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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Kee.

The witnesses have been duly sworn in, committee, so we can now proceed with Ms. Hepfner's questions.

Before we go to Ms. Hepfner, I would just like to suggest, first, that it's very clear what this committee wanted to meet about, and it was not only to discuss tests. It is very clear that this committee was asked for the activities of Google in reaction to Bill C-18, not limited to the decision to test the blocking of news sites. This is not a limited committee hearing.

Second, the committee asked for any internal or external communications, including but not limited to emails, texts or other forms of messages related to actions it planned to take or options it considered in relation to Canada's Bill C-18, including but not limited to those in relation to the testing of the blocking of news items. Once again, it's not limited to testing.

The committee asked for the list of all news organizations blocked by Google in Canada. There was a time to deliver this. An extra week was given to Google because of technological difficulties on Monday, so I am just putting that on the table for those listening and for Google to understand that it was very clear what was required of you, and so that in answering, since you've taken an oath, you will really consider the questions the committee has raised pertaining to your appearance here.

Thank you.

[Jason Kee]

As Sabrina indicated, the Taiwanese example is precisely the approach that we would like to adopt. It's precisely the approach to ensure that we are providing funding to, again, local and regional papers, the small players, and maybe also to those who are doing really interesting and innovative work. Those are the approaches that we've adopted.

I did want to make a quick mention that, to be clear, these are product tests. Product tests are actually a normal course of business when you're considering any range of product changes. This is actually very ordinary. I appreciate the observation with respect to how it's being perceived. It's certainly not the intent. It's also, again, us responding rapidly to a radically changing landscape, so that we can responsibly understand what the impact of those changes would be.

It's also worth noting that Bill C-18 is very different in structure from Australia's legislation. In Australia there were concerns that were basically raised.... We interacted with the government, and the government criticism—

[Sabrina Geremia]

Madam Chair, I have to disagree with the premise. News is available to Canadians. Canadians consume news in so many different ways. It's available through browsers. Many people actually subscribe. That's an important part of the news ecosystem. They go to social media. They do other things.

The tests are in response to the great uncertainty that we described in the earlier remarks. Bill C-18 will radically change the legal landscape for linking in Canada. This is the foundation of how the Internet works. It's how we share our links. We share information and the free flow of information online. We can't assume that we're going to be able to link in the same way that we have in the past.

Due to this uncertainty, tests were conducted. These are tests. They are not product decisions. They are tests, because there is just so much uncertainty right now with this legislation. We just need to understand that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I believe you covered that in your introduction. I appreciate that. I'm going to move along with my time. Thank you.

Google claims that the censorship decision was made in response to the oncoming Bill C-18. However, that bill isn't law yet, nor is it a censorship bill.

This seems extremely troubling in view of the fact that now Google is voluntarily engaging in the censorship of news content. Is it normal for Google to censor news?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Geremia, before we recessed, I was asking you if you were familiar with Bill C‑18.

The premise of my question was that Google accuses Bill C‑18 of endangering quality journalism by not specifying journalistic ethics criteria for determining corporate eligibility.

So I'm asking you again, are you familiar with Bill C‑18 and do you know it well?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Ms. Geremia, we'll move on. Obviously, this question makes you uncomfortable.

We will expect Google to comply with this committee's request and eventually, and as quickly as possible, provide the documents that have been requested, because they are documents that are relevant to Quebeckers and Canadians. Your current manoeuvres have repercussions and are of concern to many people.

In your opening remarks, you said that one of your criticisms of Bill C‑18 is that it would encourage the creation of cheap clickbait traps at the expense of quality journalism. You also said that there is no clear commitment to a code of ethics for qualifying companies, which threatens the standards of journalism in Canada.

Ms. Geremia, are you familiar with Bill C‑18?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you, Ms. Geremia.

The question is not whether you know what the documents are, but whether there were internal communications or not. You are a multinational company. Are you trying to tell the committee members that there were no internal communications?

You've never mentioned them. You come before the committee to testify on Bill C‑18, in response to which you are doing pseudo-tests, and you tell me that there were no internal communications.

My question is extremely simple: were there internal communications, yes or no?

[Sabrina Geremia]

I am here to collaborate. In terms of Bill C-18, we've been very transparent with our concerns. We've been publishing this, etc., and we're here to answer questions.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I asked a different question, Ms. Geremia. I asked if you personally have ever written an email or sent a text related to this scheme to block news content from the search engine or how Google should react to Bill C-18.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

They're willing to lobby against the bill privately, but not willing to come to the committee to speak publicly.

Google has sent documents to the committee, which we've recently received. My understanding is that all of the documents Google provided to the committee are publicly available documents on Google's website. Google was asked to provide:

all internal or external communications (including but not limited to emails, texts or other forms of messages) related to actions it planned to take or options it considered in relation to Canada’s Bill C-18, including but not limited to those in relation to the testing of the blocking of news sites in Canada;

and

the list of all news organizations blocked by Google, in Canada

It seems we got none of that information, but rather were thrown a bunch of publicly available information.

Ms. Geremia, did you ever write any email or send any text that related to your plans related to Bill C-18?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

All three of them were summoned by this committee. Are you aware as to whether Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras have visited Canada in recent months to lobby on Bill C-18? Are you aware that Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras have been here to lobby parliamentarians on Bill C-18?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to remind everybody why we're here today. Google has had ample opportunity, including before this committee, to talk about its views on Bill C-18.

Today, we're talking about a situation in which we have over 30 million Internet users in Canada, and Google has a dominant, 92% share of the search engine market. Google applied a test to block news from its search engine to approximately 4% of users, according to its public statements. That suggests that approximately 1.2 million Canadians were affected. That's why we're here today.

Ms. Geremia, my questions are for you. I would appreciate a yes-or-no answer unless I ask you to expand upon it.

As part of this scheme, did you use individual user data to block users from accessing news sources, yes or no?

[Jason Kee]

Absolutely. Again, this is actually an innovative model that we welcome, that we encourage other jurisdictions to consider and adopt. We have consistently supported the concept of a fund, certainly throughout the Bill C-18 process. In our view, it is a way of resolving some of the core issues that Bill C-18 presents in terms of its structure. However, it still ensures that large platforms like Google are contributing into a fund that is supporting the news ecosystem, that this money is being focused on developing sustainable business models, and also, frankly, that it's supporting local and regional publications and resolving the issue of news deserts that everyone shares a concern about.

[Jason Kee]

Thank you.

As Sabrina indicated—and this is important to constantly reiterate—this is just a test. There has been no decision made with respect to the outcome of the test. We are literally in a process of trying to gather information to ascertain what the potential impacts of Bill C-18 will be.

We routinely conduct these kinds of tests. We make, again, 11,500 tests per year on search. Not surprisingly, some of these kinds of tests have an impact on news. Many of them are actually intended to elevate authoritative content, which would include news content. We have conducted these kinds of tests in a variety of jurisdictions. It's normal course for us to conduct these kinds of tests, especially if there's also legislation being introduced into a marketplace that may have an impact on our products.

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

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

You've concisely described the concerns you have with Bill C-18. Did you make these concerns known to either the Minister of Canadian Heritage or perhaps government members on this committee?