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.

[Richard Gingras]

It is my sense, in my reading of the draft of Bill C-18, that the requirement for journalistic ethic standards does not apply across the various components or cohorts that are included as eligible news businesses in Canada.

Now, it is not for us, globally, to prescribe what those ethics are. As I say, we strive to provide diversity of view, diversity of perspective and diversity of source.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I do find it strange, however, that you're telling me you have criteria for quality journalism, when you rely exclusively on criteria which, in fact, exclude any adherence to a code of ethics.

You say you have criteria for quality journalism, and that Bill C‑18 will undermine journalistic content and quality news. However, we've added criteria to this bill that affect eligible companies; they must adhere to a code of ethics and a code to meet journalistic standards.

I therefore do not see why this threat to the quality of journalism is being raised again. On the contrary, Bill C‑18 reinforces it. You should be satisfied with that, Mr. Gingras.

[Richard Gingras]

In entering the agreements we have entered into with publishers in Canada, the criteria we followed were very similar to the criteria used in Canada for the journalism tax credit, which is very thoughtful. In fact, we've used that to guide our publisher relationships not only in Canada but elsewhere. We think they were codified quite well.

It's not about quality; it's more about intent. We can't judge quality, and we don't judge quality. Our concern with Bill C-18, as we expressed, is that the definition of “eligible news business” is extremely broad such that we feel that the quality [Inaudible—Editor] in journalism that we believe is the stated object of the test will not benefit versus all other kinds of content that are not quality journalism for local communities.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That the clearest answer we've gotten so far. Thank you for your transparency.

Mr. Gingras, you are vice president of the news division. Google raised a concern fairly often about Bill C‑18. This concern always makes me smile a little, because it alleges that the bill will jeopardize the quality of journalistic content.

You already signed agreements with news production companies, before Bill C‑18 was even put forward. What are Google's criteria for quality journalism? Which criteria did we include in Bill C‑18 that differed from yours? What makes your criteria better than what's included in our bill?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Walker, let's imagine that Bill C‑18 passes in its current form. Do you intend to continue opposing it and to attempt to block Canadian news content?

[Kent Walker]

We continue to be optimistic, but the Canadian Parliament has an opportunity to evolve the current file of Bill C-18.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'd like to get an answer. I know you conducted tests, but you answered Ms. Thomas earlier, saying that you could not reveal the results of those tests. However, I think that Quebecers and Canadians subjected to those tests have the right to know what purpose they served.

Once Bill C‑18 passes, do you intend to comply with it, or will you use the results of those tests to block news content? What is your intention in light of your recently obtained test results? Will you block content?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Gingras, my colleague Mr. Housefather asked you a nuanced question earlier, and you answered by evading it rather neatly. You talked about your concerns if this type of legislation were passed by the American government. However, my colleague's question was whether you would have acted the same way in such a case.

We could debate it here, but we found that the timing for conducting tests with 1.2 million Canadians this spring, by blocking their access to Canadian news content, was especially curious, if I may take the liberty of saying so.

So, Mr. Housefather's question was whether you would have acted the same way if the American government passed similar legislation, and if your intentions would have remained the same regarding Bill C‑18. It's therefore not just a question of concern, it's a question of action. Would you have conducted the same tests at the same time if this had happened in the United States?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gingras, the question from my colleague, Mr. Housefather, was not about whether Google had the same concerns about similar legislation in the United States. Rather, it was about whether the company would have taken the same steps that Google took or planned to take in Canada. I consider the nuance important.

Would your actions have been as bold? For example, could any other time have been chosen for the tests you did this spring? I must say that the timing was rather peculiar.

Would you have had the same attitude and taken the same actions if a bill like C‑18 passed in the United States?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand. I think it was more a question of whether or not you'd lose ancillary revenue by people losing your platform because they didn't have access to news on the platform.

My last question in this round is for Mr. Gingras. I know I'm running out of time.

I know that Google has its concerns with Bill C-18. If the U.S. Congress adopted a bill that was identical to Bill C-18 and was signed into law by the President, would Google's actions be identical to the ones you would take in Canada, or would you treat the U.S. differently?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I was just saying that because of the way it came across at the last meeting, I want to now make clear that this testing was considered at the highest levels of Google and was one of the tests that would not be a normal standard test. It was something related specifically to Bill C-18.

The next question I have, Mr. Walker, is, did your team undertake any legal analysis to determine whether any Canadian law might be violated by the testing? I'm not asking for your advice: I'm asking only whether you undertook any discussion of that.

