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.

[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—

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[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?

[Dr. Taylor Owen]

I don't want to speak to Bill C-11, as it's not the topic of this discussion, but I don't think that Bill C-18 is, no.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today to take part in this important debate we're having.

I have a fairly simple question for Mr. Owen.

When people criticize the web giants, we hear a lot of people say that they're attacking free speech. We saw it in Parliament when we were considering Bill C‑11, and we discussed it a lot. Here we are doing it again with Bill C‑18.

Mr. Owen, do you share that opinion? Is Bill C‑18 an attack on free speech in Canada?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That's fantastic.

Last week, we heard some witnesses—and even testimony from my colleagues across the aisle, the Conservative MPs—advocating for the possible establishment of a fund—a tax on tech giants, I imagine—that they would contribute to where they would be under no regulatory scrutiny.

My understanding is that the government already has a number of measures targeted to the smaller players, in addition to this legislation we're looking for. We have the Canada periodical fund. The local journalism initiative was also mentioned today.

Can you speak to the importance of these other streams of funding for your members, and how they would complement legislation like Bill C-18?

[Randy Kitt]

As I think another witness said already, there's no one-stop solution to the fundamental problems that journalism is facing right now.

Yes, a news fund, I think, is a great idea. I think the Public Policy Forum is working on a proposal to expand the LJI news fund to also include philanthropy and other governments chipping in. That's a fund that folks could work from. That's coming up in two years.

On Bill C-18, we proposed, by the way, a hybrid model at one point. I think a news fund is a great idea. I think Bill C-18 addresses a lot of our issues. As I said, the CRTC will deal with eligibility. I think the government has given them a directive on that.

Bill C-18 is one step. We have to get this passed because these news outlets are bleeding money, and that's broadcast and print.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Obviously, the goal of Bill C-18 is to try to protect these smaller, local media outlets that have been under such attack and diminished, and I support that. I just don't think this bill is actually going to achieve it, especially when I hear that Bell, CBC and Rogers are going to end up with three quarters of the money.

I sort of liked Mr. Kitt's initial idea. He said he thought at the beginning that the government should levy a fee on the large ones and put it into a news fund. You could have the journalists across the country figure out who gets what.

Mr. Kitt, expanding on that, do you think that would be better than what we have today? If you don't agree, then how do we address making sure that all the small and local folks are included? Do you have to have two journalists, minimum? Do we drop the general news focus so that ethnic and diverse media can be included? What would you suggest?

[Randy Kitt]

I think we saw Facebook try to flex its muscle in Australia, and we saw how that ended up for them. This is exactly why we're in this position, because these companies have so much marketplace power and it just shows the abuse of power that has to be stopped. Bill C-18, I think, is one step toward levelling the playing field.

As for inclusivity, I want to touch on Michael Geist's comment on why broadcasters should get contributions, because we applaud the government for making this bill platform-agnostic. Journalism is journalism, whether it's print, digital or in a podcast or a broadcast. It's simply a matter of bandwidth. Print journalism was affected first, and now that the Internet can easily handle video on all the networks, broadcast is equally effective. Facebook and Google profit from broadcast news, just the same as print journalism, so they should also be included.

Everybody loves to hate the big telcos, Bell, Rogers and Québecor, but they employ a lot of journalists. Those journalists tell our stories, so not including them would be a disservice. This is about fixing the entire ecosystem, and that includes players big and small.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Bill C‑18 only aims to establish a framework for negotiations. Aren't you saying that we should have more flexible rules to allow Indigenous media outlets to negotiate, otherwise they would not be eligible?

Shouldn't we instead be making all the existing rules and criteria more flexible in general? I'm thinking, for example, of the at least two journalists rule. If we broaden the rules generally to make room for more media outlets in a new generation of news models, don't you think that would help organizations in the same way, without having to specify systems particular groups, although I'm not against that idea?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

My first question is for Mr. LaRose.

I'd like to start by saying hello to you, Mr. LaRose. You're from Odanak, which is in the constituency next to my riding, Drummond. I'm pleased to meet you. Earlier this year, we also had the opportunity to speak with Monika Ille about issues related to APTN in the context of the broadcasting bill. It's a pleasure to have you with us today.

Mr. LaRose, I'm not saying that you're making an inappropriate request, but I'd like to know your reasons for asking that Bill C‑18 specifically mention first nations news outlets. How would that change the purpose of Bill C‑18? What would you get out of it that's not already in there?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I'd like to move to Professor Taylor Owen.

You mentioned in your opening statement that many other countries, including G7 nations, the U.K., Indonesia, South Africa, New Zealand and the U.S.A. are looking to Canada and to our Bill C-18 when they're looking to craft their own legislation. Why do you believe there's such a growing international consensus, and why do you think Bill C-18 is becoming a model for all these other countries?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony today. It's much appreciated, as my colleagues have indicated.

I would like to direct my first questions to Randy Kitt of Unifor, a union I know represents many journalists across this country, including the employees of my former news employer. I would like to say that I am a big fan of the Local News Research Project, which you can find online. It was started in part by April Lindgren, whom I remember as a very excellent head of the press gallery at Queen's Park before she went to teach journalism at Ryerson. Since 2008, they've been tracking all of the news organizations across the country that have closed, and we've learned that's about 500 news organizations that have closed.

Mr. Kitt, I'm wondering if you can describe for this committee what that has meant in terms of journalism jobs and what the future of journalism in this country would look like without legislation like Bill C‑18.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses, not only today's but those from the weeks in which we have been discussing Bill C-18. This is the last day that we will have witnesses come to our committee. I want to thank those who have forwarded amendments, because today is the last day that we can have amendments ready, as in two weeks' time we will be going through the amendments here in the heritage committee.

I just want to clarify this and actually state it on the record, Madam Chair. I want to be clear here that over the last couple of months Conservatives have had a number of problems with Bill C-18 and we've expressed them.

I also want to say, Madam Chair, that we support the principle of requiring the web giants to pay more to compensate Canadian news media, particularly the struggling local newspapers throughout this country. That is why, on this side, we invited the Saskatchewan newspapers association. That's why we also had the Alberta news association come here, which said that 50% of their membership in Alberta would not qualify. I knew, because of my province, that up to 70% to 80% of my province would not qualify for Bill C-18.

I am going to quote Marie Woolf, who did a fabulous job yesterday in The Globe and Mail in pointing to one of the errors. The Davidson Leader newspaper sold a couple of years ago for one dollar. That's one dollar. She did a story with Dan Senick, who bought it. They have a subscription of 60% to the Davidson Leader newspaper. Everybody wants to find out who died, unfortunately, and the obits are number one in that newspaper. They also put that on Facebook, which should be paying for that. l just wanted to say that I was very happy with that article.

Everybody was quoted yesterday: the Liberals, the NDP and me. It's true: We're really worried about the state of local journalism in rural Canada, not just in Saskatchewan or Alberta but throughout this country.

Let's start. I think I'm going to start with the National Ethnic Press and Media Council.

It's the first time we've had you in front of us, Maria. This is a developing one. We know the Liberals want to have massive, robust immigration. You know, sometimes the local media in our country take a while to catch up to ethnic media who have people coming into this country.

How are you going to deal with Bill C-18? How is your industry going to catch up and make sure that new people coming into this country in fact get the message from your membership? Can you explain that?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

To be clear, helping journalism is important, but Bill C-18’s dangerous approach ascribes value to links where there isn’t any, regulates which platforms must pay in order to permit expression from their users and dictates which sources are entitled to compensation. There are better ways to do this, including the fund model that has been supported by some of today’s panellists in the past.

I look forward to your questions.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, appearing in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

Thanks to the committee for this unexpected opportunity to speak again about Bill C-18, particularly following some of the technical challenges I faced during a prior appearance.

I'd like to focus my remarks on why I think the bill mandates payment for links, and why I think that creates a threat to freedom of expression. Before doing so, let me highlight several additional concerns I'd be happy to address in further detail during the question period.

First, Bill C-18's eligibility criteria are deeply flawed. I think everyone's aware, and I think you've already heard, that the current rules may exclude some small news outlets. Beyond that, the dominance of broadcasters in the system, notably companies such as Bell and the CBC, I believe runs counter to the professed goal of the bill supporting local independent news. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that more than 75% of the revenues will go to these companies. This is despite limited tangible connection between links and radio stations and that CBC news content, I think, is a public good for which facilitating access should be encouraged.

Second, many of the eligible news outlets will not be subject to journalistic standards under this bill. Unlike the QCJO model, which features detailed rules to ensure appropriate standards before tax support is available, Bill C-18 allows other news outlets, including foreign outlets, to qualify without similar standards, risking low-quality journalism.

Third, Bill C-18 violates copyright norms by suspending “limitations and exceptions” from the bargaining process in clause 24. This runs counter to the foundation of Canadian copyright law and may violate article 10(1) of the Berne Convention, which has a mandatory right of quotation that expressly includes news articles.

Fourth, Bill C-18 establishes final offer arbitration, yet still intervenes in the process by allowing the panel to reject final offers. That upends the entire purpose of the model, which is designed to encourage best offers by both sides.

Fifth, I think it's important to note that the government's existing policies with tax support may be working. Minister Rodriguez talked about over 400 news outlets having closed since 2008, but neglected to mention the same report found over 200 new news outlets opening in the same period, and that there have been no net new losses over nearly the last two years.

There are other concerns, but I want to use my remaining time to focus on what I think is the biggest issue—mandated payments for links.

The definition of facilitating “access to the news content” in subclause 2(2), upon which this system is based, includes a breathtakingly broad definition that clearly includes links, aggregation, and even indexing.

The inclusion of links is not in doubt. Minister Rodriguez has talked about the value of links. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, when they appeared before this committee, talked about the value of links, saying “the whole purpose of why we're here and what we're talking about with Bill C-18” had to do with value of links. And even earlier this week, Mr. Coteau said that he found it astonishing that some argue that if you click on a Twitter link there is no value.

The Supreme Court of Canada has warned that creating liability for links could impair the way the Internet functions, yet payments for links are at the core of this bill. It doesn't matter if it is an aggregate charge for all links or a per-link fee; the harm is the same.

Bill C-18 not only requires payment for links, but it says that expression with links is not equal. Links to news content from sources such as Bell or the CBC are viewed as compensable, but similar links to news content from small media outlets are not.

Further, the bill effectively says that whether compensation is due also depends on where the expression occurs, since it mandates that certain venues pay to allow their users to express themselves. Post a link to a Globe and Mail news article on Facebook, and the bill says there is value that should be compensated; post the same link on Twitter, as Mr. Coteau noted, and the bill says it doesn't.

Aside from the obvious unfairness, the broader implications of this policy, I think, are even more troubling. Once the law says that some platforms must pay to permit expression, the same principle can be applied to other policy objectives, and the entire foundation for sharing information online is placed at risk.

[Dr. Taylor Owen, Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for having me here today.

A lot has been said about Bill C-18 in the media and at this committee over the past months. I want to start by acknowledging the real and often existential stakes involved for the journalism businesses on all sides of this debate. I'm just an observer to this, but I value the views of all those who are ultimately materially impacted by the policy decisions that you're making here.

Some want no government intervention at all in the market of journalism, which is a view I respect but don’t share. For me, journalism and, more broadly, the access to reliable information are a precondition for democratic society. In the face of clear market failures, they warrant careful public policy intervention.

With that said, let me make a few observations about this particular intervention.

First, I think we need to acknowledge the reality that platforms already have deals with publishers. These deals, with a select group of publishers chosen by the platforms, are for undisclosed sums of money and hidden behind NDAs. We simply have no idea whether publishers have been pressured or incentivized in their reporting in any way. I understand that some publishers who already have deals would rather stick to the devil they know, but the interest of public policy should be to make these deals more equitable and accountable to the Canadian public.

Second, it's very clear that no one policy will fix journalism. The effect that the Internet has had on the businesses and practices of journalism is wide-ranging and complex. This policy mechanism addresses one aspect of this challenge: the bargaining imbalance between publishers and platforms. A very asymmetry, I would argue, is demonstrated by the inequity of these current deals. However, analysis of the role of this policy must be done alongside other policies that support Canadian journalism. Most importantly, in my view, is the journalism labour tax credit.

Third, while many—including myself in the past—have suggested an alternative, centralized fund model, I think we need to acknowledge that it, too, has some fundamental challenges. It would require government to either create a dedicated tax on platforms—a link tax, if you will—or put general revenue into a fund of its creation and design. The former could be in breach of USMCA, and both are far more intrusive government interventions in journalism than the bargaining code.

Fourth, while this bill has been widely characterized as the Australian model, it is in fact, in my view, fundamentally different. The addition of specified exemption criteria is the central policy mechanism in this bill. The list of those terms, how platforms demonstrate they have met them, and how they are evaluated and audited are all absolutely critical to this policy working in the public interest. This bill also adds meaningful public accountability and transparency tools that the Australian bill lacked.

This brings me to my last point. The fact that this bill has improved materially on the Australian model has significantly increased the likelihood that other countries—such as the U.K., Germany, South Africa and maybe even the U.S.—will very soon adopt a similar model. It is this likelihood, not of Canadian implementation but of its global spread, that I think has shaped the character of the platforms’ response to this bill.

Google has every right to lobby for their interests, but their strategy in this case has sought to divide news organizations, parliamentarians and Canadians. I hate that journalist friends from small and large organizations alike are being pitted against one another. Facebook’s threat to turn off access to reliable information is, to me, revealing about their place in our democratic society. I hope that it is being treated with the seriousness it warrants at the highest levels of the Canadian and U.S. governments.

With all of this said, this bill is not perfect and it involves difficult trade-offs. I would suggest the committee ask four questions about it.

First, how can this bill make the terms of deals as maximally transparent as legally possible? I know there are real limits to what can be shared publicly, but the regulator should report as much as possible and as regularly as possible.

Second, how can the bill be maximally inclusive while ensuring the journalistic integrity of recipients? Making the bill more restrictive, as Google has proposed, would exclude smaller publishers. Making the requirements too lenient could lead to the inclusion of non-journalistic sites.

Third, how can this bill ensure that platforms are incentivized to promote journalistic content and penalize harmful content, and not the inverse? Clarity around non-discrimination is a fairly easy fix.

Finally, I think it is reasonable to ask whether this bill is suitably flexible and amenable to future and certain changes in the economics both of the platforms and of the news industry. No journalism policy, in my view, should be designed to be permanent, but should instead aspire to be no longer necessary.

I'm happy to share more detailed amendments in the spirit of these four questions. Thank you for your time.

[Randy Kitt, Media Sector Director, Unifor]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Unifor is Canada's largest private sector union, with more than 310,000 members. Our union represents more than 10,000 media workers, including journalists in the broadcast and print news industry.

Journalism is a public good in its role of holding power to account. Strengthening democracy and building community have never been more important. Social media has proven to divide us, pitting neighbour against neighbour. We are more polarized than ever, but a strong Canadian news media can build community.

I don't think I need to spend too much time on the problem, because I think we can all agree that the news industry, especially local news, is in crisis. The Public Policy Forum has done some great work documenting this decline in their updated report “The Shattered Mirror”.

Advertising revenue for community newspapers has dropped 66% from 2011 to 2020. During that time, almost 300 papers either disappeared or merged with other publications. The list of dead newspapers reads like a roll call of regional and small-town Canada. Broadcasting has a similar story. News outlets are closing, consolidating and downsizing.

Unifor's own membership numbers confirm this trend. Between 2009 and 2022, The Toronto Star's membership declined from 610 to 178 members, a decrease of 70%. In broadcasting, between 2017 and 2021, employment decreased by 16%. This all results in less journalism and less news, with nothing to replace it.

Where has all the advertising gone? American web giants Google and Facebook have cornered the world's advertising market. Their market share dominance is an abuse of power, in which they dictate terms and price. It's important to note that they don't produce any news on their own, local or otherwise.

How do we solve the problem? To some, including me, the answer seems simple. Google and Facebook must pay their fair share and contribute to the creation of Canadian news, but how? Unifor first submitted that the best approach was a news fund, but Australia went in another direction and had success in creating legislation that compelled the platforms to negotiate with news outlets for fair compensation for their product.

Thus Bill C-18, the Canadian online news act, was born. Unifor supports the speedy passage of this bill, as it is almost too late for us to act. Without this support, more news outlets will close as they are already on the brink.

Unifor has three main concerns with the drafting of Bill C-18. One is inclusivity: No eligible news outlet should be left behind. Two is accountability: The money received by these deals needs to be earmarked for news creation. Three is transparency: The value of these deals needs to be public knowledge.

Although it is not perfect, and we have submitted some minor amendments to tweak the bill, Unifor believes that Bill C-18 strikes a good balance on these issues.

On the first, the bill acknowledges that diversity, along with inclusivity, must play a key role. Smaller outlets must be included, and the bill is also platform-agnostic to recognize broadcasters and podcasters. Unifor submits that all eligible news outlets should be included.

On the second, Unifor maintains that this money should go toward news creation. Hiring journalists to tell our stories and to hold power to account is the most important metric to measuring the success of this initiative.

On the third, transparency, the platforms have ensured that the value of deals negotiated thus far has been shrouded in non-disclosure agreements. Unifor submits that the value of deals negotiated should be made public. We do know, however, that this bill will allow the CRTC to give us annual aggregated numbers like those we currently receive in the broadcasting industry.

Unifor would also suggest that arbitrators have special access to the value of these deals and other relevant confidential information so they can make informed decisions in the arbitration process.

If only we had a quasi-judicial body that was arm's length from the government to handle the administration of this bill.... To be clear, Unifor has not always agreed with the CRTC's decisions, but Unifor applauds the decision to have the CRTC administer this bill, as we believe they are well suited to this work.

To sum up, the news industry is in crisis, and local news is essential to the public good in a functioning democracy. We know from the Australians that a bargaining code with an arbitration process can be successful, and we believe that Bill C-18 is an improvement on the Australian legislation.

Unifor supports speedy passage of this legislation with very minor adjustments. Let's not get sidetracked by noise. Let's get Bill C-18 passed to ensure a sustainable future for local news.

[Maria Saras-Voutsinas, Executive Director, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Maria Saras-Voutsinas, and I'm here today representing the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada.

Our organization's membership runs the full gamut of press and media, television, radio, hard copy, and online. Our members are communications entities with professionally trained journalists who publish primarily in a language that is neither English nor French. We publish dailies, weeklies, monthlies, and so forth in non-official languages. Our reach, given Canada's birth rate and immigration policies, is currently 23% of the potential user market. That demographic is the only growing one according to Statistics Canada.

You have heard from tech experts, digital giants, and mainstream media on the impact of the transition to digital consumption of communications and entertainment content. It continues to be a valuable exercise. None of it is new.

Governments are trying to balance the playing field and we applaud this initiative. We do not want you to leave our members behind; we are just as impacted as the mainstream media. We have always competed for advertising dollars to survive.

Advertisers, including governments, turn to digital platforms. For context, the government spent more on Facebook and Instagram advertising last year than all print publications combined, both mainstream and ethnic. To appreciate the impact, consider the testimony of one of the Meta executives before this committee. His company draws over $200 million per annum from Canada, yet it produces no content.

We feel that Bill C-18 is asking those digital giants to recognize the virtual partnerships they have with content creators like our members, whose growth results in the increase of the reach of those platforms.

We would feel more confident if we knew the rules going in and not after the doors are closed on Bill C-18. That includes the conditions everyone must meet to be at the table. Our members can and will meet them.

We are also asking you to put in an amendment to Bill C-18 to allow owner-operator journalists to count toward the journalist minimum, so more ethnic and rural publishers can negotiate collectively.

The pandemic was, and is, an incredibly turbulent time for ethnic news publishers. Readership surged but advertising cratered. A number of publishers had a very tough decision to make between continuing to report the news to minority-language groups who needed vital pandemic information, or cutting their losses and shutting down. I'm very proud that the vast majority of our outlets decided that providing vital health information to their communities was paramount, and they published, even though it was at a loss.

Being able to bring news to your community, which sometimes may not have a strong grasp of English or French, brought our publishers a lot to provide. It helped new and established immigrant Canadians find a place for themselves and feel more connected to their community.

We think it is crucial for democracy that Canadians have access to news, including those who consume their news in non-official languages. There is an imbalance that needs to be addressed between large digital platforms and the local news outlets that produce the content that provides platforms with value.

We strongly believe that the framework of Bill C-18 can and will include support for ethnic publishers, who need the help now more than ever.

While we are encouraged to see that the digital giants have signed deals with select outlets in Canada, we are very troubled that none of those outlets have been with ethnic media. It is clear Meta and Google will not willingly partner with the ethnic press to ensure that compensation is equitable. That is why we're asking for Bill C-18, so that our membership may have a fair negotiation to be paid for their content.

I have heard from so many members of my own Greek community about what a difference having Canadian news in Greek has meant to them. Many of those readers felt invested in our country, sought English and French classes and later became Canadian citizens. That is what the news can do: It can take people out of isolation and better explain their neighbours, their province, and their country, and that is good for democracy.

We have been working closely with our colleagues at News Media Canada and we agree on an approach that is fair and equitable and benefits both small and large publishers. We are one industry and proud to stand together to ensure that Canadians have access to reliable news in the language that they are most comfortable with.

Thank you all for your time, and I'm looking forward to the discussion.

[Jean LaRose]

Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and committee members.

Thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill C-18. I am Jean LaRose, president and chief executive officer of Dadan Sivunivut. I am Abenaki from the Odanak First Nation, and I thank the Algonquin nation for allowing us to meet on their unceded territory.

Dadan Sivunivut was created by APTN in 2019 to assume responsibility for APTN's non-television activities. Among other businesses, Dadan Sivunivut oversees First Peoples Radio, which operates radio stations in Ottawa and Toronto, and is active in IndigiNews, a digital news service based in western Canada that covers the ancestral and unceded homelands of the Halkomelem and Squamish-speaking peoples.

Dadan Sivunivut supports the objective of Bill C-18, which will provide ongoing support for news organizations to offset the impact of dominant digital intermediaries on Canadian journalism.

However, the bill needs to better reflect the unique place of indigenous news organizations based on Canada's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP includes the express recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to operate our own media in our own languages.

At the least, Bill C-18 should place indigenous news outlets on the same footing as non-indigenous local news services. Intentionally or not, the bill creates a kind of hierarchy of news services, and diverse news outlets, including those serving indigenous communities, are placed on a lower tier than other local news services.

Let me explain. As it stands now, subclause 11(1) of the bill requires that agreements with digital intermediaries must include “a significant portion of...local news businesses” and “contribute to the sustainability of those businesses”. In comparison, with regard to indigenous news outlets, those agreements need to include only “a range of news outlets that reflect the diversity”, which includes language, race, and indigenous communities. This is a much lower standard. The bill does not require that a significant portion of indigenous news outlets be included or that the agreements contribute to sustainability. It should.

We have proposed specific language to improve the bill that would address this issue. I will quickly take you through it.

Our proposed language would include a reference to UNDRIP in the recitals to the bill and a reference to indigenous storytelling as a component of indigenous news. We propose a specific definition for an indigenous news outlet: one that is controlled by indigenous peoples and produces news content for indigenous peoples.

We propose that, in subclause 11(1) of the bill, agreements reached by digital news intermediaries include a significant portion of indigenous news outlets and meaningfully support their sustainability.

We propose that the eligibility criteria for news outlets in clauses 27 and 31 of the bill also reflect the unique characteristics of indigenous news outlets and the core issues affecting indigenous rights and self-government in the same way that Canada's democratic institutions and practices are core matters for non-indigenous new services.

Lastly, we propose that the list of arbitrators to be maintained under clause 31 of the bill include indigenous persons.

These changes would help to make Bill C-18 meaningful for indigenous peoples and for our right to operate our own media in our own languages.

This is a critical time in Canada for indigenous peoples and for Canadians as we travel together on the road to reconciliation. We will face challenges, but we are hopeful that we will also earn the rewards of greater understanding and a revitalization of indigenous cultures and languages.

We support Bill C-18 with the changes we have proposed as one step on this road, but it is only a step.

We have also encouraged the government to provide direct support for indigenous media through independently administered, stable and meaningful funding. While I recognize that a fund is not what we are discussing today, I strongly believe that a fund, administered by an independent body and focused on supporting a new generation of indigenous journalists in indigenous media, as well as other diversity media, is a necessity. We should not lose sight of the high barriers that indigenous peoples face in conserving and promoting our cultures and languages. No one bill will be sufficient, though if it truly reflects indigenous rights and cultures, this one will help at a critical time.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting No. 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is meeting on the study 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 of Commons order of June 23, 2022. Some members are attending in person, and others are attending remotely using the Zoom application.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon at the bottom of your screen to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. There is a little round globe icon. That is your interpretation icon. For those in the room, obviously, you can use the earpiece and select your desired English or French channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be made through the chair.

I will ask the clerk to clarify and confirm that all witnesses have completed the required connections tests and that they are using House of Commons devices. We have had an accident with a non-House of Commons device used by a witness, and we don't want a repeat of that.

Can you confirm that for me, Madam Clerk?

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

That helps to clarify it. Thanks very much.

Now, coming back to this issue...and of course we're considering amendments, so I'm a bit perplexed about some members around the committee who seem to say we should throw the whole bill out because there are some amendments that need to be brought forward. It's obvious that the bill can be improved. One component is around particularly small community endeavours, owner-operator newspapers or broadcasting entities such as community radio, as is often the case in smaller communities.

Can you speak to the importance of this approach that we saw in Australia with Country Press Australia representing about 150 small community newspapers across Australia and getting the important provision for funding that helped to revitalize the sector, and to the importance of ensuring that small community papers are included? That must mean considering some amendments to Bill C-18.

[Philip Palmer]

My problem is that I don't think it's a good first step. I think it's a bad first step, and it will be a fatal first step for a lot of journalistic organizations and news organizations. That's my concern about this.

The American model that is being suggested is to bring together a coalition of everybody who's in the news business. Bill C-18 doesn't do that. It allows for a partition between big players and small players. There's nothing that forces them into a collective. Without that, you're going to get a lot of losers and very few winners.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Palmer, I'd like us to go back to the regulation of companies that do business primarily through online platforms. We talk a lot about Google and Facebook, but you care more about the entire Internet. You care about making it easy for everyone to access and enjoy what the Internet has to offer.

Do you believe that commerce carried out by businesses should not be regulated in general, or do you primarily object to bills like C‑18 and C‑11?

Is your position on this general? Could you define it?

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

If we get rid of Bill C-18 and put a fund in, that would be better. If we keep Bill C-18, are there amendments you would like to see to it?

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

I have a question for Ms. Gardner, the same question I asked Mr. Palmer.

Do you think that small media organizations will benefit under Bill C-18?

[Philip Palmer]

That's probably a better solution than Bill C-18 in terms of being able to get money into the very lowest levels of the journalistic community. I don't think the present system ensures that result.

[Philip Palmer]

Actually, no, I don't think so. It's hard to conceive of how these small organizations can coalesce and resource the kind of bargaining process that Bill C-18 envisages.

The principal difficulty with Bill C-18 is that it's a partitioned process. The big players can afford to enter into the bargaining process, hire the experts, the lawyers, etc., to support their positions and have them adjudicated. That's not true of similar efforts on behalf of small independent community newspapers, and so on, which we also don't have the infrastructure in place to support.

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

It's Marilyn Gladu. Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Mr. Palmer.

Do you think that small media organizations will be benefited under Bill C-18?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Singer, let's pick up on that line of questioning. Can you see anything in Bill C-18 or in your American equivalent, the JCPA, that would stifle innovation in news?

[Sue Gardner]

I do agree that a lot has been brought into the room today that is not germane to Bill C-18, and is not about news organizations and their relationship with news disseminating platforms.

I think we all agree, presumably, that there are many reasons to be critical of big tech. Those do include the algorithmic amplification of inflammatory material. I think that is something that the House is intending to grapple with through online harms legislation. That's a really important issue.

I'm on the board of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. That is what we track: anti-Semitism and hate of various kinds, and racism in Canada, including what's disseminated by the platforms. It's an important issue. I don't want to diminish or make fun of the importance of the issue.

I think your instinct is correct. There's an anti-big tech sentiment increasingly over the past, let's say, five years and it makes big tech a convenient target. I think that is some of what is happening here.

Big tech has a lot of money. I think it's perfectly reasonable to impose taxes upon big tech and, as I said, use that to fund journalism, but personally, I could live without the moral judgment because I don't think it's appropriate.

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

Thanks.

Mr. Singer, I would like to come back to what we were talking about a few minutes ago, hate and disinformation.

We have seen Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter and the deliberate promotion by him of appalling disinformation around the attack on Speaker Pelosi's husband. We have had criticisms levied against big tech for their refusal to act promptly to counter disinformation. I wanted to see if you had any comments about that growing disinformation coming from big tech.

Also, there's the other side, which is having responsible journalism. We have the crazed extremism of Fox News and we counter that with the kind of journalistic integrity, for example, that comes from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is often opposed by extremists.

To what extent does the JCPA cover public broadcasting like PBS in the United States? To what extent do you feel it's important that public broadcasting be covered by an approach, for example, like Bill C-18 that helps to counterbalance this crazed extremism we see from Fox News and the deliberate disinformation that we're seeing from Elon Musk's Twitter and from other big tech companies that seem to profit from the engagement that comes from this disinformation?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Palmer, perhaps you could respond in writing later on. I have about 30 seconds left. I really have very little time.

Ms. Gardner, let's put aside our differing opinions on how appropriate Bill C‑18 is.

I know that you want to protect quality journalism. However, I must tell you that I don't entirely disagree with challenging the two journalists per media outlet rule. I don't think that's true for the new journalism models that define what quality media is. Nor do I feel that's what's going to protect regional media.

Do you feel we should place more emphasis on journalistic quality criteria and base it on journalistic standards rather than the number of journalists? Would that criterion be acceptable to you?

Please take only a few seconds to respond, because I have very little time left.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I will also have the 18 seconds of speaking time that Mr. Housefather didn't use.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Palmer, let's go back to the brief that you submitted to the committee last week.

In the brief, you talk about the definition of news content being too broad and unclear. In your view, the act could apply to podcasting services like Apple and Spotify, voice assistants like Alexa and Siri and potentially even app stores. However, you don't explain how that might be the case in your brief.

If you read section 27(1) of the bill, which specifies what businesses are eligible, how do you match these businesses with those criteria?

Can you clarify that for me?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

It's clear to me that Bill C-18 is not going to meet its desired goal of helping small local newspapers because we've excluded any that have less than two full-time journalists, and it's clear that Bell, CBC and Rogers are going to get the lion's share of the money.

I'm going to focus my time on amendments that we could make to the bill, because the NDP-Liberal coalition is going to force it through and I want to reduce the harm as much as possible.

Mr. Palmer, you talked about how we should delete the undue preference part of the bill because it's problematic and how 52D from the Australian act would be better.

You also mentioned another part of the bill that should be deleted, but I didn't catch that. Could you let me know what that is?

[Sue Gardner]

Yes, absolutely.

I would throw in there, too, the indie publishers and the digital start-ups—all the little guys, whether they're operating at a local level or not.

Originally, the indie start-up folks opposed Bill C-18. Then when it became pretty clear that it was likely to go through—and I think this has happened with a lot of entities—I think they shifted their focus to try to tweak it and have some amendments made so that they would be less disadvantaged by it.

They do not want it and it doesn't surprise that local news operations don't want it either, especially those that are explicitly excluded from it because they have fewer than two full-time journalist employees.

The unintended consequences—

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Philip Palmer]

I think that's a serious problem. I think that, for instance, the approach that Mr. Singer's discussing in the United States, where all newspapers and news organizations are sort of forced into a collective and distributed that way, is a good deal more susceptible to positive outcomes than is the model in C-18, where large organizations can put themselves forward and force a collective agreement on news intermediaries without including the smaller players who have to then try to find experts, lawyers, etc., to support a bargaining process. I think that is very difficult.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm sitting here smiling because Mr. Singer has no idea what Bill C-18 is all about. It's about the exact opposite of what he's talking about.

The CBC, Rogers and Bell get most of the money. The newspapers get the crumbs. We're not like the United States in this bill. We have pointed that out on this side numerous times. Small and medium newspapers get absolutely nothing.

I'm going to move to you, Mr. Palmer, because you have some recommendations.

I sit here laughing at Mr. Singer, because he has absolutely no idea what this bill is all about. It's not about the newspaper industry in this country. I've said that for months. They're getting crumbs. I believe the local CBC, the public broadcaster, should be excluded from this bill.

What are your thoughts, Mr. Palmer?

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

Let's talk about timelines.

You did raise the issue of antitrust legislation and going against big tech. You mentioned in your opening remarks 10 years to work through appeals that big tech could bring to stop antitrust legislation. They have with their power the ability to stop up the works for a decade. I think all of us understand the power that big corporations have.

On the timelines around the JCPA and Bill C-18, we're currently discussing the thresholds to make sure that this actually goes through, that negotiations are compelled, there is final offer arbitration and that there is a clear movement. What do you feel are appropriate timelines?

Many have said that there should be shorter timelines of three months for a negotiated period, arbitration, then final offer arbitration. That would all be taking place in a relatively short span of time and it forces big tech companies to actually work in good faith, rather than drawing things out, as they certainly would with antitrust legislation.

How important is it that there are relatively short timelines around negotiation, arbitration and final offer arbitration?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I'd like to go back to you, Mr. Singer.

We've had a variety of witnesses over the last few weeks. The vast majority are strongly in favour of Bill C-18, including—and I thought this was an interesting point and kind of a watershed moment—the community newspapers of Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is where half of our Conservative caucus is found. The community newspapers in those provinces are very strong advocates for Bill C-18, though they want to see improvements in the legislation.

Certainly in my community of New Westminster—Burnaby, we've seen a hemorrhaging of local news content as a result of what so many would say is unfair competition.

I am interested in coming back to the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act in the United States. I want you to tell us a bit about what would happen if this is not put into place.

The Australian model is something that a lot of other countries are looking at because their local community news has been decimated.

What would happen without the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act? How would you see journalism evolving in the United States?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I find your response quite interesting, because we're discussing the possibility of tightening the eligibility criteria a little to foster quality journalism.

Do you think it would be realistic to make digital businesses responsible for the quality of news content, or lack thereof, in some cases? I'm asking because we've heard some arguments that Bill C‑18 would encourage the spread of fake news, misinformation and all kinds of more or less credible content.

Is it realistic to think that online businesses could include a warning or grant certification to businesses with whom they are sharing content?

[Sue Gardner]

Yes, I can.

In my opinion, the debates about whether Bill C-18 literally constitutes a link tax are hairsplitting. They are a bit beside the point.

The whole basis of the legislation is the notion that making available material or facilitating access to it is taking value from the party that made the thing, and that notion flies in the face of the entire Internet, because the entire Internet is built on the concept of linking, sharing, annotating, commenting and building on the work of others. That is what makes the Internet fantastic. There are limits to that. We do have copyright law, but there is no need and it is not beneficial to take the position that linking or making available is taking value, because it's not.

I know that people tend to dislike the phrase “breaks the Internet”. I dislike it, too, because it always sounds like hyperbole, and I am not trying to say that if this bill becomes law, the Internet is immediately different or immediately broken, but it is consistent with breaking the Internet, and it is a step on the road to breaking the Internet.

I would like to urge the committee to take a long view on this. The Internet is still quite young. It's going to be with us for a long time. I think the actions we take today that may seem small and of little consequence will shape it and will shape how it develops in ways that I think we could come to regret, and this is one of those ways.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

In your opening remarks, you referred to Bill C-18 creating what you termed a “link tax”. You talked about how assigning value to certain links over others potentially changes the entirety of the Internet in the way that it functions.

You said that it lends to the potential commercialization of the Internet. You said that this would be a gradual change, but make no mistake, it would in fact occur.

Would you care to expand on that a bit?

[Sue Gardner]

No, I have not. I'm a completely independent voice. I used to be on the CBC payroll, until 2007, but since 2007, I have taken no money from anybody tangentially, potentially, definitely or at all involved in Bill C-18.

[Philip Palmer, President, Internet Society Canada Chapter]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On behalf of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to address this important subject.

As a preliminary observation, the Internet Society supports initiatives to financially bolster news organizations as they transition to the Internet era. We believe that a broader levy applied to all social media platforms and search engines, coupled with a truly independent body to apportion funding, would have been fairer and a more reliable source of funding than the illusory bargaining scheme that is at the heart of Bill C-18.

Neither Bill C-18 nor the Australian legislation on which it's based represents bargaining based on the value of news content to news intermediaries. The bargaining process is contrived, apparent rather than real. Having stripped news intermediaries of legal protections, it is designed, under threat of excessive monetary penalties, to coerce intermediaries to agree to compensate news businesses. It withdraws the exceptions and limitations of copyright law from digital news intermediaries, while leaving those same rights in place for their competitors and for the news organizations themselves.

The government is using its legislative power to force a handful of businesses that have successful advertising-based business models to compensate an industry whose advertising-based business models are failing.

I would like to quickly make a few specific points.

First, Bill C-18 imposes significant costs on making news content through hyperlinks available to the public. Hyperlinks are the quintessential means by which individuals and businesses seek and find news content and all other information online. By imposing a cost on news intermediaries for links to news content, Bill C-18 threatens the efficiency of news retrieval on the Internet and the ability of Canadians to access news content. Bill C-18 will raise the cost, directly or indirectly, of accessing news content in Canada.

Second, the definition of “digital news intermediary” in subclause 2(1) raises complex questions of constitutional facts and law. Facebook and Google, for instance, are likely not subject to federal regulatory authority.

Third, the criteria in clause 6 by which a digital news intermediary must self-identify are vague and inappropriate. They are borrowed from concepts as different from each other as competition law and labour law. The legislation neither defines the relevant markets nor sets forth to what the imbalance of bargaining power relates.

We would urge the government to consider following the Australian model in this regard, in which the minister designates the intermediary according to clearer—not perfect—criteria set out in section 52E of the Australian act.

Fourth, clause 27 has a bifurcated definition of “eligible news business”. Paragraph 27(1)(a) refers to “a qualified Canadian journalism organization”, a definition for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, which requires that an organization qualify by meeting demanding criteria. As numerous intervenors have pointed out, paragraph 27(1)(b) qualifies organizations with no observable journalistic standards. Click farms and foreign agents should not be eligible news organizations. We note section 52P of the Australian legislation as a better model in this regard.

Fifth, clause 24 denies to news intermediaries any reliance on copyright exceptions and limitations. It should be deleted. It nullifies any market-based approach to the determination of the value of news content to digital news intermediaries.

[Dr. Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One]

Good morning, and thanks for having me.

It's a privilege to speak to a Canadian audience, and I wish I could testify in person.

On behalf of the News/Media Alliance, a collection of news publishers, I have worked extensively on companion legislation to Bill C-18 in the United States called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act , or JCPA, and I will speak to those efforts. The economics are the same.

Among other protections for news publishers, the JCPA would grant an exemption to antitrust laws for news publishers so they can better coordinate their dealings with the tech giants.

Before going any further, I want to be clear. Antitrust exemptions are rare, and that's a good thing. Powerful entities should not be immunized from antitrust scrutiny. In some limited circumstances, however, coordination among small suppliers when dealing with a large buyer is necessary to overcome a power imbalance that causes input prices and employment to fall below competitive levels.

This market failure is the basis for the current exemptions for farm co-operatives in particular and labour in general from the U.S. antitrust laws. It is the same basis for extending a new exemption to newspapers in their dealings with dominant Internet platforms.

That the word “preservation” appears in the U.S. legislation is no accident. The news industry has incurred losses in advertising revenue every year since 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

The effect of shrinking advertising revenues, in part caused by underpayment from dominant platforms, is less cash flow to support journalists and a clear employment effect flowing from the exercise of monopsony power by the dominant platforms. U.S. employment among newspaper employees fell from 71,000 in 2008 to 31,000 in 2020, according to Pew. As a result of the deteriorating news media landscape, hundreds of local newspapers have been acquired or have declared bankruptcy.

Google and Facebook reframe newspaper articles in rich previews containing headlines, summaries and photos. The platforms also curate newspaper content alongside advertisements. This reframing and curation decreases the likelihood of a user clicking on the article, thereby depriving news publishers of clicks while enriching the dominant tech platforms. This appropriation of newspaper content at zero access price also decreases newspaper subscriptions. When the clicks on newspaper content eventually come from the platforms' websites, the associated advertising revenues are taxed by the platforms at excessive take rates.

The best way to correct the exercise of monopsony power is for the government to permit the news publishers to coordinate their dealings with the digital platforms over payment terms and conditions. Given the massive power imbalance, collective bargaining by itself might not be sufficient to achieve competitive payments, in which case some structured bargaining among the parties, for example mandatory arbitration with an enforcement mechanism, is needed as a backstop.

Curiously, some traditional anti-monopoly groups have stated their resistance to granting countervailing bargaining power to newspapers in their dealings with dominant platforms. In a joint statement, the American Antitrust Institute, Public Knowledge, Consumer Reports and Consumer Federation of America argued that a new antitrust exemption “will only hurt consumers, citizens, and businesses that are not invited to the negotiations that this exemption is supposed to facilitate.” It bears noting that some of these groups depend on the dominant platforms for funding.

Instead of the JCPA, these same detractors have called for greater enforcement of antitrust laws against Google or Facebook, but the conduct that is being challenged here, the mere exercise of monopsony power to achieve a reduced rate for newspaper content, is not a cognizable vertical restraint under antitrust law. Scraping, reframing and curation, and appropriation of value do not amount to violations of section 2 of the U.S. Sherman act. Unlike Europe, the United States does not have an abuse of dominance standard.

Moreover, even if one could style something else the platforms are doing as a cognizable restraint, a successful antitrust lawsuit against, let's say, Google, would provide zero relief for publishers in their dealings with Facebook. A successful antitrust lawsuit against Google or Facebook would require several years to adjudicate, and the appeals might not be resolved for nearly a decade. In the interim, newspapers would be left twisting in the wind. Given the newspapers' precarious financial state, it is not clear how long many newspapers could survive without an intervention today.

The JCPA has undergone significant amendments.

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

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today.

I was a journalist in Canada for 10 years, working in radio, television and online. I used to run cbc.ca. I used to run the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the non-profit that operates Wikipedia. That makes me the only Canadian to have run a global top 10 Internet property. Last year, I was the McConnell professor of practice at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University.

I am speaking here in a personal capacity, based on my own knowledge and my own experiences.

I think Bill C-18 is a very bad bill for three reasons that I'm going to unpack for you.

First, Bill C-18 misdiagnoses the nature of the problem. Bill C-18 characterizes as “unfairness” that Google and Facebook have such a large share of the digital ad market. That is a fundamental mischaracterization or misunderstanding.

Imagine it's the 1920s. I make buggy whips and you make cars. Bill C-18 is the government saying that you need to give me money forever because nobody is buying my buggy whips.

The journalism industry used to be profitable because buying ads in the news was the best way—or at least a very good way—to reach audiences. That's less true today. Google and Facebook have created advertising tools that are way more efficient and more effective than the old ones. That is why advertisers are using them. Google and Facebook out-innovated the business side of the news industry. That is not a fairness issue. It's not a moral issue. It doesn't make them villains.

Ben Scott told you that the government is, in effect, “refereeing a contest between big tech and big publishers”. He urged this committee to focus on the public interest instead. I want to say the same.

My second point is that Bill C-18 will not actually support quality journalism. As the former CRTC head, Konrad von Finckenstein, told you on Friday, “If you want to subsidize news publishers, you can do it a myriad of other ways”. He characterized this bill as “unnecessarily complicated”. I think he's right.

If the government's goal is to support quality journalism, the Public Policy Forum laid out a very good path for how to do that. In 2017, the PPF released “Shattered Mirror”, which was its report on the crisis in the news industry. It recommended that the government start collecting sales tax on foreign company ad sales in Canada and that this money be used to establish a journalism fund to be administered by a body independent of the government. That would support quality journalism.

