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.

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[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.