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.

[Patrick White]

Canada is already working hard with what it did with Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 for Canadian content, and with Bill C-63 it's going to fight misinformation and contenu préjudiciable as well. Are we doing enough? Probably not, but AI is an opportunity as well as a threat.

As far as deepfakes are concerned, I would strongly urge the government to legislate on that matter within the next 12 to 18 months, especially on deepfake videos and deepfake audio, as well, which you mentioned.

We have a lot to work on in the next 12 months on that issue, taking into context the upcoming federal election in Canada.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bibic, you can be faulted for many things, but I don't think your support for Bill C-11 or Bill C-18 can be counted among them. You talked about the importance of the transition you're making to a digital company, and I think part of the work that we're doing, as a government, is to support that.

The work our government is doing and the support we have given to news media across this country is not intended for you to pay further benefits to your shareholders and senior executives.

Mr. Bibic, do you know who Scott Roberts is?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Do you support Bill C-18, the Online News Act?

Government Responses to Order Paper Questions

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I support this question of privilege in light of the violation of government's obligation to answer an Order Paper question, but I also add to it, considering how the government has taken steps to take control of the Internet in Canada.

It has done this through legislation like Bill C-11, which centralizes regulatory control of what Canadians can see, hear and post online based on what the government deems “Canadian”.

In addition, I highlight Bill C-18, which has resulted in the government being one of the biggest gatekeepers of news in Canada. This is a major conflict of interest and a direct attack on journalistic integrity in this country.

Now, most recently, through Bill C-63, the government proposes to establish an entire commission, yet another arm of the government, that would regulate online harm.

How can Canadians trust the government to police various aspects of the Internet if it cannot even be honest and tell the truth about the content requested to be taken down? Trust is pinnacle and frankly the government has not earned any of it. The truth must prevail.

Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to look into this and to get to the bottom of it, or you can keep us in the dark and allow secrecy and injustice to reign. I understand that you are the one to make this decision, and we are putting our trust in you to make sure that this place is upheld and democracy is kept strong.

[Charlene Lavallee, President, Association of Métis, Non and Status Indians Saskatchewan]

Hello. My name is Charlene Lavallee. I'm the president of the Association of Métis, Non and Status Indians Saskatchewan.

We have community charters across the province in several different areas on the northwest side of Saskatchewan, which is very remote, and in northeast Saskatchewan, which is even more remote. Then, if we move into our urban centres, we cover all the urban centres in Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan includes in its treaty territory treaties 8, 10, 6, 7, 4, 2 and 5. Saskatchewan is also the home of the Métis.

AMNSIS is not part of the distinctions-based groups. We are an organization under the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We have been involved with the MMIWG national round table since 2016. Up until February of this year, we were involved. Then there was a meeting this February that we were not invited to attend personally.

With regard to the red dress alert, I'd like to thank MP Leah Gazan for putting this forward. I listened in on the communication on Tuesday. It was more about the processes of an alert system, and it was really interesting to hear how quickly it could be onboarded and started.

One of the hardest things that has happened for MMIWG has been Bill C-18. Many of our people get their news from social media. News not being allowed any longer on social media has led to a large void in sharing information about people who have recently gone missing.

There are a couple of things I'd like to touch on. This red dress alert and everything attached to MMIWG need to be indigenous-led and need to include all indigenous people in Canada. The current distinctions-based policy identifying organizations is unconstitutional. The Constitution of Canada mentions, in section 35, our first nations, Inuit and Métis. The Daniels decision also included non-status peoples in section 35. Section 35 does not mention the AFN, the ITK and the MNC.

Right now, the distinctions-based approach is the approach this government is using. It's leaving out all the non-status peoples, and it takes away my freedom of choice, which I am supposed to have under the Charter of Rights and under UNDRIP. It is choosing to only work with certain groups. Again, indigenous people, primarily women, are being left out of processes that could save their lives.

All aspects of the MMIWG calls for justice need to be inclusive of all indigenous groups. They should not be political, and the processes need to be nationally streamlined by indigenous organizations.

Policing has not always worked in favour of vulnerable indigenous people, and neither have government agencies, like social workers. When considering all of these factors, we have always said that policing has been a big part of the problem. I think those things need to be heard.

Are you waving your hand at me?

[Sarah Andrews]

Definitely.

I think, first of all, there aren't just subsidies. When we talk about government and parliamentary intervention, we're also talking about actions that have already been taken, like Bill C-18, for example, which does not provide a subsidy from the government; it is in fact the government intervening and correcting an imbalance in the market. I think it's very important to look at where we can intervene with the tools in our tool box, and not provide a direct subsidy but sort of correct those market imbalances.

As I mentioned in my remarks, closing the loophole in the Income Tax Act is one of those opportunities, and we're very happy to hear that the heritage minister is taking a further look into that.