Bill C-18 may attempt to achieve the same goal, but it does it by trying to awkwardly kind of force Google and Facebook into the role of directly funding journalism themselves and that is a really tough fit. Google and Facebook are private sector Silicon Valley megacorporations. Their job is to advance their own business interests. They don't have a mission to serve the people of Canada. We don't elect them and they are not accountable to us.

The government can try to give Google and Facebook very specific direction and stand over their shoulders and try to compel them to do what it wants, but that is not the simple way. The simple way is to take their money and make a fund.

My third point is that Bill C-18 will have significant negative unintended consequences. I'm going to speak here mainly about the Internet and Internet users.

Bill C-18 will encourage the creation of clickbait and nonsense.

Bill C-18 will create an incentive for Google and Facebook to back away from news.

Finally, Bill C-18 will enshrine in law the idea that ordinary Internet linking is “taking value”, and that puts us on a slippery slope. The Internet was designed to be open and to grow organically. The ability to link freely, and not just link but to share, to comment, to annotate and to build upon is at the heart of the Internet's openness. That is well understood.

With Bill C-18, the government introduces friction to linking. That brings us closer to an Internet that is fundamentally commercial, where what we see online is going to be determined by corporate deals. That kind of change happens extremely slowly. It's the accumulated effect of many decisions that, at the time, might not have seemed very consequential in that regard. It is one step on that bad road.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 51 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 meeting on the study 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 and remotely.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those on video conference, click on the microphone icon at the bottom of your screen. Then, you will be able to activate your mike.

To get interpretation, you will see a globe at the bottom of your screen. If you click on that, you can get get your interpretation in English or in French, as you desire. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and the desired channel.

Remember that all comments should be made through the chair.

I have one comment to make. We have had a very tragic accident with an interpreter because the witnesses were not using the required mikes. I have been asked to ensure that everyone is using the headset that has been sent to them by the clerk. It is very important to remember that, because we don't want to harm people at the other end.

Having said that, I want the committee to know that all witnesses completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting and are using the required headsets.

We will begin.

On Bill C-18, we have three witnesses today. We have Sue Gardner McConnell professor of practice, Max Bell school of public policy, McGill University, who is appearing as an individual. Appearing by video conference, we have Hal Singer, managing director of Econ One. We also have Philip Palmer, president of Internet Society, Canada chapter, by video conference.

Clerk, I don't see Mr. Palmer.

[Kevin Chan]

Sure. I think the challenge, and perhaps it gets to the heart of Bill C-18, is that what we're talking about when we talk about what's on these platforms and on the Internet is people's speech. People's speech is subject to different considerations, I dare say, than what an editor decides should be in a newspaper.

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

Yes. It's clear to me that this is a mandate of payment for links, which is not what the Minister of Heritage said. He also testified that he had a list of DNIs, but he would not share them with the group. Now, these digital news intermediaries....

Mr. von Finckenstein, I think you talked about how a better mechanism would be for the minister to be able to designate who was the DNI, because the definition is so unclear and in some cases may be unconstitutional. They say that it's all the digital news intermediaries that are under the control of the federal government, and so far that would mean none.

My question for you is this. If the minister does have the list, as he said he did, do you think it should be shared with this group before we approve Bill C-18?

[Kevin Chan]

Well, what we understand is that Canadians want less news on Facebook, not more. I think you're right that users may want to see good information. That's why we partner, for example, with the Public Health Agency of Canada. That's why we partner with Elections Canada. It's to get good information to Canadians.

I think what you raise, though, is a central concern for us with Bill C-18. We've heard other independent experts say that if there is a requirement not to preference certain publications, which I think Mr. von Finckenstein may be alluding to, then the approach that we have taken to reduce or to down-rank that information will be taken away from us. At least that's what other experts have said; if that's the case, then I worry that Bill C-18 exacerbates the issue and doesn't solve it, with all due respect.

Thank you for the substantive question. I'm trying to give you a substantive answer. I hope that's helpful.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's no secret that technology has evolved a great deal. We used to get our news in written form through the newspapers. Then came radio in the 1930s and 1940s, followed by radio newsrooms, and then television. All of those media produced their own journalistic content through their newsrooms.

The market changed considerably with the advent of Internet, as we know. The whole world changed its lifestyle habits. Unlike traditional media, social media don't produce the content they offer their subscribers themselves. This is truly an unusual situation for the media industry, which is normally so used to adapting to change. If we fail to adequately protect our newsrooms and news media, they will, quite simply, disappear. Who, then, will be left to produce quality journalistic content?

I think the answer lies in the question.

Mr. von Finckenstein, you disagree with the way Bill C‑18 is put together. I'm not asking you to approve or disapprove what I've just said. That said, I think that, as former chair of the CRTC, you must be aware of the fact that the journalism and news media industry needs a new framework.

If that isn't achieved through legislation, such as the one before us that would compel companies that share content produced by our newsrooms to enter into agreements, how do you suggest we allow our news organizations to enjoy their fair share of the market that's been largely overtaken by the online platforms?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was interesting the other day hearing from the Minister of Heritage, who cited that 468 news outlets have closed in this country since 2008. I will also say that many of those news outlets that closed were Bell Media, Rogers, National Post and Torstar. These are the same organizations that want to be at the trough of Bill C-18. It's really interesting.

What the minister didn't say in his testimony is that we've had over 200 news operations—independent organizations—open in this country.

I just wanted to make that statement because this bill is not going to save the media in this country. We have seen Bell, Rogers, National Post and Torstar tear down in small communities like Swift Current, Lloydminster, Prince Albert, Yorkton, Red Deer, Kelowna and Kamloops. I can go on and on. If the panel thinks that this bill is going to save rural media, think again. People are getting their information a little differently.

I'm going to go to Mr. von Finckenstein.

You are the former chair of the CRTC. As you know, you don't have any experience in regulating news or even in competition matters. I just told you how many news outlets have closed in this country. Suddenly, the CRTC is now going to have the power to determine what news publishers benefit and what the definition of a “journalist” is, and it will oversee arbitration, including the picking of an arbitrator.

Do you think, Mr. von Finckenstein, that the CRTC should be given as prominent a role as this in Bill C-18?

[Kevin Chan]

I think it's important to indicate that, on Facebook, what you see are the conversations and exchanges of 21 million Canadians. They are their opinions, and they are their communications to one another and to friends and family. I think that's what you see on Facebook.

Having said that, I think perhaps my colleague Marc has some thoughts on fact-checking, the general idea of misinformation and how it pertains to Bill C-18 that might be helpful for legislators. If I may, I'll turn it to Marc to try to answer that one.

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

Yes, that was very clear, to make sure the committee needed to invite and hear what Meta would say.

So what changes do we need to make to Bill C‑18 to make sure we don't have the same consequences as Australia?

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I'm happy to see my Liberal colleagues beginning to realize that without significant amendments to this bill, we may see some unintended negative consequences, like 22 million Canadians having their content blocked by Meta.

My question is for Mr. Chan. In Australia, when content was blocked and thereafter similar legislation was brought, there were amendments that were requested and put in place. What were those amendments, and what should we be doing to Bill C‑18 in order to prevent that same adverse outcome?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. I'm going to try to do my best here on behalf of Mr. Julian with Bill C-18. I do appreciate everyone's feedback on this bill.

Ms. Charette, I'd like to start with you.

I was taking some notes as you made your opening statement, and I can very much relate to the concerns that you have and the willingness that you show to maintain a strong and diverse mediascape in Quebec, but I think that also applies to many regions in Canada as well. I know we've been hearing from the FNCC and many stakeholders that Bill C-18 has set out too restrictive criteria for news media companies to be eligible for negotiations with the web giants.

I have a couple of questions for you. First, what would happen to thousands of small news media companies, many of which are non-profit organizations, such as community radio and community TV in Canada and Quebec, if Bill C-18's eligibility thresholds remain unchanged?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I checked with the clerk yesterday, and the answer was no.

The last time Facebook was here, Mr. Chan and Mr. Dinsdale, I asked a number of questions about the experience of Facebook in Australia, where it threatened to take down pages because of similar legislation to Bill C-18. Facebook did so, causing chaos for a week. You said, at the time, that you could not answer and did not know what would happen in Australia. As a result, this committee summoned Mark Zuckerberg, your CEO, who could have answered the questions. He ignored the committee's summons.

Given that, last week, Mr. Dinsdale made the same threat to Canada about shutting down pages, and Mr. Chan did the same in his testimony today, I certainly hope you're both able to now speak to the Australian experience.

Various whistle-blowers have stated that, in order to plan for the Australian shutdown, they required multiple staff members to pre-emptively sign special NDAs.

Mr. Dinsdale, do you normally require staff members at Facebook to sign NDAs for major Facebook events?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes, that's right. I'm going to springboard a bit off what Kevin was just saying here. Under this bill, we're attaching a cost to good information while leaving bad information free to spread without any cost. The belief is that this will somehow lead to good information spreading more and faster. Does that seem right to you? I mean, we didn't need to be costing good journalism in this way. We could have found money for it without attaching this cost. Unfortunately, the decision of the drafters of Bill C-18 has been to do this.

In terms of concerns about the spread of bad information here, it's incentivizing existing outlets to produce more lower-quality content, but because of how low the standards are in Bill C-18 for recognizing quality information outlets, it's actually opening huge doors for a whole range of bad actors to enter Canada and start spreading their misinformation. We're talking about clickbait farms, the “doctors can't believe this” type of people who might take huge advantage of this legislation. We're even talking about hostile foreign actors, groups like RT, but there are many more who might have a real interest in misleading Canadians and might find a way of misusing this legislation to do so.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. Thank you. My Internet is unstable, so I am cutting in and out a little bit. My apologies.

My next question is for Matt at OpenMedia.

Matt, you talked about the fact that Canadians need high-quality news sources. You said that a great deal of variety is required in order to maintain a democratic system that is healthy, but you also made the comment that Bill C-18 actually doesn't accomplish this stated intent. In fact, you seemed to indicate that it would harm innovation, creativity and variety among news sources.

Do you care to expand on why that's the case?

[Annick Charette, President, Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture]

Good afternoon.

The Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture represents 86 unions in the field of culture and information in Quebec, including the major news media unions.

From the outset, I'd like to say that our primary concern is the preservation of a strong, professional, independent, diverse and financially healthy press in Quebec. We also want the press to maintain the ability to offer a diversity of viewpoints that reflect not only the regions but the multidimensional fabric of the Canadian population. We also want it to be present in all its forms across the country.

Far too many media outlets have already closed up shop, in large part due to the fact that advertising revenues—news media's traditional revenue source—have been siphoned off by digital platforms.

To meet these objectives, it's imperative that we address the failures in the market, namely, the considerable leverage that digital platforms have over news media outlets by taking the lion's share of advertising revenues derived from journalistic information. That's why we believe these legislative provisions are necessary to adequately regulate and balance the commercial relationship between the news media and the almighty—and, might I add, somewhat threatening as of late—digital platforms.

The Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture supports Bill C‑18 in the name of its members, but also in the name of all Canadians, because professional information is a pillar of democracy. A well-informed population is a population that makes informed choices, which is what we all want, I believe.

Nevertheless, we'd like to bring to the attention of legislators some aspects of the legislation that could be improved.

First, the CRTC's proposed exemption order powers, which allow platforms to be exempt and to negotiate new agreements, are too broad and risk seriously compromising Bill C‑18's effective contribution to strengthening the diversity of voices in the field of news media.

We're absolutely committed to the preservation of smaller media outlets that, among other things, meet the specific needs of certain communities and regions. A few major agreements with national media shouldn't undermine the ability of smaller actors to exercise their rights.

Second, Bill C‑18 should provide for negotiations for a greater number of news media, including local media with only one full-time journalist and emerging digital media, which aren't based on the same structure as traditional print media. We also believe that media companies that deal in specialized journalism should be taken into consideration.

[Matthew Hatfield]

I don't always love my platform feed, but I don't want our government knowingly making it worse. That's what Bill C-18 currently does.

OpenMedia community members have sent nearly 8,000 emails to MPs asking for fixes to Bill C-18. Every one of us wants to see a flourishing Canadian news ecosystem, but without extensive amendment, there's a considerable risk that Bill C-18 will make that news ecosystem worse, not better.

Thank you.

[Matthew Hatfield]

Our biggest concern is what Bill C-18 will do to our online feeds. What kind of content do you think will get the most Facebook shares or the most retweets on Twitter? Do you think it is the in-depth, long-read investigative journalism that holds our leaders accountable, or do you think it is puff pieces, fiery unsourced op-eds and outright misleading clickbait?

Bill C-18 triples down on this kind of content. It nudges legitimate news outlets to make more of it, to see their shares grow and earn more compensation. It offers yellow journalists and content-mill click farms a real possibility of qualifying for guaranteed mandatory platform subsidy and promotion. It forbids platforms from taking any steps that would prioritize content from higher-quality outlets—like the National Post or The Globe and Mail—above that of any other qualifying publication.

[Matthew Hatfield, Campaigns Director, OpenMedia]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Matt Hatfield and I'm the campaigns director of OpenMedia, a grassroots community of nearly 220,000 people in Canada who work together for an open, accessible and surveillance-free Internet.

I am speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Stó:lo, Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam nations.

My question today is this: Who's in Bill C-18 and who's out? Who is producing high-quality journalism that deserves government-mandated subsidy and promotion, and who isn't? How much are they entitled to, and will the public ever have transparency to see that these questions are being answered fairly?

We believe the government is trying to dodge responsibility for answering these highly sensitive questions, yet Bill C-18 still answers them. Burying these questions just means its answers are more obscure, secretive, unequal and potentially damaging to trust in journalism.

There's a real problem that Bill C-18 is trying to solve. Canadians need high-quality, trusted, fact-checked journalism, and lots of it. Our democracy depends on it.

It's true that huge online platforms—Google and Meta chief among them—are collecting a lot of revenue in Canada. It's fair to ask them to contribute more of that revenue back to things that Canadians need. That's why we support the digital services tax, and that's why we wish we were debating a much simpler version of this bill that directly taxed them.

Linking news revenue primarily to the spread of news content on platforms is a toxic poison pill. News simply isn't a primary revenue driver on platforms—that's a fact—and a lot of the reporting of great importance to society is least likely to go socially viral.

Linking news support to links and clicks gives both platforms and news publishers strong incentives to cheat the system in ways that discourage the spread of quality news. It fails to target the resulting funds where they're actually most needed, subsidizing today's biggest winners in news production while not bringing back lost outlets or supporting the emergence of new ones. It makes news outlets dependent on the continued success of online platforms to survive, which is a dangerous weakening of their credibility and independence.

Also, because Bill C-18 uses links and clicks as a substitute for stronger evidence of public interest journalism, Bill C-18 sets such a low bar for identifying a qualified news outlet—lower than the already flawed QCJO system—that low-quality outlets, click farms and even malicious foreign actors could potentially qualify for mandatory promotion and subsidy.

For these reasons, we believe that without substantial amendment, Bill C-18 will be enormously destructive to the quality of, distribution of and public trust in Canadian journalism.

The money is not going where it needs to. Minister Rodriguez has told us that small news publishers aren't really interested in Bill C-18's support—despite hundreds of publishers who have said otherwise. Canada's news problem is largest in small communities that have lost their primary outlets and in hollowed-out, downsized regional newsrooms.

Will Bill C-18 do anything to bring dead local outlets back? No. It does nothing today for communities with no existing news source, and if a small local outlet reopens, it locks them out from support until they hit a significant and possibly unattainable size.

Will it induce major news chains to restaff downsized local divisions? How and why would they do that? What rational business will staff up the slow and expensive local accountability beat when your new primary revenue stream is the most viral and clickbaity of social media content? And that's before we consider that 75% of Bill C-18's revenue is predicted to go to TV and radio broadcast, predominantly to giants like Bell, Rogers and the CBC.

This committee has criticized the secrecy of the deals Google and Meta make with publishers. Fair enough, so why doesn't Bill C-18 fix that? You can't rejuvenate public trust in journalism by making these problematic secret revenue deals larger and more secret, with more opportunity for the CRTC, government and platforms themselves to quietly influence them. Under Bill C-18, negotiated deals are still secret, as is the process for assessing eligibility for QCJO status and the reason for accepting or rejecting applicants. That's not a recipe for building trust in the news.

Our biggest concern is what Bill C-18 will do to our online feeds. What kind of content do you think gets the most Facebook shares or the most retweets on Twitter? Do you think it is the in-depth, long-form investigative—

[Kevin Chan]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today to Bill C‑18, the online news act.

Today we want to share directly with the committee our concerns about this draft legislation and the unintended consequences we worry may flow from it in the fullness of time.

We have three main concerns: the true division of value between platforms and publishers, the unintended consequences of payment for free marketing, and the stifling of innovation.

First, the framework of the current legislation presumes that Meta unfairly benefits from its relationships with publishers when, in fact, the reverse is true. The Facebook platform helps publishers. Meta does not scrape or index news content or links. Like any business, non-profit, public or political organization, Canadian news publishers choose to share links from their websites on Facebook to reach a wider audience, which leads to increased readership of their stories. This, in turn, allows them to sell more subscriptions and advertising.

In Canada, we estimate that Facebook feeds sent registered publishers more than 1.9 billion clicks in a single year. That's free marketing for their content in the form of link posts that has an estimated value of more than $230 million. Simply put, this is what it would have cost news publishers to achieve the same outcome on Facebook if that space wasn't provided to them for free.

We can see that Facebook already helps Canadian publishers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Second, the online news act would force Meta to pay news organizations for content that publishers voluntarily place on Facebook. In blunt terms, we would be forced to pay publishers for giving them free marketing on Facebook, which I just noted was valued at $230 million last year. This would be a most peculiar and unorthodox arrangement.

In the current economic climate, and as we prioritize long-term investments in the metaverse and in the growth of short-form video in response to competition and user preferences, we are being asked to acquiesce to a system that lets publishers charge us for as much content as they want to supply at a price with no clear limits. I hope you will agree with me that no business can operate this way.

Third, successful regulation must be grounded in fact. We have long supported regulation that sets clear and fair rules for everyone and an open Internet where creativity and competition can thrive. But as independent experts have warned, a policy that unfairly subsidizes legacy media companies now struggling to adapt to the online environment is an approach that will harm competition, reduce trust in media and make the transition to digital models even more difficult.

A recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer only underscores these real concerns. According to the PBO's analysis, it is broadcasters, including the public broadcaster, that will receive the lion's share of transfers, leaving less than 25% for newspapers. Also, as someone who has spent over five years listening, learning and supporting digital news entrepreneurs, it is concerning that Bill C-18 is seemingly even less helpful to them. We encourage the committee to find more opportunities to hear from the next generation of Canadian digital news innovators.

Let me be clear: Canada is incredibly important to Meta.

Canadians will always be able to use Facebook to connect with friends and family, to help build communities and to grow their businesses.

However, faced with adverse legislation based on false assumptions that defy the logic of how Facebook works, which, if passed, will create globally unprecedented forms of financial liability for news links and content, we feel it is important to be transparent about the possibility that we may be forced to consider whether we continue to allow the sharing of news content on Facebook in Canada.

As always, we remain open to working with this committee and the government on solutions that are fact-based and reflect the interests of all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Konrad von Finckenstein, Former Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to comment on Bill C-18.

As you know, the stated purpose of the bill is to regulate digital news intermediaries, with a view to enhancing fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace while contributing to its sustainability. The underlying rationale of this bill can be summed up very simply: Local news publishers do not get appropriate compensation for news they produce that reaches the public via digital platforms.

To rectify the situation, the act contemplates a mandatory bargaining process between the platforms, called digital news intermediaries or DNIs, and news publishers, called ENBs. The process is very simple. DNIs have to identify themselves; ENBs are qualified by the CRTC. They have to bargain. The bargaining is mandatory. It has to be done in good faith. If the bargaining fails, there is mediation. Finally, if mediation fails, there is a final offer of arbitration. All of this is to be done under the auspices of the CRTC, which designates the parties, manages the process, furnishes a panel of arbitrators, and advises throughout.

I am not here to question the rationale of the legislation nor the method adopted. Rather, I would like to share with you some problems I see in implementing this legislation. This should not be taken to mean that I support this legislation, however.

It goes without saying that implementing this bill will present the CRTC with a huge new challenge. I look at these issues from the perspective of former chair of the CRTC. When you implement a bill, the legislation should be specific and objective. That is very helpful to the administrator, while vagueness and overly broad discretion mean numerous demands, contestations and delays.

There are five points I would like to bring to your attention.

First, whom does this act apply to? How do you identify the DNIs? The bill requires DNIs to self-identify and notify the CRTC. The criteria are based on whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between the operator and the news business. It is based on such criteria as the size of the intermediary, whether the market gives the intermediary strategic advantage, and whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.

The concepts of size, market, strategic advantage and prominent position are all borrowed from competition law and very much depend on context. They do not have an objective meaning. Rather, it seems to me that it will be a dog's breakfast trying to identify DNIs. They are asking companies to self-identify and giving the CRTC power to compel information to decide if the respondent is a DNI. The bill should be amended and provide that the minister, by regulation, and after consultation with the commissioner of competition, designate the DNIs.

Second, who benefits? On request, the CRTC must designate a business as an ENB if it is a “qualified Canadian journalism organization”, as per the Income Tax Act—that's fine—and produces news content “primarily focused on matters of general interest and reports of current events”, “regularly employs two or more journalists” in Canada, operates in Canada, and produces news content that is “not primarily focused on a particular topic.”

That is a very wide definition. It does not exclude government, overt political actors or foreign actors. It has no reference to journalistic standards and would even seem to include broadcasters, who are obviously regulated by another statute. In my view, this section should be amended to provide that ENBs have to be Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled, must adhere to journalistic standards as set out in the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, and should not include licensed broadcasters and their affiliates or government actors.

Third, the bill allows the CRTC to exempt a DNI if it has an agreement with an ENB. That agreement must provide fair compensation to the news businesses for the news content. That is fair ball. That is what it is all about.

Then it goes on to say “ensure that an appropriate portion of the compensation will be used by the news businesses to support the production of local, regional and national news content” and that it does “not allow corporate influence”, etc. There are all these points. If you look at them together, they're really purposes. They should not be here; they should be in the purpose section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I'd like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

In keeping with the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the committee is meeting on the study 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 order of Thursday, June 22, 2022.

Members here in person in the room know how to access their interpretation and what to do. For those attending virtually, I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses who are attending.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon at the very bottom of your screen to activate your mike, and mute when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have a choice at the bottom of your screen. It is a little globe. You can press that and get your interpretation in English or French. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

That's enough for housekeeping.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection test in advance of the meeting and are using the House of Commons-approved equipment.

Thank you very much.

I will quickly let you know about the list of witnesses—and I will leave Ms. Charette for last, because she's not here yet.

What I will say to the witnesses is this: You each have five minutes. Even if you come as an organization, you still only have five minutes, so you can pick whoever you want to speak on your behalf. I will give you a 31-second shout-out, which is literally a shout. I will shout out to you when you have 31 seconds left. We need to stick to times, here, because we will not be able to get the number of questions and answers in or get everybody to do what they can do.

Here we go. I'm going to begin.

We have, as our panel, Konrad von Finckenstein, former chair of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and Annick Charette, president of the Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture. Representing Meta Platforms, Kevin Chan is global policy director and Marc Dinsdale is head of media partnerships in Canada. OpenMedia is represented by Matthew Hatfield, campaigns director, here by video conference.

I will start with Mr. von Finckenstein.

Mr. von Finckenstein, could you please begin? You have five minutes.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In principle, the vast majority of parties definitely support Bill C‑18, as do the vast majority of witnesses we've heard, including community newspapers from Alberta and Saskatchewan. What's more, community representatives in Conservative ridings have said that Bill C‑18 would be an important tool.

However, there has been criticism of the transparency surrounding the involvement of small newspapers and community radio stations, which won't be affected if no amendments are made to change matters. There's also the fact that there aren't really any limits on the arbitration process, which means that the web giants will have every reason to drag out the proceedings rather than negotiate. All those aspects should therefore be improved.

As I understand it, Minister, the department hasn't analyzed these issues. Your message today is that you are open to the possibility of accepting amendments to Bill C‑18 so that it actually makes the improvements we would like to see in the community network and Canadian journalism. Are you open to all those changes?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Talking about reports, Bill C‑18 provides that an auditor's report will be published and submitted to the CRTC on the act's impact on the marketplace.

However, there's no provision to provide parliamentarians with access to that report. Do you think we should have access to the annual report so we can monitor the act's impact on online news in order to improve it over the years?

Please answer that within a few seconds because I am nearly out of time.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you for that.

You mentioned the importance of supporting local community media. You also mentioned that a broad range of supports exist to make sure that our local stories are told and heard.

Yesterday you announced the rollout of budget 2022 funding. Specifically, you were launching the special measures for journalism, which started during the pandemic. It was $10 million for the local journalism initiative and $40 million for the Canadian periodical fund. It's extremely timely.

We've heard from multiple witnesses. I'm thinking of the Saskatchewan and Alberta weekly newspapers—I believe they came last week—as well as local weekly newspapers and news organizations in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. They said that to ensure we keep journalism alive, we need this suite of support measures.

Can you expand on the things that are complementing Bill C-18?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

No. It's hard to say who would apply, or not, because there are many different programs directed at them that are benefiting those small media. In many cases, those very small media are more interested in the other programs that exist, rather than in those in Bill C-18.

It would be hard to know, because a lot of them would be continuing to use those programs instead of those in Bill C-18.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Julian, I've known you since 2004. I'm always ready to discuss and I am open to suggestions.

As you know, the criteria are there, but as I said in my speech, Bill C-18 is not a silver bullet. There are many other programs that are there to support local journalism and small media, and they can apply to them.

We actually increased the funding recently for some of those programs. A lot of them, especially in the western part of the country, are benefiting from those programs.

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

Minister Rodriguez, we've heard testimony that the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association are all are very supportive of Bill C-18, but all of them raise concerns about many small community newspapers and community radio being excluded.

Are you open to amendments that ensure that the vast level of community media across the country is actually included in the supports that come from Bill C-18?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It isn't up to me to decide on the mission of a business, Mr. Champoux. Surely you realize that the purpose of this bill is, as far as possible, to prevent any interference and to allow free negotiating between the platforms and media.

I'd like to go back to what you just said because it's very important. Canada is currently a leader. The platforms are resisting for a reason. They think that, if something happens in Canada, it can happen elsewhere.

I was with you in Mexico, Mr. Champoux, and had the same conversations. Before that, I attended the G7 in Germany. Canada's Bill C‑18 was discussed by all the other countries, and they want to see what we do before they determine whether they can introduce the same model.

As you know, Mr. Champoux, media and press freedom and independence have disappeared everywhere. Their disappearance is a threat to democracy both in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's exactly what I asked the CRTC representatives, who answered that their agency would be the one establishing the criteria. Consequently, perhaps it's up to us members of the committee to incorporate them in the bill. I understand that you'll be receptive to those types of amendments.

Earlier you said you were receptive to and interested in foreign legislation. I don't know whether you're aware of this, Minister, but I attended a world conference on culture in Mexico not long ago.

I spoke with representatives of other countries that are monitoring what we're doing with bills C‑11 and C‑18. I mention those countries because, in many instances, they're small countries that likely aren't being as strong as we are compared to the web giants and that therefore have decided to see how the biggest countries legislate in this area. Then they'll feel they have allies when they have to implement their own regulations.

That's mainly why I'd like us to have sound criteria for the quality of businesses that want to be recognized as eligible. The Internet is global, and information circulates across borders. Those same rules will therefore be much easier to enforce in countries that are in a slightly weaker position relative to the web giants.

We have to set an example, hence my concern. We need to apply extremely strict criteria to prevent foreign disinformation and propaganda media from infiltrating our journalism world. That's what I'm referring to.

In view of that, don't you think we should be stricter and more rigorous and demanding of the businesses we recognize?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today. This is a very important file. Given the numbers you gave us at the beginning when talking about the media outlets that have collapsed over the last decade plus in this county, there's no question we need to do something different. I'm very thankful that you have taken a leadership role to bring something forward to better protect a service that many of the witnesses have called a public good. Thank you so much for being here.

There was a recent article in which the Conservative leader was asked his position on Bill C-18. The article states, “[Mr.] Poilievre said he has no problem with a model that allows media to be compensated by these massive companies.”

What is your reaction to that statement, Minister?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Minister, I wonder if you would see value in our hearing from other witnesses with regard to Bill C-18. For example, we haven't heard from copyright experts. We haven't heard from Facebook. We haven't heard from Twitter. We haven't heard from international trade experts, and the U.S. has expressed concern. I'm just curious whether you feel that perhaps it would be beneficial to hear from experts before continuing to move forward to clause-by-clause consideration.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Minister, my next question has to do with clause 24 of the bill.

We know that in everyday life we can use links within our sites, whether it's a blog, our Facebook pages or Twitter, etc. We can share these links, and no one is required to pay for doing so.

However, under Bill C-18, all of a sudden DNIs, digital news intermediaries, would be required to pay for news links, but only news links. News links would be the only thing on the Internet that would be ascribed a monetary value, and no other links. All other links can be shared with no problem and no need to pay, but news links somehow have value.

I'm just curious as to why news links are ascribed a value, but other links are not. Why do you feel that this is appropriate?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

All right.

Madam Chair, colleagues and members of the committee, I'm really happy to have the chance to appear today to talk about the online news act.

As I said, I want to start by stating facts: 468. That's the number of media outlets—newspapers, television, radio stations and news websites—that closed between 2008 and last August. Seventy-eight of them have closed since the beginning of the pandemic. This bill is about them. It's also about the future of journalism in our country.

On the surface, the act is about making sure that news outlets in Canada get fair compensation for the important work they do, but at its core, the act is about so much more than that. It's about upholding our democracy, because our democracy, as any democracy, needs a free, independent and thriving press. We all rely on fact-based and timely news to make rational decisions, counter disinformation and participate in our democracy. In these challenging times, this is more important than ever.

The Internet has fundamentally changed the way we create, search and consume content, especially news. Canadians increasingly get their news from digital platforms. According to a very recent report published by the Reuters Institute this year, 77% of Canadians consume news online, 55% of them from social media. Over the period covered, we can see that our news sector has declined. News is largely disseminated by the platforms, but the businesses that create that news aren't profiting from it as they should.

Currently, there's absolutely no incentive for digital platforms to compensate the media fairly for their content. That has a direct impact on our ability as a society to access reliable news. I said it when we introduced Bill C-18, and I'll say it again today: a free and independent press is one of the pillars of our democracy. It is essential to our democracy.

Canadians rely on their local and national media for an understanding of what's going on in their community and around the world. We're talking here about the very existence and survival of independent journalism. Let me be very clear: Canadian news businesses are in crisis.

Bill C-18 proposes decisive action to stop this decline. It presents a practical, market-based approach that lessens power imbalances and encourages good-faith negotiations. It encourages digital platforms to enter into fair agreements with news organizations.

As you know, these agreements must meet specific criteria. This includes everything from supporting local, regional and national news to upholding freedom of expression and promoting inclusion, innovation and diversity. If they don’t, then—and only then—the act will compel mandatory negotiation, and final offer arbitration will come only as a last resort.

As we've often said, Bill C-18 is based on the Australian model, under which the news media are able to secure fair compensation. We've adopted elements of a model that's already working, and we've improved it by adding other, typically Canadian elements.

Canada is really leading the way, and we're doing it because Canadians expect us to take action to protect their local journalism in a transparent manner. That's also why we publish a list of digital platforms that meet the criteria, a list of exemptions, the reasons why they have been granted, a list of eligible news businesses and so on.

The online news act won’t be a silver bullet for all the challenges the sector faces. As Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, said, “the world is watching” Canada. The world is watching us, and I hope we will rise to the occasion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would now like to return to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Welcome, Minister Rodriguez, and your department officials who are here to answer questions.

As you all know, you have five minutes. I will give you a 30-second shout-out when you have 30 seconds left.

Begin, Minister Rodriguez, for five minutes, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

…we should literally add eligibility criteria to Bill C-18 because the CRTC won't be taking the liberty of enforcing journalistic quality criteria. That's my understanding.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say I'm very pleased to see that some of my colleagues have addressed the Community Media Advocacy Centre issue. I fully support the interest of my colleague Mr. Housefather, even though I don't have enough the time for it because I want to focus on Bill C-18.

Ms. Frenette, you started to answer my question and I appreciate that. Now I'm going to give you an opportunity to expand your thoughts on the matter since we ran short of time earlier.

My concern is really the eligibility of news businesses. Allow me to explain. The bill provides that a business may be recognized as a "qualified Canadian journalism organization" as defined in the Income tax Act, which establishes certain criteria in that regard. So I want the bill to include criteria guaranteeing a level of journalism quality and credibility of the work eligible organizations do.

Do you think that it's up to the CRTC to address this journalistic integrity issue or that including these criteria directly in the act would simplify matters for it?

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

I think we know. I think we know, Chair of the CRTC. We're seeing reports out daily that Bell, Rogers and even our own public broadcaster will be at the trough on Bill C-18. I will say to you, because you're the chair the CRTC, that you know how much CBC news means in this country and how much money they take out of private organizations.

Here is the public broadcaster again, when they shouldn't be taking money away from private broadcasters trying to survive in the media sphere, taking most of the money away from those that need it desperately, like the newspapers.

This is just absurd. I just cannot believe that this bill has gone this far, allowing Bell, Telus and especially the CBC—

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

All right. Thank you.

You know the Australian model made Rupert Murdoch very, very rich. I see here with Bill C‑18 that very rich will come from Bell Media, from Rogers media.

I want your thoughts. You said you are following the Australian model, or at least Bill C‑18was intended to follow the Australian model, but when I look at broadcasters now, I see they've got their hand into the pot of Bill C‑18, and not only their hand; I would say they've got their whole body into this. They are getting most of the money that could be available through Google and Meta.

With the independent local news fund that you cited, $23 million, how much more do Bell, Rogers and other independent media need to survive in this country? I thought Bill C‑18 was going to be the bill to help local newspapers. It is in fact the exact opposite. We have the multinationals again getting most of the money. They were involved in Bill C‑10, Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18. I just want your comment on that, because I'm very worried that this bill was designed for newspapers and has turned out to be anything but.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I hear a lot of general criticism of the CRTC. People start attacking the CRTC's powers the instant we start talking about its involvement in anything.

In the specific case of Bill C-18, do you think another organization could take charge of overseeing or administering the rollout of the act that's passed? Does any Canadian agency other than the CRTC have the necessary structure to do that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Scott, I'm going to continue along the same lines as my colleague Mr. Bittle.

We've heard the concerns expressed by Google, which conducted a pseudo-survey last week. We've also frequently heard people say that the CRTC would be given excessive powers under Bill C-18.

Do you think there's any scenario, no matter how twisted, in which the CRTC could become a kind of omniscient dictator? Do you think that could be possible?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

This perhaps doesn't speak to Bill C-18, but to the work you do. Do you know what percentage of these disputes are settlements versus final offer arbitration?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott, thank you so much for being with us today and for offering those opening remarks.

Michael Geist has said this with regard to Bill C-18. I'm just going to read his quote into the record. 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 DNIs,

—in other words, digital news intermediaries—

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.

Mr. Scott, what's been outlined here is directly in the bill. This is fact.

I'm just wondering if, in your opinion, the CRTC really should be given this amount of control over news in Canada.

[Ian Scott, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I delighted in your first mistaken introduction when you referred to new witnesses. It made me feel young. I'm not new but familiar, and happy to be here with the members. I appreciate being invited before the committee once more.

You've already introduced my colleagues, who are here to assist me. As I often say, when I need to call a friend, I have my friends with me.

We're very pleased to appear before you. Hopefully we can contribute to your study of Bill C-18.

The proposed legislation aims to address a market imbalance in Canada's digital news marketplace by creating a new legislative and regulatory framework that would ensure that the major digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content.

If it is adopted by Parliament, the Online News Act would require the largest digital platforms to negotiate with news businesses and reach fair commercial deals for the news that is shared on their platforms. Those deals would also need to respect journalistic independence and invest in a diversity of Canadian news outlets, including independent local businesses.

Should Parliament wish to assign the responsibility of creating and overseeing the regulatory framework under the Online News Act to the CRTC, we are prepared to take it on.

The legislation proposes to entrust five main functions to the CRTC.

Specifically, these are, first, to consider requests from news businesses to be eligible for mandatory bargaining and requests from digital platforms to be exempt from mandatory bargaining by applying the act's criteria.

The second is overseeing negotiation and mediation and maintaining a public list of external arbitrators that meet qualifications set by the commission.

The third is that we deal with complaints of undue preference or unjust discrimination filed by eligible news businesses against platforms.

The fourth is to contract an independent auditor to publish an annual report on the total value of commercial agreements and other key information.

Finally, we are to establish regulations, including a code of conduct for good-faith bargaining and regulatory charges that platforms must pay to fund the administration of the act, similar to the fees paid by broadcasters and telecommunications service providers today.

We have, of course, been turning our mind to the implementation of Bill C-18 should it receive royal assent.

There are several areas in which the commission must create regulations, which include developing regulatory charges to operate the program, as well as creating a code of conduct to support fairness and transparency in bargaining. As well, the bill will require the CRTC to establish detailed policies to provide news businesses, platforms and the public with clear guidance on how we intend to apply the eligibility criteria as well as the companion exemption criteria. Finally, we will of course have to create efficient procedures to administer the act.

There will no doubt be challenges along the way, as there always are when developing a new framework. I'm confident that with input from the public, news businesses and platforms, we will collectively develop a public record to assist us in implementing the new legislation, again assuming it's the will of Parliament.

The good news is that the CRTC is experienced in dealing with matters similar to those that Bill C-18 aims to resolve.

Our mandate is to regulate in the communications sector, and we have extensive experience overseeing mediation and arbitration processes, as well as those relating to undue preference complaints and codes of conduct. We also have experience conducting public proceedings, issuing exemption orders, and maintaining ongoing monitoring systems.

Just as importantly, we recognize the opportunities and challenges created by new players and have a proven track record of implementing policies and adapting approaches over time that enable traditional media, including local broadcast news outlets, to respond to changing market conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

She is very good at helping. Mr. Champoux would attest to that from the last meeting, which I understand he chaired remarkably well.

I would now like to move to the actual order of the day, which is Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

For the first hour, we have the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. We have Ian Scott, chairperson and chief executive officer; Rachelle Frenette, general counsel and deputy executive director; and Adam Balkovec, legal counsel.

I think the CRTC has gone through this before many times, so whoever is going to be the spokesperson—it is my belief it might be Mr. Scott—has five minutes. I will give you a 30-second shout-out when you have 30 seconds left.

Welcome, Mr. Scott, and please begin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Welcome everybody

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 48 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 11, 2022, the committee is meeting on the 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 of Commons order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Some members are attending in person and some are attending virtually.

Here are a few comments I'd like to make. I think you all know this by rote, but this might be for the benefit of the witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have a choice, and everyone knows in the room what to do. Those attending virtually have a little round globe at the bottom, which is the icon you press if you want to get your messages in English or French. As a reminder, all comments should be made through the chair.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Before we begin the meeting, there is one small order of business, some housekeeping we need to do. I would like to take a moment and proceed to the election of the new first vice-chair, so I will turn the floor over to the clerk.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The point I really wish to raise is this: With such an important piece of legislation, I do believe that due process is necessary, so we are asking for three more meetings. We're asking for the minister to come forward. That's been established.

The reason for this, which I would like to go into for just a moment here, is this: We've seen in the past that important pieces of legislation have been rushed through the committee without due process, and important witnesses have not been heard from. In this case, Bill C-18 is absolutely a pinnacle. It will forever change the way that news is potentially produced but also how it's accessed. There are many further considerations that need to be given attention. The way we can do that is by hearing from the several dozen witnesses still on the list who have not been called forward, and also from the minister.

One of the reasons it's so important that we hear from the minister—there are a few—is that we actually, just in general, haven't heard from him at this committee at all. It would be normal for a minister to come forward and to speak to his mandate letter. It would be normal for a minister to come forward and speak to the estimates or the budget, and we haven't actually heard from the minister in that capacity. Specifically, the estimates seem like a really good reason for the minister to show up. On this piece of legislation, it would be appropriate for the minister to show up.

My concern is that this committee is going to rush this process. To ensure that that's not the case, but rather that due time and due process are given, we are asking for the support and co-operation of the other members around this table to ensure that, as stated, a minimum of three meetings are given and that the minister is heard from.

Further to that, one of the reasons why it is so important to hear from those other witnesses who are on the list is that a number of them—many of them—have written to the committee and asked for their voices to be heard. It's in a non-partisan capacity, so there's actually a huge opportunity here to engage in co-operation together.

Further to that, yes, there is another list that is more partisan in nature. There are witnesses that Conservatives have put forward. There are witnesses that Liberals have put forward, and the NDP, and the Bloc. Of course, that, again, is due process at a committee: that we would have the opportunity to put forward witnesses, and that we would also have the opportunity to hear from those witnesses.

Again, my concern is that, without this motion, without giving some sort of direction or framework to the time we will spend on Bill C-18, this bill will be rushed through without hearing from this slate of very important voices from all parties, with a variety of angles being held.

For this reason, we would move this motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. We'll make sure that it gets to the clerk right away.

For the benefit of the committee, just to clarify, it's a pretty simple motion. What we're asking for is a minimum of three more meetings with regard to Bill C-18. We're asking that the Minister of Canadian Heritage be a part of one of those meetings, so that we would have an opportunity to hear from him with regard to this piece of legislation. We're asking for this to take place before the committee moves to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I will continue to speak to that.

We've seen a pattern in the past where pieces of legislation have been rushed through without due process. Bill C-11 was one such example, which, if successful, will have a significant impact on the virtual sphere. Bill C-18 will also have a significant impact on news outlets, on publishers, on—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

First off, I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I do recognize that we are in the last four-minute stretch of this meeting before moving on to committee business.

The reason why it was so important to move this motion now.... I think we've been rather accommodating to the committee, waiting until the last four minutes. The reason why that's important.... There are discussions that can be had behind closed doors, in camera, in order to protect the identity of certain individuals. That is appropriate. At the same time, there are other discussions that should take place in the public domain for the sake of accountability and transparency. That is most appropriate. In this case, this one does call for a public discussion.

The motion on the table, of course, is asking for three more meetings with regard to Bill C-18 and—

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

In fact, when we talk about the Australian situation, I noticed that at the beginning Facebook or Meta had actually blocked all the Australian content. I didn't see them in the list of witnesses, and there were a number of other witnesses I didn't see.

I would like to move a motion that the committee have a minimum of three additional meetings to hear from witnesses on Bill C-18, with one of those meetings being with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and that the committee does not move to clause-by-clause until the completion of these three meetings.

[Colin McKay]

For the context of our conversation today, the Australian system produced the expected and desired result. There are contracts that have agreed-upon terms with journalism organizations of all sizes, and the news out of Australia is that this is addressing the public policy challenge in that country.

That should be the outcome of Bill C-18, which we're considering today, and our suggested amendments seek to resolve the undue and unintended consequences of those items that I've identified and other items that we'll include in our submission to the committee to follow shortly.

In the context of other countries, what we see consistently is that if the enforcement mechanism is not thoroughly thought out, and thought out in the context of bad actors, it ends up being gamed and misused by bad actors. That has a negative consequence on the user experience and the discoverability of information, and then also acts in a contrary manner to the public policy goals of the legislation that was originally drafted.

We're very much in favour of this sort of conversation and continued deliberation about how to perfect Bill C-18 to arrive at our shared goals.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses who are with us today.

Because I'm new to the committee, I want to start with a comment so you can understand where I'm coming from.

To me, freedom of the press is critical for democracy. In communist states, the government controls the media so that it can be sure its propaganda is the only thing people receive. We definitely don't want to see anything like that in Canada, so when I look at Bill C-18, I have a couple of concerns.

