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.

Online News Act

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative friends. I guess they miss me. I am at home, participating online, and they do not want to hear me for 15 minutes. They want to hear me for the full 30.

I know they enjoy my speeches. I get a lot of feedback in real time. Unfortunately, I cannot hear that real-time feedback at the moment. I am sure they are listening attentively to what I have to say.

I appreciate the opportunity to add and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou on a point of order.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no interpretation right now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will keep speaking in English and hope that the translation will come through.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is wonderful. It is unfortunate we lost that minute or so, but I guess that gives me even more time to speak to my Conservative friends who do not want to hear the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, who is an hon. parliamentarian. It is disappointing. I am sure he will get an opportunity to speak going forward, but I thank my Conservative friends for allowing me to carry on and answer even more questions.

I would like to start my speech with a statement, and I hope all members agree with it: There is no real democracy without a free and independent press. A bankrupt press is not a free press. To play its fundamental role, the press needs revenue. This principle is at the core of Bill C-18, and it is at the core of our approach to supporting strong and independent journalism. What we are seeing now, more than ever, is just how important that is.

The way Canadians get their news has changed a lot. Many of us get our news through Google or Facebook, which is okay. There is nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that digital media platforms do not compensate media when they use their content. Advertising dollars have left Canadian media. In 2020, online advertising revenues in Canada were close to $10 billion, with Meta and Google taking 80% of those revenues.

The consequences for many Canadian businesses are dire. This is especially hurting Canadian media that rely on advertising to pay their journalists. Between 2008 and 2021, 450 news outlets closed across Canada. Let me repeat that: Canada now has 450 fewer news outlets, and it shows no signs of improving. Since the start of the pandemic, 64 news outlets have closed. This is a crisis.

In many regions, that means there are no more local media and no more journalists holding local governments and officials to account. Many Canadians have no way of knowing what is happening in their communities and no way of knowing what is happening at City Hall. The very foundations of our government are eroding. All this is at a time when disinformation is on the rise. Canadians need credible, independent and reliable information.

We have implemented concrete solutions to address these issues, and I would like to go through a couple of them. We created the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. This has kept many outlets afloat: many more would have gone bankrupt during the pandemic, leaving many communities without any local journalistic coverage. We created a tax credit for subscriptions and donations to media.

We increased funding to the Canada periodical fund, which many local media outlets had to rely on. We are even adding an additional $40 million to the budget in 2022. We created the local journalism initiative. Thanks to this program, many communities can count on journalistic equality and consistent access to local news. Without it, many communities would have absolutely zero coverage on the ground. These are all important steps, but we know there is more work to do.

We have heard loud and clear from the Canadian journalism industry that news businesses are struggling. They are in dire need of long-term, reliable and structural supports to continue producing the news that Canadians rely so heavily on. That is why we need tech giants to do their part, and that is why we need Bill C-18.

The compensation that tech giants would provide to Canadian media through Bill C-18 would represent a giant step in ensuring the viability of strong and independent journalism in Canada, which is essential to our democracy. That is what Bill C-18 would do. It is simple. Tech giants would fairly compensate Canadian journalists when they use their content. That is it: no more, no less.

It is a market-based solution that involves minimal government intervention, and I think everyone in this place can agree on that. I am sure my Conservative colleagues will be very happy. They believe in the free market and independent journalism. I really cannot think of anything in this bill that they would not like.

As I said, Bill C-18 is a market-based approach designed to revolve around bargaining and balance between large, dominant digital platforms and news businesses. It would ensure that eligible news businesses are fairly compensated for their content by digital platforms through negotiated deals. The bill incentivizes parties to reach commercial agreements on their own.

It is based on the Australian model, but we made it more transparent. Public and transparent criteria would determine which platform is included and has to negotiate with Canadian media. It is not a minister and not a government. Every step of the way, we would make sure that the government stays as far away as possible from this process.

Digital platforms would be designated under the act. If they had a significant bargaining power imbalance compared with news businesses, they would be required to negotiate with eligible news businesses a fair compensation for the news content that appears on their services.

Again, this is not the government that determines which outlet is eligible. There are criteria. They are written in black and white in the bill. It is as transparent as it gets.

I hope my colleagues are listening carefully. I am sure they are, because they wanted me to go on for an additional 10 minutes. The next part of this speech is important, because the bill is important to smaller local media as well.

Eligible media may collectively bargain if they wish. This would allow smaller media outlets that did not have the resources to single-handedly negotiate with tech giants to still receive fair compensation for the use of their content. In other words, we are ensuring that local journalism can continue to thrive in communities across Canada.

We went even further on transparency, because we believe this is essential to preserve public confidence in Canadian journalism and in our democracy. Every single deal would be disclosed. Canadians would know which news organizations have deals with each and every platform. Through this bill, we are making sure that commercial agreements between digital platforms and news businesses are in the public interest.

For the deals to be acceptable, they need to satisfy six criteria.

First, they provide fair compensation for news content.

Second, they ensure that an appropriate portion of the compensation will be used for the production of local, regional and national news content.

Third, they do not undermine freedom of expression and journalistic integrity.

Fourth, they contribute to the sustainability of the news market.

Fifth, they ensure that a significant portion of independent local news businesses benefit from the deals.

Sixth, they involve a range of news outlets that reflect the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace.

Again, we see the criteria are public and transparent. There is minimal government intervention.

The bill even contains an exemption to this. It contains a set of criteria that, if fulfilled, may exempt digital platforms from further negotiations. This is essential to encourage voluntary commercial agreements to further minimize government involvement. To be exempt, digital platforms would have to show that they sufficiently contribute to the Canadian digital news marketplace by reaching fair commercial agreements, that they have an appropriate portion of compensation used to support local and independent news, that the agreements are inclusive and made with a diversity of news businesses representing a diversity of Canadian interests and identities, and that the agreements support innovative business models. As we can see, this is another way to make sure that local media also receive fair compensation. It is at the core of the bill.

Without this legislation, Canadian journalism and democracy will continue to erode. It is already happening as we speak. Bill C-18 would ensure that digital platforms are negotiating fair commercial deals with news businesses. This is not just about large news businesses, as I clearly demonstrated through the availability of collective bargaining. As a criteria for the exemption, this bill would ensure that small businesses also receive fair compensation.

This bill would limit government involvement and protect the independence of media from both government and commercial interference, because now, more than ever, Canadians need strong and independent journalism.

The Conservatives have told us they want market-based solutions to the media crisis. I agree, and we agree, but right now there are two companies, Google and Meta, that get 80% of the ad revenue on the Internet. It does not feel like it is a free market. There is not much competition. It is almost a monopoly, but with our bill Canadian media would have the tools they need to negotiate fair deals. It is a solution that protects media and protects their independence.

We are basing this on the Australian model. I know when a similar bill came out in Australia, Facebook, or Meta, attempted to have a fight with the Australian government and threatened to pull all of the country's news sources from Facebook. It thought it would turn the Australian people against their government, but what it did was turn them against Facebook, which backed down.

We have seen other countries and other allies of Canada move in this direction. We have an understanding and we have full knowledge. Again, I hope all members support our need to have strong independent journalism to help our democracy. Australia created a model that works. The tech giants have negotiated fair deals with Australian media outlets, including Australian Crown corporations. Journalism there is now stronger. Australian democracy is now stronger. It worked in Australia, and it will work in Canada.

I think that is what we want. I truly hope that this will be a speedy debate and that all parties will come together on this, because that is what we want to see. I am sure there are members in this House who do not like that there are local news outlets that hold them to account, but that is what strengthens our democracy.

I know the Conservatives have been very vocal on our committee, and I respect that, talking about the Shaw-Rogers merger and its impact on local news. We have had some very good discussion on that. Because there is a potential impact on a number of local television stations and local news across the country, I hope that concern goes broader. The merger is an excellent discussion, a discussion worth having, but this is the elephant in the room, in terms of ad revenues that have left, ad revenues that are going away from local news organizations and going to massive American companies, the dominant digital players. Again, 80% of that revenue goes to those two companies. It does not seem like we could have a healthy space, and this concerns me.

We see the consequences of misinformation and disinformation online. The types of things that local media and national media outlets do are to get the truth out, but on Facebook and other social media, we do not see that impact. To see the safety of the hon. leader of the NDP threatened because of individuals who have now become subsumed in the disinformation that social media has to offer is horrific. It was frightening to watch, and it was disappointing to see. No member of this place should have to go through that. He handled it with poise, and I tip my hat to him, but none of us should be placed in that position.

I will wrap up by saying that this is a significant bill for Canadians, for democracy. We need to find ways to strengthen that. I look forward to getting this to committee as quickly as possible. We have excellent debates in the heritage committee and we have a very good working relationship with all parties. There is an appreciation across all the parties that we need to do more for local media and we need to do more for national media to ensure that that presence continues to exist.

I hope that we see broad support on Bill C-18, and I look forward to its passing speedily at second reading so that we can get it to committee as quickly as we can.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not know if we always go to the first one standing, but the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan beat everyone to it.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a simple question for the parliamentary secretary about the discussion around spreading misinformation and disinformation.

Is “spreading misinformation” simply a fancy way of saying “telling a lie”? Does it mean the same thing as telling a lie, or does it mean something different?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is getting at. Misinformation and disinformation are endemic on social media platforms. It is much broader than telling a lie. I do not know that I can encompass that in a very brief answer to the hon. member. I think he knows that. I think he knows that we are having difficulty as a society acknowledging what is truthful.

We could take a look at what has happened on COVID-19 and the anti-vax movement. We could take a look at climate change and see the misinformation and disinformation out there, when there is scientific consensus on those types of issues. There is no check against it, seemingly, on Meta, Twitter, Google and other companies, so we are going to rely more heavily on local journalism and national journalism, the media in general, to ensure that Canadians have access to accurate information.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for this bill, along with the broadcasting bill, for several years. In this case, it is about levelling the playing field so that the print media can thrive in a media landscape dominated by the omnipresence of new technology.

Does the parliamentary secretary think this bill will actually enable the print media to thrive in today's context?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from the hon. member. We need to start levelling the playing field somewhere. This is an excellent start.

This deal is already in place between major media companies in Canada and Facebook and Google. It is time to ensure that there is more transparency. It is time to ensure that smaller entities will be able to get a fair deal as well. This will help level the playing field. The argument that we are making on Bill C-11 is an important argument that we are making on Bill C-18 as well.

We need to get this bill to committee and through the House as quickly as possibly, because, as we said, more media outlets are closing. We are in a crisis. We need to do what we can, and this is a model that works.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the highlight of my morning was when I found out that the parliamentary secretary was going to be speaking longer than he wanted to.

I think of a news outlet in my riding. It is called the Kingstonist. It actually just came online, probably within the last 10-12 years, and over the years it has gradually built a larger and larger base of followers. The only way it generates income right now is if people subscribe to the service or if people end up on its website, where it can generate money from ad revenue. However, we know that the majority of people who look at its news content are seeing it on Facebook or perhaps on Google, and it is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to the distribution of its material.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on how he thinks this bill would help an organization such as the Kingstonist in my riding.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, as always, for his informative questions and his hard work on the file. It is important. News outlets like the one the hon. member mentioned are fundamental to our democratic institutions. Here in St. Catharines, on the few occasions I have had to attend local city council meetings, there may or may not have been one or two members of the local media there, but we need as many people as possible there holding elected officials to account.

In Kingston, it is fundamentally important to do the same thing. Organizations like the one the hon. member mentioned will benefit across the country, to ensure that they have the ad revenue and that dominant digital players are not syphoning off the vast majority of ad revenue, which they have been doing and which is the centre of the crisis we find ourselves in.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we are seeing the impacts of many of the larger web giants using local news, much to the disadvantage of local news outlets. We are seeing news outlets in Nanaimo—Ladysmith closing down, and many of the news outlets, such as Nanaimo News Bulletin, The Discourse and Nanaimo News Now, are struggling to keep up with the large web giants. They are set up for failure.

