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.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Minister, just out of respect for time.... Thank you.

I will go to my next question, because it's clear that you don't want to answer that one.

It is unfortunate, though, that more power was put in the hands of big tech and that Google was given control over the terms, because the whole point of Bill C-18 was to help level the playing field. That what's been touted the entire time.

At the end of the day, what we've landed with is Meta walking away. It is no longer carrying the news. Google said it would stay and negotiate, but only on its terms, so the government and Google entered into a backroom and they created a deal. They cooked up a deal, and all of Google's terms have been met.

It is another example of big tech and big government colluding, and it will ultimately damage news in this country. It will damage accessibility to news and the choice that Canadians have with regard to news. Yesterday was actually a really sad day in Canada, because that's the impact it will ultimately have.

My question is with regard to this agreement that was cooked up. I'm wondering if you can describe the criteria that the government will use to determine whether a news business gets state approval to join a collective. What are the criteria that the government will use to determine whether or not an outlet is an eligible news business?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you for making time to be here with us today.

My first question is as follows.

Yesterday, there was an announcement made with regard to Google and the government making a deal. Before I get into that, maybe I'll preface it. You stated that the Liberal government put Bill C-18 forward to “fix a commercial and power imbalance between tech giants and our news media sector.”

The deal that was entered into yesterday between Google and the government would actually appear to show that Google forced the hand of the government. Google got everything it wanted: $100 million spent, one agreement and one collective chosen by Google on their terms. It's clear then that big tech is actually in the driver's seat.

Is this your idea of fixing the power imbalance that exists between big tech and the news industry—by giving them more control?

[Jason Kint]

I agree 100%.

On the research and academic side, I've seen very important researchers.... A group at NYU here in the U.S. was blocked by Facebook from research it was trying to do, because it was seen as adversarial as it tried to expose some of the harms on the platform.

On the flip side, Google hosted Newsgeist in Canada as you were starting to look at Bill C-18. I'm fairly certain that some of the witnesses who defended Google were at Newsgeist, which is a closed-door, invite-only, Chatham House rule conference for a lot of academics and people in the news industry who covet that invitation from Google.

I don't get invited, by the way.

[Jason Kint]

It's very consistent. I think the only distinction is that there's a lot of attention here on the loss of traffic from Facebook when they moved early, frankly, to block all news.

I think it's important to say that news was struggling before Bill C-18 was passed or before Facebook pulled out. Traffic is down from Facebook and Meta across the board internationally. This notion or this myth that suddenly something happened because you passed Bill C-18, which isn't even in force yet, and that's the problem is kind of absurd when you look at and study the international news market.

I think you bravely passed legislation by looking at smart legislation elsewhere that is working. This is a short-term temper tantrum by Facebook, as was described. I think there are very consistent experiences.

A lot of the downstream harms that are being discussed today are also very consistent with what we see elsewhere. I would strongly encourage everyone to look at the state attorneys general lawsuit against Meta for underage children being harmed by their platforms. It's 40-plus state AGs. It's multi-party in the U.S.

Despite kind of looking at the U.S. and thinking that we can't agree on things, there's very clear agreement on the harm that's happening and that Instagram and Facebook are not taking care of their products.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

It does. I know that there are negotiations that the public is not privy to, where members around this table negotiate how many witnesses you're going to have and for how long the hearings are going to go forward.

To me, the starting point has to be not how many witnesses, but who you need to hear from and who is most relevant. Frankly, as part of the Bill C-18 process, there was an attempt to wrap this up after just four meetings, if I recall correctly, when there was a wide range of people—both supportive and critical of the legislation—who hadn't been heard from.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I think one of the reasons we've seen delays on the harms bill is that, in all likelihood, it is recognized—and rightly so—as being even more controversial than Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and I think that's true.

I also think that it never made sense to put it in heritage. I don't know why online harms is a heritage issue. Reports have suggested that it has now been shifted within the government. I think that's a good thing, because I think this is much more of a justice and public safety-related issue.

I would say that what we really need as part of this legislation—and this may sound like a naive academic speaking—is for there to be an openness, a willingness, to engage in an open iterative policy process once it gets to committee, in the sense that making changes is not a mistake and doesn't suggest that somehow someone has erred but is rather an attempt to make the bill better.

With all due respect, I've felt that too often committee is set up more as consultation theatre than as actual, real, engaged consultation and that the notion of making changes, even potentially significant changes, is somehow seen as an admission of some sort of failure. I don't think it is.

These are bills that should have been not nearly as controversial as they proved to be. I think part of the problem was that from the day they were put forward—and this has been true for a long time with successive governments, frankly, both Conservative and Liberal—the idea was that, once the legislation was put forward, any significant changes were seen as somehow saying that we had made some sort of mistake and that was a sign of weakness.

I don't think it is. Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think it's a sign of strength to develop the very best policy possible.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to pick up where I left off, in reference to what you said about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 in your statement and how some people might have been excluded for a variety of reasons.