I see that here the government is the one that sets the criteria for who the actual media organizations are, and then the CRTC decides which outlets are going to receive the payment. That doesn't sound like freedom. If I see that we're only focusing on general news, then that sort of distinguishes it from targeted journalists, so again I have a concern there.

Let me go to my questions.

My first question is for Google. You mentioned in your opening remarks a term called “undue preference”.

I know that in social media these algorithms are to basically, theoretically, try to help you so that when you're searching for something, you don't have to go through five pages of links before you find something that's actually what you're looking for, but I notice that the language in the bill is trying to prevent discrimination or undue sorting out of organizations. It sounds like those two things are in conflict.

Could you expand on your concern with undue preference?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with a comment. The Financial Times reported, just a few months ago...the headline reads, “Australia’s media thrives after forcing Big Tech to pay for content”. The judgment of what's happened in Australia...there is no doubt it made a big difference in reviving the media sector. I would note that Country Press Australia did a terrific job negotiating on behalf of smaller weeklies right across Australia.

That is a response, I think, to Mr. Jamison's legitimate concern about making sure Alberta papers...and we heard the same from Saskatchewan newspapers. They support Bill C-18, but they want to make sure more newspapers are able to benefit.

The reality is that the question of the principle of this bill.... There is no doubt that all the evidence shows this will make a huge difference for media in this country. Our job, as members of Parliament, is to make the bill better. I reject those around the table who say that the bill is not perfect so we have to oppose it. That's absurd. Our job is to make sure this bill is better.

I haven't yet had an opportunity to ask Mr. Scott, Mr. Millar and Mr. O'Brien.... I would like to compliment the team of CHCH. You do a great job providing news, not only in greater Toronto, but right across the country. Thank you for your work.

Could you take a moment to talk about other amendments this committee should be considering, so we can make Bill C-18 a better bill?

I'll start with Mr. Scott.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

I would like to ask you a quick question. Time is flying, and I really want us to have the time to complete the round of questions.

We have also talked about professionalism and the quality of the journalism. Do you think the criteria set out in Bill C‑18 for a business to be recognized and accredited are too broad? Do you think that somewhat more stringent journalistic norms and rules should be applied?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Very quickly, do you think these “partnerships” would exist without the threat of Bill C-18, or the Australian model and other legislation across the country?

[Kevin Desjardins]

I am not, personally. I do believe there are some relationships between our members and Google. As I said, there are 700 members across the country, so it is difficult for me to nail it down. I do know that some have entered into those negotiations.

I think one point we're coming to is this idea that a link has value. I think the whole purpose of why we're here and what we're talking about with Bill C-18 is the fact that the link is creating more value for the global platforms than for the Canadian journalism organizations. That is the discrepancy we're trying to address here.

If we ask whether there is value in sending people to TVA Nouvelles, CTV News, Global or my radio station members or what have you, yes, there's value, but who is retaining the majority of that value? The majority of that value is being retained by the platforms.

[Dr. Ben Scott]

I think other countries have the same problem that you're facing in Canada, and they're coming up with similar solutions. I know you've heard from Rod Sims, who has done this in Australia. The Australian model has a lot of lessons to be taken from it.

Everybody faces the same problem, which is a crisis in journalism. Everybody sees the same diagnosis, which is that monopoly and the digital advertising industry is a huge contributing factor to that crisis. They are looking for ways to intervene to make sure the public gets journalism.

I think what Bill C-18 has going for it is that it leans in the direction of greater transparency. I would argue for more. It leans in the direction of mandatory minimums for using funds to support the production of journalism. I would argue that those should be more explicit. It leans in the direction of trying to make sure that every publisher—whether it's a small, rural organization or a large, urban organization—gets an equitable deal.

Those are all important improvements on the Australian bill and things that I think could be clarified in this bill to make the Canadian law the world leader.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much. With friends like Google, who needs enemies?

You mentioned that countries around the world are grappling with Google, with the Australian model and with legislation like Bill C-18. Can you expand on why Bill C-18 specifically is a good solution to many of the problems faced by other countries?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to make it very clear that my question specifically to Mr. McKay was around his relationship—or Google's relationship, I should say—with publishers. That was the questioning. The member opposite just said that I said we needed Bill C-18 to open up this transparency. I never made that statement, so maybe she could correct her record.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Perfect. Thank you.

I have a couple of quick comments that I'll state for the record.

Mr. Desjardins, I believe the point you were making with regard to employees.... You were saying that two is a “low bar” and that it's no problem and should be expected.

I would just highlight, for those who might be reading this material or listening to this, that that is actually a rather privileged position. Nothing says that two journalists working full time equals good journalism. If that is in fact the goal of this legislation—to continue to support good journalism—then there is no reason we should have a bar of two journalists. Instead, the criterion should in fact be good journalism. I would just like to highlight that for the benefit of anyone who might be watching.

Mr. Coteau insinuated that there is this secret deal that has taken place between Google and media sources. He insinuated that we therefore need Bill C-18 in order to help prevent that. I would like to expose that actually Bill C-18 doesn't require any transparency. In fact, it perpetuates secrecy. All of these negotiations can be had behind closed doors, and the results of these negotiations don't have to be made public. Let's be very clear about that.

My question is for Google, which of course is Mr. McKay, who is here at the table today. My question for him is this. Publishers used to use newsstands in order to have their newspapers displayed or magazines displayed—

[Kevin Desjardins]

I think one of the themes that came up through some of the discussions today is the fact that people are pointing to a number of different initiatives.

I would say that Bill C-18 is something that can really help us in moving forward and in helping to keep journalism sustainable and vital, but it's not the only thing. There have to be a number of different things that are working together.

We've put some things into our pre-budget submission in terms of addressing the way that advertising tax exemptions are managed. There are a lot of different things out there. Cal, from CHCH, mentioned the independent local news fund. All of these things have to work together, and I don't think there is a single solution.

[Colin McKay]

We've been negotiating these agreements since striking these partnerships with journalism organizations, since before Bill C-18 was introduced. It's a reality of the journalism industry in Canada and globally. We remain partners and we're committed to the success of journalism.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

With these agreements that are already in place—I understand they are two- or three-year agreements—would Google be prepared to renew all of those agreements if Bill C-18 does not pass in the House of Commons?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

The second part of that is the one they don't trust, which Bill C‑18 would benefit most: the legacy media. That's the one my constituents don't trust, and they don't see more money going to the legacy media as an advantage. Do you have a response to that?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

We would like to receive that information, Mr. McKay, because it is in a survey that you are using to put forward your views on Bill C‑18. I think it is somewhat important that we know exactly how your survey respondents were guided through the process. We would appreciate it. I imagine you understand that this is out of a concern for transparency. We will be eagerly awaiting it.

I will now yield the floor to my colleague Mr. Julian for two and a half minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

Right.

You characterize Google as a bulwark against misinformation. We often hear you say that Bill C‑18 could open the door to misinformation. This week, we all received the results of a survey you commissioned from Abacus Data. I find some of the questions commissioned by Google for that survey a little perplexing, in terms of your determination to combat misinformation.

One of the questions asked concerns the sweeping powers the CRTC would supposedly have over the media industry and media content if Bill C‑18 were passed.

Did the questions you asked in that survey clearly explain what the powers of the CRTC are? If you were able to do that, you are better than us, because we still do not know what powers the CRTC is going to have, precisely, if Bill C‑18 is passed.

What was the precise question you asked that enabled you to reach the conclusion that 70% of people are worried about the sweeping powers the CRTC would have? Can you tell me what the question was?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

I have a little note for the witnesses in the room: you don't need to do anything with the microphones, because the technician looks after turning them on at the right time.

I will now take my turn to speak, if I may.

My question is for Mr. McKay.

If Bill C‑18 passes, how much will it cost me, as a member of the public or a consumer, to access a page via Google? Would there be a charge to me?

[Brian Myles]

I perfectly understand the question, but I'm not allowed to give an answer regarding the amounts. Those were two private corporations that made confidential deals.

However, I can state that Le Devoir was profitable before those deals, and that the secret of our success relies on a strategy to diversify our revenues. We don't rely on a single source. This is why I stress the emergency or the need for the media industry to think at a higher level that only Bill C-18.... Think about your business model, and think about the whole stream of revenues that you can gather from your audience. So—

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

It should, because it does in my province. It would be higher. It could even be 80% to 20% against Bill C-18, because they don't have two people on staff right now.

I want to go to Le Devoir.

Mr. Myles, you've already made the agreements with MSN, Apple TV+, Meta and Google. How much did you reap out of those, since you have said you've been profitable for the last six years? With Bill C-18, as you know, it's all in secret. Can you please supply some numbers, since you've already had the agreements with Meta and Google? Give the committee, if you don't mind, some numbers that we can chew on. What did you get from Google and Meta to supply your organization with a profit?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I've watched the last couple of years major organizations like Torstar buy small and medium companies, and then close them a year later—side deals—so they take their competitors out just like that. We've seen it in the Maritimes, and we've seen it here in Ontario. We've seen it all over this country. The big get bigger. They buy small and medium newspapers and then six to eight months down the road they close them.

It's interesting, Mr. Julian, that you talk about.... In our party, we represent everybody and that's why we're concerned with Bill C-18. Steve Nixon was here, from the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. Probably half of my small newspapers in Saskatchewan don't qualify for Bill C-18. They will go under. I don't have to tell you that one of the newspapers sold for a dollar in my province recently. There is no value in small and medium newspapers in Saskatchewan, so how is Bill C-18...?

I'll ask the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association this, because in your province there's a split. You may want Bill C-18, but I look at other owners in your province who wouldn't be eligible for any of this money, so how do you speak on behalf of everyone in the province of Alberta with Bill C-18?

Mr. Jamison or Mr. Merrell, go ahead.

[Kevin Desjardins]

The positive consequences would include keeping newsrooms open across Canada, whether they are large, medium-sized or small broadcasters, or even hiring journalists in those newsrooms.

If the bill were not passed, those newsrooms would have even more difficulties. As has been said several times today, newsrooms are going through a crisis right now. That is why it is important to us that Bill C‑18 be passed.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

I have a question for Kevin Desjardins from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

If Bill C‑18 were passed, what would that mean for CAB members? If it were not passed, what would the consequences be for them?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

Bill C‑18 is therefore not a cure-all for journalism, but there are still measures that we should keep in place for media that are more vulnerable at the present time.

[Brian Myles]

I am going to add to what Mr. Jamison said earlier. I belong to the school of thought that wants a bundle of measures to support the news media. We didn't say it, but we believe that all of the federal programs contained in the Budget Impementation Act, 2019, No. 1, should be retained, even if Bill C‑18 were passed.

The model applied under Bill C‑18, referred to as the Australian model, compensates the news media based on digital coverage or number of journalists in a newsroom. Ultimately, it is difficult to support and accept for small weekly papers, for small publications and for emerging players, which do not have a big market position or broad digital coverage and which have small newsrooms. Those media may be disappointed with Bill C‑18.

That is why we have to reform the Local Journalism Initiative, or LJI. I have been on the jury, and we did our best based on our knowledge and the parameters we had. By force of circumstances, the program benefited a number of companies that were national players and were very well established in their market. To be completely transparent, I have to say that Le Devoir has been able to fund positions using the LJI. I believe this program could be reformed to ensure that it places greater priority on small players and on emerging players. The question of the number of paid jobs in a newsroom should also be reviewed. The LJI could help to encourage more innovation and the growth of publications in fragile markets. I think we could produce a better LJI that was targeted to the needs of local communities.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Martin Champoux]

Earlier, I heard one of the speakers talk about the Local Journalism Initiative. I know you are on a jury that evaluates the projects submitted under that program. We often hear certain people say that small players might be at a disadvantage in negotiations, in the context of the legislative measures that will result from the passage of Bill C‑18.

Does this kind of program have to be reviewed to make sure that the small players in the media industry are not continually trying to survive, and are instead able to regain a bit of vigour? How do you see that?

[Evan Jamison]

I'm sorry.

It is really difficult as to how you get below that two-journalist threshold. We understand the difficulties of how you keep some limitations on a program so that you are trying to deal with quality news operations. I don't know if we have a good answer on how you actually deal with really small operators under a Bill C-18 type of scenario, other than using these other programs that have been in existence and that have helped these operations survive.

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

Thank you, Mr. Myles.

I'm now going to turn to Mr. Jamison.

Thank you so much for being here. I'd be interested in knowing which publication, which newspaper, your family has been involved with for three generations.

Also, I deeply appreciate your comments around Bill C-18. What I gather from both your appearance and the appearance of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association is that there is broad support in Alberta and Saskatchewan for moving ahead with Bill C-18, including other measures, and we certainly understand that. Your point about how time is of the essence is extremely important.

This is a message, of course, for my Conservative colleagues: When they have newspapers representing about half of their caucus supporting Bill C-18, I would hope they would be on board as well.

You raised the issues both of transparency and of not leaving out smaller publications. What amendments would you suggest in terms of the bill to ensure that very small community publications are included? Should the threshold of two journalists be lowered so that community newspapers at all levels, even in small communities, can benefit?

[Colin McKay]

The legislation before us addresses a policy challenge that was identified two years ago: the threat to existing journalism organizations in Canada. It attempts to create a regulatory framework to address that.

We heard today, from the other witnesses, that there are many strategies and possible solutions to help bridge into a future generation of journalism.

Not only is Google an advertising platform, but we're also a partner with journalists. Through our Google news initiative, we are working with them, as Mr. Myles described, to understand how readers are changing their behaviours, and how to capture revenue and information from that behaviour. For us, Bill C-18 addresses an immediate problem, but, as Mr. Scott identified, it does not solve for the future.

That's the challenge before you today.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. McKay, my last question for you has to do with this idea that Bill C-18 would level the playing field. That's one of the things the minister is trying to promote as his messaging or his talking points with this. However, we've heard subsequent testimony that this is actually not the case. For example, Jen Gerson of The Line said that Bill C-18 will actually “favour incumbent media players over innovative models, small outlets and news start-ups.” In other words, it will continue to award the big players or legacy media with a whole lot of money, but local newspapers and smaller sources of media, particularly those with fewer than two full-time employees, will be put at a great disadvantage, so in fact it doesn't level the playing field.

I realize you're not in that business. You're the tech company that is going to help promote these individuals or give access to their news sources, but I'm wondering if you can give your thoughts on this, as well as the possibility of this bill doing.... I guess I want you to discuss or talk to me about tipping the scales and what this legislation will do to facilitate greater favour towards legacy media and perhaps a disadvantage to the smaller guys.

[Colin McKay]

I've tried to make the point today that there are some very broad terms with little definition contained within Bill C-18 that rely upon regulation and interpretation by the regulator. When we, as a company and a platform that serves billions of clicks to Canadians a day, evaluated that, we came to the conclusion that there are immediate implications of how the legislation is written.

It's always preferable that legislation provide clarity and direction rather than leaving it to interpretation by the regulator, especially when we're talking about a situation where you could have the amplification and promotion of misinformation or even disinformation, and certainly when you're talking about the concerns that have been raised by the other journalism organizations on this panel, which speak to innovation, capturing Canadian audiences and generating new revenue models.

[Colin McKay]

Thank you very much for the question.

I'll start off by underlining that we share the same spirit of ensuring a sustainable news industry in Canada, both today and in the future. We agree with many of the observations made by my fellow witnesses.

To the question you're asking, in terms of payment for links, the legislation specifically creates an obligation based on making links to journalism sites available, and that creates the structure upon which Bill C-18 is built. There is difference among the department and the minister and then platforms on whether that constitutes a link tax, but I would underline that it confers value to links and then creates an incentive for publications to look for the repetition and promotion of links, which feeds into the conversation about what exactly is defined as an eligible news business.

To your second point, I will say that we are here because we want to participate in a thorough conversation about the details of this legislation so that it can move forward and be implemented in a way that achieves the public policy goals. That includes hearing from the minister and hearing from other stakeholders in future meetings.

[Dr. Ben Scott, Director, Reset]

Thank you very much for the invitation to this committee.

My name is Ben Scott. I'm the director of Reset. We are an international non-profit organization that works with governments to help realign the incentives of the technology industry back to support the values of democracy.

I can give you a comparative perspective of how these issues and bills like Bill C-18 are being considered all around the world. Though I'm currently based in England, I lived for years in Canada and have a great deal of familiarity with the Canadian market.

What I can tell you is that lots of folks around the world see the same problems you do—journalism in crisis, as you've heard from colleagues on this panel; market power in the digital advertising industry held by a handful of titans—and an opportunity to intervene to make sure that journalism continues to flow to the public. What you have in Bill C-18 is among the best bills I have seen of its type.

The point I want to begin with today is a simple but fundamental one, and as the only non-industry representative on this panel, I feel I have a duty to make it. This legislation must not be about publishers; it must be about the public. Too much of this debate plays out as if government were simply refereeing a contest between big tech and big publishers. That's wrong. What justifies this market regulation is the public interest in making sure that quality journalism is delivered to the people. Like you, other governments are looking at this problem and trying to make sure that they address the market failures in the right way, because these aren't just failures among industries; this has hastened the destruction of public service journalism in ways that really undermine democratic integrity.

This committee knows well the stats in Canada: $5 billion out the door in terms of news industry revenues, 450 news outlets closed over the course of the last 15 years, a third of Canadian journalism jobs gone. That's a crisis. There are many factors causing that crisis, but one of the more obvious ones is the market power over digital advertising held by two companies.

I'll refer you to some analysis done by the British Competition and Markets Authority, which breaks down the digital ad market into services provided to publishers, services provided to advertisers and the exchanges in between. Google has, according to the CMA, a 90% market share in the first two of those segments, and a 50% market share in the exchange. That's market power by any reasonable definition, and that's the reason why so much revenue is flowing away from news organizations. But we're only intervening here on behalf of the news organizations because they provide a public good called journalism, which the people need. There's nothing in here about a link tax; there's nothing in here that's going to break the Internet. This is about restoring fairness in the marketplace so it provides a critical public service.

So far, what I see is that Canada is doing as well as or better than other countries at keeping the public at the centre of this conversation. I want to make three points that I think are essential for making sure this bill delivers for the Canadian people.

The first one is that Bill C-18 has to prioritize fairness and inclusivity. It has to offer deals that are equitable and on similar and reasonable terms for small publishers and large publishers alike.

Second, we have to insist on the fact that any new revenue that comes in—it might be up to 30% of revenue, and that's a big number, as you've heard—has to go towards journalism production, not towards buybacks or debt load. It has to go towards the production of news. That's the reason why this legislation matters.

[Colin McKay, Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to participate in your study of Bill C-18.

Access to authoritative news is critical for democracy and core to our mission at Google. For 20 years, we've been helping Canadians find the answers to what they are searching for online, including relevant and authoritative news content. Connecting people to news is a responsibility we take very seriously.

Let me be absolutely clear. Google shares your goal of supporting a sustainable future for journalism and the news in Canada. This includes thoughtful approaches to regulation and continuing to provide meaningful contributions, financial and otherwise. Our concerns with Bill C‑18 are serious. So is our commitment to working with the government and the news industry on solutions.

In its current form, Bill C‑18 will make it harder for Canadians to find and share trusted and authoritative news online.

The bill will have, at best, unpredictable outcomes for the evolving Canadian news ecosystem.

We have four principal concerns with Bill C‑18.

First, the bill includes an undue preference provision that prohibits a platform from disadvantaging any eligible news businesses. We appreciate the desire to prevent a platform from retaliating against a publisher, but that's not what this language does. Under threat of legal action, this measure will restrict Google and other platforms from applying policies and providing features that elevate trusted information sources over lower-quality content. This makes the search less relevant and less safe for Canadians. It is essential that the undue preference language be amended.

Second, unlike the Australian code, Bill C‑18 defines eligible news businesses extremely broadly and does not require a publisher to adhere to basic journalistic standards. This will lead to the proliferation of misinformation and clickbait. Combined with the undue preference provision, this means Canadians could be served foreign propaganda outlets alongside reporting from Le Devoir or The Globe and Mail. This isn't a hypothetical example. This happened in Germany under similar regulatory language. The government's existing framework of qualified Canadian journalism organizations is a model that should be built upon, not undercut.

Third is the payment for links. The Internet is built on the principle of freely linking between websites. We all find information, products and services by clicking through links. Businesses, including news businesses, want to be found by Canadians via search. Google sends billions of visits to Canadian news publishers a year at no cost to them, helping them grow their readership and subscriber base, build trust with readers, and make money. Including payment for links repeats the mistakes other jurisdictions have backed away from. It violates global copyright norms and local legal precedent, including the Supreme Court in Crookes. Payment for links also incentivizes cheap, low-quality clickbait content over public-interest journalism and clearly favours large publishers over small ones as they simply have more content to link to.

Fourth, as small and independent news publishers have warned, Bill C-18 lacks transparency and benefits large legacy publishers over small ones because they can afford the regulatory cost of this framework. A fund similar to the Canada Media Fund would resolve the issues we have raised and would ensure that a diversity of Canadian news publishers receive money in a timely, equitable and transparent manner.

This is a history-making opportunity for Canada to craft world-class legislation that is clear and principled on whom it benefits; legislation that actively supports diversity and inclusivity and ensures that financial contributions go to support thoughtful, local journalism; legislation that recognizes the full value exchange that already occurs between platforms and publishers and is laser-focused on supporting an innovative, diverse and sustainable Canadian news ecosystem for the long term.

Bill C‑18 is not that legislation.

I want to reiterate, Google shares your goal of supporting a sustainable future for journalism and the news in Canada.

In its current form, we do not think the measures enacted by Bill C‑18 are in the interests of Canadians, nor are they an effective response to the unique challenges facing Canadian news publishers. The bottom line for us is that Canadians deserve better than what we see in Bill C-18, which, to be frank, is simply bad public policy.

Thank you again for the invitation to appear. I look forward to your questions.

[Brian Myles]

I am now going to make a few quick comments about how Bill C‑18 could be improved.

The imbalance in the market is not just a question of advertising. There is also an imbalance when it comes to subscriptions. The application platforms decide what percentage of revenue they will keep, and they retain important information like email addresses for themselves. Bill C‑18 should contain somewhat more binding provisions regarding subscription-related transactions and the exchange of information.

Le Devoir is also associated with the French fact. We are concerned about linguistic duality. We believe that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission should have a duty to ensure that future negotiations respect linguistic duality and the small francophone markets, in both Quebec and Canada, that exist in a cultural and linguistic situation that is completely different from other media.

We also believe that the best way to proceed is to call for bargaining based on labour costs. That was done in Australia, in fact, where it was set at 30% of labour costs, 20% for Google and 10% for Meta. However, if we take that route, to avoid distortions, we should limit eligible salaries, as was done for the federal tax credit, to ensure that a new system is not created in which the biggest companies are the biggest winners, at the expense of the smaller players, local players, and niche players, such asLe Devoir.

On that note, I will thank you and invite your questions.

[Brian Myles, Editor, Le Devoir]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, thank you for having me here today.

Le Devoir is a newspaper of record that is not like the others. It is part of a select club of media that rely on subscriptions, for both the digital and print versions, to cover their costs. Subscription is working: it brings in nearly two thirds of our revenue and means that we can look to the future with what I would characterize as cautious or relative optimism.

We are able to achieve profitability through careful management, optimum use of Quebec and Canadian tax credit programs, and a revenue diversification program. Le Devoir has been profitable in six of the last eight years. For the past four years, it has even managed to grow, from 100 to 175 employees. I point this out because few media have managed to make this transition while at the same time hiring so many people.

Nonetheless, the transformation involves constant challenges. There are new ones every year, if not every day. The environment is demanding. We have to compete with influential actors that rely on free content and with Google and Meta on the advertising market. We do not have the luxury of taking losses, nor can we count on support from sponsors.

For these reasons, Le Devoir supports Bill C‑18. However, we think it might go a little too far. I will come back to this later.

Of course, you are aware that Le Devoir has signed contractual agreements with four of the digital platforms. Well before the government stated that it intended to legislate, we had signed agreements with MSN in 2014 and with Apple News+ in 2020. For reasons of our own, we got out in front with the agreements signed with Meta in May 2021 and with Google in October 2021. That does not prevent us from supporting Bill C‑18, publicly and privately, and saying that we are going to adhere to the new scheme, obviously.

These agreements were in line with our revenue diversification strategy and made it possible for us to accomplish something important, which is what I would like you to understand today. It enabled us to build renewed relationships with Meta and Google based on trust and collaboration. We knew that sooner or later, the time was going to come for us to bargain with those companies. In fact, that is the central idea of Bill C‑18. Rather than facing them from a position of conflict, we simply chose to bring the point when we had to rebuild the relationship forward.

Given the foregoing, it is important for us to be able to bargain individually within the framework of the bill. At Le Devoir, we think our interests will be best served by direct bargaining. However, we acknowledge that others will want to bargain collectively.

In our industry, there is unfortunately still a lot of misunderstanding about the impact of digital platforms. At Le Devoir, we are uneasy with certain publishers or professors, as respected as they are, when they say that Google and Meta have stolen our advertising revenue and our content. That amounts to ignoring the fact that we voluntarily allow our content to circulate on those platforms. Yes, the business models broke down because of the actions of Google and Meta, but they did not steal anything. We are in an environment of technological innovation without a legislative framework in the world because of a very liberal vision of net neutrality, in which the audience can be segmented on a planet-wide scale. In this situation, those companies are competitors that we cannot compete against.

Media that rely on subscriptions, like Le Devoir, cannot disregard the impact of Google and Meta. Those companies make it possible for readers to discover our content. They enable us to expand our base of users and potentially convert them to subscribers. We are in a complex relationship, a relationship of independence and complementarity, that we unfortunately do not talk about enough, as publishers.

With that said, we cannot fail to mention the imbalance that characterizes the relationship between media and the digital platforms. In fact, it is because of that imbalance and the concentration of advertising revenue in the hands of a duopoly that we need Bill C‑18.

[Cal Millar]

The trouble is that the ILNF support, which is based on a percentage of revenue contributions from licensed television distributors, or BDUs, is declining just as the needs are increasing, which is why this bill and Bill C-11 are so important to us.

The other important lesson from our history is this: I challenge anyone to find any evidence that the support and subsidy we have received from funds like LPIF or ILNF have affected our editorial slant or our independence in any way. I can tell you categorically that they have not and they will not in the future, whether they come via the CRTC funds, Bill C-11 or Bill C-18. As long as support is transparent, automatic, not discretionary and from a body that is at arm's length from government, there is simply no real trigger or basis for government or other third party influence over that editorial.

To conclude, in our view, Bill C-18 meets the twin test of introducing a mechanism to provide material support for local news and doing it in such a way as to preserve editorial independence.

Should the committee choose to entertain amendments, we do have one suggestion. We believe that both for the purposes of fair bargaining and to provide greater public transparency, there should be greater public disclosure on deals—namely, on all news businesses that do deals with platforms, including exempt deals, and including the total consideration, if not the deals themselves. We understand that Friends has proposed a specific amendment to clause 32 in this regard. We support that proposal.

Thank you for allowing us to make this presentation. We'd be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

[Cal Millar, President, Channel Zero]

Thank you, and good morning.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Cal Millar. I am the president of Channel Zero, which is an independent Canadian broadcaster, and the owner-operator of CHCH television in Hamilton.

With me today is Greg O'Brien, who is head of news at CHCH and also the former editor and publisher of Cartt.ca, which is Canada's leading news outlet for our broadcasting and telecom sectors.

In our brief opening comments, we want to speak to three things today.

First, we'll speak about what the history and current operations of CHCH tell us about the importance of local news, and how it has never been profitable on its own and has always required subsidy.

Second is how government support, designed correctly, does not compromise journalistic integrity or editorial independence.

Third is how Bill C-18 checks both of these boxes, which is why we support it.

As you know, and also as specifically recognized in Bill C-11, local news is key to local broadcasting. Unfortunately, while in the past local news was sustained with a cross-subsidy from profitable U.S. programming, the draining of Canadian ad revenues to U.S. platforms now makes that impossible.

[Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today on the subject of this important bill.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the CAB, is the national voice of Canada's private broadcasters. It represents over 700 members across Canada, including a large majority of private radio and television stations, as well as specialized services.

Canada's private broadcasters welcome the introduction of the online news act as an important step towards recognizing the value of broadcasters' news content and providing the necessary framework for fair negotiation between news organizations and online platforms.

Maintaining professional newsrooms in communities across the country is a fundamental commitment of Canada's broadcasters. Last year, Canadian broadcasters invested $681 million in news and community information programming.

Unfortunately, broadcast news is a very challenging enterprise. It has depended largely on entertainment programming that draws the largest audiences and the greatest ad revenues. Over the past decade, foreign online platforms have moved aggressively to corner the markets in search advertising. Using their dominant positions, they have dramatically impacted the advertising market through the algorithmic exploitation of user data. Now foreign digital platforms take more than half of those ad revenues out of Canada's economy. They are offshored to entities with little connection to Canadians' values or public interest, and they profoundly undermine Canadian news organizations' ability to support and maintain a robust news-gathering infrastructure. At the same time, these entities are exploiting Canadian news organizations' online content to deepen their competitive advantages in advertising.

Search and social platforms may help to direct audiences to online news sites, but they are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. In reality, they are retaining most of the value from those user interactions with news sites through their ability to gather, aggregate, resell and exploit user data to advertisers through their algorithms. Nevertheless, social and search platforms provide no compensation to news sites for the value they derive from those interactions.

Today, Canadian news organizations have no realistic option but to agree to the platforms' terms, given their dominant positions online and lack of regulatory oversight. As news broadcasters and publishers struggle to maintain the resources necessary to continue to inform Canadians, it is critical that a policy framework be developed to help recognize the value of their online content. This framework should recognize Canadian news organizations' unique contributions to the public good and the value that is extracted from them by dominant digital platforms. This is why Bill C-18 is so necessary.

We believe that Bill C-18 strikes the right balance. It would enact a fair and reasonable negotiation framework for Canadian news organizations and large global digital platforms, and it would provide an arbitrated backstop should those negotiations not be concluded constructively.

We know such a framework can work. As Professor Rod Sims said earlier to this committee, “Australia's code has been extremely successful in achieving its objective.” More specifically, the Australian code has helped to address the power imbalance I referred to earlier and has compelled the platforms to negotiate in good faith. It has helped news organizations of all sizes to maintain and grow their newsroom staffing.

Bill C-18 would not create a “link tax”; nor would it incentivize clickbait. It would not break the Internet, as it has not in Australia. The incentives that are built into the bill clearly focus on sustaining journalism jobs in Canadian newsrooms. Moreover, because a government agency is involved only as a backstop to resolve disputes when no agreement between the parties has been reached, the proposed legislation poses no concerns to press freedom or free speech.

Ensuring the viability of our newsrooms is critical to Canada's democracy. It is particularly essential as Canadians are increasingly confronted with misinformation and disinformation online. We know that when Canadians turn to online news, the most popular sources are sites associated with Canadian broadcasters. The content that is ultimately of most use to citizens and to the continued value of our democracy is developed through trusted news organizations, including television and radio broadcasters.

We do have a certain amendment with regard to clause 51, which is essentially just to strengthen this section and to make sure it does what it was intended to do.

Canada's broadcasters want to continue to be a dependable source for local, national and international news for Canadians, but to do so we require a fair opportunity to be compensated for the value of our news content.

[Evan Jamison, President, Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and Vice-President, Manufacturing, Great West Media]

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

I'm Evan Jamison, the president of the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association. I'm the third generation of my family in the newspaper business, and also the third generation to sit as the president of our provincial newspaper association. Our association represents all but a few of the community newspapers in Alberta. Today we've come to advocate on behalf of those businesses, often considered to be the lifeblood of the communities they serve.

The passage of Bill C-18 is important to the media landscape in Canada and can help shore up declining revenues at many newspapers, especially the larger ones. There is, however, a significant concern among our membership regarding the level of support it will deliver to smaller publishers. We have heard encouraging reports out of Australia regarding deals signed by publishers of all sizes; however, there's a lot of secrecy around those deals and the level of support being provided to any given news outlet.

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report estimating that revenues gained under Bill C-18 could provide 30% of the cost of creating news content. This is encouraging, and we would advocate that 30% is likely the minimum amount needed to have a meaningful impact at most news operations. However, it is unclear where the 30% estimate the PBO used came from, as it was based on unspecified “available information”.

We also wonder how this 30% will be achieved, depending on which platforms are forced to negotiate. It appears to many that Meta is avoiding new deals with news outlets and is working its way out of hosting news content in general. What happens to the 30% if Meta isn't involved? Does Google pay the full 30%? Is the 30% assumption even accurate? Should this be some sort of a mandated target?

We must also keep in mind that the digital world and platforms are constantly evolving. It is difficult to say which platforms and technologies will be dominant into the future. Governments and private lawsuits around the world are challenging the major platforms out of concerns around anti-competitive practices, privacy and misinformation.

How do we support small news operations that do not meet the qualifications of a qualified Canadian journalism operation? There are many independent publishers, often family-run, in print and online, that will be left out of Bill C-18. We need to find ways to support these news outlets. They are often the only source of news in the communities they serve.

As has been pointed out in previous hearings, there is no single solution to support all news outlets. The business models and scales on which they operate vary greatly. What may work at a national scale with broad audiences will not necessarily work in a small town with a limited pool of interested readers.

The situation is dire for many news outlets. Some would blame this on an inability to adapt. Too often we are described as “legacy” or “dinosaurs”, married to the old way of doing things. This isn't the case. Many operators are experimenting with different business and distribution models. Newspapers have long been early adopters of technology—computers, desktop publishing, emails, PDFs, digital cameras, robotics and artificial intelligence. We are not afraid of technology.

The problem is that there isn't a clear path to success in today's digital world, especially for smaller local publishers. Good journalism takes time, is expensive to produce and is ephemeral. Simply regurgitating news releases isn't enough. We must rebuild and strengthen news outlets that have been decimated by years of revenue declines. We need to not only preserve what still exists but also find adequate resources to provide quality news and information to local communities, not just for existing players but also for new entrants.

We didn't come with any silver bullets today, but we do have some suggestions that we think would help preserve quality journalism in smaller communities across Canada. We support Bill C-18 but think more is needed through the continuation of existing programs and perhaps the addition of others. Programs such as the Canada periodical fund's aid to publishers and special measures for journalism have been critical over many years, with the special measures being a more recent addition. The local journalism initiative, which has funded journalists throughout many news operations by reimbursing their wages, has really helped many operations step up their game and provide better-quality content.

A refundable subscription tax credit in lieu of today's non-refundable credit could be a big game-changer for small outlets especially, because the value of today's tax credit just doesn't make any difference for small outlets. There's just not enough there.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would first 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 meeting on the study 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 using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefits of the witnesses and members.

First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by videoconference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

Regarding interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. Today, given that the chair will be presiding in French, I think the interpreters into the other language will have a bit more work and the participants will be using the earpieces more often.

Also, a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the Chair.

In accordance with our routine motion on this subject, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would now like to welcome new committee members and today's witnesses.

Two representatives of the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association are appearing by videoconference: Evan Jamison, President of that association and Vice-president Manufacturing, Great West Media, and Dennis Merrell, Executive Director of that association.

We also have Kevin Desjardins, President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

Two representatives of Channel Zero are joining us by videoconference: Cal Millar, President, and Greg O'Brien, News Director, CHCH‑TV.

We also have, by videoconference, Brian Miles, Editor of Le Devoir.

Also with us is Colin McKay, Head, Public Policy and Government Relations for Google Canada.

And last, Ben Scott, Director of Reset, is with us by videoconference.

Each organization will have five minutes for their presentation at the start of the meeting.

We will begin with the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association. Mr. Jamison or Mr. Merrell, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

We're having trouble to get the Minister of Canadian Heritage here at times, and this is a very good motion. I put the motion on notice last week. I just brought it up today. We have other witnesses coming on Bill C-18, including the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, so we're going to have time for Mr. Julian to talk about that when they come.

That's it. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This issue of the Community Media Advocacy Centre is profoundly disturbing. The anti-Semitism that was expressed was appalling. That's why I called for ending the contract when we became aware of the comments, as you'll recall, Madam Chair.

This is part of a broader trend of increased hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Certainly with the convoy occupation earlier this year we saw the most appalling symbols—Nazi symbols—flying on Parliament Hill. We saw blatant anti-Semitism. Anyone who supports the convoy—sadly, we saw some members of Parliament supporting those despicable acts and expressions of hate—are people who should be really examining themselves because that was a low period in Canadian history. Of that there is no doubt.

I support having Minister Hussen before this committee and have expressed that repeatedly. I have asked my colleagues to hold off on the idea that we would move immediately to Minister Rodriguez. I want to hear the responses that Mr. Hussen provides. Following that, depending on whether or not we're satisfied with those answers as a committee, I will certainly be more than willing to entertain this motion.

Quite frankly, I feel disrespected that this motion has been put forward today knowing—the member who moved this knew my position on this—that I wanted to get to the first hearing and, after that first hearing, make a judgment and a decision about whether or not to then convene Minister Rodriguez. The fact that this has been put out today in a way that stopped witness testimony that was so vitally important.... The Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba weekly newspapers gave us a cry today for support. They believe that Bill C-18 needs to be amended so that they will all be included. I support those amendments. All 56 of the Saskatchewan newspapers should be included in the supports that C-18 provides.

I understand that they were Conservative witnesses. When that contradiction between the Conservative position and the weekly newspapers became clear, we then had an immediate stopping of that testimony, so I am not able, as a member, to then question Saskatchewan community newspapers about the important stand that they have taken. It is a stand that is contradictory to the Conservative Party stand on Bill C-18. I feel like, as with Bill C-11, we are again seeing a stopping of witness testimony because it raises uncomfortable truths that some members around this table don't want to face.

I'm quite frankly frustrated that witness testimony was cut off and that we now are facing a motion that we've already discussed. It's a motion that I've already clearly indicated my stand on. The majority of the committee has already communicated its stand on it. Instead of waiting until next week, hearing the testimony from Minister Hussen on this very important subject, and then deciding collectively as a committee where we want to go from there.... That is something that has worked very well in the past, Madam Chair, as you're aware.

I commend Mr. Nater, particularly, because he's always been willing to work together with all parties around this committee so that we can find a consensus. Rather than finding that consensus, we have had witness testimony cut off and we are now dealing again with something that I very clearly indicated I do not want to consider until after I hear from Minister Hussen.

Quite frankly, Madam Chair, I'm frustrated. I'll be voting against this motion if it comes to a vote, but it seems to be more of a filibuster tactic. I deplore that because the witnesses we were hearing today had important testimony and information to relate to us. They were cut off because of the moving of the motion for filibuster purposes rather than any sort of attempt to come to an agreement.

That being said, I will be prepared to look at this motion again after Minister Hussen's testimony. That is when I believe we should be having a discussion about whether or not to convene Minister Rodriguez.

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

That's my problem with this bill. Rural newspapers, many of them held by Conservative seats in this country, in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.... That's why I invited you here, because there is a huge flaw in Bill C-18, as mentioned by my Bloc counterpart, in rural Quebec. It is a fallacy led by this Liberal government that this bill is going to save journalism. It's not going to save journalism at all. I know it won't.

I want more information from Saskatchewan. When I look at your 56 newspapers, many of them are hanging on by their bare minimum right now. They don't have two full-time employees in the newsroom. This bill does them no good whatsoever. In fact, I will say this: This bill harms them, because they're competing with big organizations like Glacier in my province of Saskatchewan who may have two full-time employees. This bill actually harms you more than it helps you.

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

Four out of 56...and we're going to save the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. So, if there are no amendments made to Bill C-18, despite what our friend from the NDP has said here at committee, this really does no good whatsoever for the weekly newspapers in Lanigan, in Lloydminster, in Langenburg, and others.

I have looked at your page. You know, I asked a question last week about The World-Spectator in Moosomin. How much money would it get if this bill passes? Nobody has been able to tell me what that newspaper is eligible for.

Steve, could you tell me if The World-Spectator in Moosomin today would receive any money if this Bill C-18 passes through the House?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to go back to the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, if you don't mind.

You represent 56 members. You do know that with Bill C-18 you need two full-time employees in the newsroom, not at arm's length from the owners or the publishers. So, out of the 56 newspapers that you represent in my province of Saskatchewan, how many would be eligible for funding out of Bill C-18, and how many would not be eligible for funding out of Bill C-18? Can you give me those numbers?

Chris or Steve.

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

These are important figures: 25% to 30%, nearly a third, of wages being covered. What you're saying is that if we don't do this, if Bill C-18 isn't adopted, that hemorrhaging that I described will continue.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have a very quick question for you, Ms. Ageson. How many of the members of your coalition, the Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, are currently not covered by Bill C-18 without amendments?

We have talked about freelancers, owner-journalists. How many of the members of your coalition right now would not be covered by Bill C-18 unless those amendments are brought in?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I'm going to try to speak a bit more slowly for our wonderful interpreters. Perhaps that is the problem.

There is a famous person who lived on Île d'Orléans. A small newspaper, called Autour de l'Île, which only has one reporter on its payroll, might have to fold if we don't bring a small amendment to Bill C‑18, to include print media that employ only one editor or reporter.

Because of Félix Leclerc's celebrity status as a writer and composer who is well known in Europe, the newspaper in question is read not only regionally but also internationally. The newspaper might fold if print media who employ only one reporter are not included in the bill. This situation is worrying for us.

Have you witnessed this type of phenomenon over the course of your journalistic career?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Menzies, you've suggested that Bill C-18 will actually inhibit journalistic independence and will actually make newsrooms more partisan in nature, which is part of what you're talking about right now. It's that trust and accurate reporting.

I'm wondering how you see this playing out.

[Peter Menzies]

The point I was trying to make here really is that the current playing field is not level. It perpetuates an unlevel playing field. Really, what Canada needs.... Bill C-18, very broadly, is a reaction to a particular situation. It's not part of a broader policy framework, which is what the country needs in order to get through a period of transition. Maybe it's part of it. Maybe it isn't, but the current playing field is not level.

The CBC gets subsidized. It's fine to have a public broadcaster that's subsidized, but if you're going to have it compete commercially with everybody else in a world in which news has moved and will be inevitably entirely online, that's not helpful. The CRTC plays a role as well.

This, on its own, is not going to help. It's going to create, as I tried to say, more mistrust, and it's not going to end well.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

My first question here goes to Mr. Menzies.

First off, I just want to thank you so much for taking the time to be here with us today to shed light on this piece of legislation.

In April, you wrote an article about Bill C-18. You said:

...this is legislation that was initiated at the request of poverty-stricken newspaper publishers and wound up being, to put it kindly, the world's most audacious attempt to pick the deep pockets of online entities.

We often hear the government justify exerting more control over the Canadian media in order to create a level playing field. In your opinion, I would be curious as to whether or not Bill C-18 actually creates a level playing field. Or does it pick winners and losers? What would your response be to that?

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

Thank you. I certainly appreciate that.

I note that with those four community newspaper associations, that represents more than half of all the Conservative members of Parliament. I certainly hope they take that under advisement as well.

My question is for Ms. Ille.

Other committee members have highlighted the importance of APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, and of the quality of their shows. I have had the honour on several occasions of being on APTN's shows to discuss issues such as housing and reconciliation. The network offers tremendous quality, and you do fantastic work.

That being said, do you feel that the issues around indigenous people and indigenous communities are fully outlined in Bill C-18, or would you like to see amendments and improvements that ensure that not only APTN but also other indigenous broadcasters and indigenous publications...that there are going to be the supports we're all hoping for to bolster that sector?

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

Would it be fair to say that all three community newspaper associations—we certainly heard from the Quebec Community Newspapers Association as well—are in favour of Bill C-18, if there is a guarantee that there will be supports going to the local level and that we have a similar outcome to what happened with Country Press Australia, where 150 community newspapers were supported through that fund?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

I now turn to Mr. Ashfield, whose situation is most interesting.