I wonder if the member could speak about why we have not done anything to support local media to date and what needs to be done to ensure that we are supporting these local, hard-working media sources.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I listed many of the programs with which the government is helping out media, but there is only so much the government can do. We need to find a more market-based solution to this problem. At the centre of it are dominant digital players syphoning off the vast majority of the ad revenue. That is the big issue that we find ourselves in.

This bill provides a solution. It provides a solution, with limited government intervention, to allow deals to take place with independents. In terms of smaller media outlets, which the hon. member mentioned, they can bargain collectively with other media outlets to ensure that they get a fair deal and that they benefit from this bill, and to help level the playing field to ensure that they can continue to provide news in the hon. member's riding.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite sure I was up ahead of the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but I will not argue the point. That is virtual reality, so here we are.

I am focusing less on what Bill C-18 proposes to do. It has taken the approach of saying, as we have heard, that when information, news articles and content appear in what we might call our conventional media, the social media giants and the tech giants pay for that. However, it does not get to this new problem. Neither Bill C-11 nor Bill C-18 gets to what is now being called by our security experts “IMVE”, ideologically motivated violent extremism, which is spread through social media content. I commend to the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members a recent opinion piece by Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Taylor Owen, the director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University.

We are not addressing the root problem here. It is a dangerous area. People want to back away from this nexus between free speech and protecting people from violent extremism. The solution I would put to the hon. member is to treat these new tech online sources, or whatever we want to call them, not as platforms but as publishers. That is what they are. They publish. We have a vast amount of common-law jurisprudence on what to do with publishing things that are false.

I put it to the hon. member that Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 do not address the threat to Canadian democracy in online disinformation.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the hon. member that her virtual hand was up long, long before the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan jumped up on his feet.

The hon. member is also right in terms of where we find ourselves with social media, that it is an unsafe place. I was threatened yesterday when I spoke about a shooting that happened in my riding. This is the type of thing that Canadians find themselves in. It becomes a much less safe place than it has ever been, with the promise of the Internet, as it rose in the 1990s, that it would be this wonderful place. However, it is not a safe place, and it is even less so for women and persons of colour.

That is why the government is consulting on online safety. We hope to have legislation soon, but the consultations are ongoing. It is fundamental. It is in the minister's mandate letter, and we hope to have legislation on that as part of our plan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we continue debate, I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did have her hand up first. I have to admit that. However, I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, among the six Conservatives who stood up, was first in that round. That is just to clarify.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that it would have violated the Standing Orders for the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to stand and be recognized while the hon. parliamentary secretary was speaking, so I was rather teasing the hon. Speaker. I know that virtual hands go up at the beginning of a speech and no one in the House could do that. I withdraw any suggestion that I was critical of the Speaker's decision on who spoke first.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am hopeful that this kind of discussion will continue this morning.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for clarifying her point, because I do worry that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is now just going to stand in his place for the entirety of today's debate. I just worry that his legs are going to get sore from standing that long.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

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

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-18, the online news act.

I did not get a chance to ask the parliamentary secretary for Canadian heritage a question. He spoke a lot in his speech about the online tech giants, the Facebooks and Googles of the world, gobbling up advertising revenue and leaving small local newspapers without the same access to revenue. If I would have had a chance to ask the parliamentary secretary a question, I would have asked him why he spent $13,000 on Facebook advertising, rather than investing that in his local newspaper, the St. Catharines Standard.

Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to ask the parliamentary secretary that question, but perhaps he can come back to the House at some point and clarify why he felt the need to spend $13,000 on a tech giant, rather than on his local community newspaper.

I want to begin by stating there is a clear sense that Canada's news environment has changed dramatically, and it has changed especially significantly in the last 10 to 20 years. The Internet has changed how we do business. It has brought many changes to all aspects of our lives, our communities and how businesses operate. As these changes and disruptions have happened in the digital marketplace, they have had a very specific impact on the media industry and in particular the traditional print media industry.

As many Canadians know, the cumulative advertising dollars that are spent in Canada are now being spent more and more on online means. As these dollars move online, a smaller and smaller number of dollars are being spent on traditional advertising and print advertising, which for years and decades have been used to sustain the news industry.

Newsrooms in 2022 are far smaller than they were even a decade ago. We can contrast that even further back, to 20 to 30 years ago. Many of the newsrooms that are now operating with one or two journalists at one point operated with a dozen. I know the Speaker has a background in the media industry and will be able to reflect on the changes that have happened over these number of years. Still other newsrooms have closed entirely, and when these newsrooms close, they leave in their wake news deserts in which parts of the community, or in some cases entire communities, are left without access to reliable local news sources. These closures have particularly hurt small towns and rural communities, like those communities in many of our ridings.

Canadians rely on local news to inform their lives and help inform their decision-making at the local, regional and national levels. Whether it be the members of the parliamentary press gallery, the press galleries of the provincial legislatures or countless individual journalists who cover the goings-on at city halls and town halls in communities across our country, all of these journalists have a role to play in Canada's democratic life. In fact, a free and independent press is essential to a functioning democracy.

I draw the House's attention to one of the famous comments on a free and independent press from George Mason, one of America's founding fathers. He said, “the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” That quotation is as true now as it was then. The freedom and ability of the press to fairly, impartially and honestly report the news to citizens of this country are absolutely essential.

That local news is struggling is not in doubt. The traditional business model that saw print publications sell advertising space in hard-copy publications worked for decades and saw successes. Small independent newspapers and large media empires alike relied on the basic practice of using this advertising space to reach the eyes of readers and help sustain their newsrooms. Now, in 2022, while the advertising model has diminished, what has not diminished is the continued need for impartial, honest and trustworthy sources of news.

The government itself has admitted that it has not yet found a solution to this problem. In fact, in his press conference after introducing the bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself conceded that a significant number of news providers have closed their doors in recent years during the government's time in office. This is not only unfortunate; it is weakening our communities.

Local newspapers, radio stations and television stations bring us the stories that impact us in our daily lives. At the local level, they report the stories of community. They cover municipal councils, charitable events and fundraisers, community festivals, fall fairs and the success of our local sports teams or, in some cases, hope for the future success of these teams. Local journalism also covers the more unfortunate but nonetheless essential stories that need to be told in our communities: stories of crime, fires, floods and violence.

As I drive across the 3,500 square kilometres of Perth—Wellington, I find myself flipping through my car radio's preset stations. I want to be clear that I use my radio in my car. I do not use Spotify and I do not use satellite radio. I prefer traditional radio when I am driving, and I listen to it as I drive across my riding and from there to Ottawa. I also listen to local stations as I drive along Highway 401 or Highway 7, depending on which direction I am taking. It gives me an opportunity to hear what is going on in not only my own communities in Perth—Wellington, but those across the country.

As I drive through Perth and Wellington counties, I find myself flipping to The River, which is a non-profit entity out of Mount Forest, Ontario, that celebrates everything local and everything important to the community. I often switch to a number of the Blackburn radio stations that are present throughout southwestern Ontario given the important services and news they provide. In fact, one of the Blackburn stations is AM920 out of Wingham. I fondly remember as a child listening to AM920 and being shushed by my mother every time the “in memoriam” part came on, because we certainly did not want to miss that. To this day, it is still part of the station.

In Listowel and North Perth, we can tune in to The Ranch, the newest entrant to the news and radio market. It has quickly found an important spot in the media landscape in Listowel and North Perth and, indeed, in the northern part of Perth County. Of course, in Stratford, we can tune in to 2day FM or Juice FM to hear Jamie Cottle in the morning, and before him, local legend Eddie Matthews.

I would like to highlight the fact that the radio predecessor to 2day FM and Juice FM was CJCS 1240 AM. It was in 1945 that the CJCS commentators were providing coverage of the Perth Regiment's return from World War II. That coverage on CJCS 1240 AM inspired a young, 12-year-old boy from Stratford to begin a lifelong career in broadcasting. That young boy began working at CJCS as a high school student, and while he got his start in radio, generations of Canadians know him for his television career as Canada's most trusted news anchor. However, Stratford and Perth County will always lay claim to the fact that Lloyd Robertson got his start in our little community on the radio.

In Perth—Wellington, we also have a number of tremendous local newspapers. In Wellington County, we are lucky to have the Wellington Advertiser, which has proudly served the people of Wellington County for more than half a century. It has been recognized for its work on multiple occasions, including being named the top community newspaper in Ontario in its class by the Ontario Community Newspapers Association.

When I attended the 50th anniversary celebration for the Wellington Advertiser, I was struck by a story told by Dave Adsett, publisher of the Advertiser. He recounted how his father, Bill Adsett, the founder of the Wellington Advertiser, once had the option to save money by removing delivery to a small portion of Wellington County. He refused to do so out of principle to ensure that every citizen in Wellington County had access to the news and information contained in the Wellington Advertiser. When Bill Adsett passed away on October 5, 2021, he was rightly remembered and honoured for his lifetime of contributions to the County of Wellington.

In my hometown of Mitchell, I have been a reader of the Mitchell Advocate literally since I was able to read. I say that completely honestly. Throughout all the years that I have been reading the newspaper, Andy Bader has been working hard to bring the news and our local stories to us each and every week. Similarly, I have wonderful memories of reading The Stratford Beacon Herald, and watching as photographers like Scott Wishart chronicled the life of the community through his photos, or as Steve Rice recorded the rise and fall of any number of local sports teams.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, many local news providers have closed in the past number of years, hurting communities across Canada, including those in Perth—Wellington.

The Mount Forest Confederate, a paper that was first published in the year of Canada's Confederation, in 1867, has closed. The Arthur Enterprise News, founded before Confederation, in 1862, has closed. In 2019, the Minto Express was closed.

In Perth County, many of my constituents were shocked in 2017 when the major media giants abruptly shut down both the St. Marys Journal Argus and Stratford Gazette. The closure of the St. Marys Journal Argus was especially difficult because after 154 years as a newspaper serving the community, it was unexpectedly shut down in one single day without even the opportunity to deliver a final edition to the town's faithful readers.

Fortunately for the town of St. Marys, the St. Marys Independent, led by Stewart Grant, has stepped in to fill that void. I might add that he does so as a true public service to the communities of St. Marys, Perth South and beyond.

While these examples are local to my riding, the challenges are certainly national in scope. Today's debate is not the first time the issue of struggling local news providers has been raised. In fact, at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we have undertaken a study of the Rogers-Shaw deal and the impact that it will have on local news. This study was initiated by my friend and colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, a former broadcaster who prided himself during his broadcasting career on delivering local news to his communities in Saskatoon and beyond.

Like many Canadians, I was disappointed to see the CRTC make a ruling to approve the sale based on certain conditions. Obviously recent events involving the Competition Bureau may alter the future of this deal, but what I found interesting and frankly disappointing about the Rogers-Shaw decision by the CRTC was its use of wishy-washy, non-committal language. In its decision, the CRTC used words such as “encouragement”, “expectations” and “reminders”, rather than taking a real stand.

Setting aside for a moment the CRTC's decision on the Rogers-Shaw deal, there is no question that the decisions made by the CRTC and other entities will have an impact on local news. The question is whether the CRTC has the capacity or the competency to actually make decisions that will improve the media landscape in Canada.

That brings me to some of the concerns we have with the bill at hand.

