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.

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

Mr. Chair, billsC-11 and C-18 would provide tools to promote the French fact. The Conservatives are filibustering on those two bills.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was going to to be taken to task by the Liberals after my speech, but instead, in hockey parlance, they are giving me an assist. I thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He knows where I stand on the media, artists and the cultural industry.

There are two extremely important bills that really should be passed quickly. One is stuck in the Senate, which is outrageous. The Senate needs to stop playing games with Bill C-11. The cultural industry is depending on it. The web giants need to pay their fair share in every sector in which they are making a profit in Canada and Quebec, and that includes both the cultural industry and the broadcasting industry. This is also about protecting our news media.

We are working hard on Bill C-18, which is currently being examined in committee. Things are moving along well, and there is goodwill. I completely agree with my colleague. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the web giants contribute in sectors where they are making exponential profits.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the fall economic statement this afternoon.

I have to say that I am, along with many Canadians, deeply disappointed in the fall economic statement because it was an opportunity to provide real leadership to Canadians, give relief to small businesses in this country and take action to address the rising costs we are seeing coast to coast to coast.

It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten that we are in the worst cost of living crisis we have seen in a generation. Inflation, as we have talked about for months in the House, is at a 40-year high. Gas prices are still at record levels, especially diesel. Housing is more expensive than it has ever been.

Where did this crisis start? This time, the Liberals cannot blame the person by the name of Stephen Harper. They have had seven years to correct this. They want to blame global economic conditions, and sure, maybe that has a bit to do with it. However, what is the real root of the inflationary crisis we find ourselves in today? What has made everything worse in this country? The Liberals know, but they do not want to say. They know that the crisis has been caused by years of massive out-of-control Liberal deficit spending.

I was here in 2015 when the Liberals came into power, and Conservatives left them with a balanced budget and a very good economic forecast. That was left to them by a responsible Conservative government. They, in seven years, squandered it. I get it. The Prime Minister could not help himself. His agenda was failing, so he needed to try and buy votes every way he could think of.

However, the chickens have now come home to roost. The price of chicken, by the way, has doubled since the Liberals took office in 2015. All that spending they have done in the last seven years has driven inflation to a 40-year high. Canadians coast to coast to coast are struggling mightily.

Canadians are having to choose between filling their cars with gas, putting food on the table and heating their homes. A paycheque today does not go as far as it used to. Liberal inflation, combined with Liberal tax hikes, means that Canadians need to do more with less.

What does the government propose? It proposes to make everything worse in this country. This economic statement introduces another $20 billion of inflationary spending to drive inflation up even further. It also includes hikes to EI premiums next month and to CPP contributions, taking more money off of everybody's paycheque.

Instead of stopping their tax hikes, the Liberals are pushing forward with their plan to triple the carbon tax in 2023. That is right. In the dead of winter, the Liberals will be raising the cost of fuel, home heating and groceries.

Food bank usage, as we all know, is already at an all-time high in this country, with a 35% increase in the last year. In my city of Saskatoon alone, with a population of about 250,000, about 20,000 people a month visit the food bank. The city of Saskatoon used to be the economic engine of Canada.

Executive director, Laurie O'Connor, admits the numbers she sees coming through her door every day are very concerning. The donations of food and purchasing power have significantly decreased because food is so expensive. It is going to only get worse.

Members may recall that the 13th edition of Canada’s Food Price Report came out yesterday. It says a family of four will see their food bill go up by over $1,000, reaching about $16,000 a year. According to Stuart Smyth from the University of Saskatchewan, who helped in the report that was released yesterday, a family of six will pay over $21,000 in 2023 for food.

The problem is right in front of the Liberals' faces, and they have simply ignored it.

In Saskatchewan, the temperature today hit between -30°C and -40°C, and it is early December. People of my province are trying to figure out what temperature they can afford to set their thermostat to. If we think about it, in the last week in Saskatchewan, it was -30°C to -40°C already, and we are not even at January temperatures.

I want to know what the Prime Minister would say to the families who are already struggling to put food on the table when they see the last few dollars they have being used up when they move the thermostat up. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government has failed those families. They have failed retirees and the people living with disabilities who are on a fixed income.

What should the government be doing today?

First, without question, it should cancel all planned tax hikes and stop any government-mandated increases to the cost of living, with no hikes at all to payroll taxes and no tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians simply cannot afford any more of this Liberal tax increase.

