Evidence of meeting #43 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was journalism.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I take it that even small publications and broadcasters have benefited from your legislation.
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
There's no doubt about that.
There's a lot of misinformation around. Google has done a deal with everybody who's eligible, and Facebook just about, although there are some weird exceptions.
In terms of the smaller players, in my view, Country Press Australia, which I think has about 180 very small publications—you're talking about a couple of journalists in many of them—got by far the best deal per journalist. Many other small players have deals, organizations you just haven't heard of because we have a lot of new digital natives in Australia, as well as the traditional press. Australian Community Media, of course, got deals with both players.
The smaller media companies have really benefited, and it's enabling them to thrive in a way that they just couldn't before. This is a myth that it's only helped the large players. That's just complete disinformation.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I understand that Australia is currently reviewing its law. What do you see as improvements that could be made?
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
From my point of view, one improvement could be a bit more transparency. I was at the ACCC. Through the ACCC and my own contacts in touch with all the media companies, that's why I'm able to be completely confident that the deals were well over $200 million. They were well over that before the most recent round of deals, which I think someone referred to, but a bit more transparency in aggregate terms about how much money is being paid and where it's going would be helpful, provided it's at an aggregate level and not disclosing individual deals. I think that part of Bill C-18 is very helpful.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
You would look to Bill C-18 as an improvement on your legislation.
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
Look, I haven't been through it line by line, but I think the high-level aspect of transparency—again, provided it's done at an aggregate level—is an improvement, yes.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Do you have any reaction to some of the criticism you've heard from other witnesses this afternoon?
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
Look, I think there are some misunderstandings around. I mean, what's really happened here is that Google and Facebook have interposed themselves between media and their audiences. There's no doubt that Google and Facebook benefit from news media. You don't have to advertise against it to benefit; you just get eyeballs to your site. That's how they make money. They provide free services and make money through targeted advertising. They haven't replaced journalism; they're just destroying journalism. That may be too strong a term, but they're certainly damaging it.
This is about journalism, which is being damaged by Facebook and Google having business models that provide free services to get eyeballs for targeted advertising—extremely lucrative businesses. My point is that, by getting free services, Google and Facebook aren't paying for any content either, and that's the problem. They're taking content, monetizing it and not paying for it.
Liberal
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
It's my fault, I fear.
September 23rd, 2022 / 2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to take this opportunity to thank today's witnesses for participating in this study on Bill C-18. I'm really happy they are joining us today to discuss this bill, which has been highly anticipated by the media back home, print media and media from across Canada.
I will start by turning to Mr. Chartier and Mr. Poisson, from Hebdos Québec. Earlier, I was listening to the opening remarks of Ms. Gerson, who said at the outset that Bill C-18 was predicated on lies—those are her words—and that small media outlets use whatever means available to get money.
I would like you to tell us how the print media sector is doing, especially the media you represent, which are often regional. I would also like you to tell us a bit about those businesses' economic situation, especially in Quebec. I suspect it is quite similar to the situation experienced in the rest of Canada.
Chair of the Board, Hebdos Québec
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
I listened to Ms. Gerson's remarks earlier. She said that all this was based on a lie, which is completely false. I don't understand how someone can say something like that before a parliamentary committee, but that is only my opinion.
The Quebec weekly press is experiencing a critical situation in the face of the social network invasion. Since 2014 or 2015, the sharp erosion of our advertising revenues has had significant repercussions on our newsrooms and on our journalists' health across Quebec.
There are more and more journalistic deserts in a number of regions of Quebec, and I don't think that is a good thing for Canadian and Quebec democracies.
The newspaper I publish has existed for 170 years. My family has worked there for three generations. Over the past four or five years, the situation has been extremely critical for all weekly regional newspapers in Quebec.
For us, Bill C‑18 represents our survival, simply put. If the measures contained in the bill do not come into force in Canada, the survival of Quebec print journalists will be increasingly perilous.
General Manager, Hebdos Québec
Can I add a little something, Mr. Champoux?
General Manager, Hebdos Québec
People use strong words like "lies" and mention video chats and platforms like Discord or Telegram, which attract barely 1% of the social media population, to downplay the influence of Google and Facebook on information, and ultimately, on democracy.
Do you really think, if their influence had not been so strong, that giants like Facebook and Google would have spent so much time and money in all sorts of ways, in recent months and years, to counter our efforts and the passage of Bill C-18?
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Indeed, Mr. Poisson. Thank you.
I now have some questions for you, Professor Sims. You are attending today's meeting by video conference, and it's 4:15 in the morning in Australia. Congratulations on looking so alert, and thank you for being here with us. Your testimony is invaluable.
I don't want to spend too much time on Ms. Gerson's speaking notes, but I feel obliged to say something when she claims that overcharging and placing too many constraints on platforms might lead them to lose interest and decide to purely and simply withdraw the content that they are currently publishing. In the same breath, Ms. Gerson said that this kind of legislation could in the end generate more money for the major news outlets at the expense of the smaller ones.
Professor Sims, you chaired the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Based on your experience, do you agree with this argument?
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
Thank you.
Google and Facebook do need media. There's just no doubt about that. Obviously, Google does more clearly, but Facebook also does. They used to call it News Feed and it's now just called Feed. I think there's an obvious reason why they've changed that name, but they want eyeballs and they need media because people will do searches on both Facebook and Google.
In terms of the size of media, there's just no doubt that the beneficiaries of these sorts of bills are the smaller players. The larger ones that have name recognition can do better on subscriptions. The smaller ones absolutely cannot, so this sort of legislation does help the smaller players disproportionately more, and that has certainly been the Australian experience.
I hope that answers the question.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'd like to continue on this topic, Professor Sims.
One concern that is often mentioned, and that you have already dealt with to some extent, is that some of the smaller media players have more trouble bargaining than the bigger ones. In Australia, were the smaller ones able to bargain individually, or did they have to get together to reach a deal?
Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, As an Individual
Understood, Chair.
Roughly half of them got together and bargained collectively, and the rest have done deals individually. It's been their choice whether they feel they have the capacity, but the really small ones had to bargain collectively. That's worked fine.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Martin. Thank you, Mr. Sims.
I'm now going to go to the next round, which is for the New Democratic Party, with Peter Julian.
Peter, you have six minutes.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all of our witnesses for being here today. These are very important hearings and you've all added substantially to our consideration of Bill C‑18.
Professor Sims, I'd like to go to you first. Thank you for being up at 4 o'clock in the morning in Australia.
You talked in your presentation about the four media giants having signed agreements, and you noted that the medium-sized media companies had for the most part, but not in all cases. Then you said that for smaller media companies there are some agreements with Facebook and Google, but not in all cases. I'd like you to give us more details on that, if you could.
The issue of ensuring that small papers...is something that certainly concerns me. In my area, in New Westminster—Burnaby, we've lost half of the publications over the course of the last few years. It's just been devastating for local community events. We have two cities that collectively are about a third of a million people, so we're not an insignificant market at all, but we've been devastated in a way so many parts of the country have been devastated.
Can you give us some examples of the smaller media players? How much of that $200 million has gone to medium and small players? What would you suggest in terms of improvements to this legislation to ensure that the small community players, the community newspapers and community media, actually fully benefit, as you say has largely happened in Australia?