In the last election, there was a general consensus among the different political platforms that something should be done to help local news and journalism survive. In our Conservative platform under our former leader, the member for Durham, we made the following commitment:

Canada’s Conservatives will:

Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook. It will:

Adopt a made in Canada approach that incorporates the best practices of jurisdictions like Australia and France.

Include a robust arbitration process and the creation of an intellectual property right for article extracts shared on a social media platform.

Ensure that smaller media outlets are included, and that the government won’t be able to pick and choose who has access to the royalty framework.

That is what we committed to in the last election campaign.

It may surprise everyone, but we did not win that election. We came close, certainly, and we did win the popular vote, but we did not form government, to the great disappointment of my friends on the other side of the House. While we did not get to draft this legislation, it is our duty as Her Majesty's loyal opposition to review the legislation introduced by the Liberal government and provide the comments that our citizens and constituents require of us.

Let me say very clearly that Canada's Conservatives believe that news providers should be fairly compensated for the use of their content. That said, we do have questions about this particular piece of legislation. As I explained earlier, local news providers are struggling. This begs the obvious question as to whether Bill C-18 will help the newspapers and radio stations in communities like Perth—Wellington, Sarnia—Lambton, Elgin—Middlesex—London, and other rural communities and small towns across our country. Unfortunately, that is unclear.

A recent report from the Toronto Star, itself a long and distinguished media provider in this country, indicated that the Australian model on which this legislation is based may be leaving out small and medium-sized businesses. The article states, “But while major publishers and networks in Australia had struck deals with Facebook and Google, some smaller, independent outlets were finding themselves shut out from making deals of their own.”

The article goes on to quote Erin Millar, the CEO of Indiegraf, who said, “If we’re going to have this bill, how are we to design it in such a way that it doesn’t lead to the same outcomes as Australia, which is, from my perspective, really not supporting journalism?”

There are other questions that remain unanswered with this bill as well, such as why the CRTC was selected as the regulatory body to enforce and oversee the act when the CRTC does not have a history or experience in regulating online platforms. Let us not forget that the CRTC is the same entity whose chair met privately for beers with someone from one of the largest industries it regulates. However, beyond the chair's clear lack of judgment, let us remember that the CRTC has still not implemented a three-digit suicide prevention hotline more than 500 days after this House unanimously passed a motion calling for such a resource. It has also been more than 16 months since the CRTC held hearings about the licence renewal for the CBC licences. If the CRTC cannot make a decision within 16 months on what I would assume to be a fairly routine renewal, how in the world can it have the capacity and competency to do anything that is asked of it?

We also have no indication on how much revenue will be generated when this bill is enforced. Budget 2022 earmarks $8.5 million for the bureaucracy necessary to administer Bill C-18, so it is logical to ask whether the revenues generated through this bill will be greater than or less than the costs to administer it.

We have a number of other questions, including how the code of conduct will be developed and whether it will be tabled in Parliament. We have questions about what undue preference will be considered within the bill. Will non-Canadian news providers be able to benefit from the Canadian system? Why has the government not tabled a charter statement on this bill? Why was a public broadcaster included when it already received other entities? We have these questions and, as such, I think an important committee study ought to be had.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

Moving on to questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad to hear the member listens to radio in his riding. I would encourage him to download the iHeart radio app, or a similar app, so he can continue to listen to those radio stations when he is in Ottawa, as I listen to Reid and Ben every morning, who are on Move 98.3 in Kingston. It is a great way to stay connected to our communities.

I am thinking of those small news outlets. I referenced the Kingstonist, which is is one in my riding. I know there is the Stratford Times in his riding. These are small news organizations that do not have the ability to compete against the distributive networks of Facebook and Google. They need supports. This bill creates the framework for those discussions to happen between those big distributors of the content, such as Facebook and Google, and those smaller independent organizations, such as the Stratford Times.

I am wondering if the member can comment on why he wants to reject the bill and send the content to committee through his amendment, as opposed to moving forward on this so we can put together a good framework to allow these discussions to happen so that the Stratford Times can benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have the app on my phone, and I stay in touch with my local stations when I am here in Ottawa. I have spent time in Kingston. I served a year there at university, not in the other institution of that great town, and I did read the Kingston Whig Standard when I was there.

The member asked a question about why we would send this bill to committee and have the subject matter reviewed by the committee. It is exactly for the question he asked, which is so we can hear from the small community newspapers. What we are hearing now from Australia is that they are not able to access the benefits of the Australian model, which is the model being sent here.

There is mention in the bill that the rules of the Competition Act would be set aside to allow for collective bargaining, but we have no clarification on how that works, so we want this to go to committee. We want to see the subject matter go to committee quickly so we can have those discussions with local newspapers, whether they are from Kingston or Perth—Wellington or Chatham-Kent—Leamington. We want to hear those voices, and those voices must be heard.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 sets out, in black and white, the rules that the various media players must follow to ensure much healthier competition and quality content for everyone.

It is no secret that small media outlets are in immediate need of financial assistance from the government. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know full well that newspapers and media outlets are in trouble.

Also, more and more advertising space is being bought from the web giants, including Facebook, Meta and Google. This is a concern for all Canadians who see the value of their local media or local newspaper.

We need to be able to share the stories from our communities. The government needs to do something. I think it is a good idea. We need to make sure that this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage so it can be studied.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech from the member, and it was perplexing to me to hear him suggest that the bill should be withdrawn and the heritage committee should study the matter. In fact, if this bill passes second reading, it would be referred to committee, where we would be able to call witnesses and ask questions pertaining to the bill. It is perplexing to me that he would want to effectively kill the bill with his amendment. The NDP supports this notion and has been calling for the government to equalize the web giants with small, local media outlets. This bill is a good start.

Why would the member want to kill the bill if he truly wanted to have a discussion about it and have witnesses presented on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the preference of our side would have been to draft our own piece of legislation if we were in government, but that is not the case. The next best scenario is this type of amendment.

As the member ought to know, as she has been in the House a long time, there are very few amendments that are acceptable at second reading debate. This particular amendment is one of the few that is permissible and that is the one we have used. It will provide the subject matter to go to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to make suggestions and make a report back to the House of Commons.

The Government of Canada can then use that advice, use the suggestions of all parties and listen to witnesses, of which we are developing a massive list of people who want input on this bill. Their views are both positive and negative, and they have clear ideas for suggestions to improve, change or rewrite the bill entirely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for a great speech and for moving the amendment because I do have concerns about Bill C-18, especially when we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about how there would not be any discrimination. In every other media policy that the government has brought, there has been discrimination along the political spectrum and, as the member correctly pointed out, small and medium-sized news outlets.

I would like to hear his comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk on a different point she raised on where the government puts its priorities and where other members put their priorities.

We just heard the member for Vancouver East rallying their support for this bill, but the member for Vancouver East spent $17,000 on Facebook ads. The member for Vancouver East is talking about levelling the playing field between major web giants and local newspapers, but the member herself spent $17,000.

As parliamentarians, we need to look ourselves in the eye and decide what we want to do to promote, and whether government advertising should be focused on traditional local media rather than major web giants.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to acknowledge the addition of a new member to my team, Jean‑François Vachon, a journalist by training. He is very well known in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, especially for his work at the newspaper Le Citoyen and with the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies. He certainly adds value to my team. This will somewhat influence my speech, which will be interesting as it is about content in regional media. I would also like to acknowledge my friend Antoni Gilbert, who helped with the work done by my team.

Today we begin debate at second reading on Bill C-18, which requires digital platforms to negotiate agreements with news businesses. I would like to join my colleagues in saying it is about time.

However, I am in suspense because there is still much work to be done on protecting privacy on major digital platforms. This bill may be the third bill on that subject. Groups advocating for the protection of marginalized people and victims of fraud are very active, and their expectations are high.

I wonder how many people know how to get a photo taken down, for example. Great Britain is working very hard on that.

We are also starting to see impacts on competitiveness that are affecting SMEs, such as forced transfers of intellectual property in exchange for access to major digital platforms. I agree with the experts who told the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that the Competition Act is out of sync with what is being done elsewhere in the world. Some think that this bill will deal with the web giants' major platforms once and for all, but more legislation will be needed.

With regard to Bill C‑18, I am pleased to finally see a bill compensating news businesses when their content is lifted, in other words stolen.

Unfortunately, this new bill, which was largely inspired by the Australian model, faces a rocky path. Still, I must say that it is high time we put an end to the cannibalization and dismantling of our traditional media, particularly in the regions.

In regions that are far from major centres, such as Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Lower St. Lawrence and the north shore, maintaining regional and local news services is quite challenging. These territories are huge and often sparsely populated.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Michael Barrett]

I would ask the member to stop for a moment. We have a point of order from the member for Perth—Wellington.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair, but we have lost quorum.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Michael Barrett]

I will consult with the Table.

And the count having been taken:

Quorum has been maintained, and we will go back to the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see more members in the House and I will continue my speech.

In such vast territories, it is hard to cover local news properly. Imagine how much time it takes journalists to travel around, especially when they are alone.

The reality is that local media are not covering all of the news anymore. The media can no longer rely on ad sales, which are plummeting. The share of ad revenue that traditionally went to news organizations is dwindling year after year, and the big print and broadcast ad contracts are no longer going to news organizations, but rather to companies like Google and Facebook. News organizations are losing out on revenue streams, and many have been forced to close.

What is most alarming is that the lack of local news and feedback will hurt society as a whole. Knowing what is going on in the community is a fundamental part of democracy.

I can provide the figures for how advertising money is allocated these days. I will also give some arguments in support of taking a strong stance against giants like GAFAM.

The government has failed to impose regulations for far too long. If it thought that web giants like GAFAM would regulate themselves and be sensitive to our small communities, it was wrong. No matter what the web giants may say or do, their actions are motivated by greed, a bit like the oil companies, who care only about making a profit for their shareholders.

It takes courage to act. We saw what happened in Australia and the consequences of that. These companies have known our perspective on this for a long time, and they are well aware of the path they need to take. They no longer have a choice. There has been a lot of pressure for a long time. If we pass this bill quickly, they will no longer really have a choice. Either they get on board, or the government will get involved.

Why should ordinary people care about the passage of this bill? They should care because it affects them. We first need to realize that journalists make an invaluable contribution. Day after day, they do a tremendous job even though they do not always have proper funding. Their future is uncertain and, for them, every day counts.

Local media is increasingly important to our regional and rural communities. Local media and newspapers are the heart of the regional media ecosystem. Reporting on the stories of local people, or issues that affect them, requires journalists who are present in those communities, who live the community's experiences.

From sports and arts stories to investigative reports and the fight against corruption, local media issues are a particularly important part of the lives of people in these communities. Simply put, if web giants like GAFAM share news on their platforms, it is because they are getting something out of it. They are profiting handsomely, and unfairly, off all the people who write the news. They are shamelessly exploiting the news.

We need to take matters into our own hands, because playtime is over. Web giants do not have the same journalistic rigour. To maintain a healthy environment with a variety of opinions and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, we must allow professional journalists to continue to do their work, and give media companies a chance to regularly show us the product of that diligent work. That needs to happen everywhere, not just in major cities.

Facebook and Google are not going to send a reporter to cover a Russell Cup win by the Ville-Marie Pirates or the Temiscaming Titans. They leave that to CKVM, TV Témis, RNC Média and TVA Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Facebook and Google are not going to send a reporter to ask Rouyn-Noranda municipal authorities about construction delays for the aquatic facility. They leave that to the Rouyn-Noranda paper, Le Citoyen.

Facebook and Google are not going to cover all the Amos festivals. They leave that to MédiAT, CHUN FM, TV Témis and Abitibi-Ouest community television with Gaby Lacasse.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Radio-Canada is the one that gets the local MP on air for an interview to keep him accountable and let people know what he is doing.

