Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe first nation.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Tuesday, May 31, and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 20, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House of Commons order of Thursday, June 23. Members are attending in person in the room, and those attending remotely are using the Zoom application.

For those at home using the Zoom application, please remember that, at the bottom of your screen, there is a little globe icon, and that is your interpretation icon. You can just click it to turn it to the language of your choice.

Those of you who are here in the room know how to use the interpretation.

When you're not speaking, you should be on mute. Please wait until I recognize you by name before you speak. Click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and on mute when you're not speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Thank you.

I am ready to entertain the witnesses who are here today.

For the sake of the witnesses, I would like you to know that you have five minutes for your organization, not per person. You can decide who's going to represent your organization. When we finish listening to the witnesses, we will go to the question and answer period.

The witnesses are, as individuals, Peter Menzies and Hugh Stephens, executive fellow, school of public policy, University of Calgary. We have, from APTN, Monika Ille, chief executive officer. We have, from Digital Content Next, Jason Kint, chief executive officer. We have, from Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, Jeanette Ageson, publisher of The Tyee. From the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association are Chris Ashfield and Steve Nixon.

I will begin with Peter Menzies.

Peter, you have five minutes, please.

[Peter Menzies, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity. For the record, I am appearing as a private citizen and I'm not a member of a political party.

I worked in the newspaper business for close to 30 years and served as a CRTC commissioner for almost 10 years. I am familiar with how things work. I care deeply for good journalism, which, unfettered by favours owed to politicians—no offence to present company—the privileged and the powerful, can play a helpful role in a liberal democracy.

Bad journalism doesn't help.

Others have articulated how and why Bill C-18 inappropriately places the state squarely in the newsrooms of the nation by giving the CRTC oversight of agreements and directing how the money is spent. Others have mentioned how it may prompt retaliatory trade sanctions. Others have explained or will explain to you why the argument made by news organizations to justify this embarrassing liaison between government and media is, to put it kindly, unproven. Were it otherwise, those promoting it would surely not have felt threatened by open debate.

Still others have detailed the problematic issue—practically and legally—of affixing a value to links and then reserving those only for those of whom the government-appointed panels approve, and you will have heard by now how putting a price on links is likely to incent more gossip and less gravitas.

Today I am here to tell you that Bill C-18 is as likely to kill journalism in Canada as it is to save it. The very prospect of it is already perverting news coverage and undermining trust, the commodity upon which the industry depends most. Bill C-18 will permanently entrench the industry's dependency not on the loyalty of citizens, readers and viewers, but upon the good graces of politicians and the ability of offshore, quasi-monopoly tech companies to remain profitable.

As Andrew Coyne, then of the National Post, wrote just four years ago when government was first contemplating financial support for his industry:

The money the government is giving us is not going to solve our problems. It is only going to ensure we put off confronting them. Before long we will be back for more.

And here we are.

The Parliamentary Press Gallery's white paper on values states: “Trust in journalism must be actively earned and maintained”. Yet as illustrated in Edelman's most recent survey, trust in Canada's media has never been lower. Sixty-one per cent of Canadians believe journalists are purposely trying to mislead them while 58% think the same of government. With respect, having those two team up doesn't seem like the best idea.

The more government assistance news media gets, the more broken the relationship with readers becomes. The more that relationship is broken, the more subsidies will be required. And so it goes.

I respectfully submit that it would be a grave error to continue down this path when it is independence that earns and maintains trust. Bill C-18 might keep the wolves from the door of a few legacy companies for a few more years but it won't save journalism, and while the amount of money involved may keep some from starving, it will still leave most hungry, needy and assumed to be grateful.

What Canada needs is a policy framework that encourages the innovation required for journalism to sustain itself. An examination needs to ask why, for instance, the CRTC is creating an artificial oversupply by forcing virtually all its broadcasters to dedicate time to news as if we were still living in a 1980s world of limited resources. We need a strategy that values the efforts of the Canadian entrepreneurs who have built close to 100 new news sites. We need to understand the impact of the government subsidizing the CBC to operate the most accessed news site in the country to the detriment of the rest of the industry.

Broadcasters have for decades complained about the unfairness of having their tax dollars used to subsidize a revenue competitor. That perversion of the market now extends to the online world. While a $1.3-billion subsidy allows the CBC—likely Bill C-18's largest beneficiary—to establish advertising rates that many argue are below market value and offer news for free, others struggle to establish subscriber bases and advertising.

Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.

For instance, while newspapers in Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary will benefit from Bill C-18 money, not one of them directs its own reporter in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, whereas Western Standard, which has declined to submit to government approval, does. There are other examples.

If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies. You've come in just under time. Thank you very much.