Second, it needs to stop creating new inflationary spending. We know that government spending is only going to make inflation worse. If a minister wants to spend more money, he or she should have to find the equivalent savings in their budgets. Even the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that a bit in the fall economic report. However, while she did mention it, the Liberals gave the CBC an additional $42 million over two years. Why? It is because the CBC had a tough time during the pandemic.

This is the type of spending that has got to stop in this country. The CBC, the public broadcaster, already gets between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion, but they will then be given an additional $42 million over two years. Plus, we found out today that it is going to be at the trough when Bill C-18 gets cleared through the House. The public broadcaster will be one of the biggest beneficiaries from Google and Facebook when that bill passes through the House.

When the Prime Minister was first elected he promised that deficits, as we all recall, were not going to exceed $10 billion and that he would balance the budget by 2019. We all know that was a farce.

The pandemic is not the only thing to blame here. Forty per cent of the government's new spending measures had nothing to do with the last two years of COVID. Since coming to power, the Prime Minister has introduced $205 billion in new inflationary spending, which had nothing to do with COVID, and I just mentioned the public broadcaster.

The cost of the interest payments on the federal government's debt has doubled. The payments are nearly as high as the cost of the health transfers to the provinces. Imagine what could be done today if that money were directed elsewhere.

Instead, due to this Liberal mismanagement, we have interest rates that are increasing faster than they have in decades. In fact, we expect another 50 basis points tomorrow by the federal Bank of Canada. Mortgage payments, as we all know, are going sky high. Therefore, anyone who bought a house a few years ago and has to renew their mortgage could pay up to $7,000 more a year. Many Canadians cannot afford that. Some, unfortunately, are losing their homes.

While the Liberals are focused on making the problem worse, Conservatives are going to propose some solutions for Canadians. Instead of printing more money, a Conservative government would create more of what money buys. We will get more homes built and make Canada the quickest place in the world to get a building permit. Young Canadians who have never been able to afford a home and start a family under the Liberals will find a more competitive and more affordable market under our Conservative government.

A Conservative government will make energy more affordable. We will repeal the anti-energy laws and axe the carbon tax. We will not punish Canadians for heating their homes or simply driving their kids to activities, if they can even afford those activities in 2023.

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

Madam Chair, I'll just throw this out there.

Yes to three hours on Friday, and is there any way that we could then maybe squeeze in a Monday committee meeting for Bill C-18 if possible, even if it's an hour—if we see on Friday that we're close but not there—or up to two hours on a Monday?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think this will be very controversial. It strikes at the heart of our objectives around Bill C-18, which is to foster journalism. This amendment would ensure that lists are published for public transparency that include “the number of journalists employed by each eligible news business in each year that it has been eligible.”

Through the transparency that comes with NDP-20, we could see, visibly, news outlets reporting back to the public about the number of journalists employed. That is what we seek to do through this legislation. I think all parties agree on that point. This is a way of ensuring more transparency and accountability from the news businesses that receive the funding.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My concern is that, if you have a provincial public broadcaster that is acting inappropriately, not respecting the journalistic standards we are setting throughout Bill C-18, and this amendment isn't passed, would there be any ability for the Governor in Council to take action if those standards were not adhered to?

Doesn't this amendment offer an additional level of protection to ensure that, with what I consider to be a perversion—I will withdraw the word “trash” and say it's more of a perversion of journalism that the UCP is doing—there's some regulatory oversight through cabinet, additional reasons, to ensure they don't have access to the funding from Bill C-18?

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

They are already broadcasting legislative business on channels throughout the country. Are they eligible?

For instance, Saskatchewan legislature has a channel through Shaw. I think it's channel 118 in my city of Saskatoon. Are they all eligible then to get funding out of Bill C-18? They go all day when it sits. They televise everything from the legislature.

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

This is my last question: Could provinces—and we're seeing this in certain jurisdictions, namely Alberta and Saskatchewan—then buy a radio station or a TV station, turn it into a public broadcaster and be eligible for this?

I say that because for my province—and we have The Saskatchewan First Act—and also for Alberta, with what's going on there, this would be a loophole, I would say, whereby they could now simply buy some TV stations or buy media outlets and have their own conglomerate.