The media crisis hit print media in Abitibi-Témiscamingue hard. As recently as 2017, our paper, Le Citoyen, still had 15 or so reporters covering our territory. Now the local weekly has just five of them left, and the content has been affected too.

The 60-page papers that used to be on every doorstep have thinned to 20. The Témiscamingue paper, Le Reflet, stopped printing paper editions because of the drop in ad revenue. Even the Énergie radio station cut two positions; its newsroom now has just two reporters covering Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Take the RCM of Abitibi-Ouest, for example. A few years ago, there were two reporters permanently based there. Now there is just one. That might not seem like a big deal, but it means that a lot of what goes on in the 3,415 square kilometres and 21 municipalities that make up the RCM just does not get covered for want of time and staff.

Losing one reporter position might not seem like a big deal, but it is a monumental loss for small communities in Quebec. One less member of the media means articles and investigative reports do not get written. Events do not get covered. Voices are not heard. This affects the vitality of our communities.

That is why Bill C-18 is important. It is time for GAFAM to share revenues with local media. This money is important to boosting our regional media. It could help local media keep and perhaps even hire journalists, who can then ask us questions and report on the work we do here in the House of Commons. This is called accountability for all politicians.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has provided an opt-in mechanism for GAFAM. Either they take a forward-looking approach and immediately begin reaching agreements with the various news companies, or the government will say that it will take care of them. It is up to GAFAM to decide.

I also welcome the fact that, with Bill C‑18, the government wants to leave room for independence and transparency in the agreements. Once this is done, GAFAM will have to file the various agreements with the CRTC. The CRTC will be responsible for confirming that the following conditions are met: the agreements include fair compensation; part of that compensation is used to produce local, regional and national news content; the agreements guarantee freedom of expression; they contribute to the vitality of the Canadian news marketplace; they support independent local news; and they reflect Canadian diversity and hopefully Quebec's cultural and linguistic diversity.

If we look at the eligibility criteria for news businesses, only those designated as qualified Canadian journalism organizations under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act will be able to receive compensation when their news content is lifted. Non-Canadian businesses that meet criteria similar to qualified Canadian journalism organizations will also be eligible.

The requirement to employ two journalists is another obstacle for some of the more remote communities in Quebec. Think about it. Some hyper-local media outlets rely on just one person to produce all the news. These media outlets would not be eligible for this program as it currently stands. This is an obstacle to the development of our local media outlets, which are capable of being nimble and proactive.

Since I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑18, I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that regional and community media will not see a difference or any clear improvement in their economic condition. I would like to know if the government is planning for additional measures. I would like to have answers to these questions.

News Media Canada, the voice of Canada's news media industry, has already stated that it would like us to review the eligibility criteria so that daily papers employing only one journalist are entitled to receive their share of the pie as well. This is a more accurate reflection of the reality of the media in remote areas such as Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Let us also look at other provisions of Bill C‑18.

I see that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has included provisions to exempt the parties involved in these negotiations from certain conditions of the Competition Act and to require the parties to negotiate in good faith. The bill prohibits a platform from using such means as reducing or prioritizing access to a platform in retaliation or as a negotiating tactic. It allows news businesses to file complaints against the GAFAM with the CRTC if they notice platforms behaving in such a way. There are penalties and fines for the various entities subject to Bill C‑18.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill.

We had been waiting for Bill C‑18, and the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, Bill C-11, for several years. When I read Bill C‑18, we still did not know how it would be received by media industry groups. We are continuing our discussions, and we will certainly have ideas about how to improve Bill C‑18.

There are many similarities between the Australian law and the Canadian bill. As in Australia, we expect that web giants like GAFAM will step up their efforts to influence, not to say pressure, parliamentarians and the media. I note that the government has been sensitive to the smaller players by allowing them to band together however they choose in order to negotiate, a provision that has been well received.

In Canada, the CRTC will manage the program. The money will go toward journalism, not the shareholders of a news company. I like that. The Australian law maintains confidential agreements and so does Bill C-18, but the government is giving the CRTC the role of reviewing them and checking whether they meet certain conditions that I mentioned earlier in my speech.

I want to explore some of the arguments I found by doing a little research. Let me begin with the good news. Media companies, at least some of them, are doing well thanks to some business decisions they have made. Some have even been able to hire new journalists and create additional positions. Others have gone ahead and brought in a subscription model, which does bring in some revenue. This is definitely not a cure-all, and it would still take a lot to convince me that media companies are able to keep their heads well above water.

According to a number of reports, roughly 18 Canadian journalism organizations have agreements with Meta that will provide nearly $8 million in revenue over the next three years. However, there is a caveat. Facebook says that it has contributed to Canadian media through its News Innovation Test, and that is true, but all the investments went to major Canadian media organizations. Those funds never made it to the local media in my riding or in many other Quebec ridings. That is another reason this bill is important. Without it, local media will definitely be overlooked by GAFAM. This poses a real danger to our democracy.

I want to come back to the fact that questions are also being raised about the negotiation of agreements between media outlets and web giants like GAFAM. It may be easy for large consortiums to get negotiating power, but it is a whole different story for local media outlets that serve small communities.

That is a concern for François Munger, the founder of MédiAT, who is worried that our local news creators will end up with next to nothing. I would like to remind members that the work of journalists in small communities is essential. I will do so by talking a bit about what makes local news unique and by quoting Mr. Munger, who had the courage to start his media company in 2015 in the midst of a media crisis. He said that he was starting a media company in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue because he believed in it and wanted to keep his community informed.

The local news expresses local colour and culture in the community's language. It addresses issues that get residents thinking and even taking the often necessary action to deal with issues that will affect their quality of life. The local news also reports on accomplishments that deserve to be recognized. Overall, the local news serves as a watchdog for the government and businesses. It also serves as the people's watchdog in their dealings with those entities. The local news provides information about municipal borrowing by-laws and violations and often reports on legal proceedings. We can see how important it is. The local news is who we are.

The government will have to provide immediate financial aid for small media outlets that are struggling to survive right now. The measures in Bill C‑18 will take another few months, and the media will not see one cent for at least a year. One possible solution would be for Ottawa to ensure that its ads are placed in these local media outlets that are struggling to bring in significant revenue.

It makes sense that Facebook needs content for its platform. If all the news content were cut from Facebook, there would be nothing left but viral content and entertainment. Evidently, I am not the biggest fan of influencers. To grow their user base and ad revenues, platforms such as Facebook need news. They have every interest in keeping the journalistic community alive and well.

Facebook needs to offer more engaging content, because the more eyeballs it can attract, the more advertising it can sell and the more revenue it will earn. Almost all of Facebook's revenue comes from advertising. Facebook and Google take in 80% of all online ad spending. That is where the real money is. About $193 million of their Canadian revenue is derived from content that was created by journalists and that does not belong to these companies. That is the kind of money that our news agencies could expect to get back in compensation.

In conclusion, Bill C‑18 is one of three bills from this department on the topic of modernizing our communications, and it is designed to address the dominance of multinationals. It would allow the media industry to get back to its roots and would support the industries that play a fundamental role in our democracy.

Our work is far from over, however, since the government has chosen to take small steps and will continue to do so. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have been keeping a close eye on this, and we are pleased to see that this bill includes the many proposals we made or included in our election platform. I must also say that I made promises to my constituents about these proposals, especially with respect to local and regional news media like TvcTK.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for d'Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech.

If I understood his comments correctly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill, even though it does have some concerns.

I believe that the Conservative Party has the same concerns about small businesses such as small community newspapers, which do not have the same resources as large businesses that have already signed agreements with Facebook and Google.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about these small businesses, these small community newspapers, which work very hard for our communities and for democracy.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Frankly, local and regional media are the key to democracy's survival. We know that, in this era of misinformation, it is essential to be able to count on them. In my work as a member of Parliament, I have the daily responsibility to respond as quickly as possible to these people, whom I wish to acknowledge here today.

We still have regional media in my riding, which means I have the opportunity and the privilege to do that. I invest time on this, because I know the sector is fragile. Just today, I gave a 20-minute interview to CHUN-FM, which is something I do every week. Every month, I participate in a program called Un café avec votre député, or “Coffee with Your MP”, on MédiAT, a media outlet in the RCM of Abitibi.

Every month, I spend time with the people from TV témis. Yesterday, I gave a 40-minute interview live from Quebec City about the work we are doing. We share information through the work of the media. Every two or three months, I have the opportunity to talk about my work for half an hour with Gaby Lacasse, who is a host at a community media outlet in Abitibi-Ouest. If we want to delve deeper into community issues, regional media is the way to go. It is essential.

I would even add that we need a space to be critical of the news. We need a forum on public affairs in the regions. Stakeholders need to be able to have their say, which is something we are lacking in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. Sure, there is Club politique on Radio-Canada, but we need forums for debate and discussion. In this regard, the government has a responsibility to increase its funding for local and regional media. Radio-Canada is important, but there are other stakeholders, and the regions absolutely need diverse news coverage.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at Bill C-18, we see it is very similar to Bill C-11. We know that these are very important pieces of legislation that need to be implemented into law as expeditiously as possible in order to protect, with respect to Bill C-11, Canadian culture and, with respect to Bill C-18, smaller organizations and news outlets.

I am curious if the member can comment on the importance of that and making sure it gets done, and perhaps on the amendment that the Conservatives brought forward. They brought forward an amendment that would basically strip out this entire bill and send the issue to committee. Is that not what we are doing right now? Are we not debating this at second reading to send it to committee anyway?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, transparency is important to me.

I am not sure about the strategy the government chose to go with. As I mentioned earlier, the government is choosing to take small steps. Why was there no thoughtful deliberation? Why did it not take the time to reflect on the future of the media industry in the next 10, 15 or 20 years? Social media platforms have been around for 10, 15 or 20 years and the government never stepped in or did anything meaningful. It just stood back while our regional news rooms were losing revenue to American or international companies. That is the problem.

I think there is rather broad consensus to act quickly on Bill C‑18, unlike what happened last year, when the government did not take action and we lost two years because of an election and a lack of vision from the government, which was slow to respond to these issues.

I applaud the bill that we have now, and I want to say we must act quickly.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and I have to say I completely agree with him.

My colleague emphasized how important local media is to democracy. I would like to hear his thoughts on the sound management of public funds and accountability requirements. Maybe he could tell us about the Laval region, where there was virtually no local media. Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt took advantage of that situation to bend the rules for years.

Here is what I would like my colleague to comment on. Journalists who ask local and regional elected representatives questions improve both our democracy and the sound management of public funds.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the key right there.

Journalists are democracy watchdogs. A lot of elected representatives do not like interacting with journalists. They are afraid of them.

I think the primary responsibility of elected representatives is to be accountable and to inform the people. We are lucky that accountability requirements exist.

There are other scandals too, such as the sponsorship scandal and the WE scandal. Fortunately, journalists work very hard to cover the work we do in the House.

I see this in the House. How could we raise all the issues in our speeches and our committee work?

Ultimately, if we really want to pressure the government to change things, we will need help from journalists and the platform they have. Media organizations evolve. Podcasts are a good example. Fortunately, or unfortunately, meaningful changes in our Parliament are often the result of ideas that come from journalists.

Consider the example of the prayer in the House of Commons, which we have debated. Is reciting a prayer to just any God still relevant? Obviously, the answer is no, but journalists covered the issue, and this social debate affirms these steps towards secularism, a fundamental issue.

There are so many examples showing that journalists help move our society forward. Our society needs journalists. I thank them for their work.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his wonderful speech.

We are talking about Bill C-18, which is about privacy protections and ending the destruction of regional media. We really need our regional media. Better informing the public and ensuring better oversight of technology is about protecting democracy.