We've just heard that it took two years for the U.K. to do the harms bill. You suggested that we had our study backwards here on Bill C-18 and Bill C-11. What would you like us to see as the mistakes that were made with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 so that we have legislation that might not be what it should and we excluded people from the process? My idea is that you talk to everybody and make sure everybody's heard if you want to get something right. On the harms bill, what would you suggest?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I actually think what we've seen take place in terms of broadcaster response, both on news and on calls for reduced CanCon obligations, which we are also seeing now, does come out of this legislation.

On CanCon, for example, it was an obvious consequence that, if you were looking for the international streamers—the foreign streamers—to shoulder more of the responsibility, one of the responses you'd get from Canadian broadcasters would be, “Okay, we can reduce what we have to do as part of that.”

On the news side, I suspect the timing may well have been a coincidence, but in terms of the amount of news we might get from some of those broadcasters, there's been little evidence to suggest that the results they might get from Bill C-18, which appear now to be pretty limited—with really only one company now subject to this legislation—would change the trajectory of some of the things those companies have been focused on when it comes to news.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Gainey.

We'll go now to the third round. I think we have time.

There will be five minutes for the Conservatives, and I'm actually going to lead it off.

Mr. Geist, the day Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was passed in the House of Commons, I found it ironic—some thought I was a conspiracist—that the big broadcasters slipped over to the CRTC chair and said, “We want to do less local news.” Isn't that ironic?

Of course, no money has come yet from Bill C-18 to the big broadcasters, but they are preparing for that, and I can tell you, in my city, that the local television station does two hours a day out of 216 First Avenue North.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

When you reference Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, who should set the standards there. Who should set these standards? Where do you think we should go?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Geist, earlier you talked about the lobbyists who intervened in the study of Bill C‑18. You mentioned News Media Canada in particular. You're right in saying its members were very active. That organization represents 830 newspapers, dailies, weeklies and community newspapers across Canada. Since it's the group most affected by the crisis, particularly as a result of the domination by digital businesses, it's quite natural for the members of that organization to be the most active group seeking regulations.

I understand that we can have very broad discussions regarding the business models of both digital and conventional businesses, which perhaps should be reviewed.

I recently suggested that we take a break and conduct an extensive study on the state of conventional media in Quebec and Canada, particularly on the state of news media.

Do you agree with that idea? Isn't it time we held a kind of summit to review those models and look to the future with a clearer idea of what lies ahead?

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

Let's go there for a minute.

You said News Media Canada was the biggest lobbyist on this bill, and they got everything they wanted. We saw, immediately after C-18 was passed, that Bell Media decided to shut down over 1,200 news outlets that were local, and Métro followed suit. It looks, at the end of the day, like C-18 utterly failed to meet its objective and, rather, lobbyists and the CBC, Bell and Rogers ended up with the lion's share of the taxpayers' money.

Would you agree with that?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

With your permission, I'd like to expand that not just to C-18 but to C-11 as well.

One of the real concerns with the legislative approach that this committee and that the legislation has taken on both the streaming act and on the news act has been to have significant negative implications for access to foreign content for diaspora communities. One of the real fears of what we're seeing play out at the CRTC is the likelihood that the increased cost of regulation and registration—but even more than registration, the actual costs of regulation—could well lead many foreign streaming services to simply block the Canadian market, because it doesn't become economical anymore. It's particularly those communities that may be most directly affected. The same is true on the news side.

Yes, this was a likely outcome. Again, I'm going to come back to my opening remarks to emphasize that, if you weren't listening to these players, if you decided all you needed to do was by and large listen to News Media Canada and a few other cheerleaders, then you'd miss that large story.

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

Thank you.

It appears there are even more harms coming from the way C-18 was implemented than expected. You may have seen the Substack from my colleague Michelle Rempel Garner yesterday, where she expressed concern about how the rollout of C-18 was going to impact especially diaspora and ethnic small media.

Could you comment on what you think the impacts of C-18 have been on them?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Thanks for the question.

No, I wasn't surprised. I appeared before this committee a couple of times on C-18, and I thought that if you understood the business model that existed....

We've heard a lot of the negative aspects of the business model, which is why I think there is a role to play for regulation when it comes to some of the harms that have been articulated, but that wasn't what C-18 was about. If you understood the business model of trying, as we've heard, to keep people on the platform, capture information and deliver ads to them, the idea that news content was something they couldn't live without never made much sense. The reality is that it's the sort of content that actually sends people away, off the site. Given what had been taking place, it seemed to me that this was likely to occur.

I also have to say that sometimes it felt as if people didn't fully think through some of the implications. I mean, with all respect, it was this committee that established a specific exception for campus broadcasters to include them in the legislation, and we just heard today that campus news isn't included. This committee literally included it within one of its amendments so they would be eligible under the system.

It's also this committee that passed legislation that said that facilitating access to all news, whether in Canada or anywhere, brings you within the scope of being a digital news intermediary. You could have made the choice to say only news that's from a qualified Canadian journalism organization or only those who qualify for payments, which actually would have excluded some of these other entities and would have excluded many of the foreign entities, but that wasn't the choice that was made.

It seems to me these were the choices made in the legislation and the outcomes were pretty predictable.