Of course, I come back to the CBC, the public broadcaster. The parliamentary appropriation is such an important part of the CBC's budget. In fact, we at Friends of Canadian Media would advocate that the CBC be fully funded by the parliamentary appropriation at some point in time.

I was glad to hear from Mrs. Henley. I completely agree that we need to have the mandate review for the CBC. We're very much looking forward to the work of the advisory committee in the next little while, to see how we can get the CBC to be the best it can be and make the most out of that parliamentary appropriation.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Is Bill C‑11 moving forward as fast as you would like?

[Scott Hutton]

We had additional resources to implement Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, on news content. It's been an enormous amount of work. Our new president and we are prioritizing these major files, and we're putting all our efforts behind implementing these bills.

If we're talking about Bill C‑11, I think it was enacted in April. Within a few weeks, we made sure we had launched four proceedings based on which—

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

The problem with Bill C-18 is that legacy media has the say. They want to shut you down. They want to shut down new digital platforms. They want all the money, and when Bill C-18 happened, you were affected. You didn't say much, but all the legacy.... The Toronto Star had a side deal with Google prior to Bill C-18. Now they're maybe not going to get as much money as they had hoped, because with Google, $100 million.... Maybe it's $75 million.

There still could be side deals, but I think for people in this country, trust has been the issue. They're looking for news outside the legacy media. You've proven it. You were in legacy and you went from Smithers to the biggest market. You took the gamble. There are others in this country taking the gamble like you did and who I believe are being held back.

[Brandon Gonez]

Yes.

One thing we found that was so fascinating about the digital landscape was that we didn't look at what we were doing as a Canadian thing. We thought that with our stories, we connected with support globally. I thought that was really fascinating.

What we have in this country is such a unique situation. You can have somebody who looks like me and whose parents were immigrants...and now I've been able to start something super successful and to start to hire people who didn't have a safe place in some of these other newsrooms across the country.

I also understand a hundred per cent of the intent behind Bill C-18. I know what crisis has taken place. As I said, I've worked in the second-smallest market in this country: Smithers, a town of 5,000. I've also worked in the largest city, and I know what's happening. There is a deep need for a strong public broadcaster and for sustaining a diverse range of media voices, but it shouldn't come as a hindrance to people who took a risk in this country to create a new ecosystem, to create new opportunities and to give voices to people who were left out of the conversation.

That was always my fear about Bill C-18, potentially. How it was executed wasn't the right way. The intent, yes, I understand, but how it was executed severely affected people who were creating a whole new format that potentially could have been replicated across the world.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Gonez, you started out here today by saying that you had massive losses because of Bill C-18 being passed. Not one member of the government has talked about this here today. You lost because of Bill C-18.

Can you comment on what you lost with Bill C-18's passing last June as far as money goes, as far as staff goes and as far as the vision for your company goes?

[Brandon Gonez]

I understand the intent of Bill C-18. We're all hearing, obviously, about the crisis that's unfolding, and of course, we don't want to lose any more journalism in this country. Any way to sustain that is a good thing. I always believe that an expanded industry is a better industry because the more stories that are being told, the better for all of us.

It's unfortunate, though, that with the implementation of this bill, one of the largest tech giants, which owns two of the biggest social platforms that each and every one of us in this room uses.... We are no longer on those platforms, so what is on those platforms? If the mission was to stop or try to slow down the amount of disinformation out there, it's only gotten worse because trustworthy folks are no longer on there.

When I look at this, I say thank goodness Google didn't walk away from the table, or else all of us would have been effed. I don't mean to use that lightly, but it is the truth. Thank goodness Google did stay at the table, and I truly hope that Meta comes to its senses and comes back to the table.

If there are new funds coming into the ecosystem, I truly hope that everybody in this room will advocate for the people who took a risk to create innovation in this country so they will have a specific stream allotted to them where they can access some of those funds to continue to do the amazing work they're doing. I also hope that everybody in this room will advocate for racialized owners of media in this country so they also have access to a specific stream to continue to do the fine work and the hard work they're doing to tell the stories that they've been left out of.

I want everybody to understand that even before this crisis was unfolding, we had problems in the legacy sector. We had problems with diversity. We had problems with the diversity of storytelling. That's not to diminish the hard work of everyday journalists across this country, but we have to acknowledge the gaps that need to be filled. People like me took a risk and said that we were going to leave this legacy sector and try to fill those gaps, and we were doing a darned good job. It really is unfortunate, because I believe that if this block didn't happen, we probably would be about 50% bigger than we were before it happened.

We can't go back in time. The bill is here and I'm a realist. However, what we can do is try to, again, make people who have been affected whole. We can also try to foster an ecosystem where we can see other players, like GMI, emerge across this country in places like B.C. and Saskatchewan, in provinces that suffer from news deserts. Also, hopefully, we can have less impact...to what's happening in the legacy sector. I just don't want digital-first voices to be left out of the conversation, because we have been the most severely impacted by all of what's been transpiring.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Gonez.

