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.

[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.