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.

[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?