Can my colleague tell us a little more about how Bill C-18 needs to be improved and amended?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, with whom I have the chance to share several media outlets. She fully understands the urgency to act when it comes to funding regional media.

Here are some examples of amendments that could be made to ensure a long‑term vision.

First, we must ensure that Canadian broadcasters are not prevented from accessing and broadcasting foreign content. There is still something interesting in that context.

Second, we must create measures that will encourage partnerships between Canadian broadcasters and foreign content owners, primarily the American ones.

Third, we must ensure that the news aggregators, such as Google News Showcase or Apple News, offer non-discriminatory access and fair remuneration.

We must also work towards bringing Canadian ad revenues back to Canadian and Quebec ecosystems.

Having a local outlook is very important.

I have delivered the bulk of my speech, but I would like to take advantage of my colleague's question to mention the importance of properly reporting international news. That too is part of safeguarding our democracy; it affects the way we look at things. We must avoid fake news, which we have far too much of in our society.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech.

As an MP, one of my priorities is to tackle the increase in heinous crimes attributable to social media. That is not included in Bill C-11 or in Bill C-18, but the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and other organizations have reported that there is a significant increase in crimes motivated by hate, racism and other unacceptable things.

I hope that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue also has some ideas about how to reduce this threat to our society and our culture or how to put an end to it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, who is quite right.

That is why I started my speech by speaking about the reality of hate speech and its consequences for people's dignity. I am thinking in particular of teenagers, who have to deal with important issues. It is also why I am saying that this bill does not go far enough, that it is incomplete.

We hope that something very tangible will be presented. For the time being, we are not completely satisfied. We will try again with the next bill. I am happy to defend the interests of Quebeckers with respect to these online issues.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this fundamental and very important discussion on how a federal, provincial or other government can support journalism and media outlets in our communities, cities, towns and regions across the country.

This is the kind of bill that makes the NDP say, “finally”. Finally, the government is doing something about this issue. It was high time. Unfortunately, as is too often the case with the Liberals, we had to push them for years before they agreed to do the right thing.

We saw it with the broadcasting bill, the official languages bill and with dental care and pharmacare, which are coming. We also saw it with the anti-scab bill, which is part of our agreement and is supposed to be introduced next year.

We always have to push them. In this case, is it too late for some media outlets? The answer is yes. The government is backpedalling, which is too bad. It is trying to salvage something from the wreckage.

Taking this approach and trying to shore up this fundamental pillar of our democracy—local, regional and national media—is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, that observation was made several years ago. Indeed, this crisis has existed for years now; newsrooms have been closing and jobs have been lost, and this has real consequences.

Democracy does not work without this fourth power, without this counter-power, this check and balance that is professional independent media. I will come back to the idea of what is a media outlet, what is a reporter, what is a journalist and what is real journalism versus propaganda or disinformation. This is so important.

It has long been said that there are three main pillars of power in our society: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. However, without the counter-power of journalistic work, there is no real democracy. It is important to establish this from the outset, so that we know exactly what we are talking about.

It is equally important to talk about web giants. They prey on journalistic work. They are simultaneously voracious and greedy. They are parasitic, in the sense that they will scoop up news and feed it to the news aggregators on their websites.

Many web giants do that. They literally steal real journalism, real articles and real news, and they put it on their websites. When people click, web giants cash in. They do not pay for that. They are essentially stealing other people's work.

Someone else does the essential work, and web giants do not pay a penny to take an article from a regional news source, from La Presse, Radio-Canada, Le Devoir or whatever, and put it on their news site. They do nothing. They have no newsroom of their own, and they steal other people's work without offering any financial compensation whatsoever.

At least Bill C‑18 tackles the problem and offers a solution. I am not saying it is perfect or even as good as it could be. It can be improved, but it is worth exploring.

It is important that we, as parliamentarians, address this issue. It is important that we consider these concerns and look at what we can do to improve things so that we can keep this check and balance, this counter-power, in our democracy here in Quebec, here in Canada.

We need to protect the employees, the workers who are experts at reporting the news, digging into things, poking around, asking questions, contradicting us and sometimes even putting pressure on the government, opposition parties and all elected representatives. That is exactly as it should be, and it has to stay that way.

Unfortunately, we are in an ecosystem where selling news is not necessarily the most lucrative. We have seen a reduction, crumbling or erosion of the capacity of newsrooms to ask the real questions and cover what is happening in politics, but also in the economy, in society or in the cultural milieu, for example.

I think the government had to do something. We in the NDP have been saying for years that we needed to do something and support wages, newsrooms and businesses. Furthermore, the balance of power needs to be re-established between the web giants, whose aggregators pick up articles on which they have put no work, effort, human or financial resources whatsoever, and all those who are struggling to survive by asking the right questions and writing relevant articles that make society think and move us forward collectively.

We have heard a lot about local and regional news. It is absolutely fundamental. I asked my Bloc Québécois colleague a question a moment ago.

I have the example of Laval in mind, which is closer to me. For years, Laval did not have a real newsroom, a real media outlet capable of covering municipal politics. Laval is not far enough away from Montreal to have its own media ecosystem, its own newsroom or its own weekly newspapers. On the other hand, Laval is not close enough to Montreal for Montreal media to be truly interested in it. As such, for years, Laval's municipal politics were not really covered.

This situation allowed the former mayor of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt, since charged and convicted, to embezzle public funds and commit unspeakable fraud that he profited from personally, as did his family and friends. This happened because there was practically no political opposition, no media coverage, no papers strong or independent enough and no radio stations capable of focusing on how contracts were awarded or public funds managed in Laval.

We witnessed what a media desert could lead to: impunity and no transparency. This also allows someone to think they are entitled to everything and they can do absolutely anything they want. It is important to have national journalists, but also local and regional journalists to monitor everything that is happening and all the fine people involved.

I think it is very important to point out that we absolutely must have reporters and resources abroad. These journalists can report on and explain to us what is happening abroad so that Canadians, but also elected officials, decision-makers and economic, social and political forces, are fully informed and able to react appropriately, knowing exactly what is happening in other countries around the world.

We saw this recently with the war in Artsakh, Armenia, with the exodus of the Rohingya from Myanmar, and with what is happening to the Uighurs in China. We absolutely need to know what is happening abroad. We need resources so that we can do that and so that we can have people on the ground who can tell us exactly what is happening.

I am going to take a few moments to show a little bias and say what a wonderful job I think that Radio-Canada foreign correspondents are doing. I tip my hat to them, and I think that there are a lot of people in Quebec and Canada who recognize just how important they are because they observe, analyze and tell us about what is happening abroad.

I cannot name them all, but I want to mention Marie‑Ève Bédard, Tamara Alteresco, Anyck Béraud and Jean‑François Bélanger, who, along with many others, are our eyes and ears in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Their work is absolutely essential to our understanding of the world.

As we are speaking about journalism, what happens abroad and the accountability that I spoke about earlier, I will take advantage of the forum given to me today to condemn and denounce the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

She was killed while reporting on an Israeli army operation. She was wearing a helmet and bullet-proof vest with “Press” written on it. It was very clear that she was a journalist. For years, Shireen Abu Akleh was a revered star journalist who worked for Al Jazeera. She was killed.

The NDP condemns this murder, and we are asking for an independent investigation to find out exactly what happened and who was responsible for this act. I believe that many of my colleagues agree with our position.

There were many accounts on the ground. It is rather difficult to hit someone in the face with a stray bullet. Unfortunately, that is how Shireen Abu Akleh was killed. We are asking for this independent investigation, as are many other global organizations.

Yesterday, I moved a motion in the House to condemn the murder of this Palestinian journalist and to ask for an independent investigation. I am very sorry that this motion was not adopted. I believe it was the least we could do.

I am also concerned about what happened next. Israeli police raided the home where the family was gathered and tore down the Palestinian flags that were there. These people just learned of the death of their daughter, sister, friend, niece or cousin. It is absolutely appalling.

It did not stop there. Today, we saw extremely disturbing images from Shireen Abu Akleh's funeral in which Israeli police used batons on those carrying the coffin of the murdered journalist. They waded into the crowd, pushing people back, which nearly caused the coffin to fall. That is indecent and extremely violent. We want to know who did that and we are calling for an independent investigation.

Not only was this woman killed, but the police then showed up at the family home and were pushing people who were gathered for her burial. That is absolutely unbelievable. Who is responsible for that? Who ordered this assault on a grieving crowd, on the family and friends of this journalist who was recently killed while doing her job?

There are a lot of questions we need to ask about the safety of journalists all over the world and about their ability to do their jobs properly. There are also a number of questions we need to ask about the Palestinian territories illegally occupied by the Israeli army. Palestinian or foreign journalists must be able to do their jobs safely and report on the facts of what is going on.

We want to know what the consequences are for the military occupation of a territory, for stolen land, for destroyed homes and for illegal colonies being established very quickly. Thousands of new homes are being built on occupied territory in the West Bank, in defiance of UN resolutions. People on the ground have to tell us what is happening there. If they are killed, there will be no one left to tell us what is going on. The only version we will get will be the official version of government authorities. That is not what we want.

Journalists are being killed in Ukraine as a result of the brutal, illegal invasion by Vladimir Putin's Russia. This regime has killed journalists and political opponents in its own country. It is now targeting and killing journalists in Ukraine. We vehemently condemn these murders, as we should. However, when a Palestinian journalist is killed, there is radio silence.

People have to be respectful, equitable and consistent. Journalism is important everywhere: in Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, France, England, the United States, Canada and Quebec. It is important everywhere and for everyone. I think it is very important to say, loudly and clearly, that the NDP wants to support a free and independent press that can do its work safely. Journalists need to be able to do their work without being targeted by a regime that attacks them and sometimes even kills them or threatens their safety.

The bill before us today, Bill C‑18, is very important because, as I said earlier, it seeks to rectify the plundering of journalists' work and news content. This has severely damaged our ability to tell our communities' stories. For years, the NDP has been working with journalists' federations and journalists' unions to bring this idea forward. Finally, it is happening. Is it too late? Not for those still in the newsroom, but sadly, there may be many who have already left the industry.

I want to share some numbers. In Canada, 450 news media outlets closed between 2008 and 2021. That is nothing to sneeze at. In addition, 78% of people access the news online, often through these major companies' aggregators. Also, a mere 13% of news companies' revenue comes from online advertising or subscriptions.

However, Google and Facebook took in nearly $10 billion in revenue from Canadian online advertising in 2020. Google and Facebook combined account for 80% of the revenue. For years, the government stopped buying advertising in our weeklies and local or regional newspapers. Instead, it was buying advertising from Facebook and Google. Not only did this do nothing to aid journalism, but public funds were being used to pay these large foreign companies, often American, to promote the news that the federal government wanted to promote. It is absolutely unbelievable.

There were two ways the federal government failed to help newsrooms. It allowed them to slowly disappear as a result of the loss of revenue they were experiencing, and it also failed to provide direct support or assistance by buying advertising. Subscriptions and newsstand sales are not what make newspapers profitable, and that has been the case for years. It is the advertising revenue that makes media profitable. That said, ad revenues have changed. They are no longer generated by local radio stations, weeklies or dailies. They are generated by websites. These websites, most of which are owned by large media outlets, steal the work of journalists.

The Liberal government finally listened to reason and thought it might be time to address the problem, since we had lost over 450 newsrooms and hundreds of jobs. We looked at what was being done overseas. The Australian model forces negotiation between the media who produce the news and the web giants who use it, put it on their platforms and distribute it.

The possibility of collective bargaining is really important to the NDP. Local or regional independent media must not be left to face the giants like Facebook, Google and others on their own. They need to be able to come together to speak with one voice and get fair deals. That is really the crux of the matter and what is going to be extremely difficult to hear.

