dental care for everybody, which they got for children under 12 and poor families who are mostly covered in other provincial programs, with nothing else coming until after the next election. On pharmacare, there are crickets.

Why is the NDP supporting the government on this draconian anti-democratic motion that is intended to take away the accountability of government? I have no idea. I am certainly not going to support it, and my Conservative colleagues will not either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bittle.

Now, this is the end of our round. It's going to be the end of the meeting. I want to thank the witnesses for coming and answering some pretty hard questions. I'm sorry if I pushed you to be concise, but we wanted to get as many questions and answers in as possible to inform this committee. I want to thank you all very much for attending and for actually taking, as I said, some pretty difficult questions.

Before I adjourn, I just want to remind the committee that the deadline—as was unanimously approved by this committee—for amendments for Bill C-18 is at 5 p.m. on Thursday, November 10. That's just a reminder. We will move to clause-by-clause on Friday, November 18.

Thank you all very much.

This meeting is adjourned.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Can you speak to how Bill C-18 fundamentally changes this power imbalance by leaving the determination of fair value to the negotiation?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Let me say this. I agree that Facebook and Google should be compensating other media in this country. I totally agree with you.

Tell me, why did Bell Media shut Prince Albert? It had 85 Unifor members in Prince Albert years ago. It is down to one reporter now. It shut down CKOS Yorkton. It's down to one reporter when it had over 40 people.

Now we're going to give them money. For what? Are they going to reopen Prince Albert and Yorkton, or is the head office in Montreal going to decide it will just take the money and decide where to put it?

I can tell you, and Unifor knows very well, that there will be no more jobs in Prince Albert. There will be no more additional jobs in Yorkton. I don't know what Bell Media is going to do with the money it will get from Facebook and Google, but as a long-time Unifor member, I'm going to tell you I don't see Prince Albert opening up a full newsroom, nor do I see Yorkton opening up.

You're responsible for this because Unifor is fighting for members. Can you not see what I've been saying in the last several months here with Bill C-18? This bill will destroy medium and small companies in this country.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions will be for Randy Kitt of Unifor.

Tell me again why CBC, Bell and Rogers should be involved in Bill C-18? CBC got $1.2 billion this year in funding, plus yesterday, in the fall economic statement, we heard that they're getting an additional $42 million. The stock price today for Bell Media, which I worked for for 39 years, is $61.35. For Rogers, the stock price today is $41.73.

Why would we allow these three media conglomerates into this bill? You know and I know—because you're with Unifor, and I was with Unifor for decades—that Bell Media is shutting radio stations down by the month, and yet they could be on the receiving end of Bill C-18. So why is that fairer to the rest of the media in this country trying to compete with Bell, Rogers and CBC?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My next set of questions will be for Mr. LaRose. I've asked everyone these questions—well, almost everyone.

Why is it important not to give in to threats from the big tech companies over the implementation of Bill C‑18?

Then there's the whole issue of definitions. I understand very well what you're suggesting when, with respect to first nations and Indigenous journalists or media sources, you're saying that the definition must be more in line with community needs.

Do you believe that Bill C‑18 in its current form gives journalists from first nations and Indigenous communities the opportunity to engage in negotiations that could lead to more resources to enable them to practice journalism for those communities?

[Dr. Taylor Owen]

Thanks for the chance to jump in here.

I couldn't agree more that the future of Canadian journalism is going to come from the network of small journalism organizations and journalist start-ups that are innovating the model of news. There's absolutely no doubt about that in my mind.

That being said, the idea that we should be pitting and positioning small publishers and independent publishers against the large publishers as if they have fundamentally different objectives, values and financial interests is, to me, a disappointing side effect of the implication of the debate we've been having about Bill C-18. I think we have to move beyond that.

Are there legitimate concerns that small publishers and independent publishers have raised about this bill? Of course.

I think that lowering the eligibility criteria to include owner-proprietors makes a ton of sense. The allocation of money is also a bit tricky because at the moment, if you have a baseline fair allocation that's prorated by FTE or prorated by the amount of journalism that's being done, the bigger players are going to get more. Now, is that 75% or 60%? I don't know the exact way that was measured and what we're including in that in the PBO estimate. However, of course, the big publishers, if they have a lot more journalists, are going to get a greater percentage of the money. Does that mean that getting a significant subsidy for a one-person or two-person operation isn't a meaningful contribution to that small operation, one that potentially allows them to innovate and continue to grow? I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

The final thing that's really important to note is that, right now, the status quo is important because, of those independent publishers, only a small fraction are getting deals right now. I think this scenario, particularly with the collective bargaining provisions and the provisions that allow for people to be added to collective agreements after the fact, would include a much wider range of small organizations, if not anybody who wanted it, just like QCJO does.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is wonderful to be back with the heritage committee this week.

I want to begin by echoing the opening comments of my Conservative colleague Kevin Waugh. Certainly, I think Kevin hit the nail on the head in terms of where we stand on this piece of legislation and our overall support for journalism and news media.

I just might add, since we have Mr. Kitt here from Unifor, that brother Kevin is a 39-year member of Unifor, certainly a long-time participant in the industry. It's really nice to have Kevin's expertise on this committee.

I want to start with Professor Geist. I will also give Professor Owen an opportunity to respond to my first question as well. It's about the idea of innovation within the news media industry. Certainly we've seen, particularly in the last few years, new, different and innovative models in terms of how Canadians receive the news and how different providers provide the news.

I'm curious to hear from both of you—I'll start with Professor Geist—about your thoughts on where innovation fits into Bill C-18 and how that may play a role in terms of new entrants into the news media and journalistic market.

I'll start with you, Professor Geist, and then I'll give Professor Owen a chance to respond as well.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thanks so much, Professor. I wanted to make sure we heard your full response, because I think it was important for us to get all the details. I appreciate your going into depth on that.

You were talking a little bit earlier about how there are currently financial agreements between certain platforms and news publishers, and they're not transparent at all.

When I was doing a little bit of research, a little bit of reading up before I came to the committee today, I was noticing how some previous witnesses were highlighting that there was a bit of doublespeak when it came to this. I think there are certain times when you have your online platforms talking about the financial agreements they've made behind closed doors with news publishers. They call those commercial licensing agreements, but when they are being mandated by law, as we are proposing through Bill C-18, they're calling it a link tax.

What are your thoughts on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would like to suggest, though, that we are dealing with Bill C-18 and not with copyright.

Can Mr. Geist answer quickly or succinctly on the topic that we're dealing with, please?

Thank you.

[Dr. Taylor Owen]

I don't think Bill C-18 is designed to, nor will it reverse the trend of how the financial model and design of platforms preference certain types of content over others. That, in and of itself, is its own dynamic that other policy mechanisms can get at, but that is not what this bill is designed to do.

Now, can it help redistribute some of the ad funding dollars that are acquired through the distribution of content—including journalistic content—by these platforms to the publishers that create journalism? Yes, I think it could do that.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'll repeat it.

In an article for the daily The Montreal Gazette, you write that web platforms are not designed to give us quality news, but they're instead calibrated to attract as much attention as possible and maximize profits.

Do you feel that Bill C‑18 will reverse this trend that you believe is happening on web platforms?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Owen.

In an article for the daily The Montreal Gazette, you write that web platforms are not designed to give us quality news, but they're instead calibrated to attract as much attention as possible and maximize profits.

Do you believe that Bill C‑18 could reverse that trend?

Google is saying that the bill will amplify and promote disinformation. Would you agree?