Could that happen under Bill C-18?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be quick because I was at Bell Media for 40 years. We cut more than CBC, Mr. Julian. When Harper was in government, they cut 10% of the budget from CBC. I can tell you right now, Bell Media cut a hell of a lot more than 10%. I was part of a newsroom that at one time probably had 500 people in Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw and Yorkton. We'd be lucky to have 100 now, so don't give me this about Harper cutting 10% out of a $1 billion budget that CBC had for 10 years, because I can tell you that Bell and Global cut a hell of a lot more in those 10 years from 2010 to 2020.

What I'm saying with this bill, and I'll wrap it up in a second, is that if this does go through and CBC gets the majority of the money from C-18, you will see more cuts out of Bell and you will see more cuts out of Global. You will see more cuts out of all media but CBC.

To say that Canadians want CBC is a misstatement. Their ratings television-wise are 1%. Ms. Hepfner worked at CHCH Hamilton. How many cuts did they have in the last 10 years? A lot. More than 10%, absolutely. An independent station like that probably lost 40% of their people in the last 10 years.

All I'm saying here is let's level the playing field. If this goes and CBC is allowed to get access.... We on this side also believe tech should pay, tech being Google and Facebook, but I'm really upset that CBC is going to get the lion's share because, if you want to see media go down the drain in this country, allow CBC to get the majority of the money that we're going to see from tech in C-18.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We know that CBC is subject to the other aspects of the bill. The issue of whether or not we want to give the cabinet future control over CBC is a very valid one. As I mentioned before, that's why I will be voting against the passage of clause 28, though the next amendment coming up does help to address my concerns and the concerns felt by many people who saw, under 10 years of the Conservatives, how the CBC was gutted, absolutely gutted.

We've gone through and improved this bill substantially. We saw an NDP amendment that would give a two-person part-time operation the ability to access C-18—the little guys, as Conservatives like to champion. In fact, that's exactly what Alberta and Saskatchewan community newspapers asked for, and Conservatives voted against enlarging the mandate so that those little guys in communities right across Alberta and Saskatchewan could actually access funding from big tech.

I'm very confused by the Conservative strategy on this. They're attacking CBC, which is what they did when they were in government, so no surprise, but they have also been voting against amendments that broaden the criteria so that a two-person part-time operation, even if they were owner-proprietors, could actually access funding. Conservatives voted against.

It's incomprehensible to me how Conservatives are approaching this bill. They said they were opposed, and they essentially have been contradicting themselves all the way along. I fail to understand their intense refusal to really put in place the kind of funding that people want to see for CBC—that sound financial foundation. The reality is, in addition to the NDP amendments that have given access to the little guys, C-18 should not be excluded for a public broadcaster like CBC, which has also suffered from the lack of advertising that has been hoovered up by big tech.

To my mind, again, I will be voting against this amendment. I certainly will be supporting the following amendment, but if neither of those amendments pass, I'll be looking for deletion, and I hope we get a majority of the committee to delete clause 28.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I have proposed this amendment for exactly the reason Mr. Coteau is talking about. It is taxpayer dollars. Therefore, give it back to the taxpayer, and if Google can help facilitate that, great. If Facebook can help facilitate that, great. If Twitter can help, great. Whoever can help get that taxpayer-funded material back into the hands of the taxpayer, great. I'm not sure why we would want to hold that back. It's for the public good, so why the CBC would be scoped in with this legislation is beyond me.

The taxpayer is already on the hook for $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion with regard to CBC and making sure that news is produced and put out there. We should want that to be spread as widely as possible, but scoping the CBC in under this legislation means that their content could potentially be excluded from Facebook, let's say, if Facebook chooses not to participate in Bill C-18 and not to carry news anymore. That's a problem because taxpayers then are not able to access the media, the news they paid for.

Further to that, the entire purpose of Bill C-18 is to make up for lost ad revenue. This government in February of 2022 said that the CBC actually shouldn't be reliant on ad revenue and that it actually was against the public good, so this government committed to giving $400 million to the CBC in order to help them not be reliant on ad revenue.

If they're not supposed to be reliant on ad revenue, and that's the foundation that's being set by this government, then why are we are we scoping them into Bill C-18, where they can claim to be hard done by because they don't have ad revenue, even though this government says they shouldn't have ad revenue to begin with. Now they should be able to come to the bargaining table under Bill C-18 and enter into bargaining in order to make up for the lost ad revenue that this government says they shouldn't have to rely on to begin with. It just makes no sense.

