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.

[Randy Kitt]

Thank you, Peter.

Employment, obviously, is a big issue for Unifor. Our members work in media and work in local news and also work in the film industries. When we talk about local news, the only real way to ensure that local news is funded correctly is if we talk about feet on the street, we talk about reporters, we talk about editors, and we talk about people in our communities writing about the things we need written about and shooting the things we need shot.

Employment is extremely important. When we talk about foreign services and employment, it's different when we talk about Canadian news because we don't want foreign news services in this country. We want Canadian news services in this country, and it has to be funded correctly. That funding has to go to feet on the street and journalism, and to making sure that our communities are bound together and that it's done in a way so that the money that flows to these organizations goes to news and ensures that it goes to news. That's why we talked about, in our presentation, that the money should be earmarked for local news.

The CRTC has been engaged in a process to ensure—we only see aggregate numbers, of course, and this is a similar issue with Bill C-18 that Unifor has raised—accountability and that the money that is received through these funds goes to local news. We know that in the CMF, for instance, the Canada Media Fund, when funding is received for a film, that film is made and we know that product is there. It's the same for local news. If local news receives funding, then that money goes to feet on the street.

[Randy Kitt]

No, we don't want to confuse the two. This is about broadcasting. I know Bill C-18 is platform-agnostic, which is great, but this isn't about Facebook and Google. This is about Netflix and Amazon. The CRTC and successive governments have allowed these foreign broadcasters and foreign streamers to come into Canada. It's completely changed the business model, and advertising revenues are down.

We need a separate fund in this bill for broadcasters. I envision a day when Bill C-18, Bill C-11 and journalism tax credits could all combine into one really nice fund. Right now, they're still separate, and the Facebook and Google money does not replace what the LPIF did for broadcast news from 2009 to 2014, which the CRTC took away. We need to replace that.

The broadcasters, like Netflix and Amazon—Amazon is a BDU—need to contribute to Canadian local news. It's slipping away. If we don't do it now and we don't ensure in Bill C-11 that the CRTC creates a fund, I fear it will slip further.

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

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Mr. Carrière, you spoke to us about the issue of local news, and I fully understand the amendment you are proposing. We will soon be studying Bill C‑18.

Am I to understand that what you are proposing is in addition to what is included in Bill C‑18?

[Alain Saulnier]

I will focus on the last question.

Doing nothing will marginalize cultural groups, like francophones, all over the country.

Artists, video-makers and authors have worked too hard for lawmakers to suddenly let the market dictate what happens, leaving it up to companies—whose editorial policies and strategies are determined by shareholders—to decide what is good or bad for us. That is not up to them, so we really need to get moving. We can't wait another 30 years for a new Broadcasting Act. We need to act quickly.

In my view, we are in danger right now. By we, I mean francophones, first nations and small cultural minorities other than anglophones in the west. We need to do something, and we need to do it now.

I would call Bill C‑11 a first step. Other legislation is coming, including Bill C‑18, which deals with the media. In fact, I would be happy to appear again once the bill has been referred to the committee. To my mind, we need to start moving the needle now.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Thank you for the question.

I guess I would start by noting that we've had the government claim, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that user-generated content, user content, was out of the bill, and we've had the CRTC chair say otherwise. Even now, on this panel, we've had Mr. Reeb and others say that's not their intent or what they would like to see included in the legislation. I must admit that I struggle to quite understand why it remains there when it seems that so many are against it.

As part of the discussions we've had today, I'm struggling to even identify the bill a little bit here. I'm not sure if we're in a Bill C-18 hearing on local media, because this bill doesn't really address core local media issues. It's more about film production and music.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the Copyright Act, because we're hearing claims that there's not enough there on the music side, even though SOCAN has seen record amounts of revenue being generated from Internet-based streaming services. In fact, they attributed all their growth this past year to Internet-based streaming services.

