Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

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

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

[Dr. Michael Geist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

I think there are examples where that may have happened. I can remember when the current housing minister and I were on a committee and there was a word in there that was wrong. I knew it was legally wrong. They were determined to go, but I said, “You're a lawyer. Look at that word and tell me it's right.” He said, “Oh my God, we've made a mistake—let's fix it.”

I think that's what you're talking about that we should be able to do, but it takes a lot of people to be at that table to deal with this.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

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

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

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Geist.

I have to move on to the Liberals for five minutes.

Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much.

I really do appreciate all of you taking the time to be with us today.

Mr. Ahmed, maybe I could start with you.

Given the limited amount of time we have, it will be very helpful to us if you might be willing to give us a written submission on how things are working or are not working—as the case may be—from your perspective in the U.K. If you would be willing to do that, I think it would be very much appreciated.

Mr. Kint, we would appreciate it if you would be willing to do so as well.

Would that work for you guys?

[Imran Ahmed]

I'm sure Jason and I would both be happy to do so.

Just to be clear, it's a bit early. The legislation was promulgated just a few weeks ago, and Ofcom is still in the consultation stages of establishing precisely how it will utilize its powers.

Three years ago, we organized a conference in Washington, D.C., with lawmakers from Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand to talk about legislation. We'll be doing the same next year so we can learn lessons from each other about how the implementation has gone a year on.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

That's fair enough. Thank you.

Mr. Kint, I'd like to turn to you.

From what you've observed, how does the Canadian experience with some of the strategies that the platforms have taken align with experiences in the EU, Australia, the U.S. and elsewhere?

[Jason Kint]

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

That is an interesting perspective. It would be lovely to see a similar multi-party approach in dealing with these issues here, but obviously that's not necessarily the case.

With some of the tactics you've just talked about, one thing I'm curious about is the approach or the thesis that big tech cultivates friendly academics, experts, think tanks and advocacy groups to kind of push on the status quo and to oppose regulation.

What is your sense of that? Is that a fair statement? What advice would you have for governments and civil society to push back on these efforts and resist that approach?

[Jason Kint]

I agree 100%.

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

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

I don't get invited, by the way.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

With the remaining moments I have left, there was an assertion made earlier that, as a result of legislation, people aren't investing in news. It would seem to me that this is not a Canadian trend, but a problem we're seeing around the world, where there's less and less money to be made in news, so smart investors just aren't putting their money there.

How much of that would you ascribe to legislation that has not yet been in force in this country, and how much would you ascribe to the sad reality we're seeing globally, with respect to the investments being made in high-quality news and journalism?

[Jason Kint]

No. The investment will go into high-quality journalism when you have competition on the platforms, where they can't abuse the news companies by just sucking out the data and then putting the ads against the cheapest content possible, which is often harmful content.

You need competition and you need data protection. That will help the news industry.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

We move to the Bloc and Mr. Champoux for two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I frankly want to say that I always find these discussions very interesting. Sometimes our questions are too long and don't leave enough time for answers. We should all take note of that, starting with me. We will surely know the ins and outs of the job by the end.

I want to thank the witnesses for clarifying these issues, which divide a lot of people.

Mr. Chair, as I am concerned about what we're currently seeing at the CRTC's hearings, about the study we're conducting on bills and about the general situation of the media, particularly the news media, I would immediately like to introduce and debate a motion.

I move as follows:

Whereas:

1- The news media is in crisis due to the dominance of foreign digital companies;

2- Hundreds of newsroom positions across Canada have been cut since the beginning of the year, and hundreds more are likely to be cut in the near future;

3- Canadian broadcasters, journalists' associations, news unions and many experts agree that urgent action must be taken to ensure adequate, diversified news coverage in all regions of Quebec and Canada;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study to determine the appropriateness of holding a national forum on the media and that the Committee determine its terms of reference.

That the Committee hold a minimum of four meetings and report its recommendations to the House.

Mr. Chair, we sent the French version of this motion to the clerk a little earlier. I now turn the floor over to you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We have received this in French. We're trying to get it translated into English. It is related, so I'm going to open it up for debate, if you don't mind.

I have Mr. Julian on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, we have more questions for our witnesses. This is a very important panel.

I would ask Mr. Champoux to hold off. I think we can have a debate after the final round.

I have more questions that are very important. Unfortunately, I don't feel that cutting witness testimony is the appropriate way to act.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Shall we go back to the point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Champoux and Mr. Julian, I have ruled that it is debatable. We are talking about the news industry here. You are bringing up this motion. It is related.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Pardon me, Mr. Julian. I believe I have the floor.

I know we're still waiting for the English version of the motion. However, I have no objection to the New Democratic Party continuing with its questions. We can be notified when the translation is ready and can start debating the motion at that time. I'm entirely willing to proceed in that manner should you agree.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

That would require unanimous support. Is it unanimous?

Do we continue questioning our guests while the motion is being translated into English? It needs unanimous support. If not, we're at a stalemate, waiting for the translation into English, which could take.... It's fairly long, so if you don't mind me saying, it could take considerable time. I don't know, but checking with the clerk, she is indicating that it could take some time.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

For Mr. Champoux's sake, I think clarity is necessary. Should it not be translated by the end of this meeting, what happens with his motion?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

There are two things. One, we could move to suspend until we get the translation. Two, we would adjourn and then bring back the motion.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to take the risk of introducing my motion again at the next opportunity. The translation isn't ready, and there's absolutely no point in suspending the committee's proceedings until it is. I think we can continue with the rounds of questions. I trust the committee not to prevent it from being introduced again at the next opportunity.