The government is speaking out of both sides of its face by keeping this within the legislation. I just would ask, which one is it? Do we support that the taxpayer is putting out over $1 billion on the CBC and, therefore, should have access to the material, or should the CBC be scoped in this legislation and, therefore, withheld from some Canadians, potentially?

The point is that this is the public broadcaster; the public paid for it. It's already been paid for, so why does further negotiation need to be made with big tech companies to get them to pay even more? The material's been paid for. It was paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. It's a done deal, so it's crazy to me.

When I look at the spending of the CBC as well, I see that more than $30 million was spent on retention bonuses alone during the pandemic—$30 million just on bonuses, just to retain. I could keep going down a long list of wasted spending by the CBC, and this is the organization that we think should have the ability to continue to enter into negotiations and take 75% to 80% of this money when combined with Bell and Rogers. That's crazy.

The CBC, which is already taxpayer-funded, is going to be able to elbow out the little guys and get more money because of this bill. Meanwhile, those small rural papers are out. This government made sure they're out because they made sure that there has to be at least two journalists. Ethnic media—they're out, but don't worry. CBC, with more than 1,000 employees—you're in. Already $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion of taxpayer money—no problem. We'll keep you.

That's shameful and incredibly disingenuous, especially when the minister brought out this bill saying that it was supposed to help out newspapers and keep them in business, and especially when it uses words like “sustainability”. It's crazy. The little guys are getting killed by this bill. It's shameful.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm concerned about CPC-23, and I'll explain why, Madam Chair, having lived through what was a very difficult decade for public broadcasting.

When Mr. Harper was running the government, we saw a marked reduction in funding for journalism at CBC, and newsrooms closed right across the country. In smaller markets, where CBC, and CBC journalists, had served faithfully for many years, newsrooms were basically closed. In other cases, in larger markets, there was sort of a skeleton crew that was applied. That had a profound impact on CBC's ability to do the excellent work that it does as a public broadcaster.

I'm concerned about the idea that we would not have CBC as part of C-18 to start with because, fundamentally, what that might mean is that, if the next government in this country is going to do the same thing the Harper government did, we would see the same massive cuts in funding and in journalism from CBC serving the country, and there wouldn't be C-18 and that support from big tech. Our public broadcaster, a broadcaster that is respected across the country and around the world, would be receiving that death by a thousand cuts—cuts in funding for CBC journalism and no access to big tech funding either.

Of course, big tech vacuuming up all of the advertising revenue has an impact on CBC, as well as the vast majority of other news businesses across the country.

I'm concerned about CPC-23, and I won't be supporting it on that basis. I think it opens the door for what some Conservatives have mused on and the Conservative Party fundraises on, which is to kill CBC because it's the fair journalism that often puts the Conservatives in opposition. CBC has that solid, established reputation of journalism that often provokes a reaction from Conservatives.

I'm also concerned about clause 28 of the bill because what it does is provide additional conditions and regulations made by the Governor in Council. What that basically does is provide an opportunity for this government or a future government to impose additional conditions on CBC, and I'm not convinced that would always be used on a good-faith basis.

I don't believe that we should carry clause 28. I think we should be looking to remove that clause from the bill. I think what that would do is provide for CBC's independence. It's still subject to CRTC regulations and still subject to all the other provisions of the act, but it eliminates the possibility of a future cabinet saying, “Hey, we're going to impose a whole range of conditions,” and those conditions may be in a bad-faith way designed to strangle CBC.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of Canadians support the CBC. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Canadians respect the high standards of journalism that are set by the CBC. I think we have a duty as a committee to ensure that CBC has the ability to access the funding that big tech has been hoovering out of this country for years in the same way that all other journalists have the ability, but we also have to remove the potential for a future cabinet to say, “Hey, we're just going to provide that death by a thousand cuts to CBC so that our national public broadcaster is no longer on a sound footing.” We saw over a number of years how quickly journalism can be gutted at the CBC when a government, like the Harper government, cuts funding.

It is also important to talk about francophone journalists across Canada. In British Columbia, CBC/Radio‑Canada has excellent programs and journalists. This bilingualism in journalism is important across Canada.