These agreements also need to be public and transparent, because it is important to be able to compare situations. It is important to know exactly what the web giant paid for the use of certain content, for a given percentage, for a given quantity of articles, for each year, in a given market and with a given audience. If that information is not available, everyone will negotiate blindly and it will be extremely difficult. Everyone will be at a huge disadvantage.

There needs to be an equitable power relationship, so these agreements need to include collective bargaining and transparency clauses. It is not enough to say that it is a trade secret, or some such thing. We must ensure that this is known and public, so that people can make comparisons and be fairly compensated for the use of their work.

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

Mr. Speaker, toward the end of the comments by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, he talked a bit about the ability of news organizations to band together and collectively bargain. Certainly, that is a part included in the bill, as well as changes to the Competition Act that would allow that.

We have heard commentary coming out of the Australian model from Australian organizations about small and often local organizations, such as local newspapers, that have been left out. They have not been able to negotiate deals. They are the ones I believe many are concerned about having the opportunity to do so. It was a recent Toronto Star article that highlighted the fact that small media enterprises would not be able to negotiate these deals.

I would like to hear the member's comments on the ability of small organizations to benefit from this.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely important question.

There are some consolidated media groups that have broad enough shoulders and deep enough pockets. I think they will be able to negotiate on their own with the web giants.

That is why the possibility of having a clear process for collective bargaining is extremely important. I think that all these small media outlets, such as regional or local radio stations and small weekly newspapers, have to band together. My advice is that they should not try to go it alone, because they will get crushed. Collective bargaining needs to be an option, and this bill paves the way for that possibility. They need to band together, join forces, find allies and negotiate collectively. If not, they will face a brutal fight, and we all know who will win in the end.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is all the time we have for this today. When we return, the member will have eight minutes remaining in questions and comments.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to person in Canada, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, you and I are in a unique position: We both have front-row seats to what is becoming quickly a further decline of democracy here in Canada.

The government has moved time allocation on this bill with just two hours of debate. One speaker on the official opposition side has spoken to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has been universally panned. It is quite controversial and warrants further debate.

This is the 101st time that the Liberal government has used time allocation and the 22nd time in this Parliament that their partners in the NDP, the NDP-Liberal coalition, have agreed to time allocation, which makes Motion No. 11 laughable, because the government's argument was that it was going to extend time to give more debate for members, which we now are seeing as a farce.

My question for the minister is this: Given the controversial nature of this bill and the fact that it does warrant further debate, I am wondering how he feels his legacy will be seen in furthering a decline in democracy in this country by muting the voices, limiting the voices, of millions of people speaking through members elected in this place.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, let us put things in context.

If we look at what has been actually happening in our country, we see that over 450 news outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 in the last two years. Does that have an impact? It has a huge impact on our democracy. Our democracy is not becoming stronger; it is becoming weaker because of that. Things are changing. Things are evolving extremely quickly, and what professional news media outlets are doing has value, and the web giants have to recognize that there is a value and that it is normal that they contribute.

I am very surprised that my Conservative friends have a problem with that, because they even said in the last campaign that this is what we should do. There is an agreement, almost a consensus, that we have to act and that we have to act now. The Conservatives have been stalling debate in this House. They did it with Bill C-8 and Bill C-11. They like to stall things. If they do not want to come here to work, then they should move aside and we will do the work.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have not been a member of the House for all that long, so I would like someone to explain to me what has been happening here over the past few weeks.

I would like to start by saying that we want to work to find solutions to what is happening to our media. The groundwork was laid during the previous Parliament, and we knew where we wanted to go. However, the Liberals called an election and we had to start over. The previous bill that has now become Bill C-18 still contains some of the same elements with no changes. However, we need to find a solution, and we need to do it fast, because billions of dollars are being lost and we need to protect freedom of expression and our media.

There is one other thing. I would like the member opposite to explain to me the point of these incessant motions. Not a day goes by that I do not have to try to explain to my constituents and even to my children what is happening with the legislative process in this session of the House.

I would like to know what we can expect in the coming days. What is the point of constantly challenging democracy, when we have a duty to debate each bill fully?

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would tell my colleague that the bill she is referring to is the former Bill C‑10, which is now Bill C‑11.

Today we are talking about a different bill, Bill C‑18, on which we are generally working quite well with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and in particular the member for Drummond, who is the Bloc Québécois's heritage critic and who works very hard and very diligently on everything that he does, including as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I thank the Bloc Québécois for highlighting the freedom of the press and for emphasizing that the media must be independent and that print media must be strong and autonomous. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑18, which would enable the media to not only survive but also succeed. The bill would also ensure that the media is strong not only in major cities, but also in the regions. We are talking about media in all forms, big, small, print, radio or television.

Together, all these forms of media help strengthen our democracy. Journalists representing these media outlets ask us tough questions here, questions that we sometimes do not want to answer, but it is our job to do so. That is why we need to ensure that these media outlets survive and grow even stronger in the future.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in this place once again discussing time allocation on an important bill. I think for most Canadians, they look at this and say, “We want to see adequate debate on these topics”, yet, at times in this Parliament, when adequate time has been afforded, we see other parties using that time to perform obstructionist tactics and waste the time of this place.

Can the minister please comment on the bind we seem to find ourselves in where we have to choose between time allocation and putting up with obstructionist delays?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights what the Conservatives have been doing for weeks and months in trying to jam the work of Parliament in the chamber and in committees. Who benefits from that? No one does. The Conservatives think that they benefit from it, but Canadians do not benefit from what they are doing now.

Now we are talking about Bill C-18, which is fundamental for a strong, free, independent press. I said before that 450 media outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 have closed in the last two years. This makes our democracy weaker, not stronger.

We have to reinforce it. We have to be able to answer the tough questions, and I want to thank NDP members who are taking this extremely seriously in committees, in their ridings and in meeting with the media. They are bringing back good feedback. They want to collaborate, which is the difference between them and the Conservatives. The NDP wants to collaborate, but they do not.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, it is troubling the way that this Liberal-NDP government is contributing to the decline of democracy here. There are signs that this government simply does not want to hear from Canadians, and does not want to hear from the opposition parties, so it is shutting down debate again. It is shameful that the NDP is siding with it on these time allocation motions.

The heritage committee is already backed up with the legislation it is dealing with already. We have only had one speaker from the Conservative Party on the opposition side on this important debate. This is a debate that is important to all Canadians so that all Canadian voices can be heard.

Is this stifling of debate necessary because the Liberal government does not want to work? The Liberals have set an example. In 2019, the House only sat for 75 days. In 2020, we only sat for 86 days. In 2021, we only sat for 95 days. Prior to that, the House sat for an average of 122 days.

We know that this Liberal government does not like to be in the House and be held accountable. Why are they pushing to further shut down debate from the opposition parties on this motion?

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

Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.

I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.

Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, at times in the past, I have supported time allocation when there has been reasonable debate on a particular bill. For government to function, it is important for respectful debate to take place. I agree with the minister about the importance of Bill C-18. In fact, I was looking forward to hearing various perspectives in this place on the legislation.

In this case, as others have shared, we have had a total of two hours of debate on a Friday afternoon before moving to time allocation. Can the minister share why he feels this is so necessary, and why this is the only option available to the governing party to move ahead with respectful debate in this place?

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

Madam Speaker, debate happens here in this beautiful House, it happens in committees and it happens in the Senate. Those debates will take place.

We all know how important committee work is. This is where the thorough questions are asked and where we hear from witnesses. I go to committee and appear with great pleasure. A big chunk of the work is done there. What the Conservatives have been doing is trying to jam this place. It is very sad for someone who ran to come here to see what is being done. I am sad when I look at them and even more when I listen to them.

I know they do not like me to be sad, so I ask them to maybe change a little how they do things. Maybe they can participate a bit more in the debates or maybe be bit more constructive and make suggestions instead of trying to jam everything in the House.

Bill C-18 is about democracy and journalism, and Conservatives should support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed because my colleagues and I were looking forward to debating this piece of legislation. So far, the only Conservative member to speak to it has been me, which is unfortunate.

To my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it is obviously a forgone conclusion that this bill will be passed and time allocation will be guillotined on this bill.

I want a clear commitment from the minister that he, the government House leader and the whip will not interfere at committee. I want a clear commitment that they will permit the committee to hear from witnesses and that there will not be a guillotine or programming motion at committee and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will be permitted to fully explore the bill, hear from witnesses and not be forced into a programming motion.

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

Madam Speaker, of course there will be very important work done at committee. It would be a pleasure, if my colleague and the members invite me, to go because I have many important things to say on the bill. For example, it is really an arm's length bill. It is a bill that sets a table for the web giants, tech giants and news media across the country, big or small, to sit down and work on fair agreements for all. That is extremely important.

That is one of the things we can discuss at committee. Another thing we could discuss at committee is how this bill would allow collective agreements, which would include a lot of small and regional papers. If I go to committee and the member asks me that question, I will talk about collective agreements. Of course there will be lots of time to work at committee, and it will be a pleasure to see my friend there.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.

We obviously want to have a solution.

The solution is what is proposed in Bill C‑18, which incorporates certain aspects of bills C‑10 and C‑11. The groundwork has been laid, and this should be acknowledged.

My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?

As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on my colleague's hunches, but I will say this: I am somewhat surprised that the Bloc Québécois, which is generally the exact opposite of the Conservatives when it comes to ideas, principles and ideals, is so openly supportive of the Conservatives in this type of discussion.

As I understand it, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑18. Why do they support it? They support the bill because it strengthens our media, because it strengthens a free and independent press, a press that will ensure that we have news about what is happening in Chibougamau, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Amos and Brossard.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that there will continue to be a press. From what I understand, the NDP supports it as well. As for the Conservatives, who included it in their platform, I hope that they will agree with themselves. If all goes well and they listen to themselves, they should support the bill. Then it will be unanimous.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, a majority government at that, they used time allocation over 100 times. Here we are now, and we are seeing the Conservatives using obstructionist tactics over and over again.

Could the member share why this bill is important? Could he also share why it is important that we make a decision that Canadians need to be made and why these obstructionist tactics are in the way of Canadians being served?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's comment and questions highlight how important it is to be able to collaborate.

Even if we disagree, we come here for the same reasons. We want to represent the people who voted for us, and we want our country to improve. We want a better society for our children. We may disagree on how to get there. Once or twice, we may disagree on how to get there, but we are here for the right reasons, which is to make a better country.

This will make Canada a better country because we will have a stronger free and independent press, and that press is disappearing. I mentioned 450 media outlet that have closed during the last 15 years, and that is huge. We are not only talking about small ones. There are small and big ones in different regions.

If they all disappear, who will be there to talk about what my colleague is doing in their riding, what I am doing or what anyone else is doing? About 80% of advertising on the web is going to two web giants: Facebook and Google. That is the reality. That is what is happening at this moment. We need to have the tech giants and the media outlets sit down and negotiate fair deals. It would be fair for all.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the answers to the questions so far, the minister has talked about the loss of thriving news agencies. He has talked about the 450 news agencies that have been lost in the last couple years and how it is so important for us to have these thriving news agencies to support our democracy.

He just talked about the differences we might have in the House as we come to debate bills. We come to represent our constituents and to have a discussion in this House, but he does that in the context of limiting the opportunity for us, as members of Parliament, to come and have discussion and debate a particular bill. He talks about how substantive this bill is.

How does limiting our discussion and debate by invoking closure on this bill allow for members of the House to come and represent their constituents in an adequate manner?

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

Madam Speaker, some numbers came out this morning about the importance of supporting a free and independent press, and they are quite interesting.