[Richard Gingras]

As I mentioned earlier, we do thousands of tests to continue to evolve our products. Often, those tests are to help us in how we take and address misinformation or how we address our understanding of what our users see when they come to our sites. We do them constantly to improve what we do.

It is always important with such tests that we practise sound research methodology—for instance, randomizing the samples of people who see the tests. That is in line with what we also did in Canada. Our efforts in Canada were to understand the behaviours of our users with regard to the inclusion of sites that are referenced, as best we could tell, with the drafting of Bill C-18. For reasons of security, we don't release the results of such tests.

I can tell you, however, that at a very high level the tests confirmed several things. First of all, news queries are very small percentages to Google—less than 2% is typically the case—and there was no impact on our users with regard to non-news inquiries, whether that was seeking, for instance, information from academia, information from the government or, for that matter, how to find a local seafood restaurant.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

You used a key word, and that was diversity. You stated that the algorithms are used to make sure that there are diverse sources provided. You're nodding your head yes.

With Bill C-18, you're going to have to enter into contracts with various news businesses. Now, my understanding is that you already have started that process by entering into numerous contracts. Within those contracts, are there any promises made to give preference to some new sources over others?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Great, thank you.

Going forward with Bill C-18, once it's in place, will you use algorithms to refer or promote some content versus other content?

[Richard Gingras, Vice-President, News, Google LLC]

Thank you, Kent.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Richard Gingras. I am Google’s vice-president for news. Fifteen years ago I served as publisher of Salon.com, the web’s first digital news offering. I have some appreciation for the evolving market conditions facing publishers.

For over a decade I’ve worked with journalists and publishers around the world to advance quality journalism. We collaborate closely with the journalism community. We’ve trained half a million journalists on subjects ranging from journalist security to audience development. We’ve developed tools to help drive subscriptions. We offer free tools to help journalists with investigative work. We’ve created funds to drive innovation around the world. Recently we announced a multi-year fund in Taiwan called the “digital co-prosperity fund” crafted with stakeholders across the spectrum, governed by outsiders and with the support of Taiwan’s Ministry of Digital Affairs.

I have also worked closely with dozens of newsrooms and publishers across Canada, including both long-standing legacy publishers and emerging digital players. Canada has the most innovative digital news ecosystem in the world, from the award-winning efforts of The Globe and Mail to start-ups like Discourse Media and The Narwhal, to the remarkable profitability of Village Media’s network of local news sites in more than 100 communities across Canada.

We and many others are concerned with the impact of Bill C-18 on the evolution of journalism in open societies. It would make it more difficult for digitally innovative, entrepreneurial journalists and publishers to help Canadians understand important issues in their communities.

Bill C-18 would make Canada the first country in the world to put a price on free links to web pages, setting a dangerous precedent that is contrary to the long-term interests of both Canadian readers and Canada’s independent press.

Last year we sent more than 3.6 billion visits to Canadian news publishers, helping grow their audiences and make money through ads and subscriptions. This referral traffic was valued at $250 million last year alone.

Putting a price on links, as Bill C-18 does, will naturally cause any company to reconsider how they use them. Take Google News, for example, which is a specialized aggregator and search service that I expect many of you are familiar with. It was created to help users discover multiple stories on diverse topics and from many sources.

Please understand that Google News, like Google Search, does not distribute articles from news publications. We provide only a link and a short snippet of text, often only the headline. Google News, like Google Search, is a newsstand that publishers don’t pay to be on, quite different from the prior world of print. We send millions of visitors to their sites for free. Google News costs us millions to operate, yet it delivers zero revenue. If we had to pay publishers simply for linking to their sites, making us lose money with every click, it would be reasonable for us or for any business to reconsider why we would continue to do so.

Bill C-18 would subsidize large legacy organizations and broadcasters to a far greater extent than it would smaller, emerging and innovative organizations that provide quality local news to communities, placing them at a comparative disadvantage. It would incentivize the creation of clickbait content over high-quality local journalism and likely require Google to pay publishers for non-factual or misleading content.

If Bill C-18 is passed in its current form, it may affect our ability to provide products and services that Canadians use and enjoy every day. To understand that impact and our options, we ran tests based on the current wording of the bill. Those tests limited the number of news links for 3.3% of Canadian users, selected at random, for five weeks.

Many of you have questions about these tests. I hope to provide more clarity on what they involved and why we ran them. We are committed to enabling a sustainable future for news in Canada, but this bill threatens to create a situation in which everybody loses. We want to work together to ensure that doesn't happen.

We welcome your questions and look forward to continuing our engagement.

Thank you.