Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Google will ultimately get to determine which collective it enters into an agreement with. What criteria will Google use?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

News media will need to come together in a collective, which they will manage. This collective will not only negotiate with Google, but also redistribute the money in a fair and transparent manner.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

There could end up being multiple collectives, though. It's not necessarily one.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Under the act, it will be possible to have several collectives handling negotiations. It will also be possible to have a single collective negotiating on behalf of all media outlets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I am going to go to the next questioner. For the Liberals, that is Lisa Hepfner.

Lisa, you have six minutes, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here today.

Minister, I want to start by congratulating you on the deal that you announced yesterday. I think it's really good news.

News is so important. It's so important to Canada and to Canadians. I know this viscerally because, as you know, I was a member of the media for many years.

In Hamilton alone we're very well served by many media outlets. I think of CHML radio and The Hamilton Spectator, where I worked in the late nineties. I think of CHCH news, which is the TV station where I worked for 20 years. I know, from the people of Hamilton, how important it was for them to have their own stories told and to have these local voices.

We know this legislation is not going to solve all the problems. The news industry is really in a crisis. This legislation is not a panacea. It is not going to solve everything, but I think it will really help. What we have heard a lot of is, with Google and Facebook backing out of news, why don't we back down from this legislation? We're hearing that we need these services and we also need news, so let's just drop it all.

Please explain to this committee why it was so important not to back down, to continue with the fight and to continue talking with Google.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you so much for your question.

We've been talking for more than a decade about the fact that digital platforms disrupted the advertising market and that most of the revenues now flow to Google and Facebook. This has a tremendous impact on democracy and on our capacity as a country to have journalists all over the country to cover what's important for citizens.

We've been talking for more than a decade about how important it is to rebalance the relationship between those digital platforms and our news outlets to make sure they can actually negotiate the parts of the revenue that should be going back to our news sector, because it does bring value to those platforms. This is exactly what we've accomplished.

As you said, it probably won't resolve the entire crisis for the media because it's extensive and it's very important. Thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in the past decade, but this is $100 million of new revenue that will be sent to the sector that will support local news and local journalism. It's extremely important. It's a first step.

Our government has been there to support the news sector and will continue to be there.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

In fact, since Australia implemented similar legislation, it found that the news sector is better off. There are more journalists hired today, and there is more news access for Australians today.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Yes, that's what was found with the Australian model.

However, our model is a bit different. It looks for the same outcome, which is to have a more balanced commercial relationship between the tech giants and our news sector, but we did it in a transparent way. We did it in a way so that we know it won't be only legacy media and big media that will capture most of this revenue. We made sure there is a place at the table for local journalism, for indigenous media and for official languages in a minority situation media. All these media that often feel they're being left behind, including independent media and new digital media, will have a seat at the table and will get their share.

Canada has done it in a different way. We learned from what happened in Australia, with a deal being done behind closed doors. We chose transparency. We chose to be open in the way we would do this. We're very proud of this.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm trying to hear you over the opposition members, who are being very loud across the table.

I appreciate your insights there.

How do you think the deal with Google, which was announced yesterday, will affect the negotiations with Meta?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I think what this shows is that the piece of legislation we introduced is viable and equitable. It shows that it works and that there is no good reason, except for ideological reasons, that Facebook won't comply with the legislation.

What we're seeing is that it is making a choice—an unfortunate choice—to open its platform to disinformation and misinformation, when indeed platforms are better off when Canadians can share news or have access to news that is relevant to them, their families and their friends. I think this is a terrible decision Meta is making, but we're seeing that it's doing this across the world.

We've seen recently that it has toned down access to news in the United States. It took out the news tab that European countries had access to. We're hearing that it won't renew the deals it has with newspapers in Australia. This is a huge business shift for a platform that said it was the people's everyday newspaper. Now it is pulling out from real, fact-based journalism.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

To clarify, with 10 seconds left, it's not just in Canada.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Exactly—it's not just in Canada. We're seeing this happen in the United States. We're seeing this happen in Australia and in Europe.

Unfortunately, it seems to be a business decision that has nothing to do with our legislation, but it has great impacts here in Canada and it's deplorable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Lisa.

Now we'll go to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux.

You have six minutes, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, my initial reaction to yesterday's announcement was favourable. I thought it was good news. It's better to have an agreement than no agreement, so I'm happy about that. I think it would have been very serious if Google had stopped sharing news links.

However, I think there are still a lot of questions about this agreement. I think my concerns are shared by all of my colleagues and by many stakeholders in the news sector in Quebec and Canada. In particular, I wonder about the distribution of the money. You mentioned that a collective would manage this distribution. Since the beginning, I've been concerned about the place allotted to smaller players in a collective like this, which will likely cover hundreds of media companies.

This announcement has been well received, but there are a lot of details missing that might reassure these smaller players.

Can you assure me that you'll make certain that the criteria implemented and managed by the collective will be specific and rigorous enough to take regional realities into account? How will the money be distributed among journalists in the regions versus those working in major centres?

If I understand correctly, it won't be the government managing how the money is distributed. However, this money must not be monopolized by the big media companies. You said earlier that you were going to make sure to protect the most vulnerable media outlets. Since the government is not going to manage this, I expect it will insist on extremely rigorous criteria.

I would like to hear what you have to say on this matter, because it's a concern for the regions.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you very much for your question and for the work you are doing on this committee to move bills forward, including the one that resulted in yesterday's announcement.