The reality is that if we deprive the CBC of this potential funding from the tech giants and still give the Governor in Council, through section 28, the ability to change regulations very significantly and unilaterally, it risks taking us back to the days of the Harper government, which slashed funding to CBC/Radio‑Canada. Journalism suffered in newsrooms across the country, especially on the French side, where the number of journalists declined.

For this reason, I will vote against this amendment proposed by the Conservatives, and I am voting against clause 28 of the bill. It should be eliminated to avoid jeopardizing the future of CBC/Radio‑Canada.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I share some of the concerns that Mr. Waugh expressed earlier about the funding of the CBC. However, as Mr. Ripley said, news content generated by public broadcasters is news content that is eligible.

We want to regulate companies that produce news that is accessible to Canadians. In that sense, I tend to agree with the concerns of private companies, who ask why CBC/Radio‑Canada, which receives public funding, would also be entitled to benefit from this legislative framework.

However, I don't think we need to start questioning the funding of CBC/Radio‑Canada in depth now. I'm much more concerned about the fact that CBC/Radio‑Canada can add advertising left and right and subscription levels for some of the services it offers, when it already receives public funding.

I think ultimately there will have to be some in‑depth work done. Often we put this off until later. But we will have to look at it, because it causes a lot of frustration.

Personally, I don't think CBC/Radio‑Canada should be excluded from Bill C‑18, because of the nature of the bill we're dealing with, but I would be very supportive of looking at the various business practices of CBC/Radio‑Canada that are causing harm to private companies soon.

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

I would agree with you on CBC/Radio-Canada. It's a very good organization in this country.

CBC television.... I look at the numbers across the country, and they're not as powerful as they once were. I would imagine that the CTV network is finding that out. So are Global TV and others in this country too. The numbers that they once had have diminished greatly.

I just go back to the private versus the public. I worry, with Bill C-18 and with CBC involved with unlimited resources now and getting extra money from Google and Facebook, about what that will do to the medium and even small and large networks. It's hard enough today for them to compete, and with the extra revenue, considering what the PBO report said.... We'll say $150 million. I'll go with your number. That's a big number to the CBC, and the rest compete against that monstrosity of a news network that we do have.

They do good work; don't get me wrong. The CBC does good work. At the same time, it's taxpayer-fed, as we found out in the fall economic update, where they got $42 million, thank you, from the federal government for no reason whatsoever. That's where I'm coming from. It's going to be very hard for private companies to compete against the public broadcaster going forward if, in fact, CBC is going to be at the trough, as we expect they will be on Bill C-18.

That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When Bill C-18 was introduced, it was supposed to level the playing field. Here we have a public broadcaster that has between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion. I see recently, in the fall economic update, it got $21 million for one year and another $21 million for next year, so a total of $42 million. That is not levelling the playing field.

The public broadcaster is absolutely destroying the digital sphere—if you don't mind me saying so—in this country. In Britain, BBC is allowed to spend a certain amount on digital. Here, CBC can spend a billion dollars on it if they wish. I think this is where, when we look at Bill C-18 and how small and medium newspapers, and small, medium and even large television and radio stations.... Right now, they really can't compete with CBC on the digital. CBC is killing them. CBC is hiring—as you've heard me say many times—the best journalists throughout Canada, throwing them on their web page, and they are doing very well on that.

We really have to have a long discussion around the table on this one. Should the public broadcaster be involved in any fees on Bill C-18? If they are, let me throw this out. Would the Liberal government reduce the budget of CBC by the amount they're going to get from Google and Facebook? There's the starting point.

I, for one, feel that the public broadcaster should not be included in Bill C-18. I'm trying to level the playing field. We have a public broadcaster that gave out bonuses during the pandemic. They gave out $15 million in bonuses. You tell me a station or a newspaper in this country that would give out $15 million in bonuses in the last two years. As you can see, the level playing field is not level at all. The public broadcaster is at the trough, and it's a big trough on Bill C-18—them along with Rogers and Bell. They're going to gobble up 75% to 80% of the money that....

Mr. Ripley, can you confirm those numbers with me for CBC, Bell and Rogers—the big media outlets in this country? Out of the $330 million that we suspect Facebook and Google will give through Bill C-18, they in fact will gobble up 75% of that. Can you confirm those numbers, please?