Mr. Gonez, you started out serving in legacy media. You then left and started something on your own. It's been very successful. You're digitally-based. I believe you've hired 10 employees, if I read that correctly. Obviously diversity is something very important to you. Clearly you have an audience, so you've gained the trust of the Canadian public—kudos to you.

Your company seems to be going in the opposite direction of the legacy media. This government made the determination to go ahead with Bill C-18 even though it knew that the bill, supposedly for the benefit of legacy media, was to the detriment of digital media providers like you.

You just made a statement that, because of the legislation, Bill C-18, your revenue has gone down by 40%. That's a pretty big cut. Obviously what that represents is not just a financial cut to your company. It also means that Canadians aren't able to access the news they want to access, which is, of course, to their detriment.

My question for you is this. Clearly Bill C-18 didn't work and isn't working, so what is the answer to make sure that Canadians have access to quality news and independent journalism in a sustained fashion going forward?

[Brandon Gonez, Chief Executive Officer, Gonez Media Inc.]

Thank you.

As a little background about me, I'm a former broadcaster. I used to work for Bell Media and Corus Entertainment. I started my career in the second-smallest market in this country, in northwestern British Columbia, in the town of Smithers. Before leaving mainstream media, I worked for Bell Media in the largest market in this country, in Toronto.

I have a unique experience working for our largest broadcasters in this country, but I also have a unique experience because I left, in the midst of the pandemic, to start my own digital media company, called Gonez Media. Since then, we've acquired legacy publications and turned them digital. We have a team of nearly 20 folks. More than half are journalists, with many of them coming from legacy organizations, having been laid off and severely impacted by the media crisis.

I want to talk about the impact of legislation on this country, particularly Bill C-18. As a digital-first media company, we never asked for this legislation. We found a new model that worked for us, that was sustainable and that was providing new opportunities, especially for journalists of colour in this country, who for far too long have been told that they don't belong in newsrooms across this country or who have experienced discrimination and racism. We changed that model, and we're now one of Canada's fastest-growing online media companies.

When Bill C-18 came about, we were severely impacted. We lost our pages on Meta-owned platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, which were literally the platforms we built our business model on. Our revenue impact was a more than 40% loss. We were at risk of literally doing the exact same thing that legacy media companies had done to our staff.

One of the issues I have in particular is that the heritage minister at the time was quoted as saying that media companies affected by this block would be made whole. We have not been made whole. In fact, we have had to be agile, to innovate and to find new ways to sustain our business and our model.

One thing I would like everybody here to really focus on is that a lot of digital-first media companies are really agile. They don't have the resources to hire lobbyists to be here in Ottawa to advocate for them like legacy media companies do. When we and this government are approaching tech giants for funds, coming from the legacy sector, I do understand the importance of supporting that. I think there is an ecosystem that can sustain all different facets of media. However, if you're trying to draw money from tech giants and the bulk of that money is going to legacy companies that didn't adapt and build a business model that can be sustained in this current environment, and then you're leaving digital-first companies on the sidelines, that doesn't make sense.

What I've always wanted is for Canada to be a leader in the world, to foster a whole new ecosystem where we can have digital-first companies providing news, entertainment and culture content right to Canadians, right to their fingertips, using the devices they use. Everybody in this room has a cellphone. We found a way to create, in a different medium, the exact same content my peers have been doing for years and found a way to do it sustainably and profitably, creating a growth industry.

Th legislation put forth and the rules around it have literally harnessed and chained us, and it's really disappointing because a lot of digital-first companies are led by people who look like me—people of colour—and women. I can tell you we are one of the larger organizations, but when I talk to my peers, whose companies are a lot smaller, I hear they are at the brink of closing their doors, meaning we are going to be left with an ecosystem of companies that are living only because of government funding.

Before this legislation came into place, we did not accept one dollar from the government. We did not apply for any of that. We were sustainable and profitable.

[Sue Gardner]

I did not write that article to support you, but yes, there were a number of people—me included—who did think Bill C-18 was misguided from the get-go, for many different reasons. I think I said early on, as a lot of people said early on, that Facebook was not bluffing; Facebook was going to stay out. They did stay out, and that reduces Canadians' access to news.

Bill C-18 will not bring into the industry the money it was originally predicted it would bring into the industry. I think one of the estimates was $100 million from Google, minus whatever administrative costs are involved with that and minus whatever the value of the deal is they currently have, which people are guessing is something like $25 million.

It's going to bring in a bit of money to the industry but nothing on the scale of what was originally envisioned. The cost of it is very real. People here have alluded to the idea that Facebook is a wasteland. Well, that is part of why Facebook is a wasteland, if in fact it is. They felt they had no choice. If you want to see less of something, you tax it, and Bill C-18 brought you less of things for that reason.