If members do not want to listen to me, then maybe they can at least listen to their own voters, the people who voted for them, and 71% of self-identified Conservative voters think web giants should have to share revenue with Canadian media outlets. That is 71% of Conservatives. I have a second number, and it is that 74% of self-identified Conservative voters think that Parliament should pass a law that would let smaller outlets negotiate collectively with web giants. This is exactly what we are doing with this bill.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is important. It is important to ensure that web giants such as Facebook, Meta and Google pay their fair share. When I think about the Canadians watching the debate and the constituents of our Conservative colleagues watching this party obstruct not only this bill but so many more before it, I imagine they are disappointed.

I'm wondering if the minister can speak to those Canadians and talk a bit about the importance of the work we do here and how it is incredibly disappointing to see what the Conservatives have been doing.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important comment from my colleague. I want to thank her for everything she is doing, and her party for what it is doing, on this very important bill.

With respect to Canadians being disappointed, of course they are disappointed with the Conservatives. I am very disappointed myself with them, which says a lot. However, it is not only Canadians. I referred to the numbers: 71% of Conservative voters said that we should do this and 74% said we should allow small media outlets to negotiate with the big web giants. This is written in the bill, so if the Conservatives do not want to listen to me or to us, will they at least listen to the people who might vote for them in the future?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, since we are making up numbers, I have a poll here stating that 100% of Liberal voters did not vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition, but that is where we are at. With how quickly and how far the New Democrats have fallen in holding the government to account as a fourth party, they sound like lapdogs to the Liberal Party.

This is important because the government representative, the minister, is talking about obstruction that has been going on, but we have had two hours of debate on this bill. The official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had one member speak to this bill, which has been universally panned. There is no question that there is a need to fix this issue, but when we actively engage in vigorous debate in this place, ideas are formed. That is how better bills are passed. To see the heritage minister use obstruction as a reason for ramming this bill through the House is rather disingenuous.

The minister's legacy will be a decline in democracy as it relates to this institution. We wonder why people are losing faith in our institutions, and this the exact reason: Voices are being silenced in this place, those of millions of people who voted for opposition parties, including the Conservatives. It is a legacy he will have to live with.

A free and open democracy requires an independent news media. We agree with that, but this is not the way to get this done.

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

Madam Speaker, if my colleague agrees with that, he has a weird way of showing it. I see the Conservatives attacking the New Democrats because they come here trying to make a difference. On some things we collaborate; on others we do not and we disagree, which is fine. However, to the Conservatives the word “collaboration” makes no sense. What they prefer to do is jam things, filibuster, listen to each other and clap for each other all the time. They think it is a good thing to shut down democracy like they are doing now. It is totally wrong.

We have to move forward. This bill has to move forward. This bill will go to committee and will have hours of discussion and witnesses. I will go there and speak about the importance of it and how it allows collective bargaining to help smaller media news outlets and regional news outlets. I will talk about how this will translate into fair agreements between the tech giants and media outlets across the country. I will talk about the importance of the press. I will talk about the importance of the press for our democracy and the importance of a strong, free and independent press, because that is what bill C-18 is all about. That is it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.

I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.

This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important that we move on with such a crucial bill for our democracy. I think it is a well-balanced bill. We took the original idea from Australia and we tweaked it and improved it. It is more transparent. It is arm's length legislation, and we have set the table for the tech giants to sit down with media outlets big and small so they can negotiate to come to different agreements. There is minimal intervention from the government.

The Conservatives should be happy about it, but they do not seem to be happy. I do not understand why. They even wrote in their own platform that they would do exactly what we are doing. Maybe they changed their minds again on this, but I think we are doing the right thing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition in the third party, I indicated that there is a time when governments need to use time allocation as a tool to pass legislation. We have before us today, and have witnessed for a number of months now, an official opposition that has absolutely no intention to allow legislation to pass. It does not take very much for an opposition party to prevent legislation from passing. As I said when I was in opposition, at times the government has to use time allocation as a tool.

Would my colleague not agree that, given the strategy of the Conservative Party not to pass legislation and to even filibuster legislation that it supports, the only way we can pass this legislation is if we use time allocation, something the Conservative Party used to vote for extensively?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say more than extensively. I was here with my colleague, and the Conservatives were using time allocation time after time, even when we were not doing anything. However, in this case, the Conservatives are jamming the debate on many important transformational bills, on bills that Canadians want and even on bills that Conservative supporters now want.

This bill is fundamental. As we speak, news media outlets are closing their doors. I spoke about the 450, but there are more and more. Time is of the essence.

There is debate here. There is debate in committee. There is debate at the Senate. These important debates have to take place and have to bring us to the conclusion where this bill is adopted, because this is what Canada needs.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my last question. I certainly understand that all the questions about the process we are going through will not be answered.

I heard the minister. The Bloc Québécois is not just here to oppose things. We will vote in favour of things that are good for Quebec, and, obviously, we believe that Bill C‑18 is extremely good for Quebec.

Nevertheless, if collaboration is so important, why was the Bloc Québécois not consulted so that we could reach an agreement ahead of time? This is not our first time allocation rodeo. Over the past few weeks, closure has been all the rage. Again, the question is, how did we get to this point? Are the Liberals short on inspiration or on strategy?

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is consulted regularly. In fact, I have an excellent professional relationship and excellent collaboration with the Bloc's heritage critic, the member for Drummond.

As I said off the top, the member cares deeply about all of this and he takes this extremely seriously. I know he consults people, and I know he does so very thoroughly because we talk to the same people. He offers suggestions, he listens to what we say and we talk about it all. We will continue to discuss issues with my colleague from Drummond, the rest of the Bloc Québécois and all the parties. What matters is moving this bill forward because Canada needs it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

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

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #104

Online News Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about an important piece of legislation. I suspect that what we would find is virtually universal support, no matter where one goes in Canada, for this type of legislation.

In fact, it was not that long ago when we were in a national election and the Conservative Party of Canada was talking about how important it was to deal with this very same issue. On the one hand, Conservatives seemed to love the idea back in September, but something has happened. Maybe it is that leadership vacuum, but the bottom line is that the Conservatives now seem to want to waffle.

Let me assure my friends across the way that Canadians understand the issue. They understand it fully. Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize the value of our public having media sources they can actually count on and of supporting that industry, both directly and indirectly.

Someone who was suspicious of the Conservative tactics on this legislation might raise a couple of issues. One that comes to mind is the issue of fake news. The Conservatives love fake news. It was not that long ago the Conservatives were saying the Liberals are going to put a tax on trucks. Do members remember that one? That was a Conservative fake news spin. A big part of their agenda—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I know we have been away for a week and I am so glad to see that everybody is looking forward to talking and happy to see everybody, but I would ask to just keep the noise down a bit and respect other members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to emphasize why it is so important that we support the industry. From a government, from a party or even from the average person in our communities, they all recognize the true value of fact-based news. It is somewhat foreign to the Conservative spin doctors, and that is why I brought up the truck issue.

In the very brief discussion I had moments ago, another example came up. Do members remember the fake news when the Conservative Party said the Liberals are going to put a tax on the sale of principal homes? We can stand up in the chamber and tell Conservatives that this is just wrong and is an outright untruth. I did not say the word “lie”; I said “untruth”.

The Conservatives would say something of that nature, and we would stand up and say that it is just not true, yet the Conservatives still try to say something that is questionable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Let us all take a moment and take a deep breath. Question period is not for another hour or so. Let us bring the temperature down, but also let us not do indirectly what we cannot do directly either.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me restart, if I can put it that way. There is an expectation that we all have. We all have it because we went through a national election where it was made very clear that the government was given a new mandate and part of that mandate was to show there was a need for opposition parties and government to work together. We see that taking place quite often between different opposition parties and the government.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has taken an approach where it does not matter what the legislation is and the importance of Bill C-18—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we hear this narrative all the time with the Liberal Party saying that the Conservatives do not co-operate. We had unanimous consent on the constitutional amendment for Saskatchewan, so we have co-operated—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are descending. This is debate, and I am sure there are lots of slots that people can fill on this debate on the bill before us today.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, being inspired, I would ask if there would be unanimous support to see this legislation go through, given the fact that all political parties supported the principle of the legislation and supporting the principle would only see it go to committee stage. I would encourage that sort of enthusiasm for support on Bill C-18.

The point I was trying to get at is that Bill C-18 is important legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact. The minister has done an incredible job, through the ministry, of gathering and sharing thoughts and ideas and getting the information necessary to bring forward legislation that would make a difference and would be a true reflection of what Canadians wanted back in September of last year.

We also need to recognize there is the expectation that the government will bring forward legislation and that opposition parties will participate and be engaged. We often see that, especially from members of the New Democratic Party, the Green Party and the Bloc. At times we will see it from the Conservatives. It is not too often, but maybe at times.

The bottom line is that what we have witnessed in recent months is a great filibuster on whatever the legislation might be. That is the reason we needed to bring in time allocation on this legislation. The best example I could probably give would be Bill C-8. Members might remember Bill C-8 as the fall economic statement legislation that was just recently passed. That is an excellent example of the manner in which the Conservative Party will go out of its way to stop legislation from passing.

Bill C-8 was all about supporting Canadians through the pandemic. Bill C-18 is all about protecting a critical industry here in Canada. It is an industry that needs legislation of this nature. Canada is not alone. There are other countries that have moved in this direction and recognized the need for national governments to bring forward legislation. In fact, the official opposition recognized and seemed to support what was taking place in Australia on this issue. It has made reference to that.

I believe Bill C-18 is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please.

Somebody has their microphone on in the parliamentary feed.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. I am sorry to be interrupting him so much.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will be given the time back.

At the end of the day, I believe we have better legislation than Australia. I understand the Conservative Party supports what is taking place in Australia. There is more transparency in Bill C-18, so one wonders why the Conservative Party would not see the value of it and not only support the legislation but allow it to ultimately pass as opposed to continue to put up some form of a filibuster.

At the end—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It seems we keep getting the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount on the parliamentary feed, so let me once again make sure we are clear.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We will try this again, Mr. Speaker.

What we are looking at in Bill C-18 is legislation that would provide more transparency and ultimately more accountability than we saw in Australia. Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, desire to see fact-based news reported. One of the ways in which we can ensure that takes place is to support Bill C-18.

On one hand, we had every political entity inside this chamber in the last federal election say that it supported that form of legislation. The good news is that, like so many other platform issues in an election, the Government of Canada has brought forward legislation that would fulfill yet another commitment to Canadians, so it should be no surprise. Part of that commitment is to see this legislation ultimately pass. That is why the Minister of Heritage was here about half an hour ago, talking about why it was important that we bring in time allocation to get this legislation passed.

I would appeal in particular to my Conservative friends to recognize the true value of the legislation and suggest to them that times have changed. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian a few years back, I can remember walking back into the Manitoba legislature in 1988 and looking into the press gallery. We have a press gallery up here, but it is not very often that we actually see members of the press in there. Having said that, when I first walked into the Manitoba legislature during a question period, the press gallery was packed. We would have two cameras from CBC. We would have CKND there. We would have CTV. We would have at least three reporters from the Winnipeg Free Press and from the Winnipeg Sun and even some rural media. There were not that many chairs, and often we would see media personalities standing. When I left the Manitoba legislature a number of years ago, prior to coming here, we might get one or two members of the media sitting in the gallery.

We need to recognize the number of local news outlets that have been lost through print media, radio and television. Our communities really miss community-based reporting of local news. At large companies, including CTV, CBC and other major media outlets, there have been cutbacks. We should all be concerned. We are a parliamentary democracy in Canada. Our system is very much dependent on having a healthy, modern media industry. I have used the word, as many of my colleagues have. When we talk about a modern industry, it is absolutely critical that it be fact-based. That is why more and more we are seeing a sense of urgency in getting this type of legislation put before the House and into committee, and ultimately coming back and getting the royal assent that is necessary in order to make it the law of the land.