In my riding, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, there are many small local newspapers that have less than two full-time journalists on staff. I think that small newspapers are important because, as Mr. Ashfield stated earlier, they publish news on a more local scale, news that is relevant and meets residents' needs.

Can you tell us about the very real threats that will loom for this type of business if they are not included in Bill C‑18?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you for your answer. That helps me to understand things a bit better.

It is obvious that we are not able to establish the financial impact that Bill C‑18 will have. However, would you be able to tell the committee that you are fairly certain that you will reap substantial benefits?

[Monika Ille]

Thank you so much for your kind words for the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. I am most proud. We acknowledge them with pleasure.

It goes without question that we support Bill C‑18.

APTN needs money. Our network is included in basic cable packages, but we need more funds, just like everyone else.

I know that our news content is well received and becoming more and more popular. Over the last year and a half, we realized that people were accessing more and more of our news on our website, www.aptn.ca, or on Facebook. They are doing so in order to get an indigenous perspective on news items that are about indigenous peoples.

As to how APTN will benefit from Bill C‑18, the answer is we don't know. We don't have an agreement in place at the moment and we have not been contacted on the matter. We still don't know if we will be able to negotiate such an agreement. I find that the necessary information that would allow me to answer your question is lacking.

However, the way that the bill has been written does not lead me to believe that indigenous media is being given a prominent spot. I think this is extremely regrettable, especially given the efforts made to pass Bill C‑11, which now recognizes indigenous media. It would be wonderful if Bill C‑18 also recognized indigenous media and was more inclusive of Indigenous peoples rather than merely mentioning at the end that indigenous points of view should be taken into account.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say hello to everyone this morning. I am honoured to be replacing my excellent colleague, Martin Champoux.

Thank you to all our witnesses. Your testimony is always relevant and extremely useful. It is a pleasure to hear your points of view which will help us in our work.

My question is for Ms. Ille, the chief executive officer of APTN. Ms. Ille, I would like to congratulate you yet again on the quality of your network's productions and your immeasurable contribution to our understanding of indigenous topics. This also increases Canadians' and Quebeckers' knowledge, and I am grateful.

You mentioned earlier that Bill C‑18 will also have an impact on broadcasters. That is interesting. The content that you produce is of a wide-ranging nature. Your images, your messages and your content could therefore be found on the platforms of the Internet giants. Actually, this is already happening.

What impact could Bill C‑18 have on your organization's total budget? Would you see an increase in funds? Could you give us an idea of the amount and tell us how this would help you in terms of content quality and your organization's development?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

We've heard a couple of times even today that Bill C-18 would affect journalistic independence somehow, that the government would somehow have more influence on news publishers, or Facebook and Google might have some power to direct news operations.

Can you speak to that? From my perspective it's actually the opposite, because this is a bill in which news producers negotiate directly with the tech giants. Government and the tech giants are left out of it. It's purely a business decision.

Can you go into that a little bit?

[Peter Menzies]

I do. In terms of Bill C-18, the fact that it directs any money from this commercial agreement to have to go to news is certainly well intended, but if this is a commercial transaction between two willing parties, what business does the CRTC or the government have, for that matter, saying how it will be spent? If a news company wants to spend it on new computer equipment or they want to paint the newsroom, they should be free to do that.

The other thing is that the CRTC tends to get bound into certain subject areas that it prefers and it is, again with good intentions perhaps, supposed to promote. If you look at the CBC's recent licence renewal, you can see that in terms of certain designated groups that it's supposed to promote.

All of those have good intentions, but 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.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today. I thought that was a good swath of information presented by each of the six individuals and organizations represented on today's panel.

I want to start with Mr. Menzies appearing here today.

Mr. Menzies, I see that you're wearing your orange shirt. I would note that at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, the sales from those shirts, I believe, go to the traditional knowledge-keepers program that's operated at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum. I want to note that and the good work that's being done there.

I want to turn to your expertise—30 years in newspapers, 10 years with the CRTC—and it's that CRTC angle that I want to touch on. You appeared before us on Bill C-11. You talked to some of the unintended consequences that might happen with Bill C-11. I'm wondering if you have similar concerns about Bill C-18, some of the unintended consequences that may flow from a bill such as Bill C-18.

[Chris Ashfield, President, Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association]

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

Here's a bit of background. I'm a fourth-generation newspaper publisher and the publisher of five community newspapers in southeast and south central Saskatchewan, the oldest of which has been publishing since 1893.

In the more than 100 years that my family has been involved in the newspaper industry, never has it been under such peril. Yes, there have been moments throughout history that challenged our industry, but nothing like we are seeing today.

Steve and I are here today speaking on behalf of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, SWNA. However, the issues are similar in all three Prairie newspaper associations—AWNA, SWNA and MCNA—that represent almost all community newspapers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That's approximately 200 publications. Our memberships range from small, independent ownership to titles owned by Canada's largest newspaper publishers.

Protecting public interest journalism is critical, probably even more so for our smaller remote and rural communities. The importance of locally generated journalism cannot be underestimated. In western Canada—we are sure it is the same in all rural and remote parts of Canada—it is the local newspaper that protects democracy and reports on the current affairs of the community it serves. It is also important to point out that the community newspapers are, in most cases, the only record of history for most of these communities.

Today, we have come to advocate on behalf of the independent newspapers across the Prairies. We believe that it's important to have a good understanding of the existential crisis facing small, independent community newspaper publishers, and that Bill C-18, the preferred solution for large publishers, may do little to address the financial distress of small publishers. Just like Canada's largest media companies, they too have seen the advertising revenues that once supported their newsrooms steadily diminish as revenues get displaced by digital platforms that focus on target marketing strategy. These are primarily Google and Facebook, now known as Meta.

It is important to understand that we do not believe there's a single solution for media, whether it be community newspapers, mainstream media or legacy media, as some have been labelled. We may all do journalism, but our business models are widely different and based completely on what best serves our individual communities, particularly when you consider the challenges presented by the digital revolution.

It is easy to charge that media has failed to transition to digital platforms. It's exceedingly difficult to pull that off in markets of less than national or global scale. In other words, what may work for The Globe and Mail with its national audience is not going to work for most community publishers. They simply do not have the scale or the population to generate much, or any, revenue in the digital world modelled on using clicks. A clicks and eyeballs method of sustainability will not work for small community media.

We cannot overemphasize how serious the situation has become for community journalism. Advertising revenues have declined to the point where most community newspaper publishers are operating with a skeleton staff, leaving the publisher-owner to absorb the extra hours in workloads themselves.

The quality of journalism is suffering because the revenues are no longer there to pay sustainable wages to our reporting journalists. Pandemic supports made the difference between life and death for many publishers at the time. However, they have now been scaled back or eliminated completely, while advertising revenues remain severely depressed. Communities are on the verge of losing their newspapers and with them the coverage of their municipal councils, school boards, sports and cultural events and all the independent local news coverage residents have relied on for decades.

With respect to Bill C-18, we are encouraged by the success of a similar bill in Australia, especially when it comes to the smaller community media. Community journalism is under threat with the digital revolution, yet there is no model for smaller communities to join that will maintain the level of community journalism that is required to protect local democracy and continue to record the history in hundreds of communities across the Prairies.

In closing, we insist that Bill C-18 include provisions that allow for a collective bargaining model for community newspapers, should they deem themselves unable to negotiate on their own.

Thank you.

[Jeanette Ageson, Publisher, The Tyee, Independent Online News Publishers of Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Jeanette Ageson. I am the publisher of the independent online news magazine The Tyee, based in Vancouver. Since 2003, our non-profit newsroom has worked hard to build sustainable revenue to support in-depth public interest journalism. Today, we employ over 20 journalists and media workers.

I am here today not just representing The Tyee, but also to present the concerns of over 100 similar companies.

The independent online news publishers of Canada coalition includes local news outlets, English and French news outlets, indigenous news outlets and news from diverse voices. Collectively, we employ thousands of journalists and reach millions of news readers, viewers and listeners across Canada.

We are the new generation of the online news in Canada, and we have serious concerns about the online news act, a bill that is supposed to exist to benefit organizations just like ours. In May, we came together to publish a joint open letter, which some of you may have read. We are here to ask you to consider amending and strengthening Bill C-18. Our concerns have to do with transparency, fairness, eligibility and the exemption clause.

The first up is transparency. If these deals between big tech and publishers are allowed to remain confidential, it will make it harder for smaller publishers to negotiate fair deals and make worse Canadians’ mistrust in the media.

Canada is facing not one news crisis, but two. One is financial. The other is the crisis of distrust. Canadians are expressing unprecedented distrust towards the news and the reporters who deliver it. Canadians need to know who is funding the news they receive and on what terms. We need to rebuild trust in news, not damage it further.

Allowing deals to remain confidential also puts smaller publishers at a disadvantage in the bargaining process. In the first day of hearings last week, we heard many speakers express concern that smaller publishers who are filling the gaps in communities will be left out. In response, we heard that smaller publishers in Australia are happy with their deals, and that the intention of Canada’s process is to ensure fairness between newsrooms.

While we appreciate the assurances, we see nothing in the legislation that guarantees us the tools we need to achieve and independently verify an equitable outcome. In order to fully participate in this process, we need complete and timely information about the deals between news organizations and tech platforms that they are agreeing to.

Bill C-18 also needs to be amended to ensure fairness. As it currently stands, the intervention into Canada’s journalism industry by big tech is already under way, with some publishers having struck secret deals with the platforms. However, if you are not a newsroom that has been hand-picked by these platforms, it is unclear how one would seek such a deal, what the terms are and what is considered fair compared to other organizations, and we do need legislation to address that.

If nothing is done, Google and Meta will continue to strike uneven deals on a case-by-case basis that favours the largest legacy news publishers, based on formulas they don't have to share or deals based on which news publishers lobby the hardest or criticize tech companies the loudest. Over time, these uneven deals will determine which news organizations survive and which ones die.

Google and Meta cannot be allowed to decide the future of Canada’s journalism industry. We believe a universal funding formula should be applied consistently to all qualifying news organizations, based on how much money each organization spends on editorial costs.

We need to amend Bill C-18 to prevent barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship. We need to help entrepreneurs who have been risking their own money to serve their communities with news and who otherwise will be excluded and penalized because they risked their own money.

If a journalist starts a news company and they do the work of reporting and/or editing, they should be counted towards qualifying criteria. We should be encouraging hundreds more micro newsrooms to fill our news deserts, not disincentivizing people from launching them. Currently, these newsrooms are shut out of Bill C-18.

Finally, Bill C-18 needs to be amended to keep big tech out of our newsrooms. Under Bill C-18, tech companies will receive exemption orders by assuring government that the money they pay to news publishers is being spent properly on news content: on local news, on diverse news and on innovative news. Those are all worthy goals, but let me be clear: Google and Meta should have no role in our newsrooms and no authority to determine or make promises about what kind of news we cover or how we spend the money.

These exemption order conditions represent a fundamental threat to the independence of the Canadian press. They also don't specify whether a tech company must strike deals with three newsrooms or 300 to qualify. Within that uncertainty lies the possibility that hundreds of qualifying news organizations will be shut out. Instead, we ask that exemption orders be removed from Bill C-18 or modified to minimize these potential threats.

Our coalition has prepared a detailed brief containing specific language for these amendments, which should be circulated to each committee member. The stakes for the free press in Canada—and our democracy—could not be higher.

Thank you. I'm prepared to answer your questions.

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

Good morning, Chair Fry.

I'm here on behalf of DCN.

DCN is the only trade organization exclusively focused on the digital future, and dedicated to serving the unique and diverse needs 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 to international, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Financial Times.

I am pleased to express our full support for Bill C-18, the online news act. As you know, the online news act follows enactment in 2021 of a very similar bill in Australia, the news media bargaining code, which DCN also strongly supported. I closely followed your hearing on Friday, including the testimony of former chair of the Australian competition and consumer commission, Mr. Rod Sims. I believe there's no greater witness in evidence as to the strength of your bill than the experience that's already happened in Australia. At a time when parliaments from around the globe are investigating, and learning from each other on how the duopoly of Google and Facebook have captured nearly all growth in digital advertising, draining the lifeblood of the local news press, it's critical we learn, and then build and improve on each other's work, as you will be doing here by passing Bill C-18.

Recognizing you're already familiar with the details of the bill, I will briefly list what I see as the most important elements, and I'm happy to take any questions on the broader market.

As background, I have nearly 30 years of technical and operating experience in digital media, having spent nearly two decades running highly trusted digital content businesses, even writing code in the early nineties at the advent of the web, before transitioning into my current role, advancing the future for trusted content brands.

I'll now go to Bill C-18.

First, the law will help rebalance bargaining power. Publishers' brands are proxies for trust in value. The inclusion of news content from premium publishers has certainly played a large part in developing the daily search and social media habits of Canadians, allowing Google and Facebook to become dominant gatekeepers. The lack of protection and negotiating rights for the content, coupled with, importantly, nearly unlimited access to the data of the web for microtargeting advertising, has led to a market where publishers and their content have become interchangeable commodities. An expensive and vitally important news report can be reduced to the same value as a copy piece of amateur work or aggregated content.

The online news act will protect a publishers' intellectual property rights, and provide balance in negotiations with online platforms to receive fair compensation, and thus promote a free and plural press.

Second, the bill under consideration relies primarily on the market to determine how and how much publishers should be compensated for their content. This flexible approach allows for diverse publishers to seek deal terms specifically tailored to their business needs. Some start-up publishers may want to forgo revenue in favour of audience reach, while established publishers may want to ensure maximum return for their high-value brands. Thus, we do not support a government role in setting rates for content. The bill's final offer arbitration is an elegant solution to accelerate negotiation towards a fair deal at a time when it may likely determine how many journalists can be employed for the coming year.

Third, the bill applies only to a situation in which there's a significant power imbalance between the news publisher and the intermediary platform. Importantly, the news publisher retains the option of whether it even wants to participate. The dominant platform does not.

Fourth, in no way, shape, or form does this change the structure of the web, or in any way demand payment for links. This is, frankly, misinformation that we spent many late hours rebutting in Australia, as Google and Facebook's favourite advocates suggested the law would break the Internet. Two of these advocates shared commentary to this committee on Friday. Nevertheless, the Internet is still working as well as ever in Australia.

Fifth, this is important, the bill permits publishers to bargain as a group. As I was pleased to learn from Mr. Sims on Friday, the small publishers who collectively bargained in Australia received more payment per journalist than the larger publishers. That's exactly the framework we seek to bring new resources to the local and emerging press media.

In summary, the bill creates a new duty to bargain for intermediary platforms, and it permits publishers to bargain as a group. These two provisions form the linchpin of this bill. We've already seen this work in Australia.

The ability for trusted and valued premium publishers to have an equal playing field is critical to the permanence of Canada's news marketplace, and we at DCN urge the House of Commons to advance this bill.

Thank you.

[Monika Ille, Chief Executive Officer, APTN]

Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee.

[Witness spoke in Abenaki and provided the following text:]

Kwaï! Nd'aliwizi Monika Ille. Aln8ba Sqwa nia odzi Odanak m8wkaw8gan.

[English]

Hello, my name is Monika Ille. I'm an Abenaki from the community of Odanak.

I would add that I am talking to you from Tiohtiá:ke, i.e., Montreal, on the unceded territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka and the Anishinabe peoples, which was traditionally a meeting and trading hub for numerous nations.

I am the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN.

APTN was launched in 1999 and was the world's first indigenous national television network. Our work has amplified indigenous peoples' voices and has changed the Canadian broadcasting landscape.

APTN is made available to all Canadians in the basic package of most cable and satellite services. Each year, we offer hundreds of hours of indigenous programming in English, French and 15 indigenous languages.

In April 2000, APTN launched its first national indigenous newscast. In August 2022, we celebrated the third year of Nouvelles nationales d'APTN, our French-language national newscast.

Our journalists encourage Canadians to have an open dialogue on Canada's history with indigenous peoples. APTN News brings the voices of indigenous peoples to the forefront, conveying stories on climate change, economic development, indigenous language revitalization, indigenous athletes, sports, art, music and how indigenous youth are leading the way to reclaiming their place on our lands. Our newscast covers the stories that others won't.

In the last few years APTN has received numerous journalism awards such as a Michener Award, Canadian Screen Awards and Canadian Association of Journalists awards.

In 2021, for the first time in Canada's history, production of the federal leaders' debate included indigenous media representation. APTN's journalist, Melissa Ridgen, became the first indigenous journalist to represent a national indigenous broadcaster at the televised federal debate. If it wasn't for APTN and other indigenous media, indigenous peoples would be severely under-represented in mainstream media. By bringing these voices to the forefront, indigenous media teaches the public about what it means to be indigenous by sharing our stories of struggle and also of success.

As viewership is migrating to online and as online news consumption is increasing, it is essential that APTN and other indigenous news outlets receive support from dominant digital news intermediaries and that we receive fair compensation for our news content. We support the principle and intent of Bill C-18.

To the extent that we have a concern, it is to ensure that indigenous news media is properly reflected in the bill. For example, clause 11(1) of the bill deals with the types of agreements digital news intermediaries need to reach with the news sector to be exempt from the more formal final offer process. Intentionally or not, it creates a kind of hierarchy of Canadian news services. Diverse news outlets, including those serving indigenous communities, are last.

I suggest we need language in the bill to ensure that any agreements with digital news intermediaries involve a significant portion of indigenous news outlets and meaningfully support their sustainability in the same way the bill supports local news outlets.

Kchi wliwni. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Hugh Stephens, Executive Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would firstly like to thank the committee for inviting me to express my point of view on this important topic.

Good morning.

I'm speaking in an individual capacity. In my comments I will be speaking in support of this bill.

In doing so I would like to address three criticisms that have been brought against it.

The first is that the measures proposed by Bill C-18 to stem the decline in journalism are taking aim at the wrong target, the large digital intermediaries, on the grounds that they do not benefit financially from including news content on their platforms and even if they do, they are already providing some financial support to some media.

The second is that the ambit of the bill is too broad because its definition of “making available” includes some content that would normally be considered fair dealing under the Copyright Act such as links, headlines and snippets.

The third is that if implemented in its current form Bill C-18 would violate Canada's international trade obligations under the Berne Convention and/or the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.

I believe all of these criticisms are inaccurate.

I write a weekly blog on international copyright issues and have noted that a number of governments, in the face of fierce opposition from the platforms, had to resort to legislation in order to level the playing field between news media publishers and the larger intermediaries.

In 2014 both Germany and Spain passed laws requiring Google to pay news producers for use of their content. Google's response in Spain was simply to close down Google News, its news aggregation platform, and in Germany to delist any publisher who refused to give Google access to its content without payment. The EU tackled this issue through the creation of a limited two-year press publishers' right. Google and Facebook have since come to the table and struck deals with publishers for access to news. France has been particularly successful in this regard.

We know that when Australia decided to bell this cat, Google and Facebook mounted a vigorous lobbying campaign and threatened to pull out of Australia. Google also tried, unsuccessfully, to get the U.S. government to intervene. In the face of the legislation, however, the platforms backed down and managed to conclude revenue-sharing agreements with most Australian media outlets.

In the United States, Congress is currently debating the bipartisan journalism competition and preservation act, which seeks to do much of what Bill C-18 is aiming to accomplish. I mention these examples to underline that Bill C-18's objective of helping to preserve a viable professional journalism sector by requiring negotiations for compensation for use of news content by the large digital intermediaries is not unique. In fact, it's very much in the mainstream of what's taking place in a number of western democracies.

Another criticism is that Bill C-18's definition of “making available” is too broad because it includes some actions such as linking to content or featuring headlines or snippets that are normally considered fair dealing under the Copyright Act. It's also been argued that posting hyperlinks provides a benefit to news outlets so why should platforms pay? Indeed, news outlets do derive some benefit from the referral just as the platforms derive benefit from using news content to attract more users and thus sell more ads.

Under Bill C-18 the balance of respective benefits will be worked out in negotiations between the parties. But Bill C-18 does not deny digital platforms their fair dealing rights. Putting it another way, their rights under the Copyright Act are not diminished or changed by Bill C-18. However, it will be a violation of the new act if they do not bargain in good faith with respect to making content available. Use of fair dealing exceptions is not a licence to ignore other laws, whether it be the online news act, defamation laws or any other legislation.

Finally, the criticisms that Bill C-18 will violate Canada's international trade obligations, including the Berne copyright convention and CUSMA, leading to potential trade retaliation from the United States, do not stand up to scrutiny. The legislation is drafted in such a way that it does not target U.S. companies but, rather, companies with certain market characteristics of size and dominance. Likewise, it does not seek to protect Canadian digital intermediaries that compete directly with Google or Facebook. In addition, the section on non-discrimination does not impose any must-carry requirements that could violate CUSMA. In the case of Berne, which contains a right to quotation, nothing in Bill C-18 derogates from the quotation right although, of course, use of quotations from news content providers could be a factor in the bargaining process.

Quite apart from not having a strong legal argument to challenge the bill under either CUSMA or Berne, it is highly unlikely that any government, including the U.S. government, would take up a trade challenge under either CUSMA or the WTO. I would be happy to elaborate on why that is the case, if people are interested.

Let me end my comments there, Madam Chair. I look forward to questions.

Thank you.

[Peter Menzies, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity. For the record, I am appearing as a private citizen and I'm not a member of a political party.

I worked in the newspaper business for close to 30 years and served as a CRTC commissioner for almost 10 years. I am familiar with how things work. I care deeply for good journalism, which, unfettered by favours owed to politicians—no offence to present company—the privileged and the powerful, can play a helpful role in a liberal democracy.

Bad journalism doesn't help.

Others have articulated how and why Bill C-18 inappropriately places the state squarely in the newsrooms of the nation by giving the CRTC oversight of agreements and directing how the money is spent. Others have mentioned how it may prompt retaliatory trade sanctions. Others have explained or will explain to you why the argument made by news organizations to justify this embarrassing liaison between government and media is, to put it kindly, unproven. Were it otherwise, those promoting it would surely not have felt threatened by open debate.

Still others have detailed the problematic issue—practically and legally—of affixing a value to links and then reserving those only for those of whom the government-appointed panels approve, and you will have heard by now how putting a price on links is likely to incent more gossip and less gravitas.

Today I am here to tell you that 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.

As Andrew Coyne, then of the National Post, wrote just four years ago when government was first contemplating financial support for his industry:

The money the government is giving us is not going to solve our problems. It is only going to ensure we put off confronting them. Before long we will be back for more.

And here we are.

The Parliamentary Press Gallery's white paper on values states: “Trust in journalism must be actively earned and maintained”. Yet as illustrated in Edelman's most recent survey, trust in Canada's media has never been lower. Sixty-one per cent of Canadians believe journalists are purposely trying to mislead them while 58% think the same of government. With respect, having those two team up doesn't seem like the best idea.

The more government assistance news media gets, the more broken the relationship with readers becomes. The more that relationship is broken, the more subsidies will be required. And so it goes.

I respectfully submit that it would be a grave error to continue down this path when it is independence that earns and maintains trust. Bill C-18 might keep the wolves from the door of a few legacy companies for a few more years but it won't save journalism, and while the amount of money involved may keep some from starving, it will still leave most hungry, needy and assumed to be grateful.

What Canada needs is a policy framework that encourages the innovation required for journalism to sustain itself. An examination needs to ask why, for instance, the CRTC is creating an artificial oversupply by forcing virtually all its broadcasters to dedicate time to news as if we were still living in a 1980s world of limited resources. We need a strategy that values the efforts of the Canadian entrepreneurs who have built close to 100 new news sites. We need to understand the impact of the government subsidizing the CBC to operate the most accessed news site in the country to the detriment of the rest of the industry.

Broadcasters have for decades complained about the unfairness of having their tax dollars used to subsidize a revenue competitor. That perversion of the market now extends to the online world. While a $1.3-billion subsidy allows the CBC—likely Bill C-18's largest beneficiary—to establish advertising rates that many argue are below market value and offer news for free, others struggle to establish subscriber bases and advertising.

Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.

For instance, while newspapers in Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary will benefit from Bill C-18 money, not one of them directs its own reporter in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, whereas Western Standard, which has declined to submit to government approval, does. There are other examples.

If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 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 first nation.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 20, the committee is meeting on the study 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 of Commons order of Thursday, June 23. Members are attending in person in the room, and those attending remotely are using the Zoom application.

For those at home using the Zoom application, please remember that, at the bottom of your screen, there is a little globe icon, and that is your interpretation icon. You can just click it to turn it to the language of your choice.

Those of you who are here in the room know how to use the interpretation.

When you're not speaking, you should be on mute. Please wait until I recognize you by name before you speak. Click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and on mute when you're not speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Thank you.

I am ready to entertain the witnesses who are here today.

For the sake of the witnesses, I would like you to know that you have five minutes for your organization, not per person. You can decide who's going to represent your organization. When we finish listening to the witnesses, we will go to the question and answer period.

The witnesses are, as individuals, Peter Menzies and Hugh Stephens, executive fellow, school of public policy, University of Calgary. We have, from APTN, Monika Ille, chief executive officer. We have, from Digital Content Next, Jason Kint, chief executive officer. We have, from Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, Jeanette Ageson, publisher of The Tyee. From the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association are Chris Ashfield and Steve Nixon.

I will begin with Peter Menzies.

Peter, you have five minutes, please.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That's also good to hear.

Maybe I could turn to you now, Mr. Deegan. Bill C-18 is just one of the tools in the government's tool box that we're trying to support journalism with. Can you speak to other programs that the government has introduced that would benefit this sector—perhaps the periodical fund or the local journalism initiative?

[Rod Sims]

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind, with the Australian code and what I understand is in Bill C-18, that you are going to get growth in smaller publications. This does give them the ability to do that. Certainly, some of those Country Press Australia organizations are going to use some of that money to be much more sophisticated digital players as well, and that will help them grow. They will benefit and grow. There's just no doubt.

[Benoit Chartier]

I'm convinced that Bill C-18 would enable my 40 colleagues who are publishers and owners of weeklies, and whom you have probably encountered in Quebec, to remain competitive. That would also be true for newspapers in remote regions. That's because, as Mr. Deegan mentioned, we are going to negotiate collectively for all of Canada. That hardly ever happens. Even some publishers of Quebec dailies joined forces to negotiate. Doing so would definitely help us get the most from our bargaining efforts.

As for Bill C-18, there is not a single publisher in Quebec worried about any particular amendments that would put them at a disadvantage simply because they are in a remote area or because there's only one journalist in the newsroom. As written, the bill will benefit regional journalism in Canada and Quebec, and cover all levels of government. Most importantly, it would help to keep our democracy healthy.

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

Okay, thanks.

Mr. Chartier, I'd like to congratulate you on these 170 years of contributions in Saint-Hyacinthe. It's amazing.

I've lived in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Estrie and Montreal, and have travelled throughout Quebec. On these trips, I've been able to see that weeklies are extremely important in every corner of the province.

Are you sure that Bill C-18 as it stands will be beneficial to the weeklies, even those in remote regions? If not, what amendments could you suggest that would improve the bill?

[Benoit Chartier]

Yes. This bill has nothing to do with anything but journalism. Currently, Bill C-18 represents the defence, health and raison d'être of journalism in Canada, and nothing else.

The claim that the big companies will pocket all the money stemming from the provisions of Bill C-18, and that the small companies will not get a cent, is simply not true. I myself manage a small company. I need this money. I need it for my newsroom, my journalists, my photographers, my proofreaders, my editorial writers and my editors-in-chief. I need that money, and I need the protection of a bill like this one.

I'm speaking on behalf of 250 journalists and 40 publishers in Quebec. I am also speaking on behalf of, and Mr. Deegan will probably agree with me, every publisher in Quebec and across Canada, from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island.

Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Dr. Geist.

I want to take that in a slightly different direction, but I think it also has to do with that. One of the things you pointed out was the lack of clarity in the terms used within this bill. One example is “news content”. You've gone on to question whether or not Bill C-18 is even constitutional. What impact would this lack of clarity have? Why do you think we're in this situation? We've been here before. We've seen this with other bills, when the Liberal government said, “Trust us. Just trust us.”

Would you care to comment on that?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

My first question is for Dr. Geist. I'm noting here around the table.... Mr. Sims said that Bill C-18 is about protecting journalism. Others at the table have said that it's about protecting democracy.

Would you care to comment, based on your expertise?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of our witnesses for being here today. These are very important hearings and you've all added substantially to our consideration of Bill C‑18.

Professor Sims, I'd like to go to you first. Thank you for being up at 4 o'clock in the morning in Australia.

You talked in your presentation about the four media giants having signed agreements, and you noted that the medium-sized media companies had for the most part, but not in all cases. Then you said that for smaller media companies there are some agreements with Facebook and Google, but not in all cases. I'd like you to give us more details on that, if you could.

The issue of ensuring that small papers...is something that certainly concerns me. In my area, in New Westminster—Burnaby, we've lost half of the publications over the course of the last few years. It's just been devastating for local community events. We have two cities that collectively are about a third of a million people, so we're not an insignificant market at all, but we've been devastated in a way so many parts of the country have been devastated.

Can you give us some examples of the smaller media players? How much of that $200 million has gone to medium and small players? What would you suggest in terms of improvements to this legislation to ensure that the small community players, the community newspapers and community media, actually fully benefit, as you say has largely happened in Australia?

[Benoit Chartier]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

I listened to Ms. Gerson's remarks earlier. She said that all this was based on a lie, which is completely false. I don't understand how someone can say something like that before a parliamentary committee, but that is only my opinion.

The Quebec weekly press is experiencing a critical situation in the face of the social network invasion. Since 2014 or 2015, the sharp erosion of our advertising revenues has had significant repercussions on our newsrooms and on our journalists' health across Quebec.

There are more and more journalistic deserts in a number of regions of Quebec, and I don't think that is a good thing for Canadian and Quebec democracies.

The newspaper I publish has existed for 170 years. My family has worked there for three generations. Over the past four or five years, the situation has been extremely critical for all weekly regional newspapers in Quebec.

For us, Bill C‑18 represents our survival, simply put. If the measures contained in the bill do not come into force in Canada, the survival of Quebec print journalists will be increasingly perilous.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to take this opportunity to thank today's witnesses for participating in this study on Bill C-18. I'm really happy they are joining us today to discuss this bill, which has been highly anticipated by the media back home, print media and media from across Canada.

I will start by turning to Mr. Chartier and Mr. Poisson, from Hebdos Québec. Earlier, I was listening to the opening remarks of Ms. Gerson, who said at the outset that Bill C-18 was predicated on lies—those are her words—and that small media outlets use whatever means available to get money.

I would like you to tell us how the print media sector is doing, especially the media you represent, which are often regional. I would also like you to tell us a bit about those businesses' economic situation, especially in Quebec. I suspect it is quite similar to the situation experienced in the rest of Canada.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

You would look to Bill C-18 as an improvement on your legislation.

[Rod Sims]

From my point of view, one improvement could be a bit more transparency. I was at the ACCC. Through the ACCC and my own contacts in touch with all the media companies, that's why I'm able to be completely confident that the deals were well over $200 million. They were well over that before the most recent round of deals, which I think someone referred to, but a bit more transparency in aggregate terms about how much money is being paid and where it's going would be helpful, provided it's at an aggregate level and not disclosing individual deals. I think that part of Bill C-18 is very helpful.

[Paul Deegan, President and Chief Executive Officer, News Media Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon. On behalf of News Media Canada, our member publishers, and the 3,000 journalists we employ, who inform Canadians across the country every day, we are pleased to participate in your study of Bill C‑18.

During the 2021 election campaign, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats all made commitments to introduce news media legislation. Why do we need this legislation?

First, the need for strong, independent local news has never been higher. It keeps communities connected and informed on issues that are impacting them directly. Covering city hall, provincial and territorial legislatures and our courts, and indeed holding you, our parliamentarians, to account are vital to our democracy.

Second, there's a significant imbalance of power between tech giants and Canadian news outlets. To put this in perspective, the market cap of Google is roughly $1.8 trillion. Meta is over $500 billion. Together, that’s in the ballpark of Canada's annual GDP. Together, these companies' take of online ad revenues stands at more than 80%.

Third, with the prospect of legislation, Google and Meta started picking winners and losers, and David alluded to this earlier. They started negotiating content-licensing agreements with a dozen or so publishers, including Le Devoir, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star. Most recently, Google did a deal with Postmedia.

Don’t get us wrong; we’re happy for our member publishers. They should be getting compensated for their content. But we now have a situation of haves and have-nots among Canada’s news publishers, and that’s not fair, especially to smaller publishers who have been left out in the cold—publishers like Benoit Chartier, from whom you heard a moment ago. Again, it's important to remember that Benoit runs the oldest French-language newspaper in North America; it's been around since 1853.

There are other publications that are hugely important to our country. La Liberté in Manitoba, which Sophie Gaulin runs, is an important publication. They don't have Google or Facebook knocking on their door. We have Dave Adsett, who runs The Wellington Advertiser in Mr. Nater's riding. These are all very important publications for the communities, and they also need to get content-licensing agreements.

Let me outline three reasons why we support this legislation.

First, it allows us to negotiate collectively. Currently, the Competition Act bars us from forming a collective. Given the overwhelming power imbalance, we'll be in a stronger bargaining position if we negotiate together.

Second, it includes an enforcement mechanism. Baseball-style final offer arbitration ensures that parties put their best offer forward and the arbitrator picks one or the other. The hammer of arbitration incents both sides to reach a fair settlement on their own.

Third, similar legislation is working in Australia. As Rod Sims just shared with us, the amounts paid to news organizations in his country total over $200 million. More important than how much is who that money is going to. Sure, large organizations are benefiting the most on a total dollar basis. That’s understandable, Australia has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world. But others, like Country Press Australia, an affiliation of 160 smaller regional publications, were able to reach settlements with Google and Meta. More recently, a group of 24 small Australian publishers reached a deal with Google.

In an article written by Bill Grueskin of the Columbia Journalism School, he refers to a professor in Sydney who says that she can't believe the opportunities that exist right now. Her students aren't taking internships “because it’s so easy for them to land full-time jobs”. She said, “I swear to God, I have not seen it like this in twenty years.” That's because of the code that Rod Sims put in.

As a matter of principle, we believe that publishers large and small should benefit equally from any settlement, based on their proportionate investment in newsroom employees, not in corporate overhead. We've developed an approach that we believe is transparent and fair to members of News Media Canada and the National Ethnic Press and Media Council. Simply put, any monies from collective negotiation would be shared among publishers on a pro rata basis based on their salaries and wages paid to eligible newsroom employees, and that's a number that's already provided to the CRA.

In conclusion, Google and Meta have roles to play in the news media ecosystem going forward. It's in their self-interest to have rich, trusted content that our journalists produce, but at the same time, they enjoy a dominant position in the marketplace, where search and social are designed to keep the user within a walled garden where they extract value from content. We simply want to be compensated for the value of that content so that we can reinvest in our newsrooms.

Thank you and we look forward to further discussion.

[David Skok]

Thank you and good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee and your incredible IT team.

I don't want to be here. My job is to report on what you do here. It's certainly not to be a part of it, and yet I feel like I don't have a choice. I founded The Logic almost five years ago, and we are Canada's leading business and tech newsroom. As an independent publisher with no lobbyists, no trade association backing and no allegiance to any start-up or legacy interests, but with 25 years of experience as a journalist, I'm one of the few people who can speak frankly about what's at stake with Bill C-18.

The fourth estate is a key part of a functioning democracy, and ours is in crisis. We know the depressing stats about the decline in original, in-depth reporting in Canada. All you need to do is to take a cursory glance at your own news feeds to see that there is no shortage of hot takes or articles amplifying hot takes on Twitter. You know this. It frustrates you too.

By contrast, brave and substantive reporting is critical to a high-functioning democracy, and, unlike reporting on those Twitter fights, that reporting costs money and time to produce. I have dedicated my life to this pursuit, which is why I'm here. The Logic invests heavily in journalism that makes Canada a better place to live and work by facilitating hard conversations through rich investigative and analytical reporting. These stories can be national in scope, like an investigative series on how Canada's charitable sector allocates its funding, or they can be local, like how automation is impacting the community of Brooks, Alberta.

Just this week, we launched a six-part series examining the strains in Canada's supply chains, beginning with an on-the-ground report from the port of Vancouver. This is vital work.

Because of the money already being paid by large tech companies to a select few Canadian publishers, we are now operating in an anti-competitive market that privileges some and risks starving this country's journalism ecosystem of the innovation it so desperately needs.

Day in and day out, our world-class team is paving a path for others to follow. What began five years ago with three people is now a national newsroom, with almost two dozen reporters across the country in six bureaus. This includes one of the only remaining English-language bureaus in Quebec. After decades of newsrooms cutting their core product, The Logic is proof that you can put journalism and journalists at the centre of your company.

Make no mistake—our competitors watch us closely. That is a good thing. That is how competition is supposed to work. It makes everyone better. Innovation takes time, yes, but it also requires a level playing field. We did not ask for any of this. The secret deals already struck by Meta and Google have created a market imbalance that gives competitors an unfair advantage in the war for talent, audience and distribution.

When The Logic tries to compete on merit against a publication bankrolled by the wealthiest family in Canada—one now being further underwritten by secret deals with the world's largest companies—how does that help foster journalism innovation?

The online news act seeks to rectify this imbalance. It is a backstop, forcing publishers and platforms to come to the table for fair, equitable and transparent agreements that don't privilege only those with negotiating power. Bill C-18 is a pro-competition bill.

It is also good for journalism. Without regulation, publishers who have already signed these secret deals are depending on the good faith of big tech firms to keep them in place. As an editor, I have some questions. How much are those deals worth? What has that money bought? What will happen when it's time to renew those deals? How can these tech giants be reported on fairly when publishers rely on those same companies to meet payroll?

Currently, we cannot answer any of those questions, because they're all covered under non-disclosure agreements. Bill C-18 forces those deals out into the open, and that is good for journalism.

As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I am optimistic about the future of our craft. It takes time for news to regenerate. It takes time for young journalists to relearn what has been lost after decades of job cuts, and it takes time for today's start-ups to turn into tomorrow's leaders. If there's one thing that I hope you can take away from me today, it's that all of this much-needed innovation requires a level playing field. Bill C-18 seeks to correct an existing imbalance, which is why it needs to pass.

With that, I'm happy to take your questions.

[Sylvain Poisson, General Manager, Hebdos Québec]

That said, in recent years, the crisis has deepened with the arrival of web giants such as Facebook and Google. The content aggregators that the Internet has given rise to have multiplied at little cost, without producing original content, with very little or no investment in journalism, and few ethical rules pertaining to the news.

Some news sites and the multiplication of social networks result in the mixing of genres, but without guaranteeing source credibility. They spread rumours or fake news, which leads to disinformation, while giving the impression of truth or verified facts. Social networks are full of fake news, which flies in the face of a responsible press and journalistic rigour, values we strongly defend. These trends are harmful to a healthy democracy.

By controlling the algorithms, the web giants have cannibalized our revenues, without assuming any of the associated social and fiscal responsibilities. They have upended the business model and diminished the real value of the news. In particular, they have attracted 80% of the advertising dollars of companies and local and regional businesses without providing any tangible benefits to those communities. In just a few years, without paying any taxes, these web giants have eroded the revenues of traditional media, which for decades have invested time and money in their communities, encouraged their businesses and professionals, supported their institutions, and served the public interest of their fellow citizens.

Hebdos Québec therefore supports the basic approach of Bill C‑18 to address the market imbalance between global web platforms and news publishers. Collective bargaining is also the only way for us to address this obvious power imbalance.

A Pollara Strategic Insights survey conducted on behalf of News Media Canada indicated that 90% of Canadians consider it important for local media to survive, and 79% agree that the web giants must share their revenues with the media.

Would you like to add anything, Mr. Chartier?

[Benoit Chartier, Chair of the Board, Hebdos Québec]

I will start. We will split the speech.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, my name is Benoît Chartier. I am the chair of the board of Hebdos Québec. I am joined by our general manager, Sylvain Poisson.

We represent more than 30 owners of independent weeklies, for a total of some 80 weeklies in the province of Quebec. Each of these print media outlets has an online platform. Hebdos Québec represents some 200 journalists who work for all the weeklies in Quebec, and we speak on their behalf.

For my part, I own five weeklies and websites, including the oldest French-language publication in the Americas, Le Courrier de Saint‑Hyacinthe, which is celebrating its 170th anniversary this year. I am the third generation with this company.

Without exception, our respective newsrooms, which, as I said, employ some 200 journalists, create or produce original local or regional content for each of our news products.

We distribute some 10.3 million copies per year throughout our territory, while our digital platforms have more than 20 million page views per month and close to 15 million unique visitors per month.

I would point out that Hebdos Québec is marking its 90th anniversary this year, and the greatest gift would be to see Bill C‑18, which is under consideration today, passed into law as soon as possible.

The press is a bulwark of democracy. It has a duty to the public, namely, to provide quality information supported by rigorous journalism. The French-language weekly press in Quebec has also played a fundamental role in delivering news to the heart of many local communities, often in regions without any other local or regional media. In this regard, we can say that a weakened press that is under pressure to abandon its mission and in danger of disappearing after decades of work poses a serious threat to our democracy.

For their part, the weeklies have been part of the economic and cultural landscape for over a century. They are essential to the democratic vitality of each region. Away from major urban centres, they are often alone in playing that role, and they are as relevant as they were before the advent of social media.

Local and regional weeklies have a crucial role to play in countering the unfettered circulation of social media content that is stripped of journalistic practices and ethics.

Already seriously weakened by the major crisis of the media, we have suffered from the lengthy pandemic, which has included the closure of businesses, significant drops in advertising revenues, and problems with staffing, operational restructuring and newsrooms.

I would like to express my most sincere thanks to the Government of Canada for its support and valuable assistance in these circumstances, which have been difficult both economically and personally.

Mr. Poisson, I will hand it over to you to finish the presentation.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I'm sorry. In many appearances, this is the first time it's happened this badly.

First, the approach to the use of news in news articles extends far beyond what a reasonable person would consider “use”. Subclause 2(2) covers both reproduction of any portion of a news article and facilitating access to news by any means. The first part means that even reproducing a news headline or sentence summary is covered, even though that form of use is freely permitted by copyright quotation rights under the Berne Convention.

The second part means that linking or indexing to the front page of the news site—not even to an article—is treated as a compensable activity. That just can't be right; treating mere linking as a thing of value requiring compensation runs counter to Supreme Court jurisprudence on the importance of linking, and threatens the lifeblood of the free flow of information on the Internet.

If Google or Facebook copied and distributed full articles, I could understand the arguments around compensation. Indeed, those companies have struck deals in Canada to pay for exactly that. But when Dr. Fry posts a link on her Facebook to an MSN.ca article or Mr. Julian posts a link on his Facebook to a Canadian Press article, as they did this summer, like millions of other Canadians, I don't think we are anywhere near making available news a standard that should require compensation.

Second, the government has claimed the bill involves minimal market intervention, yet the reality is that there is an astonishing number of standards and bargaining rules established by the government or the CRTC in the bill, which has a real-world impact on government interference, blurring the news editorial and business divide.

Third, at a time when there are rightly concerns about misinformation and low-quality news sources, Bill C-18 risks increased misinformation. For example the definition of “news content” contains no standards or links to professional journalism. Instead, the definition, which I should note is different in the English and French language versions of the bill, could incorporate blog posts, opinion pieces and other content.

The government's approach to qualified Canadian journalism organizations has detailed guidance on what constitutes news to ensure that tax breaks go to high-quality, original journalism. Bill C-18 does the opposite. Moreover, the bill creates potential liability for platforms that use algorithms to demote content. To be clear, we need greater algorithmic transparency, but the provision on undue preferences may mean that platforms refrain from demoting low-quality journalism for fear of liability.

Fourth, the bill is offside several treaty and constitutional obligations. For example, clause 24, which excludes copyright limitations and exceptions from the bargaining process, may violate article 10(1) of the Berne Convention, which has a mandatory right of quotation that expressly includes newspaper articles.