If we're talking about specifically this bill, then we have these dual conversations on the one hand, where there seems to be a general consensus that it's not appropriate to be regulating user content and we ought to be fixing that and have a discussion—a more appropriate discussion, it seems to me—around the impact of streaming services, and how we ensure the legislation is sufficiently targeted to ensure there is an appropriate contribution as part of that system. Some of that gets lost because of the details, and if we're not going to update legislation for decades at a time, we have to get those details right.

Bill C-18—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, for the record, in response to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, as the shadow minister responsible for Bill C-18, I was not consulted on time allocation for this bill.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Furthermore, I am tabling government responses to Questions Nos. 461 to 464.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will associate myself with my hon. colleague in wishing all members a productive week in their constituencies as the weather improves and we are able to participate more and more in events.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the House for the important progress that has been made on our legislative program over the last week. I know we have had a lot of late nights, but we are seeing a lot of important legislation being adopted, so I am appreciative of the House and the work it is doing.

This evening we will consider, in committee of the whole, the estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Tomorrow it is our intention to call Bill C-13, regarding the Official Languages Act. I would also like to inform the House that we will be tabling supplementary estimates tomorrow.

When we come back from working in our constituencies during the week that was aforementioned, we will be entering into the most intensive part of the parliamentary calendar, as we look toward the end of June. On Monday we will return to second reading of Bill C-18, respecting online news remuneration. The second estimates debate, this time for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, will take place that evening as well. Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I will be in further communication with the members opposite about additional business for that week, including our intention to hold a debate on the procedures of the House pursuant to Standing Order 51.

[Kevin Waugh]

Thoughts on four months left...? I mean, we're hitting you with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 and Rogers/Shaw, and you have one foot out the door.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott, let me follow up questions that you didn't have time to answer the last time. First off, what lessons can we pull from the Australian example for Bill C-18? Second, how do we ensure that local media really benefits? Third, with regard to the process of negotiation, mediation and final offer arbitration, how long do you see that period, expecting that there is not necessarily a lot of co-operation from the web giants on that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay. That's fine.

Earlier, I started talking about Bill C‑18, and you told me that you were beginning to form an opinion on this bill. I imagine that you have studied it enough to tell us a little about eligibility. I had started to tell you about it earlier.

We get a lot of calls from companies that define themselves as news companies, but which are, apparently, excluded from this bill because they have somewhat more specialized fields of activity and journalistic coverage. Let's take the example of consumer magazines.

[Kevin Waugh]

Now, with Bill C-18, you're going to be asked to regulate newspapers—for money, because of the Internet. I was a broadcaster for over 40 years, and when I heard this, it was like, “whoa”.

You made a statement, Mr. Scott, that without the CRTC, there would be no francophone content because it does not make sense economically. You also talked about indigenous content. Yet in terms of broadcasting, I would say that the French and the indigenous have been shortchanged for 53 years by radio and TV in this country. Thank god we now have APTN, which has filled some of the shortcomings in this country. I can't—

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to continue in the same vein as Mr. Champoux.

When we talk about Bill C‑18, the finances and the public consultations you're planning, what does the Australian example tell us?

I'd especially like to hear your thoughts and concerns about the local media. In my community of New Westminster—Burnaby, we've lost half of our newspapers. This problem is happening all over the country. What do you plan to do to ensure that the local media have the ability to negotiate?

My last question is, when do you think this process will be completed?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On Bill C‑18, I have to say that I'm concerned about the eligibility of businesses and the effectiveness.

If I understand correctly, one of the purposes of the bill is to protect local news. As we know, local news has been hit hard by the pandemic and by the fact that the big platforms are taking over the advertising revenues.

The size of the company is a criterion for negotiating with the web giants. Smaller media are also struggling. I am thinking in particular of regional coverage, especially in the more remote regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

How can we think that Bill C‑18 will support regional coverage if the smaller media are not eligible because of their size and their impact?

[Ian Scott]

On Bill C‑11, I mentioned earlier that it would take about two years to implement.

With Bill C‑18, it's harder to say.

There's the development of regulations as a statutory instrument and the timing of that is not in our control because it has to go through justice. I can't easily estimate how long it will take to do the regulations that we need to do to establish the framework. Bill C-18 is very new and we're just getting our heads around it.