Indeed, in the final version of the regulations, which will be published a few days before the act's implementation on December 19, there will be more details on how the money will be distributed.

That said, some things are already clear in the act. The collective will have to represent all media outlets covered under subsection 11(1) of the act. These include official language minority community news outlets, traditional news outlets, of course, which still play a very important role in the country, as well as local news outlets and indigenous community news outlets.

The act therefore takes into account the fact that local and regional media have a very important role to play. We recognize their work. We are going to ensure that they have a place at the negotiating table and that they receive their share of these revenues.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

This leads me to a question that was raised earlier about CBC/Radio-Canada. Ms. Tait, the Crown corporation's president and CEO, was in your seat a few weeks ago. She openly admitted to us that, in addition to the funding granted to the corporation, which is $1.4 billion, CBC/Radio-Canada had other sources of financing, including advertising and subscription revenue. This other revenue amounts to $400 million. That piece of information raised everyone's eyebrows. Although we were aware of this reality, the fact that it was announced so casually, in the current context, was difficult to take. I think some restraint would have been in order.

That said, we agreed here in committee, when we studied Bill C‑18, that CBC/Radio-Canada met the criteria. CBC/Radio-Canada is also suffering the consequences of the arrival of the digital giants, but it isn't in the same boat as privately owned media.

In the current context, since we won't be receiving as much money as we'd hoped under an agreement with Google, do you think it would be appropriate for CBC/Radio-Canada representatives to announce that the corporation will not be joining the collective, in order to leave the money entirely for the media outlets that really need it?

Do you think this would be the right thing to do? Will you encourage them to do so?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I can't speak for CBC/Radio-Canada, which is independent of the government.

However, you are right. Under the act, the corporation is eligible. It is important to note that a commercial relationship is being established between Google and the media. It's important not to send the message that content produced by CBC/Radio-Canada isn't valuable to platforms like Google and Facebook, which make billions of dollars. I think that would be the wrong message to send.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Google makes billions of dollars, and we have only $100 million to give back to our media companies.

I'll let you finish your comments on this.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I fully understand your point, and I know the media sector is concerned about it.

I can confirm that the public broadcaster's unique situation was taken into account in the final version of the regulations, which will be released before December 19.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

My next question is about the recent testimony that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, has heard. You heard the comments of Bell Media, Québecor and Cogeco representatives, who all expressed their deep concern about the situation. Cogeco was not vague about what was coming, in other words, cuts will be made if nothing happens.

There's a tool that is easy to implement. You expanded it to make it available to print media. I am talking about the journalism labour tax credit. Cogeco, Québecor, Bell and several private news companies have said that it would be a huge help if the tax credit were extended to electronic media. In concrete terms, this means that newsroom jobs would be saved, especially jobs in the regions. It could even prevent the closure of regional radio stations.

Do you think this would be a good idea? Are you exploring this avenue, and do you think you'll have anything positive to announce to these companies before the holidays?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

That is one of the solutions proposed by media sector representatives. We are studying it very seriously, because we're obviously extremely concerned about the cuts that have taken place at TVA, CTV and other networks. We are hearing reports about the difficulties facing the radio and television sector.

We are looking at all possible solutions. The agreement with Google is a small part of the solution. Modernizing the Broadcasting Act should also provide more flexibility in terms of regulatory burden. The CRTC will be examining the possibility of setting up a fund to support the news sector.

Several pieces of the puzzle still have to be put in place to ensure the viability of news outlets, and to ensure that journalists can continue to play their role in our democracy. However, we remain extremely committed to supporting the sector and overcoming this crisis.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You know that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin. The time is up.

I'm now going to go to Peter Julian for the New Democrats.

Peter, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. We hope you will come back often.

I'm going to ask you three questions. I would like brief answers, please.

First off, Laith Marouf, who was providing the most vile expressions of anti-Semitism and hate, was given a contract through Canadian Heritage. The NDP was the first party to call for the cancellation of that contract, and the government cancelled the contract. However, I want to know whether the money has been paid back—around $125,000—and what steps have been taken within Canadian Heritage to ensure that those who promote hate in any form will no longer get contracts through the government.

Secondly, on Meta, in testimony before this committee just this week, the Center for Countering Digital Hate stated very clearly, and its studies have shown us, that Meta, in its algorithms, is promoting the most vile anti-Semitism. Meta is not only refusing to respect Canadian democracy with Bill C-18, but has also been cited numerous times for that expression of vile anti-Semitism and other forms of hate. However, we provide subsidies to Meta and Google, according to the Library of Parliament, that are in the order of more than $1 billion every year. That is in the advertising tax credit as an indirect subsidy for Meta.

Why do we continue to subsidize Meta when it is not respecting Canadian democracy and when it has been implicated in the most vile expressions, through its algorithms, of anti-Semitic hate, Islamophobic hate, racism, misogyny, and homophobic and transphobic hate?

My final question concerns the agreement with Google.

We know that, with a crisis hitting news media across the country—we saw what happened at TVA—we need the web giants to contribute to our society and to the dissemination of news.

Google is also receiving this subsidy. Given that there is a shortfall between what the government was seeking and what we are receiving under this agreement, are you considering taking the subsidy away from Google? It represents $1 billion for Meta and Google combined, according to the Library of Parliament. The government could give that money to the media, whose job it is to provide news and inform Canadians about what is happening in their communities.