Further, the bill is filled with potential CUSMA challenges. For example, clause 51 of the bill features what amounts to a must-carry obligation designed to prevent a platform from refusing to link to third party content. While self-dealing measures targeting anti-competitive conduct by the platforms are welcome—

[Rod Sims, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the invitation to speak today, and greetings from Sydney.

My key message is that, based on the Australian experience with its news media bargaining code, Bill C‑18 should be strongly supported. I'm going to devote my introductory comments to explaining some aspects of the Australian code and addressing a couple of criticisms of the Australian code.

The code's objective was to address the massive imbalance in bargaining power between Australia's news media businesses and the platforms. Google and Facebook do need to have news on their platform to maximize user attention and so enhance their advertising revenue on which they depend, but they do not need the content of any particular news business. On the other hand, each media business needs to be on the platform.

This bargaining imbalance—or market failure—means commercial deals cannot be done. They simply cannot be done to achieve fair payment for the benefit the platforms gain from news media content on their platforms. The outcome is less journalism.

Now, journalism benefits society in many ways, even for those who don't access it. It holds the powerful to account, provides a journal of record and is a forum for ideas. While not all market failures need to be addressed, this one needed to be, and was, with the Australian code.

Prior to the Australian code being passed, the news media businesses were simply unable to negotiate with the platforms for any payment for their content. With it, they could require the platforms to negotiate and trigger arbitration if those negotiations did not yield an appropriate result. The threat of arbitration evens up the bargaining power, as all parties wish to avoid having an arbitrator determine commercial arrangements.

Australia's code has been extremely successful in achieving its objective. From not being able to engage with the platforms because they wouldn't allow them to, the Australian news media businesses that have done deals under the code are comfortable with them, and these deals are yielding well over $200 million Australian per annum to the news businesses.

Further, Google has now done deals with essentially all eligible media businesses, while Facebook has likely done deals with media businesses employing around 85% of Australian journalists.

There are three essential features of the Australian code, all of which seem to be in Bill C-18. First, if negotiations are unsuccessful, there is recourse to final offer arbitration; second, non-discrimination, which means that if deals are done with one media business, then deals must be done with all; and third, the ability to collectively bargain.

You may be aware that Google threatened to take Google Search out of Australia, and Facebook threatened to take down all news from its News Feed if the code's legislation proceeded. The legislation was passed, but both threats were not carried out.

One outcome, however, was that the government said that if the platforms wished to avoid designation under the code, they should go out and do deals. This they did, and quickly; that is, therefore, instead of the threat of arbitration driving commercial deals, it was the threat of designation that became important. The difference does not matter. The code's objective of driving commercial deals was achieved.

Let me just address two criticisms of the code.

The first, as has been said just now, is that it was only the large media players that got deals and the smaller players missed out. This is just simply false. The facts are very clear. Australia has four roughly equal, large news media businesses. They all got deals. It has a number of medium-sized businesses that all got a deal from Google, but two of them, strangely, did not get a deal with Facebook while the rest did, so most of them got a deal with Facebook, but not all. We have many smaller media businesses, especially small regional and rural newspapers and digital natives. Essentially all of them got a deal from Google, and most of them got a deal from Facebook.

The amounts paid per journalist were usually much larger for the smaller businesses. Indeed, Country Press Australia, which represents 180 rural publications, received possibly the highest payment per journalist employed.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

My concern with Bill C-18 is with respect to how it's framed and drafted. I have limited time, so let me highlight four issues.

First, the approach to the use of news articles extends far beyond what a reasonable person would consider “use”. Subclause 2(2) covers both reproduction of any portion of a news article and facilitating access to news by any means. The first part means that even reproducing a headline or sentence summary is covered, even though that form of use is freely permitted by copyright quotation rights under the Berne Convention.

The second part means that linking or indexing to the front page of a news site, not even to an article, is treated as compensable activity. That just can't be right. Treating mere linking as a thing of value requiring compensation—

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

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon. 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, and I'm a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

With the start of the Jewish new year about 48 hours away, I want to begin by thanking the committee for planning to look into the funding of an anti-Semite as part of Canadian Heritage's anti-hate program. I want to urge you to fully investigate how this happened and to ensure that it never happens again.

With respect to Bill C-18, as you may know, I've been fairly critical, but that criticism doesn't stem from doubts about the importance of a robust, diverse news sector. That success is critically important to ensuring an engaged, aware citizenry and to holding our democratic institutions to account. Rather, I have concerns about the method. I have spoken positively about the government's tax-focused programs, and I would back mechanisms—

[Jen Gerson, Co-founder of The Line and Independent Journalist, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak. My name is Jen Gerson and I have worked in media for more than 15 years in newsrooms across the country, including at the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, the Calgary Herald and the National Post. As a freelancer, my work has appeared in The Walrus, Maclean's, The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other places.

At the moment, my co-founder Matt Gurney and I run a Substack-based newsletter called The Line, which publishes Canadian commentary. There, I have published several pieces by me and other writers, explaining my many concerns with Bill C-18.

The first major problem that I have with this bill is that it 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.

This is why major media organizations encourage link sharing below all articles. It's why they have spent untold sums on maximizing SEO and it's why they literally spend money with digital news intermediaries to boost stories on these platforms.

If you need evidence that many of these digital news intermediaries are more valuable to publishers than the other way around, we need only look to the existence of this bill in the first place. Negotiations are sustainable when the outcome of those negotiations serves the interests of all parties involved. If that were the case here, there would be no need for the federal government to oversee these deals. Digital news intermediaries would be happy to negotiate for the use of our content, because they would perceive value out of that deal. Instead, 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 that it is trying to fix. For example, if organizations like Facebook, now Meta, respond to this legislation by simply restricting access to mainstream news articles on their site—as the company has openly threatened to do—who do you think is going to be most harmed by that decision? Facebook? No. It will be Canadian publishers that are harmed by losing access to a major distribution hub.

When that happens, do we think that removing news links from Facebook or Twitter will somehow create a digitized version of the glory days in which Canadians begin their mornings by loyally logging in to their local newspapers, or are we risking the opposite effect? Would it strip mainstream media content from the websites and social media platforms where more Canadians live their online lives? I fear the latter outcome.

If you make it costly for digital news intermediaries to publish mainstream news content, they're going to make the very obvious financial choice. That is, they are going to distribute less mainstream news content, pushing more and more Canadians into semi-private information silos on places like Discord, Telegram, Slack and Signal. These are platforms that the federal government has little hope of regulating in this fashion.

My second major concern is that the more the federal government tries to help the media, the more it risks hurting our credibility. I respect that Bill C-18 has attempted to create a framework that avoids a direct subsidy, but this is not a neutral, market-based approach.

When the federal government tries to save the media, the media becomes a legitimate target for partisan attacks, which undermines our fundamental democratic role and function. We saw a few examples of that this very week, with the leader of the official opposition, Pierre Poilievre, raising money off Parliamentary Press Gallery reporter, David Akin. Poilievre also took potshots at another journalist, Dale Smith, on Twitter. These attacks on media are strategic and they are popular. Journalists are not well liked by the general public, who have a negative opinion of a press corps that is perceived to be on the take.

I'm going to point to a Reuters Institute 2022 digital news report that noted that the “trust in the Canadian news media has sunk to its lowest point in seven years”, which is a continuation of a long-term downward trend.

The opposition leader has, therefore, concluded that attacking us benefits him, and I don't think he's wrong in that calculation. To that end, I have real concerns about making media outlets dependent on revenue that is subject to the whims of the government in power. A future government—say, one led by Mr. Poilievre—will have no compunctions about undoing Bill C-18 and other subsidies. The industry's dependence on these revenue streams makes us pawns of partisan politics, whether we would wish to be or not.

My last beef with Bill C-18 is that it will inevitably favour incumbent media players over innovative models, small outlets and news start-ups.

We saw, for example, that when a similar bill was enacted in Australia, the biggest beneficiaries were Rupert Murdoch-owned entities.

The last point is that the appropriate mechanism by which the federal government should be dealing with issues like misinformation and disinformation in the media is through the CBC, not through creating an entirely separate legislative framework.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, John, for pulling that out for me.

Sometimes in the deepest, darkest wilds of Vancouver here, we have a miss when we try to connect in any sort of way with the Wi-Fi, but I'm on now, so there we go. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I apologize for being late trying to get onto this sort of contraption.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 20, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Today's meeting, of course, is taking place in a hybrid format, again, pursuant to a House order of Thursday, June 23.

Members attending in person in the room know how to use the interpretation and how to get the translation. For those of you attending virtually, interpretation is at the bottom of your screen. There is a little globe. Press it and you will get English or French, depending on what language you want to use.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon when you wish to speak, and then mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those of you on Zoom, you know how to use it. Again, at the bottom of the screen, there is interpretation. There is a “raise hand” function if you should have a need to use it. 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 have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I want to welcome our witnesses here. The first witness we have is Jen Gerson, co-founder of The Line and independent journalist. We then have Michael Geist. We then have Rod Sims, professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, the Australian National University, and he is on by video conference. We have Hebdos Québec and Benoit Chartier, chair of the board, by video conference; and Sylvain Poisson, general manager, by video conference. From The Logic Inc., we have David Skok, founder and chief executive officer. From News Media Canada, we have Paul Deegan, president and chief executive officer; and Jamie Irving, chair.

I will begin by giving each one of those people who I have named five minutes. After that, there will be a question-and-answer session.

Please begin, Ms. Gerson.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Yes, I think it would be.

I think the CRTC has really struggled to meet its mandate and do what I think Canadians would expect. Frankly, the way in which it de-emphasizes competition.... It's just something, well, it might happen, and it would be nice if it did, as opposed to one of its top priorities leading to the kind of affordability and resiliency that we've heard talked about over the course of the day. That really ought to be job one.

It's an organization that has little experience dealing with some of these Internet-related issues, and the notion of taking Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, potentially some of the online harms issues, and vesting in the commission all of those additional responsibilities I think leaves us all pretty concerned.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Canadian Heritage

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question and was far better than any of the questions from the opposition. I congratulate my colleague on the excellent, or even extraordinary, work he is doing. I am happy to hear that the opposition appreciates him.

Our G7 allies are very interested in what Canada is doing in matters of culture and democracy, especially with respect to Bill C‑18, which would require that the web giants compensate Canadian journalists. Countries around the world are experiencing the same problem. The web giants use our journalists' content and often do not compensate them. This needs to change and we will make these changes with our allies.

Online Streaming Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech with an aside once again. I am definitely making a habit of starting my speeches with an aside. I want to do this and I think everyone will be fine with it, because last Friday was graduates' day. In Quebec, we celebrated students graduating from high school, CEGEP, vocational school and other schools. We applauded their efforts and their determination at an important step in their studies. I therefore wanted to take a few moments to commend graduates in the riding of Drummond. I am thinking in particular of Elsa Darveau and Ève Turgeon, two young ladies that I adore. Back home, I want to applaud my stepson Christophe and his girlfriend Sophia who are also headed to CEGEP. I want to commend and congratulate everyone graduating in Quebec and Canada, and all those taking this big step in their studies.

I hope that this will be the last time we rise to speak to Bill C‑11. I am optimistic that it will be. We worked on Bill C‑10, we worked on Bill C‑11. It is time to pass this bill that our cultural and broadcasting industries have awaited for such a long time.

I must say that we put a lot of hours into Bill C‑10 after it was introduced in 2020. The spotlight was on us, as members of Parliament, and we were being congratulated and patted on the back by our colleagues and others, but there is a whole team working behind the scenes. I want to acknowledge my support team, which did extraordinary work during our study of Bill C‑10 last year and during our study of Bill C‑11 now before us.

I especially want to thank my assistant Mélissa, who did an amazing job planning more than 60 meetings with stakeholders from all across the industry and who worked non-stop to prepare for the committees. She did an amazing job. I thank my friend Éric, who contributed his thoughts and experience, our research friends, Michael and Vincent, and the whip's team, Paul, Marie-Christine and Charles.

I want to say a special thank you to my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is here in the House today. Last year, she held meetings on Bill C-10, and she put in a lot of effort. It was a bill that she cared a lot about. I imagine she is pleased today to see that Bill C-11 will be passed. She was a singer in a former life. Actually, that is not true. She will always be a singer. In fact, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the opportunity to benefit from her talents at just about every meeting. I think this bill was particularly close to her heart because she has made a living from singing and she knows how important the Broadcasting Act is to the entire cultural industry. I therefore thank my colleague for her wonderful help.

I feel like I am giving a thank-you speech at an awards ceremony, but I think it is important. I hope others will follow suit.

I also want to say a big thank you to the interpreters, the committee staff, and the clerks' office staff, who do an absolutely incredible job, always behind the scenes. Without them, I do not think we would be able to get anything done. I want to sincerely thank them as well.

With that, I want to focus on a number of very important things that were added to Bill C‑10, which I spoke about earlier. My pet analogy is that Bill C‑10, as introduced on November 3, 2020, was like a blank paint-by-number. The numbers were there, but they were in need of paint to fill in the structure and content of a bill that was lacking on both fronts.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary talked about Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11 as though they were essentially one and the same. He is not completely wrong about that, but he should have said that it was actually the final version of Bill C‑10 as amended and the version of Bill C‑11 as introduced that were virtually the same. That is an important distinction because a lot of work was done on Bill C‑10. Specifically, a lot of work was done to take out significant sections of the Broadcasting Act, for example, paragraph 3(1)(a) on the Canadian ownership and control of broadcasting entities. Last year, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to Bill C‑10 to replace it with the following: “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and foreign broadcasting undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians”.

The wording has changed a bit in Bill C‑11. Without getting into it too much, we would have preferred the wording from Bill C‑10, but this is still an important amendment.

We often say that the Bloc Québécois put the protection of French back into the broadcasting bill. That is true, and it is in Bill C‑11 because we managed to add it to Bill C‑10. Here is what the new subparagraph 3(1)(i.1) says: “reflect and support Canada's linguistic duality by placing significant importance on the creation, production and broadcasting of original French language programs, including those from French linguistic minority communities”.

There is an important nuance here that I think is worth bearing in mind and repeating. The bill talks about “original French language programs”, not programs in French. If we had stuck with “programs in French”, as the bill seemed to suggest before we amended this clause, then content dubbed in French would have been given equal weight regardless of the original language. What we were calling for, and it was entirely legitimate for us to do so, was original French content, meaning broadcasting companies would be required to produce original content in the language of Molière, Vigneault, Leclerc, Lévesque and myself.

I am talking a lot about Bill C-10 because we added a few things to it, some of which also made their way into Bill C-11, so they have been discussed again.

One of them was the issue of discoverability, which really got people talking. It has become quite hackneyed and used to spread appalling misinformation. I talked about discoverability in the House last week, and I think it is pretty straightforward as a concept. It aims to ensure that local content is promoted, easy to find and available on any broadcasting platform.

I cannot imagine anyone thinking to themselves that, yes, we produce great content but that we need to make sure that no one can find it, so as not to completely confuse the algorithms of the big foreign companies, which will stop liking us.

I was elected by Quebec voters, who want me to protect their interests. I was not elected by multinational corporations that are based abroad and who report virtually no revenue, pay virtually no taxes and contribute virtually nothing to our broadcasting system and our cultural industry in Canada.

I therefore have no problem imposing discoverability requirements on these businesses, because I find that it makes sense. I find it contemptible that this requirement has caused so much outrage and been used as justification by those who claim that this broadcasting bill essentially amounts to censorship.

Another very interesting addition made to last year's bill is the sunset clause. This emerged from the realization that the Broadcasting Act has not been updated, revised or amended for more than 30 years, and that if nothing were done, it would more than likely be quite some time before a new act were adopted or amendments made to the new Broadcasting Act.

Why would we not require a re-evaluation at specified times to make the necessary amendments and adjustments? That is one of the fine additions included in Bill C-10, and then in Bill C‑11, and it will require the House to review the Broadcasting Act every five years. If some things are not being done properly today, we will not have to wait 30 years to correct them.

Bill C‑11 has had quite a strange trajectory. We can agree that the process was a little messed up. In other words, it was short-circuited or neglected. I apologize; perhaps I could have used a better term.

It did not help that the Conservatives decided they were going to oppose the bill in any way they could, by filibustering during some very important meetings, even though the study process had already been planned out when the committee received the bill. In response, the government opted for a closure motion, which made it tough to talk about amendments and advocate for amendments.

This meant that the committee was not able to have the types of discussions it would normally have when amendments to bills are proposed. I think that the discussion can open members' minds. I wanted to hear my colleagues make arguments, even the ones I find far-fetched. In committee, we are meant to discuss, listen to what others say and keep an open mind. This is how we can amend Bill C‑11 as effectively as possible.

A few Bloc Québécois amendments were rejected. I think the main reason they were rejected is that we did not have the opportunity to explain them. There was no room for debate, particularly on the control we want to have over online companies, or rather the control we refuse to have over them.

It is unbelievable. When we tried to force American, Chinese and international companies, foreign companies, to hire Canadian and Quebec human resources, creative resources and talent as much as possible, I was told that it is impossible because the companies are already investing a lot of money. I was told that we cannot force them to hire locals because that would be too upsetting. That is what I was told. These companies and the web giants say that they are already contributing a lot and that it would be inconvenient if they were forced to use Canadian resources as much as possible. To that I say, they are always nibbling away at the advertising pie and taking the revenues for themselves.

I really want members to understand this. People in this flourishing industry are on the verge of switching careers. They no longer have an income, and media outlets are closing up shop, yet web giants tell us they do not want us to impose those kinds of constraints. Our doormat of a Canadian government lies down and has no problem letting them walk all over it.

I sincerely hope the government will take a somewhat firmer stance, especially when it comes to orders the CRTC can give. The CRTC does actually require good faith negotiations between the companies that create programs and those that distribute or broadcast them, and obviously that includes online platforms in our current system. That means the CRTC would need the tools to impose fair negotiation rules should good faith negotiations not happen. That idea was turned down too.

I was told it would not work, that the government could not give the CRTC tools to respond should negotiations not take place in good faith. That means big corporations will be able to walk all over our little-guy production companies and carry on exploiting our Quebec and Canadian content creators for profit.

Who might need these negotiations to be protected? Small programming businesses might need that, although many of them have grown. Consider APTN, for example. APTN's wonderful model is being emulated around the world. New Zealanders were inspired by what APTN has done in Canada and created a similar channel. CPAC is another example. I think everyone here is quite familiar with CPAC. We can also think of The Weather Network. These are all businesses that need this protection, but they are not getting it because we think that if we are too strict with online businesses, they will be angry. Do we really think they will go away because they are angry? They make billions of dollars.

Here is another thing that really frustrated me. We hear about balancing the market, making the market fair to ensure that our traditional broadcasting companies are not penalized in relation to online companies. In that regard, I am quite happy that the part II fees, which imposed significant and onerous financial conditions on licensed broadcasters, have been dropped. I think dropping these fees should really help them, or at least give them a little breathing room. However, the CRTC still cannot issue orders.

Let us talk about one of the amendments that I thought did not make much sense:

The [CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting...any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking that is required to be carried on under a licence.

I said that the idea of a licence should be removed because we want that to apply to online undertakings. However, that was rejected. People did not want that to apply to online undertakings. It is as though they were still scared of the big online company monster. It is as though they were afraid of stepping on the toes of the giant.

We are afraid to step on the toes of the giant, but that giant is crushing us and we are saying nothing about it. We think it is amusing because we can watch our movies and our shows. We do not even realize that our creators are starving.

Bill C‑11 will pass. The result of the vote will be close, but it will pass. I hope that the fears of those who have profusely expressed them will be allayed when they eventually realize that the “censorship” and “control” of what they envisioned are fabrications. These arguments are pure fearmongering and really have no merit. All the rambling that took place over the past few months and the Conservatives' systematic filibustering when Bill C‑11 was being studied in committee has only resulted in the postponement of important studies, such as that of bill C‑18.

More than 450 news businesses have closed their doors. This is a crisis. Because so much time has been wasted for unfounded ideological reasons, a slew of media outlets, including small regional media, are on the brink of closure, and I find that outrageous. I think that these people should show their frustration by pounding a table and making sure their MPs hear them. It is absurd that Bill C‑18 cannot be studied sooner and that we must wait until the fall to discuss this urgent matter.

Motions in Amendment

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑11 at report stage. Let me start by saying that this bill matters a lot to the Bloc Québécois and has since the last Parliament.

I spoke in favour of this bill in a speech last month. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from Drummond, who has devoted himself, body and soul, to this bill ever since its previous incarnation as Bill C‑10. He deserves every bit of the applause I am hearing right now.

I will begin my speech today with a reminder about how important Bill C‑11 is to the discoverability of francophone culture. I will move on to a reminder about the importance of local media, and I will wrap up with an expression of hope regarding the importance of fighting misinformation, which has had such an impact on this parliamentary session.

As I was drafting my speech, I came across the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The CDCE states that Bill C‑11, which updates the Broadcasting Act, is one of Canada's important and long-awaited cultural policies. On its website, the CDCE has what I think is a very good summary of the importance of Bill C‑11.

It ensures that Canadian creations and productions have a prominent place on our airwaves and on our screens, and that the companies generating revenues from access to culture in the music and audiovisual sectors contribute to their creation, development and distribution.

Canadians are increasingly accessing culture through online platforms. Much of the broadcasting ecosystem is transitioning to digital content. This has a number of benefits for the public and for creators: increased access to a variety of stories, music and ideas, increased opportunities for creators to launch their work, and renewed ability to reach audiences in Canada and around the world...

Many large corporations take advantage of this digital age without any obligation to contribute. Artists, creators, producers, publishers and other professionals of the music and audiovisual industries, as well as for Canadian society, do not reap the potential benefits of investment in the Canadian cultural ecosystem. C-11 was introduced to correct this unfairness.

Unfairness is indeed a problem.

The purpose of the new bill essentially remains the same as the previous one, namely to apply the Broadcasting Act to the web giants by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discovery of Canadian cultural content.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, will receive new powers that will allow it to determine which online services will have to be regulated and what quotas will need to be respected. Bill C‑11 will help better regulate video streamers such as Netflix, Apple and TV Plus, Disney+, Prime Video, but also companies that specialize in streaming music online such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music. The bill will require them to contribute to Canadian content when commercial items such as albums are downloaded and distributed on platforms.

However, the exclusion clause, namely clause 4.1, addressed earlier, has been revised. Now creators, users and social media influencers are exempt from the legislation. The money a creator earns from their content is immaterial in the eyes of the new legislation. So‑called amateur content on social media would be exempt. The legislation focuses specifically on commercial products.

The level of monetization of the use of content in full or in part by a broadcasting undertaking regulated by the CRTC will, among other things, be taken into consideration. The CRTC will also have the option to impose conditions associated with discoverability and the development of Canadian content.

The bill will not touch the algorithms that can influence the recommendations made to users, and that is very important. The Department of Canadian Heritage says it wants to focus on discoverability outcomes and not intervene directly with respect to web giants' algorithms. There are still questions to be asked, for example, on whether the two are not already intertwined and whether greater discoverability of Canadian and francophone content is necessarily dependent on algorithms.

In our case, it is the outcome that counts. Quebec, francophone and Canadian content must be much more accessible on platforms. Ottawa is trying to give the CRTC the power to hold discussions with each of the digital companies to determine how much they should contribute to Canadian content based on their business model. The CRTC will be able to impose administrative and monetary penalties on those digital broadcasters that refuse to comply with the Broadcasting Act.

Finally, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is proposing other legislative changes in his bill that will apply to all broadcasters, traditional or otherwise. The law should also strengthen programs produced by Canadians that cover news and current events—from the local and regional to the national and international—and that reflect the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of indigenous persons and of Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.

After everything we just talked about with regard to this legislation, I also want to mention the gains that the Bloc Québécois was able to secure with Bill C-11.

The Bloc Québécois did a lot to improve the previous version of the bill, namely Bill C-10, by ensuring the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content, including French-language original content, in an equitable proportion; the promotion of original Canadian content in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system if a company is unable to make use of Canadian resources as part of its programming; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example, and not old ones; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.

This is very important, because we will thoroughly review C‑11 and meet with the various industry stakeholders and experts to get a sense of what is happening in the industry. We will have to keep evolving this law. We will not hesitate to try to improve it, if necessary, and we will surely propose again many of the hundreds of amendments that were rejected in the spring. Some of our proposals would have made improvements for local, community and independent players, for example.

We have to keep in mind we want a piece of legislation that will not be obsolete as soon as it is passed. Technology is developing very quickly, and we need a long-term vision to ensure that the act does not become outdated after just a few years. Flexible legislation is important, especially since Quebec's and Canada's cultural sectors have been waiting for decades for this act to be updated.

The cultural sector made a simple demand just a few days after Bill C‑11 was introduced. We need to ensure that this bill is passed quickly. The sector has waited long enough.

In May 2021, on Tout le monde en parle, even the former minister of Canadian Heritage said that every month that goes by without us enacting Bill C-10, now Bill C-11, represents more than $70 million that does not go to our artists in Quebec and Canada.

Second, do not forget that, like Bill C-18, which specifically focuses on assistance to print media and is based on the Australian model, Bill C-11 also fits into the context of this media crisis.

Since their inception, Facebook, Twitter and Google have been appropriating news articles and reports without giving any compensation to the authors or the media outlets concerned. For too many years, the digital giants have therefore been instrumental in dismantling our traditional media. This phenomenon began with national advertisers deserting traditional media for Facebook and Google, later followed by local advertisers, who also stopped buying advertising in local weeklies in favour of the giants.

Advertising on digital platforms is now the property of Google and Facebook, which alone are pocketing 80% of online ad revenue. Moreover, digital giants pay nothing for journalistic content that ends up on their platform, and they disregard the copyright of journalists whose work others share on social media.

Third, I really want to talk about misinformation, especially since there has been so much of it in connection with Bill C‑11: cat videos that will not be allowed to circulate, freedom of expression denied and information controlled, like in Russia. I have heard so many shocking things during the debates on this issue.

Just this week, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed concerns about the impact of misinformation on the health of our democratic institutions. He pointed to the demonstration in downtown Ottawa that paralyzed the city for three weeks, but he emphasized the importance of our shared responsibility to fight ignorance and hatred, which lead to misinformation. He expressed one wish for people in positions of authority, such as ourselves, namely that we pay more attention to the statements we make and their veracity.

I also replaced a colleague at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its deliberations on radicalization and online hate. We cannot continue to ignore our role as elected representatives in the deterioration of public discourse on topics like Bill C-11 and in the divisiveness that exists. I hope to see this place debating a bill to address online hate sooner rather than later.

As a final point, I do not know whether this will be my last speech of the session, so I want to remind everyone listening of my unwavering commitment to the people of Shefford. I always keep in mind that I am accountable to my constituents, first and foremost, and, in this case, I am thinking of our local media in particular. I want nothing but the very best for the people of my region who have a right to access francophone cultural products, and for our artists, who have such an important and vibrant presence in our communities. They have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, so they need some good news. Let us do something for them and pass Bill C-11.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a big challenge to give a brief answer. I will try nonetheless.

I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments and his question.

I cannot answer the question about the Conservatives' motives. I believe that it may be ideological obstruction. However, it must be said that these delays in the work on Bill C‑11 have consequences for more than just Bill C‑11. These stalling tactics are causing delays for important bills, such as Bill C‑18, which must soon be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. There are also consequences on other very important studies that we decided to put forward.

Unfortunately, I do not have an answer, but I would say that it has consequences for more than just Bill C‑11.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get a better grasp of the question. It seems to relate to Bill C-18 on news content, the bill that will force web giants and traditional media to negotiate together and ensure that compensation is provided for the content used and paid for by traditional media.

I saw somewhere in Bill C‑11 that schools, for example, do not have to worry because they are exempt. I believe, although I am not certain, that this does not really have to do with community media.

Another clause in the bill states that it will not apply to a service that is too small. The CRTC will not have time to regulate the thousands of websites belonging to creators. Let us face it, the CRTC does not have the capacity to regulate all of that.

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

I'd like to jump on that, but because I'm seeing so much paper come in in the last two days, it tells me, around this table, we haven't done a very good job on Bill C-11 and that disturbs me.

I still haven't heard from APTN and diverse voices. We've heard from how many groups on diverse voices on Bill C-11 that will be affected? We've heard from two. We haven't heard from the national carrier for the indigenous. They haven't submitted anything. You've had it on your witness list. I think we even had it on our witness list.

I think we need to hear from the diverse voices around Bill C-11. That would give us some time to look through the 20 submissions in the last two days and see if we have any others because of commercial content, because of the billion dollars. Then we can come back next week and we can submit our amendments to Bill C-11. How's that?

We need time because here are 20...and I've had commercial content, which is not in the bill. People are wondering what that's all about and I can't answer them on that. The minister couldn't really answer it. He talked about commercial content. We've asked him about it, but the minister couldn't identify what commercial content is when it doesn't even show up in the bill.

If we're going to do both of these.... I think we have two weeks left, Madam Chair, until the 23rd, and we can get it in. We can have Hockey Canada Monday and Wednesday and have our submissions after that. We can put it in on Wednesday or Thursday next week, and we can move ahead and do Bill C-11 properly. We've been here for four or five months now dealing with it. I think the government would agree we should not proceed with Bill C-18 at this point because we've not even done Bill C-11 right now. I say Bill C-18 because I thought the minister in his testimony on Monday got both bills confused. I just felt that we needed to buckle down.

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for all your support on Hockey Canada. I think it's much needed in this country for everybody who wants to play for Team Canada, men and women. I think we need to go ahead with that.

I agree one hundred per cent but at the same time, because we're dealing with Bill C-11 and so many submissions, I would like to have a little more time to get the submissions from people who have reached out to my office, in particular about commercial content. I can't answer them on that and I'm not sure you can answer them, Madam Chair, or anyone around here, because commercial content does not appear in Bill C-11.

How do I answer that when the minister couldn't answer that on Monday? That's why I'm a little reluctant to move on with Bill C-11, when I heard some stories coming out of Monday's meeting from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his official Mr. Ripley.... In moving from $830 million to $1 billion, where does that come from? He mentioned YouTube once, so I'd like to know where the extra $170 million is coming from. Bill C-10 had $830 million and we've gone to $1 billion.

When I asked that question on Monday it was like, where did that number come from? I'm not sure we got the answer for that. I am hearing from stakeholders who want to know a little more information on the commercial content and I'm hearing about the $1 billion, about how the government is going to get a billion dollars out of Bill C-11 and what they are going to do with that. I think we need a little more time to flesh that out, if you don't mind, in the committee. I'm not filibustering here—

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-14

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really wish he had just stopped after the first part of his question, because I thought it was just great. I look forward to being back in the House so we can do this in person.

To the member's question, why are the Conservatives against Bill C-18? The Conservatives will not let Bill C-18 be discussed in the House of Commons. Bill C-18 is about ensuring that news organizations are properly taken care of in this country. It is a bill that has content in it that was in the Conservative Party's platform in the election. I want to work together with the Conservatives, and I want to work with that member, but I cannot even seem to have a working relationship with them on issues that they, in the election, said they supported.

I encourage the member to find an issue we can work together on, as common as Bill C-18 appeared to be. Let us talk about how we can do that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I participate in the debate today having really hoped that this would have been about the subject that was supposed to be debated. Once in a parliamentary cycle we have a unique opportunity to talk about the parliamentary procedure of the House and ways we could look at improving upon it. At least within the Liberal caucus, we have had a number of opportunities to talk about that, bringing forward ideas and discussing them among ourselves. It certainly would have been a great opportunity to have done that in the House with everyone else.

I realize that some members have been inadvertently sneaking some of that into their speeches, as the last two Conservatives did, and I get that, but it would have been better to have had the opportunity to really do this. Instead, what we have before us is a motion of instruction that has been put forward by the Bloc Québécois. Most MPs probably had not even heard of a motion of instruction until two days ago when the Conservatives did it randomly, out of nowhere, and now we have the Bloc Québécois doing it. I cannot help but wonder if perhaps it saw what the Conservatives did two days ago and thought it was another good way to interfere with the business of the House. Perhaps it does not see the importance of needing to discuss the procedural items of the House.

Nonetheless, I will start off by commenting on a couple of things that I just recently heard. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said a couple of things that really resonated with me. One of those things was when he spoke about quorum calls. I know he has risen in the House on a couple of occasions to object to the use of a motion passed by the House to eliminate quorum calls at certain parts of the day through Motion No. 11. He seemed to suggest that there is a constitutional issue there that could rule that legislation unacceptable, inadmissible or out of order, whatever the term might be.

However, the reality of the situation is that we routinely pass motions, usually unanimous consent motions, that prevent members from making quorum calls whenever we go into the evening. Whether we do that through a unanimous consent motion or an actual motion with a recorded vote, I do not think there is any difference at all. Whether everybody agrees to it or a majority agrees to it, the precedent has been set, and the precedent is well entrenched within the House that we have the opportunity to put forward a procedural rule to prevent those quorum calls from being made. I am pretty sure the Conservatives realize that too, even though the member brought it up a couple of times.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot also said something that I found very interesting about democracy being ineffective and was not able to fully function during the pandemic. I think he said people were hiding behind computer screens. I guess that is just in line with what we have heard from Conservatives over the last two years. They have never really taken the pandemic seriously. They have always been about three steps behind everybody else when it comes to what we should be doing. They were always the last ones to put on masks. They were the last ones to adopt the need for vaccines. They were the last ones to get vaccines. They were the last ones in every regard as it related to the pandemic, so I am not surprised about that, but I will say that democracy worked very well during the pandemic if anyone asks me, particularly in the beginning of the pandemic when members of the House of Commons came together and unanimously passed a number of measures to take care of Canadians.

We have procedures that set out how we have to do things in the House, and coming into the House of Commons in the numbers that we did, based on the arrangements that we made with the various House leaders to ensure safety or make that as safe as possible, is something that we did. We were able to put money in the bank accounts of Canadians within five weeks of the World Health Organization declaring a global pandemic. If nothing else can say that democracy worked during the pandemic, I suggest that would be it.

I realize the Conservatives will, for a very long time into the future, make the suggestion that democracy is failing because we are looking at new ways of doing things and are not stuck in the stone age. They can argue that to their hearts' content, but I think the vast majority of people would see otherwise.

Here we are with this motion of instruction from the Bloc Québécois. What I find very interesting about it is that it already had an opposition day motion on this exact issue. It clearly was not happy with the outcome because it was not in its favour, so rather than accept defeat and move on, it has decided it will jam up a day of House time and put forward this motion of instruction, which will basically rehash everything we have already attempted to do.

My understanding, and I could be wrong, from having listened to some of what I have heard come from the Conservatives today, is it appears as though they might be willing to support this to go to committee, but after that they may or may not support it. It is almost as though the Conservatives and the Bloc have got together and decided they will collectively attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House. That is what I am seeing here today.

When we look back to just a few months ago when the member for Durham was still the Conservative leader, it was a completely different Bloc Québécois, but as soon as he left something happened. Things changed in the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois suddenly started to become a lot more cozy with the Conservatives. It was right at that time when the member for Durham was kicked out, and it was becoming obvious that the member for Carleton was going to become the new leader. Suddenly, the posture within the House of Commons changed and the Bloc Québécois was trying to align itself with, or at least not be as aggressively against, the Conservatives, and I cannot help but wonder why. I have hypothesized on it before in the House, and I will save it from my doing that again, but I find it interesting that here we are seeing the exact same kind of thing happen with the Bloc Québécois now.

It has put forward a motion that basically states that Quebec will always have 25% of the elected seats throughout Canada. While this work is at committee, it is basically telling the committee how to do its job. The Bloc already tried to do this through an opposition day motion, but were unsuccessful, yet here we are, and it is trying to ram it through again. I think it is extremely unfortunate that it cannot accept the fact that it has lost the battle and is looking for an opportunity to rehash it.

I also find it extremely regrettablefor the reasons I stated at the beginning. Today was supposed to be a very special day to discuss the procedures of the House. Unfortunately, it now looks as though that will not happen, and we will not be able to. I can tell from what the Conservative colleagues who spoke before me said that they had things they wanted to talk very passionately about with respect to this, but they were not able to do so, or at least not in the context in which they should have had the opportunity to do that.

As it relates to what the Bloc Québécois is looking for specifically, it talks about arbitrarily ensuring that, regardless of what happens, Quebec gets 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. The reality is that we have a process in place that determines the number of seats to be distributed based on population and geography. That process exists and that is the process that is followed every 10 years when it comes to redistribution. I think it is clear the House has determined that Quebec should not ever lose any seats and, as a result, work can be done to ensure that does not happen, but what is missing from all of this is the fact that Quebeckers have not had an opportunity to speak to this yet, which is part of the process.

Quebeckers should have the right to speak to this, and they should have that opportunity now, when this is going to committee, but instead we see the Bloc members trying to come forward and circumvent the work that would have been done by the committee to get that public consultation and that feedback during committee, and trying to arbitrarily impose their own wishes. Quite frankly, that is not how our democratic process works.

This bill is extremely important, but the most important thing right now as it relates to the bill is that the people get to speak. What is important here is people and public input, not politicians. Unfortunately, what we have seen the Bloc Québécois do is make this all about the politicians. The politicians in the Bloc Québécois seemingly know better and are not interested in hearing what the people of Quebec actually want to say and allowing them to have their input into this.

As this process continues, as the redistribution process is upon us now, what always happens at this point is that every 10 years we go out and try to engage in these conversations. We have the elections office do its work in the beginning. We can give some preliminary directions, such as that Quebec does not lose any seats, but otherwise from that point forward it is important that we allow that process to occur. It appears as though we have just completely abandoned that and there is no longer an interest in allowing that to happen.

When I think about how we should be moving forward on this, the best thing to do now is to allow the committee to do its work and solicit public input, to let people have the opportunity to have their say and inform the decisions, and to allow the Bloc member on that committee to ask similar questions. Then, based on the feedback that Bloc members receive at committee, they can put forward all the recommendations to their heart's content. What they should not be doing is trying to interject at this stage and insist on something that, quite frankly, the House has already dealt with.

As I indicated earlier, we had an opposition day motion that was basically on this exact same subject matter. The Bloc members had the entire day to speak about it. They put up speaker after speaker. Nobody from the government and nobody from the opposition moved motions during the routine proceedings. We allowed the debate to happen, and at the end of the day we voted on it. Although the outcome of that vote was not what the Bloc particularly wanted it to be, the outcome was the outcome. It was over and that was it. The Bloc members should accept the democratic process. They should accept the fact that they lost that vote and, most importantly, that the rest of the House allowed the democratic process to happen that day.

However, what we are seeing today is the exact opposite. It is not really even a government bill today. The House has a regular opportunity, once in a parliamentary session, to discuss the procedural elements of the House and the procedure of the House, and the Bloc should have done the right thing and allowed democracy to occur and members to have their say on how the House functions, just as the government and the other opposition parties did on their opposition day, but the Bloc members did not do that. Instead, they said they are going to ruin the day for everybody else and insist on having a debate about something they already debated and they already lost.

I have said many times in the House that I get frustrated with the obstructionist nature of the way things seem to be unfolding in the House lately. I see it quite often. I usually see it from the Conservatives, and now we are seeing it from the Bloc, which is doing the exact same thing. I think it is extremely unnecessary.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, in his speech, talked about the need to be able to slow down. I agree with him. The most important tool that any opposition has, especially Her Majesty's loyal opposition, is the ability to slow things down. The opposition can force marathon votes, and we have seen it force voting for up to 30 hours, non-stop. It can filibuster on various issues, which we have seen the Conservatives do in the past. Those are tools to slow things down.

However, I would suggest to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that the Conservatives should pick their battles. They should determine what issues they are willing to die on, for lack of a better expression, and then they should use those opportunities to slow Parliament down because it means something to them. They should not do it at every single opportunity, but that is exactly what they do.

Bill C-18 is a bill that has in it an election commitment from the Conservatives, and they are slowing that down. That was not the intent of giving those rules to the opposition to slow things down. It is not what it was meant for. It was not meant for the opposition to be able, without regard for anything whatsoever, to just try to put the brakes on, full stop, without any regard for anything, but that is what the Conservatives are doing.

I agree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that having the ability to slow things down is important, but I would suggest to him that the Conservatives should pick their battles and decide what issues are the most important to them. At least then, when they do try to put the brakes on, people would pay attention and say that if they are putting the brakes on, it must be important. Instead, the public are just rolling their eyes and saying that the Conservatives are doing it again, just for any old reason, just refusing to let anything pass through the House.

In any event, those are my thoughts on the matter. I have been speaking for almost 20 minutes now, and I have been given the two-minute warning. I will say that it is a much more enjoyable experience doing this virtually. I cannot hear a single heckle, and I have not given a speech in the House without a heckle in a long time. It could have very well been happening, but I just had no idea. Maybe I should try this more often, because at least it allows me to collect my thoughts a lot more easily.

[Marla Boltman, Executive Director, FRIENDS]

Thank you. I'm going to switch to good evening now, Madam Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.

I've had the pleasure of meeting some of you in advance of this bill's arrival at committee but for those I have not met, my name, again, is Marla Boltman, and I am the new executive director of Friends.

We have over 360,000 supporters, Canadian citizens from coast to coast to coast, who stand up proudly for Canadian culture in film, in TV, in music and in journalism, really in every space and place we can share our stories at home and abroad.

While I am new to the organization, I bring with me both a content production and entertainment law background, which for more than 20 years I have used to help advance the interests of those working in the Canadian cultural industries.

The last time my organization appeared before you to talk about Bill C-10 our name was Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Today we are more simply called Friends. This is quite fitting because I'm not just here to talk about broadcasting. I'm also here as a friend of Canadian storytelling and Canadian cultural sovereignty, both of which will be affected by the work of this committee when this bill is adopted. I say “when” because I want to clearly and unequivocally state that, while it's not perfect, we support the adoption of Bill C-11 and believe it can be improved with some minor amendments.

One of the bill's imperfections lies in its silence when it comes to addressing the CBC's mandate. We are very disappointed by this, but a conversation about the modernization of our nation's public broadcaster clearly requires more singular attention, something that the government has committed to doing via Bill C-18, which we welcome.

In the meantime, I don't want to use these few minutes to give those who would like to see this legislation stalled any more reasons to pause, to prevaricate, to do nothing, because if we do nothing, how our stories are told, who gets to tell them and how Canadian audiences access these stories will all be decisions made by foreign tech giants, billion-dollar companies who have effectively been crashing on our cultural couch for almost a decade, paying nothing toward the structures and systems that allow Canadians to tell their own stories.

With the adoption of Bill C-11 we, as a country, will finally send a long-overdue notice to these foreign tech giants that their rent is due, but we cannot stop there. Bill C-11 must prioritize Canadian ownership and control of our broadcasting system as well as the content created to serve it. If it does not, these companies will not be paying us fair rent for the use of our home. Rather, their contributions may simply amount to a down payment on a broadcasting system that they could potentially own and control.

Our amendment to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), jointly submitted with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, is meant to address this ownership and control issue. As currently drafted, the language in proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) is a massive retreat of Canadian public policy. If we don't support our own media and preference over foreign media, then we are ultimately relegating ourselves to having no Canadian media at all.

We need only look to the decimation of the Canadian local news sector for a preview of what is to come if we do not take care of our media institutions, which is why support for Friends' amendment to proposed subsection 11.1(1), dealing with expenditure requirements, can lay the foundation for a stronger, more viable local broadcast news sector. It would help ensure that the cuts we've seen to local print outlets across Canada do not start coming to local radio and TV and that broadcasters have the resources to maintain quality local coverage.

In closing, I would like to remind this committee that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act isn't just about protecting industry and jobs. It's what Canadians want, Canadians who have sent a clear message to Ottawa that streaming platforms should contribute to Canadian storytelling and reflect our stories back to us. They think this is fair and we agree.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this incredibly important matter.