The legislation would ensure that there is a free, independent press that is able to enhance our democratic values, and it would ensure that there is a certain element of fact-based news that we see when we look at Facebook and YouTube and those high-tech world-leading giants, if I can put it that way.

Let us compare yesterday to today, yesterday being a number of years ago, and the advertising that would have taken place. I will use the Winnipeg Free Press as an example and the advertising dollars it would have generated during the 1990s. We can compare that to the amount of advertising required today. Whether it is print, radio or TV, it is advertising dollars that generate the revenue to provide opportunities for those companies to pay their employees, from the people delivering, publishing or printing the papers to the journalists, the ones writing the stories and providing the editorials. There has been a massive loss of advertising revenue not only by our major newspapers, but also our community-based newspapers. If we look at rural communities and municipalities versus larger urban centres, we have seen a reduction in what I would suggest is reliable, fact-based reporting because of the loss of revenue.

Where we have seen an explosion, on the other hand, is through the Internet. It has been cited, for example, that Facebook and Google consume somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% of what goes into advertising. Are the reporters and investigative journalists receiving any sort of real financial compensation for the work they are doing to create and provide the fact-based stories that come from Internet giants Google and Facebook? If we do a Google search or look at Facebook, we see these streams that incorporate news broadcasts. Is there fair compensation being provided?

The government and, based on the last federal election, I would argue all members recognize that there is a deficiency and that fair compensation is not being provided. It is the Government of Canada that is in the best position to ensure that there is a higher sense of awareness and that we have an industry that is being protected. It goes much further than the issue of jobs. It is an industry that we cannot afford to lose or neglect. I would suggest there is an obligation for us to protect it and do what we can to enhance it. When we read through Bill C-18, that is what we will find it would do. The sooner it gets through the House of Commons and becomes law, the sooner we will enable many news agencies to have the opportunity to have fair discussions and negotiations with companies such as Google and YouTube. That is why I believe it is so critical.

In the questions and answers the Minister of Canadian Heritage provided earlier today, he was talking in part about the number of people we are losing in that industry. I do not have the actual numbers, but I could speculate in terms of salaries. I suspect the average salary in that industry has modestly increased and I would not be surprised if, in many ways, it has decreased at a time when, as the Internet explodes, there is an even higher demand for reliable news.

I know how important it is. On a weekly basis, I go to a local restaurant where every so often a certain gentleman would come by, and I could tell what paper he was reading by the criticism he was providing. One day I suggested to him that he should broaden his reading and share other stories that were being published. Interestingly, he never did show up again. I suspect it was because he had been looking at the broader media and reading what was being published by some of those agencies that we have grown to trust over the years. There is a high sense of accountability for Global, CTV and CBC, and newspapers both nationally and locally. When they appear in newsfeeds, whether it is on Facebook or YouTube or in whatever format, it does make a difference.

This government is not going to be intimidated in any fashion by the tech giants of the world. We want to ensure that the industry is protected, and we need to put everyone on a more level and fairer playing field. There needs to be proper compensation to our media outlets that are being tapped into in order to foster greater profits for those high-tech world companies, and in short, that is exactly what Bill C-18 would do: It would put in place a process that would enable negotiation and a much higher sense of fairness. It would protect our news industry as we modernize and continue to move forward.

I encourage all members not only to support the legislation before us but also to support its passage so that it can get royal assent possibly as early as the end of June.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that I would like to thank my colleague for Winnipeg North for his speech, but that would be disingenuous.

The member talked a lot about support for local media, which is funny, because in the operations committee about three years ago, we actually studied government advertising in Canada. The committee came up with recommendations that the government should stop sending all its money to Google and Facebook and use government advertising to support local media, small newspapers, the Winnipeg Free Press, which he mentioned, and a lot of local ethnic newspapers. What did this government do? It took the recommendation, threw it in the garbage, and continued to push more money to Google, Facebook and these big web giants.

Why, then, is the member speaking out of both sides of his face? He is saying to support local business, but when we had the chance to do so, the government gave the money to Facebook and Google.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is actually good news.

Let us be realistic. The federal government, as it has for many years, invests in advertising in a significant way, from community newspapers to radio programs, both urban and rural. We have ethnic advertising that takes place, and yes, there is advertising that takes place on Google and on YouTube. There are very important programs that the government has, and it is important that Canadians find out about them, whether they be programs that serve our vets or programs that advertise the greener home building program or other programs from which Canadians can really benefit if in fact they are informed about them.

Governments have done advertising for many years, although not with as much money as Stephen Harper ever spent, but governments have done it for many years.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I organized a major public consultation during last week's constituency week. There is an airport in my riding, and I held public consultations on developing that airport. It is an important piece of infrastructure that affects the lives of 400,000 people in the region.

My riding has just one local weekly newspaper, Le Courrier du Sud. We wanted the media to come and cover this event, which would affect everyone in my riding, not to mention people in neighbouring ridings, so we sent a press release to the newspaper. We were told that no journalists were available to cover this event, despite how important it was to our local community.

The legislation presented for our consideration does not ensure that small local weekly newspapers will have enough bargaining power to fully participate in negotiations with web giants.

Can my colleague comment on that? Can he assure us that local media will be able to get sufficient funding through the negotiations that will take place with the web giants?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-18's passage, we will see for the first time a greatly enhanced opportunity to ensure that we do get fair compensation, not only for the large media outlets but for small media outlets also. I can understand and relate to what the member is talking about, especially in rural Manitoba, as an example, or even in some of our major urban centres where there is a need for more journalists. As a society, we want to support that industry. For me personally, fact-based news is of critical importance.

I hope to see the bill go to committee, and maybe the member can participate at the committee stage. If there are things we can do to improve and enhance the legislation, I am sure that the minister would be open to those ideas. In fact, if the member has specifics, he should probably raise them with the minister or the parliamentary secretary in advance of the bill going to committee.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important, and it is so important that we make web giants pay their fair share. It is also important that we learn lessons from other countries.

The member mentioned Australia, and I want to follow up on the question from my colleague in the Bloc. We have seen in Australia that Facebook and others have been entering into revenue agreements with the large publishers. It means that the smaller publishers are not getting fair compensation. Therefore, I am wondering if the member will commit to advocating for changes at committee stage to ensure that smaller publishers get a fair shake.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I think there is a great deal of interest not only on my part but from within the Liberal caucus and hopefully others, such as the member, in recognizing the importance of the smaller news agencies. That is one of the reasons I incorporated this point in my comments and talked about ensuring fairer compensation for both large and small media outlets. They are absolutely critical, especially to our local communities.

I really do believe that this legislation would enhance that sense of fairness for both large and small media outlets. If there are things that we could do to better ensure that outcome, I would encourage my New Democratic friends to raise the issue and bring up the example, and if they have an amendment, to share it with the minister or the staff. They do not have to wait until it goes to committee; they can do that at any point in time. I am sure that if there are ways in which we can improve the bill, the minister would be open to them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by what has happened to journalism in Canada. I agree, as the hon. parliamentary secretary said, that democracy itself is under assault when we lose our local journalists. In fact, there have been empirical studies that show that as parliamentary bureaus of local papers across Canada close up shop, the level of voting in those communities goes down. I agree with the diagnosis, but I do not know that we have the right prescription.

What we now see in Australia are a lot of concerns after the Australian model, which we are now pursuing, has been used as a big stick to drive people to private negotiations with no transparency. There is a lot of concern about following this model.

I am not saying I am against it and I want to figure out how it might work, but surely the simplest thing is to go to the source and say to Google, Twitter, Facebook and anything that is undermining our journalism that they are publishers, just like the newspapers. They are not platforms but publishers, and they have to follow all the same rules as print journalism in Canada.

Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for many years, giant tech companies such as Facebook, Google and YouTube have been going around the world and getting away with a great deal while enriching themselves worldwide. We are seeing more countries today saying that it is not acceptable and that we want to ensure that there is protection for their media industries, and that is something that is very tangible coming from this government. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring a higher sense of fair compensation and protecting a critically important industry.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for fitting me into this debate.

I would say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North: We just heard a comment from the Conservatives across the way that they did not want to hear from him because he had an alternative point of view. In fact, a lot of news is presented online in a biased fashion. Could the member talk about news as entertainment versus news as a source of information on the different points of view that help to inform us?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. That is why I shared the story of the gentleman who would show up and talk to me. After a few weeks, I could tell exactly what outlet he was using as his source. It was always the same outlet. When I made the suggestion that he try to expand and look at other media outlets, he literally stopped coming. It was a pleasant discussion we had.

The point is that it is very important that we be supportive of our news industry and journalists. That is what this legislation is all about. It is about ensuring there is proper compensation. We have some of the best journalists in the world and we need to support them. We need to be there for the industry. It is healthier for our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an enjoyable afternoon listening to some of the fairy tales from the government, because it is cutting off debate after two hours on a bill that, from coast to coast, we have not seen much of.

Bill C-18 is an interesting bill. As a former journalist and broadcaster, I am glad today that I have the opportunity to speak to this bill and right the ship, if the House does not mind.

I spent 40 years in the industry, in radio and television. I began the career in Yorkton, working midnights as a disk jockey. I spent some time in Melfort doing radio. I moved over to CFQC in Saskatoon—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend for interrupting.

There is an incredible amount of background noise going on just outside the chamber. Perhaps you could pass along an instruction for them to quiet down a bit.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate that intervention. I try to remind folks as they come into the chamber and the lobbies to keep their conversations a lot quieter, because the sound coming over from the other side is a little too much for this House of Commons. Again I would ask members coming into the House to keep the lobby doors closed to keep the volume down.

I apologize. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood has three minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, picking back up, I spent some time at Melfort, went over to Saskatoon in radio and then spent the majority of my career as a sports journalist and anchor at CTV News Saskatoon.

As a journalist, I remember having the opportunity to travel and cover some of the biggest news stories in Saskatchewan's history. I was on the field for countless Roughriders games, Grey Cup championships, Olympics and world curling championships. I remember covering the historic attempt when Saskatoon and Saskatchewan tried to get the St. Louis Blues to move to Saskatoon. That was in the 1980s.

What a success entrepreneur Bill Hunter and his group had back then, as they had thousands of people activated in our province, all going through the news media. We went to Madison Square Garden in New York for the NHL hearings. I remember the night before the hearings I was in the New York Islanders' dressing room celebrating the team's four-game sweep of the Edmonton Oilers. I talked to the many Saskatchewan-born players on the Islanders' team: Bryan Trottier, Bob Bourne and so on. It was a historic week being in New York trying to get the St. Louis Blues back to Saskatchewan and Canada.

I am afraid those stories would probably not be told today because of the lack of budgets for small- and medium-sized news organizations in this country. They have cut their staff, some down entirely to zero. In stations that actually remain, the person we hear on the air is often the only person in the entire building. Big stations are not exempt from this either. I have seen my fair share of colleagues and friends over the years being shown the door when cuts came around to address lagging revenues.

Earlier in my career, though, I worked late nights covering the station at a time when there was actually live coverage of radio throughout the night. Now, most stations are live for maybe six hours a day, or 12 at best. It is actually exclusively pre-recorded and it is satellite radio. This is a shame because where can young broadcasters get into the business now when, with a flip of the switch, people can have satellite radio?

We are getting ready for question period, and I will, as they say, come back for the rest of the story.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Online News Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the amendment.

Shall I dispense?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is correct. I am the House leader, and I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 31, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C‑18.

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #111

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. deputy House leader.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #112

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 56 minutes.