I am happy to answer any questions you have.

[Pierre Karl Péladeau]

That's a very good question, Mr. Champoux.

Indeed, I raised this point because it is the one that seems most obvious to us. However, I think that we must also consider the whole ecosystem. It is important to emphasize this more and more. We must not think that Canadian broadcasters have fallen behind.

As I'm sure you know, on our side, like our Canadian competitors, we have invested in online viewing, the so‑called streaming. For over 10 years now, Club illico has been offering extremely important series in terms of investment.

There is a lot of discussion right now about Canadian content. I can assure you that all the series that are made here are made with Canadian actors, film crews and directors, in Canadian locations, and that they are broadcast by Canadian companies whose majority of shareholders are Canadian. We will continue to do the same.

We have to look at this issue as a whole. I know that you will soon be discussing Bill C-18, because it's part of a whole. Advertising revenues are important, since they are the only source of revenue for general broadcasters. If they disappear, all those resources will no longer be available for all television production, be it series production or news programming.

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

I mentioned that because the old broadcasting has changed. When I look at the head of the CRTC—and it's very difficult right now with the Internet and everything going on with Bill C-11 and then Bill C-18, which I talked to you about the last time, on May 24—I don't know what that person looks like. Do you or anyone in your department make any recommendations to the minister?

This new chair of the CRTC will be visionary. It's not that you aren't, but this one—if you don't mind my saying—will have to have a little more on the plate to deal with the Internet situation and YouTube and all that we've been talking about here for the last six months. It will be a difficult position to fill.

Online News Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C‑18.

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

The House resumed from May 30 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Yes. I'm worried about Bill C‑11, but I'm more worried about Bill C‑18. As you know, because you were there, you had no business in newspapers. The CRTC will now be chosen to pick winners and losers, but that's for another battle with Facebook and Google.

What recommendations would you make, because you were on the CRTC for five years, that would give us, let's say, some confidence that it is capable to deal with Bill C‑11? Is there anything you can point out so that it would listen, as we are today, and take heed of an experienced person like yourself? Perhaps we can look forward to a couple of suggestions that would provide us with at least a bit of confidence in the CRTC.

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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I say that they like to call themselves that because they want to assume the role, but they do not know how to do it. It is a pretty basics politics 101 course to figure out what the job of the opposition is. It is not to put up roadblocks and to prevent things from coming through.

There was another really interesting part that came out of the previous debate with the member for Regina—Lewvan. When I asked him if it was not his job to make policy better and said that all he was doing was putting up roadblocks to stop legislation from getting through, his response to that was that they could not let bad legislation go through. That is not how it works.

They are entitled to their opinion on the legislation. They are entitled to put forward their ideas. They are entitled to try to make the legislation better, but at the end of the day, the way that democracy works is that, if the majority does not agree with them, then we move on. That is how democracy works. However, the Conservatives do not know what the role is in the House. Their role is not to be obstructionist and to put up a roadblock in front of every single issue. Their role is to come forward and to propose ideas, and to try to convince others, a majority in the House, that their idea is better, and to advance that objective.

As I said earlier, the irony here is that the issue we are talking about right now, Bill C-18, the one the government has tabled to actually discuss, the one the Conservatives keep filibustering, is an issue that they ran on in the election. It is an issue that they support. Even the issues the Conservatives support, they are refusing to let move through.

I find it extremely—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, finally the member for Barrie—Innisfil has informed Canadians that he is leading the Conservative Party of Canada. It certainly is interesting to know that because Canadians have been wondering, as have I and so many other people, but to know that the member for Barrie—Innisfil is now the de facto leader of the Conservative Party of Canada truly is eye-opening and refreshing. It certainly would explain the hostile nature of the House and the way it is deliberating.

Back to my point, the job of the House leader for the Conservative Party, the official opposition House leader, is to coordinate his MPs to make sure they play a constructive role in developing better policy for Canadians, which will impact their lives and make their lives better, and the one policy we want to talk about so much is a policy that they ran on in the last election. They ran on the supports in Bill C-18, but they were not interested in—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, here we are again, and it is ironic that the last question we heard from the House leader was about not having an opportunity to debate issues. We just went through the process of listening to a concurrence debate for three straight hours in the House, for nothing more than for Conservatives to prevent any form of legislation coming through and being adopted by the House.

What were we supposed to talk about today? I realize we only have a few short minutes remaining in our official day today. What were we supposed to debate today? It was Bill C-18, a bill that the Conservatives, at least in their election platform, support. It is an idea that they brought forward and that they ran on. They were interested in helping independent small news organizations throughout the country when it was an election. Once they were elected but realized they were not going to form government, they suddenly no longer had an interest in advancing this objective for Canadians.

I hope that Canadians are watching this today, because they are now seeing not one but two motions introduced into the House for no reason other than to purposely obstruct the business of the House and to make sure that debate on Bill C-18 cannot continue today, which is just remarkably ironic. The irony is literally oozing through this place right now, after the member for Barrie—Innisfil just stood up and asked his deputy, “Oh, tell me more about why it is we do not have the opportunity to debate in the House. Why are they rushing through all this legislation? Tell us how important it is, deputy.”

What was his response? His response was, “Oh yes, what an incredible question the opposition House leader just had there. He hit the nail on the head. Are we not all so great?”

Do we see what is going on here? I hope that Canadians are tuned in to this today, because what we are seeing is, time after time, Conservatives obstructing any way possible to get any legislation through the House.

They are laughing right now, but we are talking about a piece of legislation that they put forward in their election platform. They ran on it, and now that it is before the House, an opportunity to pass a piece of legislation that everybody will agree on because it is in the best interest of Canadians, what are they doing? Routinely—

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, I want to rise on this point because I think this debate on an ethics concurrence motion is, of course, an effort at time-wasting, but some of the issues are substantive.

I never really had an opportunity to comment on what I made of the WE Charity scandal. Having attended meetings at finance committee, and having watched the Prime Minister's testimony and the testimony of his chief of staff, I came to the conclusion, for what it is worth, that the Prime Minister's Office did not politically interfere in this at all. It was Rachel Wernick, as a chief public civil servant, discovering that the Prime Minister's favourite pet project to deliver the program for youth was not yet up and running, and civil servants who I think were embarrassed to tell the Prime Minister that the youth service corps was not up and running, who scrambled to find something to cover for an announcement that had already been made. It was the civil servants who came up with the WE Charity as a possible way to deliver the program. That was my conclusion from watching the evidence.

However, I still think we should have been able to get to the bottom of it so all Canadians would have some assurance that we knew what this was. Also, the fact that it got called the “We Charity scandal” points to some other issues that I think are important, and one of them is that we really do need to amend, reform and modernized Canada's charity laws.

This is a roundabout way of saying that I had some thoughts on the matter, but I have never had a chance to get them on the record, and for that I thank the Conservatives for raising this concurrence debate. However, my thanks are rather overwhelmed by my frustrations that we are not debating Bill C-18.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I hope those who tune in to the goings-on of the House recognize that normally when a government member gives a speech, it is very rare that they receive a question from another government member. However, importantly, the very first question is coming from a government member. Where are the Conservatives to ask me questions right now?

This goes back to the point that, if the Conservatives are so interested in this motion they have put forward, why are they not participating in the debate? Conservatives should have had the first question, and they never asked me a question, yet they put forward this motion today because they are so passionate about the issue. I think it proves my point that they are not interested in anything other than just being obstructionist and burning three hours off the clock, which is what we have seen today.

To the member's question, Bill C-18 is a bill that would help many smaller news organizations, in particular. I think of the Kingstonist in my riding, which is a news organization that started from a grassroots level and has slowly worked its way up. It does not have the ability or the reach to compete with some of these other organizations, but it is very good at reporting on the facts. Very rarely will we know the opinion of a reporter at the Kingstonist. It is reporting on the facts, and we need that now more than ever. We need information that is based purely on fact to be provided to the public so the public can make their own decisions as to how they feel about an issue and not be influenced by a pundit's opinion or objective on one thing or another.

Bill C-18 is incredibly important because it would provide the resources to make sure that smaller news organizations, such as the Kingstonist in my riding, will have the opportunity to continue to do the very important work that they do.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks from my colleague. One of the things that comes to mind when he talks about the Conservative Party's motivating factor is that this issue was part of an election platform for us back in September, but we were not unique. All political parties recognized how important it was that we take on these tech giants in order to ensure that we have an industry that is so critical to Canada's democracy, along with issues such as jobs.

It is an industry that we need to protect. It seemed back in September that all political parties recognized that fact. Now we have a government that is fulfilling one of many other election commitments. This particular debate that we were supposed to be having today on Bill C-18 was to deal with being there in a very real and tangible way to protect our news agencies, to ensure that we are levelling the field and ultimately ensuring fairer compensation so that we would have more fact-based news and protect our democracy and so many other things.

Could the member speculate as to why he believes the Conservatives are now putting up such a roadblock, when back in September they seemed to support the principle behind it?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling me now. I can always tell when I hit a nerve. I can always tell when the truth is starting to sink in. When someone is calling them out, we can tell, because that is when they start to heckle, and that is exactly what they are doing right now.

When it comes back to this particular report and the committee work that was done, Liberals did participate in this committee at the time. They participated in the committee. They helped studies with the witnesses. They helped to create their own recommendations. I know that three recommendations that came from the Liberal benches, which I do not see in the same form in the report, were never adopted. I would like to read out what those recommendations were.

The recommendations from the Liberal members do not mention individuals' names or look to berate people. They look to set and develop policy. The recommendations, which were in the dissenting report, were that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct, at an earliest opportunity, a full statutory review of the Conflict of Interest Act with appropriate recommendations.

It seems like a legitimate thing to do. It seems like a legitimate thing to do from a policy perspective if we are is generally interested in trying to fix perceived flaws in our system. That is what we would do, not talk about all these recommendations that they have in here referencing the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's wife and various other people, as well as how certain information needs to be turned over immediately. The reason I say that is that colleagues will recall that the Ethics Commissioner was already doing his own study on this issue.

Everything that the committee was demanding in the form of recommendations through this study was for no purpose other than to grandstand and put all the dirty laundry of everybody out in public, regardless of what their involvement was. They are attempts to do that. That is all this was. We know that is because the Ethics Commissioner is not going to do this to the same degree as the official opposition wanted the committee to do it. That is all they are interested in.

The Ethics Commissioner was already investigating this, and it was as if the committee said, “No, no; we're better at this. We should do all this work instead of the individual who has been hired to do this in a fair, non-partisan, unbiased way.” That is exactly why this report has been tabled again.

As I mentioned previously, this is not a report generated by this particular Parliament at the ethics committee that sits now, but one from the previous Parliament. They basically just grabbed the report and retabled it so that the Conservatives could continually do this over and over and over.

The second recommendation that the Liberals put forward in that dissenting report was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct at the earliest opportunity a full statutory review of the Lobbying Act, with appropriate recommendations.

Again looking at it from a policy perspective, the Liberals were saying that they recognize there is concern out there, that it is possible there are flaws out there, and that this is how they would address it. They would look at the Conflict of Interest Act and look at the Lobbying Act and at ways to make them better and strengthen them. That is what proper policy from a committee should look like, not these arbitrary demands that are being made by the opposition for no purpose other than to try to shame individuals and try to keep a scandal going as long as they possibly can. That is all they were interested in.

The third and final recommendation made by the Liberal members in the dissenting report was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics refrain from conducting parallel investigations with any independent office into the conduct of members of Parliament, either directly or by proxy.

That last recommendation was the Liberal members saying, “Hold on a second, as this ethics investigation is already ongoing by the individual who has been appointed to look into this stuff. Maybe it is not a good idea that we do this at the same time.” It would be the equivalent of a judge reviewing a case in court while a parliamentary committee is trying to do the exact same thing on the side. They are trying to influence it. They are trying to highlight and bring everything possible to the surface so that they can try to attack individuals and personalities. They do this time after time.

This brings me back to where I started in the five minutes I have remaining. What we are seeing here today is part of a pattern. It is part of a pattern that has been developed lately by the Conservative Party of Canada, a pattern of continually trying to put up any possible roadblocks. They are moving concurrence on a report that a committee in this Parliament did not even write. They are not even doing the work before trying to move the motion here. They are just grabbing a report from the last Parliament and retabling it here so that they can move concurrence on it. We are seeing this time and time again.

As indicated by the member for Winnipeg North on a number of occasions, the Conservatives have complained, saying they want debate, that they want to debate the issue. They say, “Why won't you let us debate these very important pieces of legislation?”

Then the government says, “Good point. Maybe we do need some more time to debate.” Motion No. 11 comes along, basically saying, “Let us sit later into the evening.” What did the Conservatives do? They tried to filibuster that. We had to move closure on that motion, the motion to try to set our work schedule. That is how incredibly obstructionist they have been.

Earlier today we saw a Conservative member stand up and move an amendment to the concurrence motion. He was just trying to create another vote. He was trying to burn more time. That is what is happening over and over in here. This is not about actually debating policy.

If Conservatives wanted to debate policy today and had a genuine interest in advancing the objectives of Canadians, they would be debating Bill C-18, something we know they care about because it was in their platform, and something they had said they are pushing forward on.

However, it appears as though the Conservatives are only interested in moving it forward if they form government. As we saw, they put it in their election platform and they ran on it. We get here and say, “Let us bring this idea forward.” It should be a fairly easy one to get through, because we know the Conservatives support it, but every single time we bring it up in this House, they put up a roadblock like this to prevent us from actually talking about it.

The Conservatives are only interested in delivering for Canadians if they can be in the driver's seat. That is not how democracy works. Democracy works, in Canada at least, with people being elected from 338 parts of the country, coming together and figuring out the best way forward. If we cannot do it through consensus, which by default we rarely ever could, then we vote on it. Then we move on. We recognize that we played our role in that democratic process, that we helped advance the lives of Canadians for the better. We accept the roles that we have been given in the House.

Canadians will notice that the Liberal Party said that we accept the role we have been given in this House. We accept the role of being a minority government. What did we do? We looked to other parties. We went to the NDP to see if it wanted to work with us to advance issues for Canadians. The NDP accepted its role. It said yes. It had an interest in advancing issues for Canadians and wanted to get together and work together. That is how we got a supply and confidence agreement.

We know what the Bloc's objective is. It is interested in being its own country. I guess, by default, it is going to be a lot harder to work with them for the interest of all Canadians, but at least we know exactly what its position is. We know exactly where it is coming from. The Conservatives, however, are literally rudderless right now. Who is driving the ship over there? I would absolutely love to know. There is no way that they can continue to operate in this way. They do not even know what their role in this House is.

I have no problem voting against this concurrence motion and I have given my reasons. I have referenced the report, but this is not what we should have been talking about today. We should have been talking about Bill C-18, an issue that would genuinely advance the interests of Canadians and make our country more independently focused for news organizations and outlets throughout the world. Unfortunately, we are not there, because the Conservatives are once again playing games.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this concurrence motion. Those watching at home might be wondering what a concurrence motion is. A report has been tabled by a committee in the House. Very rarely would there be a concurrence motion like this to vote on a report. It is, in my opinion and as the member for Winnipeg North indicated earlier, nothing more than a tactic by the Conservatives to jam up more House time.

What makes this particular concurrence motion even more remarkable is this. We start off with the rarity by which reports are dealt with in a concurrence motion, but this one is not even a report from the current ethics committee. This is actually a report from the previous committee. I am sorry, I should not say that. All of the work was done by the previous committee. It developed the report, put together the report, studied it, questioned the witnesses and put it forward. All the current ethics committee that exists in this Parliament did was retable that report.

We start from a place where it is very rare to have a motion like this on a report. To make it even more bizarre, it is not even a report that the current ethics committee dealt with. It did not interview the witnesses. It did not ask questions or form the recommendations. It is going off of work that was done before. People might ask themselves why it is doing this or they might become skeptical when we accuse the Conservatives of using this as just another political opportunity. It is very clear, when we look at the games they are playing, that they are willing to go to any lengths to make sure that we cannot get government legislation through.

For those watching, what we otherwise would have been discussing right now is Bill C-18. Bill C-18 is a bill that the Conservatives, at least in their election platform, support. It is a bill that would provide supports to news outlets throughout our country to make sure they can continue to be independent. Rather than doing their job and following through on commitments they made during the election campaign to Canadians, they see no political win or political gain out of this particular bill because the vast majority of members in the House, if not all, already support it. They are looking for blood, quite frankly, and they do not see any here. That is why they say, “Rather than spend time talking about Bill C-18, a concept that we agree with, why not go after something that we can actually attack Liberals and individual Liberal members on?” That is exactly what we are seeing here with the introduction of this concurrence motion on this report that has been tabled by the committee.

One of the comments that I found very interesting, and I was surprised to hear from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, of all people, was when she questioned the member for Winnipeg North as to why he was using time to debate this. That criticism or question might hold water if nobody else in the room was speaking to it, but Conservatives are. They are using the time, burning the day, by debating and talking about this particular motion. The question then becomes: Why would we not use our designated slots to speak to this and to tell Canadians what is going on?

I find it quite interesting that we would be accused of wanting to speak to this just because we do not want to talk to it. That is like saying that we should not be speaking to it because we do not want to be talking about this anyway. Of course we do not want to be talking about this. We want to be talking about Bill C-18, but the reality of the situation is that through their political games the Conservatives have put us in the position of having to debate this right now. We are clearly going to use that opportunity to debate it and show Canadians what is going on right now. I would expect, to be completely honest, that question to come, in a very cynical way, from my colleagues across the way, but I was surprised to hear it from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Maybe she has had an opportunity to reflect on it and thinks differently of it now.

I would like to talk about this report specifically. I realize there are 23 recommendations in this report that were put forward by the previous Parliament's ethics committee. It put forward these recommendations. When one starts to read the recommendations, it becomes very clear how incredibly focused they are on individuals: the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's wife and people who work in the Prime Minister's Office.

We heard a Conservative member talk earlier about wanting to get certain staff to come before the committee. One of the deep criticisms was that the government would not allow staff to go before the committee to testify. Instead, the President of the Treasury Board, if I remember correctly, offered to go to the committee to speak, but the Conservatives, the opposition, were not interested in that. They wanted actual staffers to go there.

I find that very concerning. I realize that Conservatives have no issue with attacking individual people. For the slightest bit of political gain, they will take down somebody's career. We already know that. They did, after all, for the first time in over 100 years, drag someone before the House, to the bar of the House. It had not happened in 100 years, and it had never happened to somebody who was outside of the government. The Conservatives dragged before the bar the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. That demonstrates how willing they are to take down anybody if they think they will get the slightest political gain out of it, and that is exactly what we are seeing happen here today.

When the minister who is responsible for these staffers says they are the leader, they will take responsibility, they will go before committee and they will answer the questions, that shows what a leader does. Was that enough blood for the Conservatives? No, of course it was not. They wanted to go after the staffers, the individuals who are employed by the minister responsible, which, coming from the ethics committee of all places, is extremely unethical.

In any organization, there is always somebody who is going to take responsibility for those decisions, somebody who will be the accountable one. The minister wanted to do that. Were the Conservatives and other opposition parties interested in that in at committee? No, they were not. They wanted staff. They wanted individuals who do not have the same power to defend themselves, who do not have a voice in this place and who do not have a voice in the public to be the ones to go in and be berated for two hours.

The minister was not interested in doing that, which should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House. It certainly should not come as a surprise to Canadians, especially when Canadians witnessed the Conservative Party, propped up by the Bloc and the NDP, drag before the House of Commons a public service individual, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Never in the history of this Parliament had that happened, and when it was done before that, it was never an individual in his position.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, again, I look at it, and the member says how important it is to have a debate on this issue. If it was such an important issue, why would the Bloc not support a concurrence motion or an opposition day? Why use it strictly on a government's debate day for legislation, when we have already put in the issue of allocated time for Bill C-18? In other words, every minute we are debating this motion today—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debates that take place inside the House. Having been able to listen to the arguments being presented by the Conservative Party, I think it is important that the people who follow the types of debates that take place in here have a truer reflection of reality as to why things are taking place in the manner in which they are.

I truly believe that, at the end of the day, this debate will continue to take place, for the next little while anyway, not necessarily because I want it to take place, but because this is something the Conservatives want, as opposed to talking about Bill C-18. That is the reason they moved the motion. We will have to wait and see if others stand to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg has laid bare the reasons we are debating a concurrence motion on an ethics committee report instead of what we had planned to be doing this afternoon, which is dealing with Bill C-18. I am wondering why he has contributed to the delay tactics by offering a speech at all at this time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to be very clear to the residents of Regina—Lewvan, the Conservatives do not want to pass Bill C-18. They would like to put up as many speakers as they can in order to filibuster the bill virtually endlessly.

The government brought in time allocation this morning, and when the minister stood up, we saw a number of Conservatives stand in their place to say they wanted to have more debate time on Bill C-18 and to ask why we were preventing them from having more debate time. Then when they were provided more debate time on the bill, which we are supposed to be debating right now, what did they do? They prevented debate knowing full well that it will be coming to a vote because time allocation was brought in.

The Conservatives really need to understand what they are doing. I do not think they understand it. If they want more debate time and the government provides more debate time by sitting later in the evening, why not be happy with it and accept it? Why not allow for orderly proceedings? House leaders could sit down and opposition members could say they understand we have to pass legislation. Then we could have some time for this debate, maybe an extra few hours in the evening, and work it out in negotiations by talking about it, while acknowledging that there is a responsibility for the government to pass legislation and a responsibility for the official opposition to contribute to the debate in a positive, constructive way.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was one of the most fanciful speeches I have ever heard from the member. It was amazing. He lives in a parallel universe.

The Liberals brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. Their job is done. It is going to get voted on. Now he is making this big pitch about how we should be debating Bill C-18 and saying we are being obstructionist, but the vote is going to happen regardless.

The government got its wish; its job is done, so now we should get to a vote on this concurrence report and have the debate, because he has done his job. For the first time in eight months, the member actually got something done for the Liberal government. Time allocation was brought in, and he made this big fanciful speech about how we are obstructionist.

I am wondering if the member could lay bare some of the facts that happened today, such as the government bringing in time allocation and curbing debate on Bill C-18 after one Conservative member got to speak. The rest of the member's speech was about nothing. Could the member please put the facts on the table for Canadians about what has actually happened in the House of Commons today?

My constituents in Regina—Lewvan would like to hear a Liberal answer a question. For once, could he please be truthful about the fact that he did get Bill C-18 to where a vote is going to happen? Then we can move on and debate something as important as ethics in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure exactly where to begin. There is so much that one could start with, in regard to this particular motion that has been presented by the Conservative opposition. What it does is clearly show and amplify the silliness and the destructive force of the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons.

We can talk about consistency. The only consistency I have witnessed from the Conservative Party over the last number of years, including the days when I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, was the character assassination of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, even before he was leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. All one needs to do is look at Hansard, the production of papers that clearly show what is being said inside the House of Commons.

When I was in the third party with the leader of the Liberal Party, if we review some of those S.O. 31s and the comments that were coming out, the Conservative Party was focused on personal attacks of the then leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. We went through an election back in 2015. All we have to do is take a look at the negative ads that were out there against the leader of the Liberal Party, and then take a look at the first few days after we took office back in 2015, to see that the Conservatives continued the personal attacks.

They expanded it. They started to include every minister they could possibly think of. They looked for the little rocks to try to uncover, amplify, distort and create issues that clearly were there for one reason and one reason alone, and that was to attack personally the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Government of Canada. They have spent a great deal of resources, both time and finances, whether it was justified or not, and it is always the latter, from my perspective.

I have stood in this place before and I have indicated, as other members of the caucus have indicated, that as much as the Conservative Party wants to spend all of its time and effort on character assassination, we will continue to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way by remaining focused on what is important to Canadians.

When the Conservatives first started attacking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance back in 2015 and 2016, we might recall some of the initiatives we had taken. Coming out of the 2015 election, we made it very clear that our number one priority was going to be supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it, while at the same time providing supports for those people who are in need. When we talked a great deal about that and took initiatives to support that, we still had the Conservative Party playing in the mud.

I remember the Conservatives saying, and they have referenced this in the last number of weeks, that the former minister of finance had a villa in France and it was not declared, and there was a ruling that came from the Ethics Commissioner that it should have been declared. They really like to ramp that up.

However, it was shortly after the federal election when there was a news article in which the then minister of finance was publicly talking about the cottage he had in France. It is not like he was trying to hide something from the public or was trying to not be transparent. How is it a secret when the media are already aware of it? Yes, it should have been listed in a document, which we are all expected to fill out, and the Ethics Commissioner pointed that out. As such, like with other rulings from the Ethics Commissioner, who does more than just look at government members, a decision was made, and when that decision was made, we accepted it and acted accordingly.

We have respected the institutions that we have as parliamentarians, but from the Conservative Party's point of view, it is more about how they can build up the Conservative spin, how they can try to mislead Canadians in many ways and how they can turn it into government corruption. That is what it is all about, and that is the reason, in part, that they have a fixation on the issue of character assassination. This is why, as I have very much indicated, when we talk about the motion before us, the Conservatives want to bring something back to a standing committee of the House for the purpose of focusing the attention of the House of Commons on it.

In many ways, they want to focus purely on fabrications and issues that, quite frankly, have been discussed, debated and moved on from, whether through apologies, time or an election. Some of the stuff they talk about happened three Conservative leaders ago, but that does not cause them to lose their focus. I think it is important that we ask ourselves why we would want to continue to go in the direction the official opposition wants us to go. I would suggest that we need to do what we have been doing, and that is to remain focused.

I talked about 2015 when the Conservatives were being critical and making all sorts of allegations, and often they were allegations that they would only say inside the chamber but not outside of it. Their personal attacks were often attacks against family members as well. When that took place, I witnessed first-hand, as did other members, the Prime Minister indicated that they could continue their attacks on him as the prime minister, but, as he said, “We will stay focused on Canadians”. We would take both the budgetary and legislative measures that were ultimately there to support Canadians.

As I said, in the first mandate with regards to the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class, we addressed many of the inequities, whether it was the tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest or support for children and seniors, which literally lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty. We heard from the Minister of Finance earlier today the overall number of people who have been lifted out of poverty. We also had the tax break for Canada's middle class. These are the issues that we have brought forward, much to the chagrin of the Conservatives, who want us to be focused on their agenda.

If we fast forward, we went through another election in 2019. Once again, we saw the Conservatives preoccupied with the idea of trying to paint a picture of the need for change because of corruption. At the end of the day, we were given yet another mandate. Shortly after that mandate, we saw the need for us to work as a team toward the battling of the pandemic.

We put in a great deal of effort as a government to work with Canadians and a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including other provincial governments, indigenous governments, community leaders, school divisions, municipalities and people as a whole. We were very much working with health care experts, looking at science and remaining focused on getting us through the pandemic.

There was a very small window during which even the Conservative Party seemed to realize it was in the best interest for us to do that, but it sure did not last very long. It lasted maybe a couple of months, and then the Conservatives wanted to get back to the gutter. It is unfortunate, but the moment they started in that way, we continued with our focus. This is what we continue to do today.

Why now have the Conservatives brought forward this motion? What is the purpose of it? They will tell us it is because they want it to go to a standing committee and that they want to talk about ethics and so forth, again and again. That is no doubt one of the reasons it is important for them to try to change the focus of what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.

What were we supposed to be debating today? I had the opportunity earlier today to provide comments on Bill C-18. Prior to me speaking on Bill C-18, we had to time allocate the legislation. We had no choice but to bring in time allocation. One of the things we have learned is that the Conservative Party does not have any desire to see legislation pass through the House of Commons.

When Conservatives see co-operation coming from other political entities in the chamber, they get upset. They do not seem to understand that with the third mandate, which put us in a minority situation, it is just not the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party that was given the mandate. Opposition parties also have a responsibility in a minority government.

The Conservative Party, I would argue, has failed to meet up to the responsibilities Canadians entrusted them with back in September. We have seen that in the behaviour of its members, especially in the last few months.

I have more years of parliamentary experience in opposition than I do in government. I was in opposition for 23 or 24 years, and hopefully I will be able to match that in government. I have never seen such a destructive force as the Conservative Party's approach in dealing with legislation. Today we are supposed to be talking about and debating Bill C-18. Let me remind my Conservative friends that Bill C-18 is an election platform issue that even the Conservative Party supported back in September.

I believe all political entities in the House recognized that having news agencies and reporters and news based on facts were of critical importance to our democracy, and that we needed to take on those tech giants. The former leader of the Conservative Party, not the interim leader but the former leader—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to rephrase the question I asked the previous speaker. The Conservative opposition is asking for debate on Bill C-18, as it asks for additional debate on everything, because it does have that Conservative hidden agenda of not passing legislation and filibustering.

Why, on the one hand, does the Conservative Party say it wants more debate time for legislation, but then on the other hand, it filibusters by bringing forward concurrence motions on things that are coming out of the committee? It seems that on the one hand Conservatives are asking for debate on legislation, and then on the other hand they do not want to have that debate when they are provided the opportunity to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-18. That is on the agenda. Is the member concerned that the Conservative Party says it wants more debate on legislation, yet it continues to focus on character assassination and preventing debate on government legislation? On the other hand, it complains that the government is bringing in time allocation, which seems to be the only way we can pass legislation because of the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservative Party.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an enjoyable afternoon listening to some of the fairy tales from the government, because it is cutting off debate after two hours on a bill that, from coast to coast, we have not seen much of.

Bill C-18 is an interesting bill. As a former journalist and broadcaster, I am glad today that I have the opportunity to speak to this bill and right the ship, if the House does not mind.

I spent 40 years in the industry, in radio and television. I began the career in Yorkton, working midnights as a disk jockey. I spent some time in Melfort doing radio. I moved over to CFQC in Saskatoon—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-18's passage, we will see for the first time a greatly enhanced opportunity to ensure that we do get fair compensation, not only for the large media outlets but for small media outlets also. I can understand and relate to what the member is talking about, especially in rural Manitoba, as an example, or even in some of our major urban centres where there is a need for more journalists. As a society, we want to support that industry. For me personally, fact-based news is of critical importance.

I hope to see the bill go to committee, and maybe the member can participate at the committee stage. If there are things we can do to improve and enhance the legislation, I am sure that the minister would be open to those ideas. In fact, if the member has specifics, he should probably raise them with the minister or the parliamentary secretary in advance of the bill going to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We will try this again, Mr. Speaker.

What we are looking at in Bill C-18 is legislation that would provide more transparency and ultimately more accountability than we saw in Australia. Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, desire to see fact-based news reported. One of the ways in which we can ensure that takes place is to support Bill C-18.

On one hand, we had every political entity inside this chamber in the last federal election say that it supported that form of legislation. The good news is that, like so many other platform issues in an election, the Government of Canada has brought forward legislation that would fulfill yet another commitment to Canadians, so it should be no surprise. Part of that commitment is to see this legislation ultimately pass. That is why the Minister of Heritage was here about half an hour ago, talking about why it was important that we bring in time allocation to get this legislation passed.

I would appeal in particular to my Conservative friends to recognize the true value of the legislation and suggest to them that times have changed. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian a few years back, I can remember walking back into the Manitoba legislature in 1988 and looking into the press gallery. We have a press gallery up here, but it is not very often that we actually see members of the press in there. Having said that, when I first walked into the Manitoba legislature during a question period, the press gallery was packed. We would have two cameras from CBC. We would have CKND there. We would have CTV. We would have at least three reporters from the Winnipeg Free Press and from the Winnipeg Sun and even some rural media. There were not that many chairs, and often we would see media personalities standing. When I left the Manitoba legislature a number of years ago, prior to coming here, we might get one or two members of the media sitting in the gallery.

We need to recognize the number of local news outlets that have been lost through print media, radio and television. Our communities really miss community-based reporting of local news. At large companies, including CTV, CBC and other major media outlets, there have been cutbacks. We should all be concerned. We are a parliamentary democracy in Canada. Our system is very much dependent on having a healthy, modern media industry. I have used the word, as many of my colleagues have. When we talk about a modern industry, it is absolutely critical that it be fact-based. That is why more and more we are seeing a sense of urgency in getting this type of legislation put before the House and into committee, and ultimately coming back and getting the royal assent that is necessary in order to make it the law of the land.

The legislation would ensure that there is a free, independent press that is able to enhance our democratic values, and it would ensure that there is a certain element of fact-based news that we see when we look at Facebook and YouTube and those high-tech world-leading giants, if I can put it that way.

Let us compare yesterday to today, yesterday being a number of years ago, and the advertising that would have taken place. I will use the Winnipeg Free Press as an example and the advertising dollars it would have generated during the 1990s. We can compare that to the amount of advertising required today. Whether it is print, radio or TV, it is advertising dollars that generate the revenue to provide opportunities for those companies to pay their employees, from the people delivering, publishing or printing the papers to the journalists, the ones writing the stories and providing the editorials. There has been a massive loss of advertising revenue not only by our major newspapers, but also our community-based newspapers. If we look at rural communities and municipalities versus larger urban centres, we have seen a reduction in what I would suggest is reliable, fact-based reporting because of the loss of revenue.

Where we have seen an explosion, on the other hand, is through the Internet. It has been cited, for example, that Facebook and Google consume somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% of what goes into advertising. Are the reporters and investigative journalists receiving any sort of real financial compensation for the work they are doing to create and provide the fact-based stories that come from Internet giants Google and Facebook? If we do a Google search or look at Facebook, we see these streams that incorporate news broadcasts. Is there fair compensation being provided?

The government and, based on the last federal election, I would argue all members recognize that there is a deficiency and that fair compensation is not being provided. It is the Government of Canada that is in the best position to ensure that there is a higher sense of awareness and that we have an industry that is being protected. It goes much further than the issue of jobs. It is an industry that we cannot afford to lose or neglect. I would suggest there is an obligation for us to protect it and do what we can to enhance it. When we read through Bill C-18, that is what we will find it would do. The sooner it gets through the House of Commons and becomes law, the sooner we will enable many news agencies to have the opportunity to have fair discussions and negotiations with companies such as Google and YouTube. That is why I believe it is so critical.

In the questions and answers the Minister of Canadian Heritage provided earlier today, he was talking in part about the number of people we are losing in that industry. I do not have the actual numbers, but I could speculate in terms of salaries. I suspect the average salary in that industry has modestly increased and I would not be surprised if, in many ways, it has decreased at a time when, as the Internet explodes, there is an even higher demand for reliable news.

I know how important it is. On a weekly basis, I go to a local restaurant where every so often a certain gentleman would come by, and I could tell what paper he was reading by the criticism he was providing. One day I suggested to him that he should broaden his reading and share other stories that were being published. Interestingly, he never did show up again. I suspect it was because he had been looking at the broader media and reading what was being published by some of those agencies that we have grown to trust over the years. There is a high sense of accountability for Global, CTV and CBC, and newspapers both nationally and locally. When they appear in newsfeeds, whether it is on Facebook or YouTube or in whatever format, it does make a difference.

This government is not going to be intimidated in any fashion by the tech giants of the world. We want to ensure that the industry is protected, and we need to put everyone on a more level and fairer playing field. There needs to be proper compensation to our media outlets that are being tapped into in order to foster greater profits for those high-tech world companies, and in short, that is exactly what Bill C-18 would do: It would put in place a process that would enable negotiation and a much higher sense of fairness. It would protect our news industry as we modernize and continue to move forward.

I encourage all members not only to support the legislation before us but also to support its passage so that it can get royal assent possibly as early as the end of June.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will be given the time back.

At the end of the day, I believe we have better legislation than Australia. I understand the Conservative Party supports what is taking place in Australia. There is more transparency in Bill C-18, so one wonders why the Conservative Party would not see the value of it and not only support the legislation but allow it to ultimately pass as opposed to continue to put up some form of a filibuster.

At the end—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, being inspired, I would ask if there would be unanimous support to see this legislation go through, given the fact that all political parties supported the principle of the legislation and supporting the principle would only see it go to committee stage. I would encourage that sort of enthusiasm for support on Bill C-18.

The point I was trying to get at is that Bill C-18 is important legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact. The minister has done an incredible job, through the ministry, of gathering and sharing thoughts and ideas and getting the information necessary to bring forward legislation that would make a difference and would be a true reflection of what Canadians wanted back in September of last year.

We also need to recognize there is the expectation that the government will bring forward legislation and that opposition parties will participate and be engaged. We often see that, especially from members of the New Democratic Party, the Green Party and the Bloc. At times we will see it from the Conservatives. It is not too often, but maybe at times.

The bottom line is that what we have witnessed in recent months is a great filibuster on whatever the legislation might be. That is the reason we needed to bring in time allocation on this legislation. The best example I could probably give would be Bill C-8. Members might remember Bill C-8 as the fall economic statement legislation that was just recently passed. That is an excellent example of the manner in which the Conservative Party will go out of its way to stop legislation from passing.

Bill C-8 was all about supporting Canadians through the pandemic. Bill C-18 is all about protecting a critical industry here in Canada. It is an industry that needs legislation of this nature. Canada is not alone. There are other countries that have moved in this direction and recognized the need for national governments to bring forward legislation. In fact, the official opposition recognized and seemed to support what was taking place in Australia on this issue. It has made reference to that.

I believe Bill C-18 is—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me restart, if I can put it that way. There is an expectation that we all have. We all have it because we went through a national election where it was made very clear that the government was given a new mandate and part of that mandate was to show there was a need for opposition parties and government to work together. We see that taking place quite often between different opposition parties and the government.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has taken an approach where it does not matter what the legislation is and the importance of Bill C-18—

The House resumed from May 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my last question. I certainly understand that all the questions about the process we are going through will not be answered.

I heard the minister. The Bloc Québécois is not just here to oppose things. We will vote in favour of things that are good for Quebec, and, obviously, we believe that Bill C‑18 is extremely good for Quebec.

Nevertheless, if collaboration is so important, why was the Bloc Québécois not consulted so that we could reach an agreement ahead of time? This is not our first time allocation rodeo. Over the past few weeks, closure has been all the rage. Again, the question is, how did we get to this point? Are the Liberals short on inspiration or on strategy?

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.

I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.

This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague agrees with that, he has a weird way of showing it. I see the Conservatives attacking the New Democrats because they come here trying to make a difference. On some things we collaborate; on others we do not and we disagree, which is fine. However, to the Conservatives the word “collaboration” makes no sense. What they prefer to do is jam things, filibuster, listen to each other and clap for each other all the time. They think it is a good thing to shut down democracy like they are doing now. It is totally wrong.

We have to move forward. This bill has to move forward. This bill will go to committee and will have hours of discussion and witnesses. I will go there and speak about the importance of it and how it allows collective bargaining to help smaller media news outlets and regional news outlets. I will talk about how this will translate into fair agreements between the tech giants and media outlets across the country. I will talk about the importance of the press. I will talk about the importance of the press for our democracy and the importance of a strong, free and independent press, because that is what bill C-18 is all about. That is it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on my colleague's hunches, but I will say this: I am somewhat surprised that the Bloc Québécois, which is generally the exact opposite of the Conservatives when it comes to ideas, principles and ideals, is so openly supportive of the Conservatives in this type of discussion.

As I understand it, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑18. Why do they support it? They support the bill because it strengthens our media, because it strengthens a free and independent press, a press that will ensure that we have news about what is happening in Chibougamau, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Amos and Brossard.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that there will continue to be a press. From what I understand, the NDP supports it as well. As for the Conservatives, who included it in their platform, I hope that they will agree with themselves. If all goes well and they listen to themselves, they should support the bill. Then it will be unanimous.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.

We obviously want to have a solution.

The solution is what is proposed in Bill C‑18, which incorporates certain aspects of bills C‑10 and C‑11. The groundwork has been laid, and this should be acknowledged.

My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?

As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, debate happens here in this beautiful House, it happens in committees and it happens in the Senate. Those debates will take place.

We all know how important committee work is. This is where the thorough questions are asked and where we hear from witnesses. I go to committee and appear with great pleasure. A big chunk of the work is done there. What the Conservatives have been doing is trying to jam this place. It is very sad for someone who ran to come here to see what is being done. I am sad when I look at them and even more when I listen to them.

I know they do not like me to be sad, so I ask them to maybe change a little how they do things. Maybe they can participate a bit more in the debates or maybe be bit more constructive and make suggestions instead of trying to jam everything in the House.

Bill C-18 is about democracy and journalism, and Conservatives should support it.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, at times in the past, I have supported time allocation when there has been reasonable debate on a particular bill. For government to function, it is important for respectful debate to take place. I agree with the minister about the importance of Bill C-18. In fact, I was looking forward to hearing various perspectives in this place on the legislation.

In this case, as others have shared, we have had a total of two hours of debate on a Friday afternoon before moving to time allocation. Can the minister share why he feels this is so necessary, and why this is the only option available to the governing party to move ahead with respectful debate in this place?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.

I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.

Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights what the Conservatives have been doing for weeks and months in trying to jam the work of Parliament in the chamber and in committees. Who benefits from that? No one does. The Conservatives think that they benefit from it, but Canadians do not benefit from what they are doing now.

Now we are talking about Bill C-18, which is fundamental for a strong, free, independent press. I said before that 450 media outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 have closed in the last two years. This makes our democracy weaker, not stronger.

We have to reinforce it. We have to be able to answer the tough questions, and I want to thank NDP members who are taking this extremely seriously in committees, in their ridings and in meeting with the media. They are bringing back good feedback. They want to collaborate, which is the difference between them and the Conservatives. The NDP wants to collaborate, but they do not.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would tell my colleague that the bill she is referring to is the former Bill C‑10, which is now Bill C‑11.

Today we are talking about a different bill, Bill C‑18, on which we are generally working quite well with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and in particular the member for Drummond, who is the Bloc Québécois's heritage critic and who works very hard and very diligently on everything that he does, including as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I thank the Bloc Québécois for highlighting the freedom of the press and for emphasizing that the media must be independent and that print media must be strong and autonomous. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑18, which would enable the media to not only survive but also succeed. The bill would also ensure that the media is strong not only in major cities, but also in the regions. We are talking about media in all forms, big, small, print, radio or television.

Together, all these forms of media help strengthen our democracy. Journalists representing these media outlets ask us tough questions here, questions that we sometimes do not want to answer, but it is our job to do so. That is why we need to ensure that these media outlets survive and grow even stronger in the future.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have not been a member of the House for all that long, so I would like someone to explain to me what has been happening here over the past few weeks.

I would like to start by saying that we want to work to find solutions to what is happening to our media. The groundwork was laid during the previous Parliament, and we knew where we wanted to go. However, the Liberals called an election and we had to start over. The previous bill that has now become Bill C-18 still contains some of the same elements with no changes. However, we need to find a solution, and we need to do it fast, because billions of dollars are being lost and we need to protect freedom of expression and our media.

There is one other thing. I would like the member opposite to explain to me the point of these incessant motions. Not a day goes by that I do not have to try to explain to my constituents and even to my children what is happening with the legislative process in this session of the House.

I would like to know what we can expect in the coming days. What is the point of constantly challenging democracy, when we have a duty to debate each bill fully?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to person in Canada, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to pick up with the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

It's been 17 months and we still haven't heard boo from the CRTC on the licensing of CBC, our national public broadcaster. Next month, in June, it will be a full year and we're still waiting for a three-digit suicide helpline. These are two examples where the CRTC isn't doing its job today.

Ms. Auer, I think you've hit it right on. With a staff of 650-plus, they are still not capable of doing what they should be capable of in the Broadcasting Act. I want you to expand on that.

I have talked excessively about the CRTC. They cannot handle today's facts, yet we're going to be piling C-11 on, plus C-18, it looks like. I'd like your thoughts, please.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to turn for my last bit of time to Ms. Monica Auer, from the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

You made a comment about timelines and the timeliness of the CRTC—I think you said based on rumours, guesses and gossip. I'm not sure I have that written down exactly.

If the CRTC is going to be given this additional responsibility through Bill C-11—and down the road through Bill C-18 as well—how do you see that affecting the timeliness and the responsiveness of the CRTC going forward, given this new scope of responsibilities that they'll receive through this piece of legislation?

[Randy Kitt]

Thank you, Peter.

Employment, obviously, is a big issue for Unifor. Our members work in media and work in local news and also work in the film industries. When we talk about local news, the only real way to ensure that local news is funded correctly is if we talk about feet on the street, we talk about reporters, we talk about editors, and we talk about people in our communities writing about the things we need written about and shooting the things we need shot.

Employment is extremely important. When we talk about foreign services and employment, it's different when we talk about Canadian news because we don't want foreign news services in this country. We want Canadian news services in this country, and it has to be funded correctly. That funding has to go to feet on the street and journalism, and to making sure that our communities are bound together and that it's done in a way so that the money that flows to these organizations goes to news and ensures that it goes to news. That's why we talked about, in our presentation, that the money should be earmarked for local news.

The CRTC has been engaged in a process to ensure—we only see aggregate numbers, of course, and this is a similar issue with Bill C-18 that Unifor has raised—accountability and that the money that is received through these funds goes to local news. We know that in the CMF, for instance, the Canada Media Fund, when funding is received for a film, that film is made and we know that product is there. It's the same for local news. If local news receives funding, then that money goes to feet on the street.

[Randy Kitt]

No, we don't want to confuse the two. This is about broadcasting. I know Bill C-18 is platform-agnostic, which is great, but this isn't about Facebook and Google. This is about Netflix and Amazon. The CRTC and successive governments have allowed these foreign broadcasters and foreign streamers to come into Canada. It's completely changed the business model, and advertising revenues are down.

We need a separate fund in this bill for broadcasters. I envision a day when Bill C-18, Bill C-11 and journalism tax credits could all combine into one really nice fund. Right now, they're still separate, and the Facebook and Google money does not replace what the LPIF did for broadcast news from 2009 to 2014, which the CRTC took away. We need to replace that.

The broadcasters, like Netflix and Amazon—Amazon is a BDU—need to contribute to Canadian local news. It's slipping away. If we don't do it now and we don't ensure in Bill C-11 that the CRTC creates a fund, I fear it will slip further.

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

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Mr. Carrière, you spoke to us about the issue of local news, and I fully understand the amendment you are proposing. We will soon be studying Bill C‑18.

Am I to understand that what you are proposing is in addition to what is included in Bill C‑18?

[Alain Saulnier]

I will focus on the last question.

Doing nothing will marginalize cultural groups, like francophones, all over the country.

Artists, video-makers and authors have worked too hard for lawmakers to suddenly let the market dictate what happens, leaving it up to companies—whose editorial policies and strategies are determined by shareholders—to decide what is good or bad for us. That is not up to them, so we really need to get moving. We can't wait another 30 years for a new Broadcasting Act. We need to act quickly.

In my view, we are in danger right now. By we, I mean francophones, first nations and small cultural minorities other than anglophones in the west. We need to do something, and we need to do it now.

I would call Bill C‑11 a first step. Other legislation is coming, including Bill C‑18, which deals with the media. In fact, I would be happy to appear again once the bill has been referred to the committee. To my mind, we need to start moving the needle now.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Thank you for the question.

I guess I would start by noting that we've had the government claim, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that user-generated content, user content, was out of the bill, and we've had the CRTC chair say otherwise. Even now, on this panel, we've had Mr. Reeb and others say that's not their intent or what they would like to see included in the legislation. I must admit that I struggle to quite understand why it remains there when it seems that so many are against it.

As part of the discussions we've had today, I'm struggling to even identify the bill a little bit here. I'm not sure if we're in a Bill C-18 hearing on local media, because this bill doesn't really address core local media issues. It's more about film production and music.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the Copyright Act, because we're hearing claims that there's not enough there on the music side, even though SOCAN has seen record amounts of revenue being generated from Internet-based streaming services. In fact, they attributed all their growth this past year to Internet-based streaming services.

If we're talking about specifically this bill, then we have these dual conversations on the one hand, where there seems to be a general consensus that it's not appropriate to be regulating user content and we ought to be fixing that and have a discussion—a more appropriate discussion, it seems to me—around the impact of streaming services, and how we ensure the legislation is sufficiently targeted to ensure there is an appropriate contribution as part of that system. Some of that gets lost because of the details, and if we're not going to update legislation for decades at a time, we have to get those details right.

Bill C-18—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, for the record, in response to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, as the shadow minister responsible for Bill C-18, I was not consulted on time allocation for this bill.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Furthermore, I am tabling government responses to Questions Nos. 461 to 464.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will associate myself with my hon. colleague in wishing all members a productive week in their constituencies as the weather improves and we are able to participate more and more in events.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the House for the important progress that has been made on our legislative program over the last week. I know we have had a lot of late nights, but we are seeing a lot of important legislation being adopted, so I am appreciative of the House and the work it is doing.

This evening we will consider, in committee of the whole, the estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Tomorrow it is our intention to call Bill C-13, regarding the Official Languages Act. I would also like to inform the House that we will be tabling supplementary estimates tomorrow.

When we come back from working in our constituencies during the week that was aforementioned, we will be entering into the most intensive part of the parliamentary calendar, as we look toward the end of June. On Monday we will return to second reading of Bill C-18, respecting online news remuneration. The second estimates debate, this time for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, will take place that evening as well. Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I will be in further communication with the members opposite about additional business for that week, including our intention to hold a debate on the procedures of the House pursuant to Standing Order 51.

[Kevin Waugh]

Thoughts on four months left...? I mean, we're hitting you with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 and Rogers/Shaw, and you have one foot out the door.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott, let me follow up questions that you didn't have time to answer the last time. First off, what lessons can we pull from the Australian example for Bill C-18? Second, how do we ensure that local media really benefits? Third, with regard to the process of negotiation, mediation and final offer arbitration, how long do you see that period, expecting that there is not necessarily a lot of co-operation from the web giants on that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay. That's fine.

Earlier, I started talking about Bill C‑18, and you told me that you were beginning to form an opinion on this bill. I imagine that you have studied it enough to tell us a little about eligibility. I had started to tell you about it earlier.

We get a lot of calls from companies that define themselves as news companies, but which are, apparently, excluded from this bill because they have somewhat more specialized fields of activity and journalistic coverage. Let's take the example of consumer magazines.

[Kevin Waugh]

Now, with Bill C-18, you're going to be asked to regulate newspapers—for money, because of the Internet. I was a broadcaster for over 40 years, and when I heard this, it was like, “whoa”.

You made a statement, Mr. Scott, that without the CRTC, there would be no francophone content because it does not make sense economically. You also talked about indigenous content. Yet in terms of broadcasting, I would say that the French and the indigenous have been shortchanged for 53 years by radio and TV in this country. Thank god we now have APTN, which has filled some of the shortcomings in this country. I can't—

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to continue in the same vein as Mr. Champoux.

When we talk about Bill C‑18, the finances and the public consultations you're planning, what does the Australian example tell us?

I'd especially like to hear your thoughts and concerns about the local media. In my community of New Westminster—Burnaby, we've lost half of our newspapers. This problem is happening all over the country. What do you plan to do to ensure that the local media have the ability to negotiate?

My last question is, when do you think this process will be completed?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On Bill C‑18, I have to say that I'm concerned about the eligibility of businesses and the effectiveness.

If I understand correctly, one of the purposes of the bill is to protect local news. As we know, local news has been hit hard by the pandemic and by the fact that the big platforms are taking over the advertising revenues.

The size of the company is a criterion for negotiating with the web giants. Smaller media are also struggling. I am thinking in particular of regional coverage, especially in the more remote regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

How can we think that Bill C‑18 will support regional coverage if the smaller media are not eligible because of their size and their impact?

[Ian Scott]

On Bill C‑11, I mentioned earlier that it would take about two years to implement.

With Bill C‑18, it's harder to say.

There's the development of regulations as a statutory instrument and the timing of that is not in our control because it has to go through justice. I can't easily estimate how long it will take to do the regulations that we need to do to establish the framework. Bill C-18 is very new and we're just getting our heads around it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is a very interesting debate we're having today. The questions and comments are particularly relevant.

Mr. Scott, two important bills are currently under study: one is already before the committee, and we hope that the other, Bill C‑18, will be before it by the end of the current session.

Before we get into the details of that bill, I wonder if both bills will be passed by the end of the session and if they will find their way before the CRTC. They are both important bills for their respective industries.

How soon do you think we can expect the CRTC to complete its work on these two bills?

[Lisa Hepfner]

I believe I understood from your opening statement that you feel, from your experience, that bills C-11 and C-18 are necessary in Canada. Can you go into that a little bit more?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think someone promised that in the last election. I can't remember who.

Moving on, the CRTC's 2022-23 departmental plan gave some foresight into the work that it would be undertaking in preparation for Bill C-11. Again, you've noted some of that, such as preparing for public consultations. Where some of our concerns lie is that CBC licence renewal is at 17 months, for example. It's been over 500 days now since the three-digit suicide-prevention line was unanimously adopted in parliament.

I'm concerned about where the CRTC is in terms of its staffing, its capability, its competency, to implement Bill C-11 first, and then Bill C-18. I'm curious as to what timeline you see from the time that Bill C‑11 is passed and receives royal assent to when it is fully implemented. What's the best case scenario from the CRTC to have that fully implemented?

[Ian Scott]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That work will be in addition to the proceedings currently planned for 2022-23. With the benefit of the allocation identified in the main estimates and budget 2022, the CRTC will be well positioned to achieve Bill C-11 ’s goal of developing a new regulatory framework for online broadcasters, as well as Bill C-18's goal for a fair and sustainable Canadian digital news marketplace.

I trust that very broad overview is useful to members, and my colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Ian Scott, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting us to appear before you.

You have already introduced my colleagues. I would like to say that we do, indeed, welcome the chance to appear here as part of your study of the main estimates for 2022-23 as they relate to the CRTC and to Bill C-11.

Before we address the specific element of the main estimates, I thought it might be helpful to provide a little context for my remarks. In particular, I want to offer a quick overview of how the CRTC is funded and how the monies assigned to implement our new responsibilities under Bill C-11 would be used.

The commission has access to two sources of funding: appropriation and revenues. On top of that, there is some statutory funding that is allocated to the commission to cover certain employee benefit plans.

The first category, appropriation, is earmarked for expenses related to Canada's anti-spam legislation and the voter contact registry activities. In addition, the CRTC was granted temporary appropriation funding for expenses related to Bill C-11's implementation, on a preliminary basis. Appropriations, however, represent only about 13% of the CRTC's overall funding.

The bulk of that funding, 87%, comes from fees paid directly by the companies it regulates. I am sure they feel a great joy in paying for their regulation. The commission collects fees under the authority of the Telecommunications Act, the telecommunications fees regulations and the unsolicited telecommunications fees regulations, as well as under the Broadcasting Act, as set out under the broadcasting regulations. The Treasury Board authorizes the CRTC to use revenues from these fees to offset operating expenses incurred in the same fiscal year.

I should note and clarify that broadcasting part I licence fees, telecommunications fees and unsolicited telecom fees are used to cover expenses related to our regulatory activities. However, part II broadcasting licence fees accrue to the government's consolidated revenue fund. They do not come to the commission. They do not fund our regulatory costs for broadcasting-related activities or support the commission's activities in any other way.

The committee, I am sure, will have an opportunity to conduct a study of Bill C-11 in the near future. We very much look forward to appearing before you again to speak at a greater length about the legislation. For now, I'd simply like to say that we, as a commission, certainly welcome the tabling of the bill, given the pressing need to modernize the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC's powers, and to clarify the commission's jurisdiction regarding online broadcasters.

Budget 2022 proposed to provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, with $8.5 million over two years. This amount is necessary to establish a new regime to ensure that Canadian news outlets are fairly compensated by digital platforms.

Madam Chair, Bill C‑18 proposes a mechanism to ensure that Canadian news outlets receive fair compensation from the digital platforms that share and distribute their work.

The legislation would require platforms that generate revenues from the publication of news content on their sites to negotiate with news businesses and reach fair commercial deals.

Bill C‑18 proposes to entrust the CRTC with five main functions in overseeing this activity.

First, the CRTC is asked to play an administrative role, registering news businesses that meet the legislation's eligibility criteria and assessing whether digital platforms meet the act's exemption criteria.

Second, it is asked to oversee negotiation and mediation and maintain a public list of external arbitrators agreed upon by both the platforms and publishers.

Third, it is asked to deal with complaints of undue preference or unjust discrimination filed by news businesses against platforms.

Fourth, it is asked to contract an independent auditor to publish an annual report on the total value of commercial agreements and other key information.

Fifth, it is asked to establish regulations to collect fees, similar to those paid by broadcasters and telecommunications service providers.

The commission requires additional funds to prepare for these new responsibilities, so that we are ready to implement the legislation in an expedient manner should Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18 receive royal assent.

Further, should either bill receive royal assent, we will move quickly to launch public consultations to gather views and evidence from Canadians and stakeholders. CRTC staff will need to develop consultation documents and tools, analyze the public record and develop a regulatory framework.

Online News Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this fundamental and very important discussion on how a federal, provincial or other government can support journalism and media outlets in our communities, cities, towns and regions across the country.

This is the kind of bill that makes the NDP say, “finally”. Finally, the government is doing something about this issue. It was high time. Unfortunately, as is too often the case with the Liberals, we had to push them for years before they agreed to do the right thing.

We saw it with the broadcasting bill, the official languages bill and with dental care and pharmacare, which are coming. We also saw it with the anti-scab bill, which is part of our agreement and is supposed to be introduced next year.

We always have to push them. In this case, is it too late for some media outlets? The answer is yes. The government is backpedalling, which is too bad. It is trying to salvage something from the wreckage.

Taking this approach and trying to shore up this fundamental pillar of our democracy—local, regional and national media—is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, that observation was made several years ago. Indeed, this crisis has existed for years now; newsrooms have been closing and jobs have been lost, and this has real consequences.

Democracy does not work without this fourth power, without this counter-power, this check and balance that is professional independent media. I will come back to the idea of what is a media outlet, what is a reporter, what is a journalist and what is real journalism versus propaganda or disinformation. This is so important.

It has long been said that there are three main pillars of power in our society: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. However, without the counter-power of journalistic work, there is no real democracy. It is important to establish this from the outset, so that we know exactly what we are talking about.

It is equally important to talk about web giants. They prey on journalistic work. They are simultaneously voracious and greedy. They are parasitic, in the sense that they will scoop up news and feed it to the news aggregators on their websites.

Many web giants do that. They literally steal real journalism, real articles and real news, and they put it on their websites. When people click, web giants cash in. They do not pay for that. They are essentially stealing other people's work.

Someone else does the essential work, and web giants do not pay a penny to take an article from a regional news source, from La Presse, Radio-Canada, Le Devoir or whatever, and put it on their news site. They do nothing. They have no newsroom of their own, and they steal other people's work without offering any financial compensation whatsoever.

At least Bill C‑18 tackles the problem and offers a solution. I am not saying it is perfect or even as good as it could be. It can be improved, but it is worth exploring.

It is important that we, as parliamentarians, address this issue. It is important that we consider these concerns and look at what we can do to improve things so that we can keep this check and balance, this counter-power, in our democracy here in Quebec, here in Canada.

We need to protect the employees, the workers who are experts at reporting the news, digging into things, poking around, asking questions, contradicting us and sometimes even putting pressure on the government, opposition parties and all elected representatives. That is exactly as it should be, and it has to stay that way.

Unfortunately, we are in an ecosystem where selling news is not necessarily the most lucrative. We have seen a reduction, crumbling or erosion of the capacity of newsrooms to ask the real questions and cover what is happening in politics, but also in the economy, in society or in the cultural milieu, for example.

I think the government had to do something. We in the NDP have been saying for years that we needed to do something and support wages, newsrooms and businesses. Furthermore, the balance of power needs to be re-established between the web giants, whose aggregators pick up articles on which they have put no work, effort, human or financial resources whatsoever, and all those who are struggling to survive by asking the right questions and writing relevant articles that make society think and move us forward collectively.

We have heard a lot about local and regional news. It is absolutely fundamental. I asked my Bloc Québécois colleague a question a moment ago.

I have the example of Laval in mind, which is closer to me. For years, Laval did not have a real newsroom, a real media outlet capable of covering municipal politics. Laval is not far enough away from Montreal to have its own media ecosystem, its own newsroom or its own weekly newspapers. On the other hand, Laval is not close enough to Montreal for Montreal media to be truly interested in it. As such, for years, Laval's municipal politics were not really covered.

This situation allowed the former mayor of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt, since charged and convicted, to embezzle public funds and commit unspeakable fraud that he profited from personally, as did his family and friends. This happened because there was practically no political opposition, no media coverage, no papers strong or independent enough and no radio stations capable of focusing on how contracts were awarded or public funds managed in Laval.

We witnessed what a media desert could lead to: impunity and no transparency. This also allows someone to think they are entitled to everything and they can do absolutely anything they want. It is important to have national journalists, but also local and regional journalists to monitor everything that is happening and all the fine people involved.

I think it is very important to point out that we absolutely must have reporters and resources abroad. These journalists can report on and explain to us what is happening abroad so that Canadians, but also elected officials, decision-makers and economic, social and political forces, are fully informed and able to react appropriately, knowing exactly what is happening in other countries around the world.

We saw this recently with the war in Artsakh, Armenia, with the exodus of the Rohingya from Myanmar, and with what is happening to the Uighurs in China. We absolutely need to know what is happening abroad. We need resources so that we can do that and so that we can have people on the ground who can tell us exactly what is happening.

I am going to take a few moments to show a little bias and say what a wonderful job I think that Radio-Canada foreign correspondents are doing. I tip my hat to them, and I think that there are a lot of people in Quebec and Canada who recognize just how important they are because they observe, analyze and tell us about what is happening abroad.

I cannot name them all, but I want to mention Marie‑Ève Bédard, Tamara Alteresco, Anyck Béraud and Jean‑François Bélanger, who, along with many others, are our eyes and ears in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Their work is absolutely essential to our understanding of the world.

As we are speaking about journalism, what happens abroad and the accountability that I spoke about earlier, I will take advantage of the forum given to me today to condemn and denounce the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

She was killed while reporting on an Israeli army operation. She was wearing a helmet and bullet-proof vest with “Press” written on it. It was very clear that she was a journalist. For years, Shireen Abu Akleh was a revered star journalist who worked for Al Jazeera. She was killed.

The NDP condemns this murder, and we are asking for an independent investigation to find out exactly what happened and who was responsible for this act. I believe that many of my colleagues agree with our position.

There were many accounts on the ground. It is rather difficult to hit someone in the face with a stray bullet. Unfortunately, that is how Shireen Abu Akleh was killed. We are asking for this independent investigation, as are many other global organizations.

Yesterday, I moved a motion in the House to condemn the murder of this Palestinian journalist and to ask for an independent investigation. I am very sorry that this motion was not adopted. I believe it was the least we could do.

I am also concerned about what happened next. Israeli police raided the home where the family was gathered and tore down the Palestinian flags that were there. These people just learned of the death of their daughter, sister, friend, niece or cousin. It is absolutely appalling.

It did not stop there. Today, we saw extremely disturbing images from Shireen Abu Akleh's funeral in which Israeli police used batons on those carrying the coffin of the murdered journalist. They waded into the crowd, pushing people back, which nearly caused the coffin to fall. That is indecent and extremely violent. We want to know who did that and we are calling for an independent investigation.

Not only was this woman killed, but the police then showed up at the family home and were pushing people who were gathered for her burial. That is absolutely unbelievable. Who is responsible for that? Who ordered this assault on a grieving crowd, on the family and friends of this journalist who was recently killed while doing her job?

There are a lot of questions we need to ask about the safety of journalists all over the world and about their ability to do their jobs properly. There are also a number of questions we need to ask about the Palestinian territories illegally occupied by the Israeli army. Palestinian or foreign journalists must be able to do their jobs safely and report on the facts of what is going on.

We want to know what the consequences are for the military occupation of a territory, for stolen land, for destroyed homes and for illegal colonies being established very quickly. Thousands of new homes are being built on occupied territory in the West Bank, in defiance of UN resolutions. People on the ground have to tell us what is happening there. If they are killed, there will be no one left to tell us what is going on. The only version we will get will be the official version of government authorities. That is not what we want.

Journalists are being killed in Ukraine as a result of the brutal, illegal invasion by Vladimir Putin's Russia. This regime has killed journalists and political opponents in its own country. It is now targeting and killing journalists in Ukraine. We vehemently condemn these murders, as we should. However, when a Palestinian journalist is killed, there is radio silence.

People have to be respectful, equitable and consistent. Journalism is important everywhere: in Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, France, England, the United States, Canada and Quebec. It is important everywhere and for everyone. I think it is very important to say, loudly and clearly, that the NDP wants to support a free and independent press that can do its work safely. Journalists need to be able to do their work without being targeted by a regime that attacks them and sometimes even kills them or threatens their safety.

The bill before us today, Bill C‑18, is very important because, as I said earlier, it seeks to rectify the plundering of journalists' work and news content. This has severely damaged our ability to tell our communities' stories. For years, the NDP has been working with journalists' federations and journalists' unions to bring this idea forward. Finally, it is happening. Is it too late? Not for those still in the newsroom, but sadly, there may be many who have already left the industry.

I want to share some numbers. In Canada, 450 news media outlets closed between 2008 and 2021. That is nothing to sneeze at. In addition, 78% of people access the news online, often through these major companies' aggregators. Also, a mere 13% of news companies' revenue comes from online advertising or subscriptions.

However, Google and Facebook took in nearly $10 billion in revenue from Canadian online advertising in 2020. Google and Facebook combined account for 80% of the revenue. For years, the government stopped buying advertising in our weeklies and local or regional newspapers. Instead, it was buying advertising from Facebook and Google. Not only did this do nothing to aid journalism, but public funds were being used to pay these large foreign companies, often American, to promote the news that the federal government wanted to promote. It is absolutely unbelievable.

There were two ways the federal government failed to help newsrooms. It allowed them to slowly disappear as a result of the loss of revenue they were experiencing, and it also failed to provide direct support or assistance by buying advertising. Subscriptions and newsstand sales are not what make newspapers profitable, and that has been the case for years. It is the advertising revenue that makes media profitable. That said, ad revenues have changed. They are no longer generated by local radio stations, weeklies or dailies. They are generated by websites. These websites, most of which are owned by large media outlets, steal the work of journalists.

The Liberal government finally listened to reason and thought it might be time to address the problem, since we had lost over 450 newsrooms and hundreds of jobs. We looked at what was being done overseas. The Australian model forces negotiation between the media who produce the news and the web giants who use it, put it on their platforms and distribute it.

The possibility of collective bargaining is really important to the NDP. Local or regional independent media must not be left to face the giants like Facebook, Google and others on their own. They need to be able to come together to speak with one voice and get fair deals. That is really the crux of the matter and what is going to be extremely difficult to hear.

These agreements also need to be public and transparent, because it is important to be able to compare situations. It is important to know exactly what the web giant paid for the use of certain content, for a given percentage, for a given quantity of articles, for each year, in a given market and with a given audience. If that information is not available, everyone will negotiate blindly and it will be extremely difficult. Everyone will be at a huge disadvantage.

There needs to be an equitable power relationship, so these agreements need to include collective bargaining and transparency clauses. It is not enough to say that it is a trade secret, or some such thing. We must ensure that this is known and public, so that people can make comparisons and be fairly compensated for the use of their work.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at Bill C-18, we see it is very similar to Bill C-11. We know that these are very important pieces of legislation that need to be implemented into law as expeditiously as possible in order to protect, with respect to Bill C-11, Canadian culture and, with respect to Bill C-18, smaller organizations and news outlets.

I am curious if the member can comment on the importance of that and making sure it gets done, and perhaps on the amendment that the Conservatives brought forward. They brought forward an amendment that would basically strip out this entire bill and send the issue to committee. Is that not what we are doing right now? Are we not debating this at second reading to send it to committee anyway?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see more members in the House and I will continue my speech.

In such vast territories, it is hard to cover local news properly. Imagine how much time it takes journalists to travel around, especially when they are alone.

The reality is that local media are not covering all of the news anymore. The media can no longer rely on ad sales, which are plummeting. The share of ad revenue that traditionally went to news organizations is dwindling year after year, and the big print and broadcast ad contracts are no longer going to news organizations, but rather to companies like Google and Facebook. News organizations are losing out on revenue streams, and many have been forced to close.

What is most alarming is that the lack of local news and feedback will hurt society as a whole. Knowing what is going on in the community is a fundamental part of democracy.

I can provide the figures for how advertising money is allocated these days. I will also give some arguments in support of taking a strong stance against giants like GAFAM.

The government has failed to impose regulations for far too long. If it thought that web giants like GAFAM would regulate themselves and be sensitive to our small communities, it was wrong. No matter what the web giants may say or do, their actions are motivated by greed, a bit like the oil companies, who care only about making a profit for their shareholders.

It takes courage to act. We saw what happened in Australia and the consequences of that. These companies have known our perspective on this for a long time, and they are well aware of the path they need to take. They no longer have a choice. There has been a lot of pressure for a long time. If we pass this bill quickly, they will no longer really have a choice. Either they get on board, or the government will get involved.

Why should ordinary people care about the passage of this bill? They should care because it affects them. We first need to realize that journalists make an invaluable contribution. Day after day, they do a tremendous job even though they do not always have proper funding. Their future is uncertain and, for them, every day counts.

Local media is increasingly important to our regional and rural communities. Local media and newspapers are the heart of the regional media ecosystem. Reporting on the stories of local people, or issues that affect them, requires journalists who are present in those communities, who live the community's experiences.

From sports and arts stories to investigative reports and the fight against corruption, local media issues are a particularly important part of the lives of people in these communities. Simply put, if web giants like GAFAM share news on their platforms, it is because they are getting something out of it. They are profiting handsomely, and unfairly, off all the people who write the news. They are shamelessly exploiting the news.

We need to take matters into our own hands, because playtime is over. Web giants do not have the same journalistic rigour. To maintain a healthy environment with a variety of opinions and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, we must allow professional journalists to continue to do their work, and give media companies a chance to regularly show us the product of that diligent work. That needs to happen everywhere, not just in major cities.

Facebook and Google are not going to send a reporter to cover a Russell Cup win by the Ville-Marie Pirates or the Temiscaming Titans. They leave that to CKVM, TV Témis, RNC Média and TVA Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Facebook and Google are not going to send a reporter to ask Rouyn-Noranda municipal authorities about construction delays for the aquatic facility. They leave that to the Rouyn-Noranda paper, Le Citoyen.

Facebook and Google are not going to cover all the Amos festivals. They leave that to MédiAT, CHUN FM, TV Témis and Abitibi-Ouest community television with Gaby Lacasse.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Radio-Canada is the one that gets the local MP on air for an interview to keep him accountable and let people know what he is doing.

The media crisis hit print media in Abitibi-Témiscamingue hard. As recently as 2017, our paper, Le Citoyen, still had 15 or so reporters covering our territory. Now the local weekly has just five of them left, and the content has been affected too.

The 60-page papers that used to be on every doorstep have thinned to 20. The Témiscamingue paper, Le Reflet, stopped printing paper editions because of the drop in ad revenue. Even the Énergie radio station cut two positions; its newsroom now has just two reporters covering Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Take the RCM of Abitibi-Ouest, for example. A few years ago, there were two reporters permanently based there. Now there is just one. That might not seem like a big deal, but it means that a lot of what goes on in the 3,415 square kilometres and 21 municipalities that make up the RCM just does not get covered for want of time and staff.

Losing one reporter position might not seem like a big deal, but it is a monumental loss for small communities in Quebec. One less member of the media means articles and investigative reports do not get written. Events do not get covered. Voices are not heard. This affects the vitality of our communities.

That is why Bill C-18 is important. It is time for GAFAM to share revenues with local media. This money is important to boosting our regional media. It could help local media keep and perhaps even hire journalists, who can then ask us questions and report on the work we do here in the House of Commons. This is called accountability for all politicians.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has provided an opt-in mechanism for GAFAM. Either they take a forward-looking approach and immediately begin reaching agreements with the various news companies, or the government will say that it will take care of them. It is up to GAFAM to decide.

I also welcome the fact that, with Bill C‑18, the government wants to leave room for independence and transparency in the agreements. Once this is done, GAFAM will have to file the various agreements with the CRTC. The CRTC will be responsible for confirming that the following conditions are met: the agreements include fair compensation; part of that compensation is used to produce local, regional and national news content; the agreements guarantee freedom of expression; they contribute to the vitality of the Canadian news marketplace; they support independent local news; and they reflect Canadian diversity and hopefully Quebec's cultural and linguistic diversity.

If we look at the eligibility criteria for news businesses, only those designated as qualified Canadian journalism organizations under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act will be able to receive compensation when their news content is lifted. Non-Canadian businesses that meet criteria similar to qualified Canadian journalism organizations will also be eligible.

The requirement to employ two journalists is another obstacle for some of the more remote communities in Quebec. Think about it. Some hyper-local media outlets rely on just one person to produce all the news. These media outlets would not be eligible for this program as it currently stands. This is an obstacle to the development of our local media outlets, which are capable of being nimble and proactive.

Since I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑18, I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that regional and community media will not see a difference or any clear improvement in their economic condition. I would like to know if the government is planning for additional measures. I would like to have answers to these questions.

News Media Canada, the voice of Canada's news media industry, has already stated that it would like us to review the eligibility criteria so that daily papers employing only one journalist are entitled to receive their share of the pie as well. This is a more accurate reflection of the reality of the media in remote areas such as Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Let us also look at other provisions of Bill C‑18.

I see that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has included provisions to exempt the parties involved in these negotiations from certain conditions of the Competition Act and to require the parties to negotiate in good faith. The bill prohibits a platform from using such means as reducing or prioritizing access to a platform in retaliation or as a negotiating tactic. It allows news businesses to file complaints against the GAFAM with the CRTC if they notice platforms behaving in such a way. There are penalties and fines for the various entities subject to Bill C‑18.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill.

We had been waiting for Bill C‑18, and the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, Bill C-11, for several years. When I read Bill C‑18, we still did not know how it would be received by media industry groups. We are continuing our discussions, and we will certainly have ideas about how to improve Bill C‑18.

There are many similarities between the Australian law and the Canadian bill. As in Australia, we expect that web giants like GAFAM will step up their efforts to influence, not to say pressure, parliamentarians and the media. I note that the government has been sensitive to the smaller players by allowing them to band together however they choose in order to negotiate, a provision that has been well received.

In Canada, the CRTC will manage the program. The money will go toward journalism, not the shareholders of a news company. I like that. The Australian law maintains confidential agreements and so does Bill C-18, but the government is giving the CRTC the role of reviewing them and checking whether they meet certain conditions that I mentioned earlier in my speech.

I want to explore some of the arguments I found by doing a little research. Let me begin with the good news. Media companies, at least some of them, are doing well thanks to some business decisions they have made. Some have even been able to hire new journalists and create additional positions. Others have gone ahead and brought in a subscription model, which does bring in some revenue. This is definitely not a cure-all, and it would still take a lot to convince me that media companies are able to keep their heads well above water.

According to a number of reports, roughly 18 Canadian journalism organizations have agreements with Meta that will provide nearly $8 million in revenue over the next three years. However, there is a caveat. Facebook says that it has contributed to Canadian media through its News Innovation Test, and that is true, but all the investments went to major Canadian media organizations. Those funds never made it to the local media in my riding or in many other Quebec ridings. That is another reason this bill is important. Without it, local media will definitely be overlooked by GAFAM. This poses a real danger to our democracy.

I want to come back to the fact that questions are also being raised about the negotiation of agreements between media outlets and web giants like GAFAM. It may be easy for large consortiums to get negotiating power, but it is a whole different story for local media outlets that serve small communities.

That is a concern for François Munger, the founder of MédiAT, who is worried that our local news creators will end up with next to nothing. I would like to remind members that the work of journalists in small communities is essential. I will do so by talking a bit about what makes local news unique and by quoting Mr. Munger, who had the courage to start his media company in 2015 in the midst of a media crisis. He said that he was starting a media company in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue because he believed in it and wanted to keep his community informed.

The local news expresses local colour and culture in the community's language. It addresses issues that get residents thinking and even taking the often necessary action to deal with issues that will affect their quality of life. The local news also reports on accomplishments that deserve to be recognized. Overall, the local news serves as a watchdog for the government and businesses. It also serves as the people's watchdog in their dealings with those entities. The local news provides information about municipal borrowing by-laws and violations and often reports on legal proceedings. We can see how important it is. The local news is who we are.

The government will have to provide immediate financial aid for small media outlets that are struggling to survive right now. The measures in Bill C‑18 will take another few months, and the media will not see one cent for at least a year. One possible solution would be for Ottawa to ensure that its ads are placed in these local media outlets that are struggling to bring in significant revenue.

It makes sense that Facebook needs content for its platform. If all the news content were cut from Facebook, there would be nothing left but viral content and entertainment. Evidently, I am not the biggest fan of influencers. To grow their user base and ad revenues, platforms such as Facebook need news. They have every interest in keeping the journalistic community alive and well.

Facebook needs to offer more engaging content, because the more eyeballs it can attract, the more advertising it can sell and the more revenue it will earn. Almost all of Facebook's revenue comes from advertising. Facebook and Google take in 80% of all online ad spending. That is where the real money is. About $193 million of their Canadian revenue is derived from content that was created by journalists and that does not belong to these companies. That is the kind of money that our news agencies could expect to get back in compensation.

In conclusion, Bill C‑18 is one of three bills from this department on the topic of modernizing our communications, and it is designed to address the dominance of multinationals. It would allow the media industry to get back to its roots and would support the industries that play a fundamental role in our democracy.

Our work is far from over, however, since the government has chosen to take small steps and will continue to do so. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have been keeping a close eye on this, and we are pleased to see that this bill includes the many proposals we made or included in our election platform. I must also say that I made promises to my constituents about these proposals, especially with respect to local and regional news media like TvcTK.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to acknowledge the addition of a new member to my team, Jean‑François Vachon, a journalist by training. He is very well known in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, especially for his work at the newspaper Le Citoyen and with the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies. He certainly adds value to my team. This will somewhat influence my speech, which will be interesting as it is about content in regional media. I would also like to acknowledge my friend Antoni Gilbert, who helped with the work done by my team.

Today we begin debate at second reading on Bill C-18, which requires digital platforms to negotiate agreements with news businesses. I would like to join my colleagues in saying it is about time.

However, I am in suspense because there is still much work to be done on protecting privacy on major digital platforms. This bill may be the third bill on that subject. Groups advocating for the protection of marginalized people and victims of fraud are very active, and their expectations are high.

I wonder how many people know how to get a photo taken down, for example. Great Britain is working very hard on that.

We are also starting to see impacts on competitiveness that are affecting SMEs, such as forced transfers of intellectual property in exchange for access to major digital platforms. I agree with the experts who told the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that the Competition Act is out of sync with what is being done elsewhere in the world. Some think that this bill will deal with the web giants' major platforms once and for all, but more legislation will be needed.

With regard to Bill C‑18, I am pleased to finally see a bill compensating news businesses when their content is lifted, in other words stolen.

Unfortunately, this new bill, which was largely inspired by the Australian model, faces a rocky path. Still, I must say that it is high time we put an end to the cannibalization and dismantling of our traditional media, particularly in the regions.

In regions that are far from major centres, such as Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Lower St. Lawrence and the north shore, maintaining regional and local news services is quite challenging. These territories are huge and often sparsely populated.

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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for a great speech and for moving the amendment because I do have concerns about Bill C-18, especially when we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about how there would not be any discrimination. In every other media policy that the government has brought, there has been discrimination along the political spectrum and, as the member correctly pointed out, small and medium-sized news outlets.

I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 sets out, in black and white, the rules that the various media players must follow to ensure much healthier competition and quality content for everyone.

It is no secret that small media outlets are in immediate need of financial assistance from the government. What does my colleague think about that?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-18, the online news act.

I did not get a chance to ask the parliamentary secretary for Canadian heritage a question. He spoke a lot in his speech about the online tech giants, the Facebooks and Googles of the world, gobbling up advertising revenue and leaving small local newspapers without the same access to revenue. If I would have had a chance to ask the parliamentary secretary a question, I would have asked him why he spent $13,000 on Facebook advertising, rather than investing that in his local newspaper, the St. Catharines Standard.

Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to ask the parliamentary secretary that question, but perhaps he can come back to the House at some point and clarify why he felt the need to spend $13,000 on a tech giant, rather than on his local community newspaper.

I want to begin by stating there is a clear sense that Canada's news environment has changed dramatically, and it has changed especially significantly in the last 10 to 20 years. The Internet has changed how we do business. It has brought many changes to all aspects of our lives, our communities and how businesses operate. As these changes and disruptions have happened in the digital marketplace, they have had a very specific impact on the media industry and in particular the traditional print media industry.

As many Canadians know, the cumulative advertising dollars that are spent in Canada are now being spent more and more on online means. As these dollars move online, a smaller and smaller number of dollars are being spent on traditional advertising and print advertising, which for years and decades have been used to sustain the news industry.

Newsrooms in 2022 are far smaller than they were even a decade ago. We can contrast that even further back, to 20 to 30 years ago. Many of the newsrooms that are now operating with one or two journalists at one point operated with a dozen. I know the Speaker has a background in the media industry and will be able to reflect on the changes that have happened over these number of years. Still other newsrooms have closed entirely, and when these newsrooms close, they leave in their wake news deserts in which parts of the community, or in some cases entire communities, are left without access to reliable local news sources. These closures have particularly hurt small towns and rural communities, like those communities in many of our ridings.

Canadians rely on local news to inform their lives and help inform their decision-making at the local, regional and national levels. Whether it be the members of the parliamentary press gallery, the press galleries of the provincial legislatures or countless individual journalists who cover the goings-on at city halls and town halls in communities across our country, all of these journalists have a role to play in Canada's democratic life. In fact, a free and independent press is essential to a functioning democracy.

I draw the House's attention to one of the famous comments on a free and independent press from George Mason, one of America's founding fathers. He said, “the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” That quotation is as true now as it was then. The freedom and ability of the press to fairly, impartially and honestly report the news to citizens of this country are absolutely essential.

That local news is struggling is not in doubt. The traditional business model that saw print publications sell advertising space in hard-copy publications worked for decades and saw successes. Small independent newspapers and large media empires alike relied on the basic practice of using this advertising space to reach the eyes of readers and help sustain their newsrooms. Now, in 2022, while the advertising model has diminished, what has not diminished is the continued need for impartial, honest and trustworthy sources of news.

The government itself has admitted that it has not yet found a solution to this problem. In fact, in his press conference after introducing the bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself conceded that a significant number of news providers have closed their doors in recent years during the government's time in office. This is not only unfortunate; it is weakening our communities.

Local newspapers, radio stations and television stations bring us the stories that impact us in our daily lives. At the local level, they report the stories of community. They cover municipal councils, charitable events and fundraisers, community festivals, fall fairs and the success of our local sports teams or, in some cases, hope for the future success of these teams. Local journalism also covers the more unfortunate but nonetheless essential stories that need to be told in our communities: stories of crime, fires, floods and violence.

As I drive across the 3,500 square kilometres of Perth—Wellington, I find myself flipping through my car radio's preset stations. I want to be clear that I use my radio in my car. I do not use Spotify and I do not use satellite radio. I prefer traditional radio when I am driving, and I listen to it as I drive across my riding and from there to Ottawa. I also listen to local stations as I drive along Highway 401 or Highway 7, depending on which direction I am taking. It gives me an opportunity to hear what is going on in not only my own communities in Perth—Wellington, but those across the country.

As I drive through Perth and Wellington counties, I find myself flipping to The River, which is a non-profit entity out of Mount Forest, Ontario, that celebrates everything local and everything important to the community. I often switch to a number of the Blackburn radio stations that are present throughout southwestern Ontario given the important services and news they provide. In fact, one of the Blackburn stations is AM920 out of Wingham. I fondly remember as a child listening to AM920 and being shushed by my mother every time the “in memoriam” part came on, because we certainly did not want to miss that. To this day, it is still part of the station.

In Listowel and North Perth, we can tune in to The Ranch, the newest entrant to the news and radio market. It has quickly found an important spot in the media landscape in Listowel and North Perth and, indeed, in the northern part of Perth County. Of course, in Stratford, we can tune in to 2day FM or Juice FM to hear Jamie Cottle in the morning, and before him, local legend Eddie Matthews.

I would like to highlight the fact that the radio predecessor to 2day FM and Juice FM was CJCS 1240 AM. It was in 1945 that the CJCS commentators were providing coverage of the Perth Regiment's return from World War II. That coverage on CJCS 1240 AM inspired a young, 12-year-old boy from Stratford to begin a lifelong career in broadcasting. That young boy began working at CJCS as a high school student, and while he got his start in radio, generations of Canadians know him for his television career as Canada's most trusted news anchor. However, Stratford and Perth County will always lay claim to the fact that Lloyd Robertson got his start in our little community on the radio.

In Perth—Wellington, we also have a number of tremendous local newspapers. In Wellington County, we are lucky to have the Wellington Advertiser, which has proudly served the people of Wellington County for more than half a century. It has been recognized for its work on multiple occasions, including being named the top community newspaper in Ontario in its class by the Ontario Community Newspapers Association.

When I attended the 50th anniversary celebration for the Wellington Advertiser, I was struck by a story told by Dave Adsett, publisher of the Advertiser. He recounted how his father, Bill Adsett, the founder of the Wellington Advertiser, once had the option to save money by removing delivery to a small portion of Wellington County. He refused to do so out of principle to ensure that every citizen in Wellington County had access to the news and information contained in the Wellington Advertiser. When Bill Adsett passed away on October 5, 2021, he was rightly remembered and honoured for his lifetime of contributions to the County of Wellington.

In my hometown of Mitchell, I have been a reader of the Mitchell Advocate literally since I was able to read. I say that completely honestly. Throughout all the years that I have been reading the newspaper, Andy Bader has been working hard to bring the news and our local stories to us each and every week. Similarly, I have wonderful memories of reading The Stratford Beacon Herald, and watching as photographers like Scott Wishart chronicled the life of the community through his photos, or as Steve Rice recorded the rise and fall of any number of local sports teams.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, many local news providers have closed in the past number of years, hurting communities across Canada, including those in Perth—Wellington.

The Mount Forest Confederate, a paper that was first published in the year of Canada's Confederation, in 1867, has closed. The Arthur Enterprise News, founded before Confederation, in 1862, has closed. In 2019, the Minto Express was closed.

In Perth County, many of my constituents were shocked in 2017 when the major media giants abruptly shut down both the St. Marys Journal Argus and Stratford Gazette. The closure of the St. Marys Journal Argus was especially difficult because after 154 years as a newspaper serving the community, it was unexpectedly shut down in one single day without even the opportunity to deliver a final edition to the town's faithful readers.

Fortunately for the town of St. Marys, the St. Marys Independent, led by Stewart Grant, has stepped in to fill that void. I might add that he does so as a true public service to the communities of St. Marys, Perth South and beyond.

While these examples are local to my riding, the challenges are certainly national in scope. Today's debate is not the first time the issue of struggling local news providers has been raised. In fact, at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we have undertaken a study of the Rogers-Shaw deal and the impact that it will have on local news. This study was initiated by my friend and colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, a former broadcaster who prided himself during his broadcasting career on delivering local news to his communities in Saskatoon and beyond.

Like many Canadians, I was disappointed to see the CRTC make a ruling to approve the sale based on certain conditions. Obviously recent events involving the Competition Bureau may alter the future of this deal, but what I found interesting and frankly disappointing about the Rogers-Shaw decision by the CRTC was its use of wishy-washy, non-committal language. In its decision, the CRTC used words such as “encouragement”, “expectations” and “reminders”, rather than taking a real stand.

Setting aside for a moment the CRTC's decision on the Rogers-Shaw deal, there is no question that the decisions made by the CRTC and other entities will have an impact on local news. The question is whether the CRTC has the capacity or the competency to actually make decisions that will improve the media landscape in Canada.

That brings me to some of the concerns we have with the bill at hand.

In the last election, there was a general consensus among the different political platforms that something should be done to help local news and journalism survive. In our Conservative platform under our former leader, the member for Durham, we made the following commitment:

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. It will:

Adopt a made in Canada approach that incorporates the best practices of jurisdictions like Australia and France.

Include a robust arbitration process and the creation of an intellectual property right for article extracts shared on a social media platform.

Ensure that smaller media outlets are included, and that the government won’t be able to pick and choose who has access to the royalty framework.

That is what we committed to in the last election campaign.

It may surprise everyone, but we did not win that election. We came close, certainly, and we did win the popular vote, but we did not form government, to the great disappointment of my friends on the other side of the House. While we did not get to draft this legislation, it is our duty as Her Majesty's loyal opposition to review the legislation introduced by the Liberal government and provide the comments that our citizens and constituents require of us.

Let me say very clearly that Canada's Conservatives believe that news providers should be fairly compensated for the use of their content. That said, we do have questions about this particular piece of legislation. As I explained earlier, local news providers are struggling. This begs the obvious question as to whether Bill C-18 will help the newspapers and radio stations in communities like Perth—Wellington, Sarnia—Lambton, Elgin—Middlesex—London, and other rural communities and small towns across our country. Unfortunately, that is unclear.

A recent report from the Toronto Star, itself a long and distinguished media provider in this country, indicated that the Australian model on which this legislation is based may be leaving out small and medium-sized businesses. The article states, “But while major publishers and networks in Australia had struck deals with Facebook and Google, some smaller, independent outlets were finding themselves shut out from making deals of their own.”

The article goes on to quote Erin Millar, the CEO of Indiegraf, who said, “If we’re going to have this bill, how are we to design it in such a way that it doesn’t lead to the same outcomes as Australia, which is, from my perspective, really not supporting journalism?”

There are other questions that remain unanswered with this bill as well, such as why the CRTC was selected as the regulatory body to enforce and oversee the act when the CRTC does not have a history or experience in regulating online platforms. Let us not forget that the CRTC is the same entity whose chair met privately for beers with someone from one of the largest industries it regulates. However, beyond the chair's clear lack of judgment, let us remember that the CRTC has still not implemented a three-digit suicide prevention hotline more than 500 days after this House unanimously passed a motion calling for such a resource. It has also been more than 16 months since the CRTC held hearings about the licence renewal for the CBC licences. If the CRTC cannot make a decision within 16 months on what I would assume to be a fairly routine renewal, how in the world can it have the capacity and competency to do anything that is asked of it?

We also have no indication on how much revenue will be generated when this bill is enforced. Budget 2022 earmarks $8.5 million for the bureaucracy necessary to administer Bill C-18, so it is logical to ask whether the revenues generated through this bill will be greater than or less than the costs to administer it.

We have a number of other questions, including how the code of conduct will be developed and whether it will be tabled in Parliament. We have questions about what undue preference will be considered within the bill. Will non-Canadian news providers be able to benefit from the Canadian system? Why has the government not tabled a charter statement on this bill? Why was a public broadcaster included when it already received other entities? We have these questions and, as such, I think an important committee study ought to be had.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite sure I was up ahead of the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but I will not argue the point. That is virtual reality, so here we are.

I am focusing less on what Bill C-18 proposes to do. It has taken the approach of saying, as we have heard, that when information, news articles and content appear in what we might call our conventional media, the social media giants and the tech giants pay for that. However, it does not get to this new problem. Neither Bill C-11 nor Bill C-18 gets to what is now being called by our security experts “IMVE”, ideologically motivated violent extremism, which is spread through social media content. I commend to the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members a recent opinion piece by Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Taylor Owen, the director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University.

We are not addressing the root problem here. It is a dangerous area. People want to back away from this nexus between free speech and protecting people from violent extremism. The solution I would put to the hon. member is to treat these new tech online sources, or whatever we want to call them, not as platforms but as publishers. That is what they are. They publish. We have a vast amount of common-law jurisprudence on what to do with publishing things that are false.

I put it to the hon. member that Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 do not address the threat to Canadian democracy in online disinformation.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from the hon. member. We need to start levelling the playing field somewhere. This is an excellent start.

This deal is already in place between major media companies in Canada and Facebook and Google. It is time to ensure that there is more transparency. It is time to ensure that smaller entities will be able to get a fair deal as well. This will help level the playing field. The argument that we are making on Bill C-11 is an important argument that we are making on Bill C-18 as well.

We need to get this bill to committee and through the House as quickly as possibly, because, as we said, more media outlets are closing. We are in a crisis. We need to do what we can, and this is a model that works.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is wonderful. It is unfortunate we lost that minute or so, but I guess that gives me even more time to speak to my Conservative friends who do not want to hear the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, who is an hon. parliamentarian. It is disappointing. I am sure he will get an opportunity to speak going forward, but I thank my Conservative friends for allowing me to carry on and answer even more questions.

I would like to start my speech with a statement, and I hope all members agree with it: There is no real democracy without a free and independent press. A bankrupt press is not a free press. To play its fundamental role, the press needs revenue. This principle is at the core of Bill C-18, and it is at the core of our approach to supporting strong and independent journalism. What we are seeing now, more than ever, is just how important that is.

The way Canadians get their news has changed a lot. Many of us get our news through Google or Facebook, which is okay. There is nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that digital media platforms do not compensate media when they use their content. Advertising dollars have left Canadian media. In 2020, online advertising revenues in Canada were close to $10 billion, with Meta and Google taking 80% of those revenues.

The consequences for many Canadian businesses are dire. This is especially hurting Canadian media that rely on advertising to pay their journalists. Between 2008 and 2021, 450 news outlets closed across Canada. Let me repeat that: Canada now has 450 fewer news outlets, and it shows no signs of improving. Since the start of the pandemic, 64 news outlets have closed. This is a crisis.

In many regions, that means there are no more local media and no more journalists holding local governments and officials to account. Many Canadians have no way of knowing what is happening in their communities and no way of knowing what is happening at City Hall. The very foundations of our government are eroding. All this is at a time when disinformation is on the rise. Canadians need credible, independent and reliable information.

We have implemented concrete solutions to address these issues, and I would like to go through a couple of them. We created the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. This has kept many outlets afloat: many more would have gone bankrupt during the pandemic, leaving many communities without any local journalistic coverage. We created a tax credit for subscriptions and donations to media.

We increased funding to the Canada periodical fund, which many local media outlets had to rely on. We are even adding an additional $40 million to the budget in 2022. We created the local journalism initiative. Thanks to this program, many communities can count on journalistic equality and consistent access to local news. Without it, many communities would have absolutely zero coverage on the ground. These are all important steps, but we know there is more work to do.

We have heard loud and clear from the Canadian journalism industry that news businesses are struggling. They are in dire need of long-term, reliable and structural supports to continue producing the news that Canadians rely so heavily on. That is why we need tech giants to do their part, and that is why we need Bill C-18.

The compensation that tech giants would provide to Canadian media through Bill C-18 would represent a giant step in ensuring the viability of strong and independent journalism in Canada, which is essential to our democracy. That is what Bill C-18 would do. It is simple. Tech giants would fairly compensate Canadian journalists when they use their content. That is it: no more, no less.

It is a market-based solution that involves minimal government intervention, and I think everyone in this place can agree on that. I am sure my Conservative colleagues will be very happy. They believe in the free market and independent journalism. I really cannot think of anything in this bill that they would not like.

As I said, Bill C-18 is a market-based approach designed to revolve around bargaining and balance between large, dominant digital platforms and news businesses. It would ensure that eligible news businesses are fairly compensated for their content by digital platforms through negotiated deals. The bill incentivizes parties to reach commercial agreements on their own.

It is based on the Australian model, but we made it more transparent. Public and transparent criteria would determine which platform is included and has to negotiate with Canadian media. It is not a minister and not a government. Every step of the way, we would make sure that the government stays as far away as possible from this process.

Digital platforms would be designated under the act. If they had a significant bargaining power imbalance compared with news businesses, they would be required to negotiate with eligible news businesses a fair compensation for the news content that appears on their services.

Again, this is not the government that determines which outlet is eligible. There are criteria. They are written in black and white in the bill. It is as transparent as it gets.

I hope my colleagues are listening carefully. I am sure they are, because they wanted me to go on for an additional 10 minutes. The next part of this speech is important, because the bill is important to smaller local media as well.

Eligible media may collectively bargain if they wish. This would allow smaller media outlets that did not have the resources to single-handedly negotiate with tech giants to still receive fair compensation for the use of their content. In other words, we are ensuring that local journalism can continue to thrive in communities across Canada.

We went even further on transparency, because we believe this is essential to preserve public confidence in Canadian journalism and in our democracy. Every single deal would be disclosed. Canadians would know which news organizations have deals with each and every platform. Through this bill, we are making sure that commercial agreements between digital platforms and news businesses are in the public interest.

For the deals to be acceptable, they need to satisfy six criteria.

First, they provide fair compensation for news content.

Second, they ensure that an appropriate portion of the compensation will be used for the production of local, regional and national news content.

Third, they do not undermine freedom of expression and journalistic integrity.

Fourth, they contribute to the sustainability of the news market.

Fifth, they ensure that a significant portion of independent local news businesses benefit from the deals.

Sixth, they involve a range of news outlets that reflect the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace.

Again, we see the criteria are public and transparent. There is minimal government intervention.

The bill even contains an exemption to this. It contains a set of criteria that, if fulfilled, may exempt digital platforms from further negotiations. This is essential to encourage voluntary commercial agreements to further minimize government involvement. To be exempt, digital platforms would have to show that they sufficiently contribute to the Canadian digital news marketplace by reaching fair commercial agreements, that they have an appropriate portion of compensation used to support local and independent news, that the agreements are inclusive and made with a diversity of news businesses representing a diversity of Canadian interests and identities, and that the agreements support innovative business models. As we can see, this is another way to make sure that local media also receive fair compensation. It is at the core of the bill.

Without this legislation, Canadian journalism and democracy will continue to erode. It is already happening as we speak. Bill C-18 would ensure that digital platforms are negotiating fair commercial deals with news businesses. This is not just about large news businesses, as I clearly demonstrated through the availability of collective bargaining. As a criteria for the exemption, this bill would ensure that small businesses also receive fair compensation.

This bill would limit government involvement and protect the independence of media from both government and commercial interference, because now, more than ever, Canadians need strong and independent journalism.

The Conservatives have told us they want market-based solutions to the media crisis. I agree, and we agree, but right now there are two companies, Google and Meta, that get 80% of the ad revenue on the Internet. It does not feel like it is a free market. There is not much competition. It is almost a monopoly, but with our bill Canadian media would have the tools they need to negotiate fair deals. It is a solution that protects media and protects their independence.

We are basing this on the Australian model. I know when a similar bill came out in Australia, Facebook, or Meta, attempted to have a fight with the Australian government and threatened to pull all of the country's news sources from Facebook. It thought it would turn the Australian people against their government, but what it did was turn them against Facebook, which backed down.

We have seen other countries and other allies of Canada move in this direction. We have an understanding and we have full knowledge. Again, I hope all members support our need to have strong independent journalism to help our democracy. Australia created a model that works. The tech giants have negotiated fair deals with Australian media outlets, including Australian Crown corporations. Journalism there is now stronger. Australian democracy is now stronger. It worked in Australia, and it will work in Canada.

I think that is what we want. I truly hope that this will be a speedy debate and that all parties will come together on this, because that is what we want to see. I am sure there are members in this House who do not like that there are local news outlets that hold them to account, but that is what strengthens our democracy.

I know the Conservatives have been very vocal on our committee, and I respect that, talking about the Shaw-Rogers merger and its impact on local news. We have had some very good discussion on that. Because there is a potential impact on a number of local television stations and local news across the country, I hope that concern goes broader. The merger is an excellent discussion, a discussion worth having, but this is the elephant in the room, in terms of ad revenues that have left, ad revenues that are going away from local news organizations and going to massive American companies, the dominant digital players. Again, 80% of that revenue goes to those two companies. It does not seem like we could have a healthy space, and this concerns me.

We see the consequences of misinformation and disinformation online. The types of things that local media and national media outlets do are to get the truth out, but on Facebook and other social media, we do not see that impact. To see the safety of the hon. leader of the NDP threatened because of individuals who have now become subsumed in the disinformation that social media has to offer is horrific. It was frightening to watch, and it was disappointing to see. No member of this place should have to go through that. He handled it with poise, and I tip my hat to him, but none of us should be placed in that position.

I will wrap up by saying that this is a significant bill for Canadians, for democracy. We need to find ways to strengthen that. I look forward to getting this to committee as quickly as possible. We have excellent debates in the heritage committee and we have a very good working relationship with all parties. There is an appreciation across all the parties that we need to do more for local media and we need to do more for national media to ensure that that presence continues to exist.

I hope that we see broad support on Bill C-18, and I look forward to its passing speedily at second reading so that we can get it to committee as quickly as we can.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to stand and answer a Thursday question, even when the member opposite is not excited to ask it.

This evening, we will continue, and hopefully complete, debate at second reading of Bill C-13, concerning official languages.

Tomorrow, we will commence debate on Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. We will return to this debate next Wednesday.

At noon on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, which deals with electoral representation in Quebec.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 19, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Furthermore, the debate for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take place on the evening of Monday, May 30.

If the member opposite has any ideas on how to make this place work or has any ideas on how we can improve legislation, I am always here to hear it. Unfortunately, to this point in time, nothing has come forward.

Online Streaming Act

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-11, and maybe the member did not hear me talk earlier about some of the issues we had specifically with Bill C-11, such as proposed subsection 4.1(2), which talks about an exception to the exception and some of the criteria that the CRTC has laid out on what could be admissible under the new Broadcasting Act and what may not be admissible. There are issues we have with the bill we are talking about right now. I laid that out quite cleanly in my opening remarks, when we were talking about this bill, which is Bill C-11, and we will debate Bill C-18 another time. I look forward to having that discussion with the hon. member, when that is the actual bill we are supposed to be discussing on the floor.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan talked a lot about how much money is going to Facebook for advertising, and the previous Conservative speaker mentioned Bill C-18, which is where the rubber hits the road on the point of how we get value out of Facebook and other web giants for that advertising.

In Australia, 81% of their advertising was going to Google and Facebook, and the previous speaker seemed to intimate that their legislation was a failure, but it has produced revenues of over $100 million, it has allowed dozens of journalists to be hired and it covers 50% of editorial costs. That does not sound like a failure to me. It sounds like, for all the money everybody here in Canada pays Facebook and other web giants for advertising, we would get something back out of it through Bill C-18.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Internet is an incredible invention. We have all the information in the world in the palm of our hands. Just as the creation of the printing press in the 1400s changed the course of history forever by allowing information to be disseminated to the masses, rather than just to the elites of society, bringing literacy to millions of people, so too has the Internet revolutionized how we exchange ideas and amplify our voices. It has brought freedom of knowledge and expression to billions of people.

Before the printing press, censorship of dangerous ideas by the elites was easy. All one had to do was round up the heretics who held fringe or unacceptable views, hang them high in town square and burn their handwritten notebooks. With the use of the printing press, dangerous ideas could be shared far and wide, leading to the Protestant Reformation, the scientific revolution, the French Revolution and the age of enlightenment, just to name a few.

Likewise, the Internet and social media have helped spark political revolutions and political movements. They have empowered brave resistance to foreign dictators, like our Ukrainian friends against Vladimir Putin and their courageous fight. Social media has helped empower that and allows for the exchange information at a rapid pace.

We really do live in extraordinary times. This is especially true for our online Canadian content creators. “Influencer” is now a career choice, and Canadian musicians, painters, bakers, commentators and do-it-yourselfers can access billions of people to share their ideas and creations with the click of a button. All one needs is an Internet connection and a smart phone.

Actually, one needs one more thing. They need a government that believes in their freedom to do so. Unfortunately, Canadians are experiencing a government that is trying desperately to control the Internet.

From the very wild and extreme online harms bill, to Bill C-18, the online news act, and now Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which we are debating today, Canada's Liberal government is really butting into every aspect of our online world. It is proclaiming it is here to help and that it will show those big, scary boss streaming services, such as Netflix and Spotify, who the boss is and save us all from the scary, dangerous ideas on the Internet.

In reality, these three Internet bills all have the same aim, which is to regulate what we see when we open our cell phone apps. Canadians may remember how Bill C-10 exploded in controversy last year, but it died on the Order Paper. It is back now in Bill C-11, and while the Liberals claim they have fixed the concerns we had with Bill C-10, Bill C-11 is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The issue with Bill C-10 was its control of user-generated content, the posts and videos that we share and upload on social media. The Liberals say that issue was removed in Bill C-11, but experts do not agree. Notable communications law professor Michael Geist has pointed out that the CRTC has the power, with Bill C-11, to subject user-generated content to regulation, should it so choose.

If folks at home are asking what the CRTC is, it is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has heavily controlled what we have seen on TV and heard on the radio over the past 50 years. Bill C-11 essentially expands the CRTC's powers not only to streaming giants such as Netflix and Spotify, but also to the podcasts, audiobooks and news channels we consume online. It will not just control Canadian-produced versions of those things, but anything coming from anywhere in the world that Canadians want to consume online in Canada.

More than that, Bill C-11, in fact, provides the Liberal cabinet the power to tell the CRTC how to regulate streaming platforms, how to define what Canadian content is and the general policy direction of these Internet controls. It is important to note that cabinet does not have this power currently over TV and radio. This will be a new power. Under the existing law, the CRTC is not directed by cabinet. It is independent, so it can be free from political interference, which is very important. However, this will no longer be the case under Bill C-11. Cabinet will have power over what we see on Internet, which represents an unprecedented expansion of government power.

The bottom line is that Canadian creators have more freedom now, before this bill comes in, than they ever did before with TV and radio. One can become a YouTube star. It is far more accessible than trying to break into network television. Why would the Liberals want to impose the same CRTC regulations they have on TV and radio onto our online platforms? It really does not make sense if we are talking about boosting our Canadian content creators. We know that over 90% of those who are watching our Canadian content are from outside of Canada.

The number of influencers online in Canada earning $100,000 a year or more is rapidly increasing every single year. I really do believe the last thing our online content creators need is the Liberal government sticking its fingers into the regulation controls and messing around with the algorithms that have facilitated the ability of our homegrown creators to share their content with the world.

YouTube, in fact, has alerted the online community and has issued strong warnings to the Liberal government about the negative impacts of Bill C-11, warning that it risks downgrading Canadian content in other countries. If we artificially bump up Canadian content here, and if for whatever reason that Canadian content is not catching the interest of Canadians, the algorithm will actually downgrade that content abroad in competing markets, such as the United States, for example, which a lot of influencers in Canada depend upon.

I do feel that Bill C-11 is not the only thing we need to be worried about. It is worrisome, but there are two other bills as well. There is Bill C-18, which is the online news act, and it has some issues. It has been criticized as interfering in the independence of our news media because it controls how we share news articles on platforms such as Facebook by forcing these platforms to pay news agencies every time we share a news article. Lots of people share news on their Facebook platforms. It is odd this bill would be needed, because this practice is great for news agencies. When one shares their content, it takes us right to their website. It is free advertising.

Australia tried to do the same thing as what is proposed in Bill C-18. Facebook played hardball and banned all sharing of news articles on Facebook until it was able to negotiate something with the Australian government. There are serious issues here. Facebook raised in committee that it is not opposed to doing the same thing in Canada.

Bill C-18 is really just more control from government, but it is not even half as bad as the online harms bill. This is a very scary Internet control bill. In the last Parliament it was known as Bill C-36, and it died on the Order Paper when that unnecessary $600-million election was called, but the Liberals are trying to bring it back again.

It is important to say I welcome a conversation on how we can better fight terrorism organizing online and better enforce existing laws concerning things that are considered fraud, libel, inciting violence, and in particular, child pornography or the sharing of intimate images online without consent. Those are all very important conversations and legitimate issues that need to be addressed.

However, the online harms bill would create a government regulator of speech on the Internet that would decide what is harmful and must be removed. It would be very subjective, depending really on who is behind the curtain dictating what is harmful. Andrew Coyne, in the Globe and Mail, said the bill is “direct state regulation of [online] content”. This is pretty significant.

Twitter said this, which is really concerning:

People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter and other services in a similar manner as the one proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (China, North Korea, and Iran for example) under the false guise of ‘online safety,’ impeding peoples’ rights to access information online.

Twitter is literally comparing this online harms bill to China, North Korea and Iran. It is pretty shocking.

The Liberals are throwing around terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” whenever they do not like something we say, and we know free speech is constantly under attack. Anything one says these days can offend someone. I am concerned about what bills like Bill C-11 and the online harms bill would do to our freedom of expression online.

Although society has evolved, before the creation of the printing press, the establishment would essentially murder heretics with unacceptable views and burn the books later on. We are not immune to authoritarian control of our freedom of expression.

We would also do well to remember rights and freedoms are not always eliminated in one fell swoop. Often governing authorities will just pick at them bit by bit under the guise of it being for our own good, telling us that they know better than us and they will keep us safe. We have seen this happen in China and it is happening in Hong Kong.

Considering that when he was asked which country in the entire world he most admires, our Liberal Prime Minister said China's basic dictatorship because of its ability to get things done, we should listen when the Prime Minister tells us who he really is. With these three Internet control and censorship bills, I do believe he has made his intentions quite clear. We should all be very, very concerned.

[Dr. Pierre Larouche]

Let's just say that the laws are poorly suited to SMEs because Canada's Competition Act places a lot of emphasis on defence. It is very easy for defending companies to be successful.

There has been a lot of discussion of the dependency of SMEs on platforms. However, at this time, Canadian law lacks teeth. It does not really make it possible to do anything. This is an aspect that must be considered in the reform of the Competition Act. Again, it is in our interest to draw inspiration from what is being done in Europe and the United States.

In passing, I would like to apologize to Mr. Généreux. I did not answer his question correctly. Bill C‑18 is indeed a good bill in general.

To come back to your question about SMEs, I would say that there needs to be the courage to do things but in a different way. In its current form, the Competition Act is based on the fact that Parliament always tries to resolve specific problems. Other countries have an approach that gives greater flexibility to the competition authorities.

Competition authorities deal with the matter 24 hours per day. They are experts. If we want the interests of small businesses to be considered, the appropriate authorities simply need to be told that it is important and they will consider it. That is how things work elsewhere in the world.

That is what I would like to see in a new version of the Competition Act. I would like the Competition Bureau to have free rein and be able to handle problems. They would simply need to be told what the problems are, without having to rely on provisions of the act to resolve them.

Freedom of Speech

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, without the liberty to speak freely, we cannot profess to be truly free. It is through the use of speech that most of us share our thoughts, our ideas and our beliefs. This propels us forward and facilitates innovation. It is incredible. It also provides us with the means to criticize, to challenge and to correct when we believe someone to be in error. This includes the government of the day, no matter the party at the helm. If we believe progressing as a society is important, then we must contend for free speech. After all, it is the very foundation of democracy.

That is why it is beyond alarming to me that the government is moving forward with legislation that would censor free speech: Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and the upcoming online harms bill. These bills are a concerted effort to take autonomy away from individuals and put more power and more control in the hands of government.

I urge the House, therefore, and all Canadians, to stand on guard and do all they can to contend for and protect free speech, for it is the very foundation upon which all other freedoms in this country are formed.

Online Streaming Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be speaking on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. We are a diverse group of citizens from many backgrounds and with a variety of different views. They have called me and emailed me over the past year, asking about stopping online censorship. They wanted to be free from government overreach back then, and they feel the same way now.

The people of Saskatoon West also want an end to the unscientific, job-killing NDP-Liberal federal mandates. Many have voiced their concerns on social media platforms. They are concerned that the government is going to block their voices.

Speaking of censorship, the current government has quite a history of shutting down opposing voices, even when it comes to members of its own caucus. We remember, of course, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.

In the last Parliament, the government introduced its first attempt at regulating the Internet with its Bill C-10 and Bill C-36. These bills generated incredible feedback for me via telephone, written letters, emails and social media. It is safe to say that the overall response was extremely negative and many in the media, many consultants and many ordinary folks were very concerned by this legislation. I had hoped that, after seeing all of the opposition to those bills the last time around, the government would smarten up and rethink this flawed legislation. Unfortunately, smartening up is not in the wheelhouse of the current government, and instead it doubled down and reintroduced essentially the same thing.

Let us dive into Bill C-11. The minister stated that the goal of this bill was to target only big online streamers and exclude day-to-day users. It is supposedly about making Canadian content more accessible. The only problem with this argument is that Canadian content has always been accessible. Canadian producers have been able to jump onto various platforms, such as TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and showcase their content without a problem. Why is there the urge to regulate the Internet now?

The current government members think that the content available for users is not Canadian enough for their liking. This is where things start moving toward online censorship. Essentially, any content deemed unworthy by the NDP-Liberals would be bumped out of people's recommended feeds in exchange for government-approved content. Content that is not Canadian enough for the CRTC regulators would be sent to the back of the Internet, which leads to a question: Who reaps the benefits of this? It is the legacy media.

In this new age, where we get most of our information online, broadcasting companies such as the government's beloved taxpayer-funded CBC have been left in the dust. At the end of the day, they want their content promoted over everyone else's. They are the ones scrambling for advertising revenues. This will throw the remaining content, Canadian or not, to the side. Many experts have raised concerns about this bill being very similar to the NDP-Liberal government's original Internet censorship bill, Bill C-10, in the sense that it would still have the power to block Canadian freedom of expression online.

The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, stated, “The biggest difference is that it is called Bill C-11 instead of Bill C-10.” He added, “It is unfortunate because they are giving the CRTC enormous powers, enormous powers, and it is not in the DNA of any regulatory body to not continue to expand its turf.”

The major criticism of Bill C-10 surrounded the issue of user-generated content: those pictures, audio files and videos that many of us share daily on social media. There was a clause in Bill C-10 that exempted this from regulation, but it was removed at committee, which created a firestorm of concern. At the very least, I had expected the government to address this issue. Instead, it added an exception to allow the CRTC to regulate user content. Michael Geist, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce Law, stated:

...for all the talk that user-generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fits neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a 'program'.

In other words, user-generated content is not subject to regulation unless the CRTC decides it is subject to regulation, in which case it is subject to regulation. Are members confused yet? The truth is that the vague language in this bill opens the door for the government to abuse its power and regulate user-generated content. The Internet is our main go-to for information, and many Canadians are earning a good living by making entertaining or educational content on various platforms. The way this bill is currently written, it would limit this creativity and possibly censor a wide range of the content produced online.

Twitter issued these scathing words: “People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter [and other services] in a similar manner as [the one] proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (e.g. China, North Korea and Iran) under the false guise of ‘online safety’, impeding people's rights to access...information online.” It goes on to say that Bill C-11 “sacrifices freedom of expression to the creation of a government-run system of surveillance of anyone who uses Twitter.”

Members should think about that. Twitter was comparing this government to North Korea, and that was before Elon Musk bought it.

The NDP-Liberal government is doing what we have seen time and again: dividing Canadians and stripping away our rights and freedoms one by one. Now, the government is creating a three-headed dragon to take away freedom of expression online from Canadians. These three heads are the Internet censorship Bill C-11, the news regulation Bill C-18, and the expected return of Bill C-36, which would block online content that the government does not like.

If members do not think that this government wants to shut them down, they have not been paying attention. We have seen this government target law-abiding firearms owners by seizing firearms from normal, hard-working Canadians and at the same time reduce sentences for criminals who smuggle illegal firearms into Canada. We have seen it target energy workers who work day and night in our natural resource sectors that, by the way, allow the leader of the NDP to fill up his $80,000 BMW with gas every morning. We have seen it target western Canada's entire energy sector by threatening to shut it down, calling our oil and natural gas “dirty” and at the same time importing oil from countries with horrible human rights records and next to no environmental standards. The Prime Minister still cannot figure out why there is so much division in our country. He is creating it.

In February, when the minister tabled the bill before us, he said that cat videos and social media influencers would not be covered by it. However, this week, YouTube warned Canadians that this simply was not true. A Canadian Press story reported the following:

Jeanette Patell, head of government affairs at YouTube Canada, said the draft law’s wording gives the broadcast regulator scope to oversee everyday videos posted for other users to watch. She told the National Culture Summit in Ottawa that the bill’s text appears to contradict [the] Heritage Minister’s public assurances that it does not cover amateur content, such as cat videos.

I have heard back from many people across this country since last year about their concerns, from when the bill was called Bill C-10. Since then, the calls and emails have just amplified about Bill C-11.

I have a very hard time believing that the use of the bill would only target big online streamers, especially when I have seen first-hand how far this government will go to end criticism. If we flash back a few months to the Prime Minister's trip to Europe, many politicians in the EU called out the member for Papineau's actions during the convoy, and I tweeted about this. Gerry Butts, the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, tried to dismiss it right away. He said, “If you're getting your news from news outlets—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss Bill C-11 on online streaming. This is a modest beginning that will address certain aspects of what I call “living with the digital giants”.

I would like to give a shout out to the artisans in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, in particular Rosalie Chartier-Lacombe’s team at the Petit Théâtre du Vieux Noranda, who is currently hosting the Avantage Numérique forum with a view to positioning the croissant boréal, a broad area of francophone identity and culture, as a centre of excellence for creative energy, expertise and talent.

Today’s new bill acknowledges that the growth of streaming services has radically transformed our way of watching television series and films and listening to music. It also acknowledges that certain foreign companies stream in Canada with no regulations or obligation to contribute to Canadian and Quebec stories and music. They distribute them with impunity without paying royalties.

Like many Bloc Québécois members who have spoken about this bill, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-11. We have been discussing the reform of the Broadcasting Act in Ottawa for more than 30 years.

I want to mention the Yale report, which was produced by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel. Bill C-11 is a first response to this report. The Yale report was very well received by Quebec’s cultural community, which wanted measures to be adopted quickly.

If someone says that the fox has gotten into the henhouse, it is obvious that the warning should be taken seriously. For more than 20 years, the web giants have been slowly choking the life out of Canadian and Quebec productions, as well as our written and visual media. We will agree that it is high time we did something and responded in such a way as to give Quebec and Canadian companies some elbow room.

The airwaves are a public good that must serve the people. In the coming decades, we will have to be able to recognize ourselves on these airwaves.

We know that the issues go far beyond financial considerations. The funding will have to be increased to ensure that Quebeckers and francophones in other provinces are better served in terms of less tangible aspects that are just as important, such as the protection of the French language and, of course, Quebec culture. Indigenous peoples are also facing similar challenges to their culture and language.

In Quebec, this raises quite a few questions, which is why we need to be vigilant and thorough in order to protect and better serve the Quebec nation. Bill C-11 addresses the question of Canadian ownership in a very different way than did the Yale report in its recommendations 52 and 53.

For more than 90 years, successive governments have always been in favour of Canadian control over communications, and the Yale report supports that position.

The space we are officially giving to foreign companies right now must also be regulated so that they do not have an advantage over our own companies, which have served us well over the years. This is a risk, and I want to stress that it must be controlled, monitored and handled very thoroughly.

To date, there have been numerous reports in the media, and several groups expressed they would like to see this bill pass.

Bill C-11 improves funding for new Quebec productions, and the industry desperately needs such funding. No one is questioning the benefits for producers in Quebec’s cultural sector, and I, too, am very pleased. That was the main component of the Bloc Québécois’s platform for the arts and culture sector.

In this context, Bill C-11 is the first in a series of three bills that will pave the way for the long-awaited reform, with rules that will regulate the business models of online streaming companies.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage recently tabled a second bill, Bill C-18. This bill will enshrine principles that will guarantee the newspaper industry sources of revenue based on the reuse of the news items they produce and ensure compliance with the principles of Quebec’s cultural sovereignty in the dissemination of information. I hope that Bill C-18 will be passed quickly and that there will be a place for regional media.

It will be hard work to analyze all the repercussions of the changes proposed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for the simple reason that we will have to know the government’s broader intentions, which we do not. Right now, the government has decided to separate the elements of this reform into several bills. There is therefore no overall vision, and we are taking small steps forward. This creates expectations in the industries affected by changes that are not all being introduced at the same time. We do not know what is in the other bills.

Are we pitting Quebec and Canadian companies against each other at the expense of the development of essentially American companies? The devil is often in the details.

At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we have been hearing testimony for several years about how we have to give businesses the tools they need to have free rein within the same ecosystem. The Yale report recognized that vertically integrated Canadian businesses have very specific needs and that those needs will have to be carefully studied so that we can understand them and give Quebec and Canadian broadcasters a leg up.

One thing that keeps coming up when we talk to Quebec and Canadian broadcasters is the regulatory burden and the costs that broadcasters have to bear.

It is important to understand that Canadian broadcasters are not opposed to the broadcast policy per se; they have been clear on that. What they pay goes into the public coffers and does not necessarily support broadcasters.

For example, it was recommended that we review the licensing fees imposed on Canadian broadcasters under Part II of the act. Imagine if Canadian businesses had access to that $110 million paid annually to the federal government to produce first-run content. Let us therefore hold foreign broadcasters to account.

There have been a multitude of mistakes made over the past 30 years, and the successive governments let their guard down with respect to the fundamental issue of cultural sovereignty, which essentially makes us who we are.

Like many players in this sector of the economy, we should have no doubt or hesitation when it comes to setting a higher bar for foreign corporations. It is high time to have another look at the weight of the regulatory burden borne by Quebec and Canadian corporations.

I would like to quote Alain Saulnier, journalist and former director of French information programming at Radio‑Canada. He said, “I am not convinced that everyone has grasped the significance of this domination, the extent to which we have allowed the invasion and destruction of part of our way of life, our democracy, our economy, our culture and our language in the case of Quebec. My plea is to resist.” I had the opportunity to serve with him on the board of Juripop, and I would like to take this opportunity to send him my regards.

I will now talk about the transparency of the CRTC and about representation. That is another problem.

The CRTC has come under fire for the lack of transparency in its decision-making process. The guidelines that the government will issue to the CRTC for monitoring new foreign broadcasters must be made available to the public. Any challenges they launch must be made public. We must also take advantage of this reflection process to ensure that Quebeckers who are familiar with Quebec culture and the traditional Quebec news industry are involved.

The same would hold true for indigenous culture. If it can be done for the Supreme Court, I do not see why it cannot be done in this context. This is about having a safety net for Canada's and Quebec's cultural sovereignty.

To conclude, I would like to say that protecting Quebec culture is at the very core of my commitment as a member of the Bloc Québécois.

Broadcasting is undoubtedly the most effective tool for dissemination and helps define our national identity. Technology is evolving, and the rapid adoption of online content by a greater number of consumers means we need to reflect on rules that allow players in the production industry to operate freely and ensure that creating Quebec content in French remains viable.

We cannot afford to not overhaul the rules governing this digital space. As with other bills that affect Quebec culture, our study of the Broadcasting Act reform needs to be done with Quebec in mind.

Online News Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with representatives from independent newspapers who have concerns about Bill C-18.

The government has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into foreign online advertising giants Facebook and Google, not local, independent, southern Alberta-owned weekly papers, like the Brooks Bulletin, Strathmore Times, The Chestermere Anchor and the Crowsnest Pass Herald.

Bill C-18 dictates that media companies must be “qualified Canadian journalism organizations”. Many independent papers run their own reporting, editing and publishing and do not qualify. Independents that do not qualify as “Canadian journalism organizations” also miss out on the labour tax credit and the news subscription tax credit.

Weekly papers play an important role in municipalities to inform residents in our communities. We should be supporting Canadian weekly papers, not leaving them behind in favour of billion-dollar conglomerates.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening as we enter week two of the four weeks in this part of our sittings. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to the government's proposal to extend the proceedings in the House of Commons for the remainder of the session.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

This Parliament was elected to get things done. As we have seen over the previous months, our government has an ambitious legislative agenda and we have a lot to accomplish in the weeks ahead.

In the last election, the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me for the third time because I ran on a platform that promised to grow the economy, fight climate change, make housing more affordable and protect our country's most vulnerable. Now that we are here today, Canadians expect their parliamentarians to deliver on those promises. This means the House of Commons needs to find a way to continue its important work and drive legislation in a timely and judicious manner. That is what the proposal we are discussing today sets out to do.

Over the last few months, we have seen an ambitious legislative agenda put forward by our government, but we have also seen a concerted effort by the Conservatives to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have shown a pattern of obstruction of legislation, including on Bill C-8. They have debated it for 10 days in the House of Commons and continue to block it, denying Canadians the support they need as our economy continues to recover as we exit the COVID pandemic and as we continue to fight to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast, which we are doing. We need to get Bill C-8 across the finish line and get it done.

Bill C-8 implements critical components of the fall economic and fiscal update tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on December 14, 2021. The bill includes critical supports for workers and businesses needed to help tackle COVID-19, and support for territorial and provincial health care systems on vaccines, ventilation in schools and rapid tests. It also implements several tax measures, including tax credits for businesses purchasing ventilation supplies and for teachers who purchase school supplies to assist with virtual learning.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has put in place unprecedented measures to support people and businesses across the country, to support our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Since day one, our government has had the backs of Canadians.

In Bill C-8, our government has outlined our plan to procure millions of rapid tests free to provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Bill C-8 includes support for workers and businesses, with changes to CEBA and El. We have proposed to create a host of tax credits, which would benefit Canadians, including a ventilation improvement tax credit for small businesses, tax deductions for residents of northern Canada, supporting our rural communities from coast to coast to coast, and support for farmers by returning fuel charges in involuntary backstop jurisdictions. Bill C-8 also proposes to implement a national tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underutilized.

Here is the thing: Our plan is working. We have now surpassed our target of creating a million jobs. By delivering significant fiscal support to the economy and avoiding the harmful Conservative austerity policies that followed 2008, our Liberal government has supported a rapid and resilient recovery. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but we also know that we need to reinforce the importance of passing this legislation so that we can focus our attention on the future.

As we finish the fight against COVID-19, we will turn our resolve toward fighting climate change, addressing housing affordability, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more competitive and more prosperous for all Canadians. If the Conservatives are opposed to those measures to support Canadians, that is their prerogative; that is their choice. However, one party should not get to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons.

That is not the only bill that I would like to see moved forward before the end of the session. We know that the budget implementation act will be debated soon. On April 7, 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. It is a plan that invests in Canadians and a plan that will help build a Canada where no one is left behind. The BIA will put those priorities into action.

Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Through targeted and responsible investments, our government will help make life more affordable, create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow.

We know from the budget that we are making it easier for Canadians to buy a home. We are moving forward on dental care. We are investing to help businesses scale up and grow. In the budget, we are making wealthy corporations pay their fair share. We are investing in a clean future and helping Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles. I know that everyone in the House and all Canadians are very happy to see the $3.6-billion investment that was made by Stellantis, in partnership and collaboration with the federal government and the provincial government. It means, here in Ontario, thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of jobs indirectly. It is a great day for the auto sector, a great day for this province and a great day for hard-working middle-class Canadians.

We have all seen the recent statistics. Canada has the strongest jobs recovery in the G7, having recouped 112%, and I think up to 150%, of jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019, the lowest rate on record for five decades. Also, throughout the pandemic, we maintained a strong fiscal anchor and fiscal footprint, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 peers.

Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, our government is focused on the priorities that Canadians expect us to deliver on: making life more affordable, creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring a clean future for everyone. We need a healthy environment.

We will also need to move forward with Bill C-11, on online streaming. For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music that make us proud to be Canadian. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. We have been clear since the beginning: Those who benefit from the system should contribute to it. That is exactly what we need to see, so we need Bill C-11 to move forward.

To come back to our discussion about the motion for a moment, the motion would allow for extended time to debate bills, which is a good thing. We have heard from members of the opposition that they want more time to debate significant legislation. This motion allows for that to happen in the evenings when the government and one other party, which represent a majority in the House, request it. We believe that it is important for MPs to have the opportunity to debate legislation, and the motion facilitates this.

Let us think of the other pieces of legislation that could benefit from the additional time for debate.

I think of, for example, Bill C-18. We all know that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy, and the work of our journalists has value. That is why we introduced Bill C-18, the online news act. It would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers and journalists for the content shared on their platforms. We are creating a framework to ensure that Canadian publishers, big and small, can negotiate fair deals on more equal terms with the tech giants, the most powerful companies in the world. The Europeans are doing it. We are going to do it as well. We will always support quality, fact-based and local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and that is why we should see this bill passed.

We also have Bill C-5, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences. A justice system that jails too many indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective. That does not keep us safe and it must be changed.

With Bill C-5, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives. We are removing mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders that have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. We will also provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. My brother is a first responder in the police force so I know he appreciates this.

Bill C-5 represents an important step forward. These changes will ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and effective and will keep Canadians from all communities safe.

To finish, these extended sittings will allow us to debate these bills and will provide more time for MPs to share their thoughts with constituents back home, be their strong local voice here in Ottawa and represent their constituents' views.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.

Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.

I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.

I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?

It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.

The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.

When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.

The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”

The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”

We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades.

We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19.

There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.

News Media Industry

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-18 is good news for small media. Thanks to collective bargaining, small media will be able to make agreements. We wrote into the law that tech giants would have to make those agreements with a diversity of media, not just the big ones.

Local media are essential to so many communities, and we will support them through budget 2022, which I hope the Bloc will support. We added $50 million in the last budget to support small media.

[Rachel Curran]

Again, I would just reiterate that we have some fairly significant concerns with Bill C-18.

We think it should take into account the way the Internet actually works when it comes to linking to views on our websites. We hope we're able to engage in a good conversation with the government about that.

[Michele Austin]

I agree with Rachel that we're still in the early stages of analysis.

There are a couple of things to say with regard to Bill C-18.

Twitter, like the news industry, does not make a lot of money on news. In fact, we have nobody in Canada who is selling news content. If you see news advertised on Twitter, it is largely self-serving. The news organizations have chosen to advertise on their own.

We are also what's called a “closed” platform. When you link to news on Twitter, you have to leave the site. That is not necessarily the case with the other platforms.

The thing we're most concerned about is with regard to scope and transparency. The question is whether or not Twitter is scoped in under that bill. That is very unclear. I understand that there will be quite an extensive GIC coming out after the bill is passed.

I am more than happy to meet with anybody to discuss the content of Bill C-18.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'll go back to Twitter.

Perhaps you could comment on Bill C-18 as well. Do you feel that news publications benefit from being shared on Twitter's platform? Do you have any concerns, similar to those of Facebook's, with it?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Curran.

You would say—perhaps I'm putting words in your mouth—and maybe you could clarify, that it's not off the table that you would take the similar action that Facebook did in Australia in response to Bill C-18.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Facebook.

Thank you, Ms. Curran, for being here today.

I want to talk a bit about what happened in Australia. As you know, the Australian government brought forward legislation that would force Facebook to pay publishers of news media if Facebook hosted, or users shared, news content. As you know, Facebook retaliated and banned news links from being shared by Facebook users in Australia, and shut down Australian news pages hosted on the Facebook platform, in a protest to the Australian law that the government was looking to bring forward. Ultimately, Facebook had cut off the ability to share news publications online from users or otherwise. An agreement was reached shortly afterwards, but it did take this extraordinary step to ban the sharing of news publications.

We know that the Liberal government brought forward a similar bill to what the Australian government did. Bill C-18 has some similarities. It's called, in short, the online news act. You may be familiar with it. There's also Bill C-11, which aims to control what Canadians see when they open their social media apps such as Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Ms. Curran, is it reasonable to believe that Facebook could do the same thing in Canada as it did in Australia and prohibit the sharing of news, should the Liberal government move forward with bills such as Bill C-18 or other iterations of it?

Online News Act

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)