Now I'd like to go to Hugh Stephens from the University of Calgary, for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Hugh Stephens, Executive Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would firstly like to thank the committee for inviting me to express my point of view on this important topic.

Good morning.

I'm speaking in an individual capacity. In my comments I will be speaking in support of this bill.

In doing so I would like to address three criticisms that have been brought against it.

The first is that the measures proposed by Bill C-18 to stem the decline in journalism are taking aim at the wrong target, the large digital intermediaries, on the grounds that they do not benefit financially from including news content on their platforms and even if they do, they are already providing some financial support to some media.

The second is that the ambit of the bill is too broad because its definition of “making available” includes some content that would normally be considered fair dealing under the Copyright Act such as links, headlines and snippets.

The third is that if implemented in its current form Bill C-18 would violate Canada's international trade obligations under the Berne Convention and/or the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.

I believe all of these criticisms are inaccurate.

I write a weekly blog on international copyright issues and have noted that a number of governments, in the face of fierce opposition from the platforms, had to resort to legislation in order to level the playing field between news media publishers and the larger intermediaries.

In 2014 both Germany and Spain passed laws requiring Google to pay news producers for use of their content. Google's response in Spain was simply to close down Google News, its news aggregation platform, and in Germany to delist any publisher who refused to give Google access to its content without payment. The EU tackled this issue through the creation of a limited two-year press publishers' right. Google and Facebook have since come to the table and struck deals with publishers for access to news. France has been particularly successful in this regard.

We know that when Australia decided to bell this cat, Google and Facebook mounted a vigorous lobbying campaign and threatened to pull out of Australia. Google also tried, unsuccessfully, to get the U.S. government to intervene. In the face of the legislation, however, the platforms backed down and managed to conclude revenue-sharing agreements with most Australian media outlets.

In the United States, Congress is currently debating the bipartisan journalism competition and preservation act, which seeks to do much of what Bill C-18 is aiming to accomplish. I mention these examples to underline that Bill C-18's objective of helping to preserve a viable professional journalism sector by requiring negotiations for compensation for use of news content by the large digital intermediaries is not unique. In fact, it's very much in the mainstream of what's taking place in a number of western democracies.

Another criticism is that Bill C-18's definition of “making available” is too broad because it includes some actions such as linking to content or featuring headlines or snippets that are normally considered fair dealing under the Copyright Act. It's also been argued that posting hyperlinks provides a benefit to news outlets so why should platforms pay? Indeed, news outlets do derive some benefit from the referral just as the platforms derive benefit from using news content to attract more users and thus sell more ads.

Under Bill C-18 the balance of respective benefits will be worked out in negotiations between the parties. But Bill C-18 does not deny digital platforms their fair dealing rights. Putting it another way, their rights under the Copyright Act are not diminished or changed by Bill C-18. However, it will be a violation of the new act if they do not bargain in good faith with respect to making content available. Use of fair dealing exceptions is not a licence to ignore other laws, whether it be the online news act, defamation laws or any other legislation.

Finally, the criticisms that Bill C-18 will violate Canada's international trade obligations, including the Berne copyright convention and CUSMA, leading to potential trade retaliation from the United States, do not stand up to scrutiny. The legislation is drafted in such a way that it does not target U.S. companies but, rather, companies with certain market characteristics of size and dominance. Likewise, it does not seek to protect Canadian digital intermediaries that compete directly with Google or Facebook. In addition, the section on non-discrimination does not impose any must-carry requirements that could violate CUSMA. In the case of Berne, which contains a right to quotation, nothing in Bill C-18 derogates from the quotation right although, of course, use of quotations from news content providers could be a factor in the bargaining process.

Quite apart from not having a strong legal argument to challenge the bill under either CUSMA or Berne, it is highly unlikely that any government, including the U.S. government, would take up a trade challenge under either CUSMA or the WTO. I would be happy to elaborate on why that is the case, if people are interested.

Let me end my comments there, Madam Chair. I look forward to questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stephens.

I now go to Monika Ille, chief executive officer of APTN.

Ms. Ille, you have five minutes, please.

[Monika Ille, Chief Executive Officer, APTN]

Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee.

[Witness spoke in Abenaki and provided the following text:]

Kwaï! Nd'aliwizi Monika Ille. Aln8ba Sqwa nia odzi Odanak m8wkaw8gan.

[English]

Hello, my name is Monika Ille. I'm an Abenaki from the community of Odanak.

I would add that I am talking to you from Tiohtiá:ke, i.e., Montreal, on the unceded territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka and the Anishinabe peoples, which was traditionally a meeting and trading hub for numerous nations.

I am the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN.

APTN was launched in 1999 and was the world's first indigenous national television network. Our work has amplified indigenous peoples' voices and has changed the Canadian broadcasting landscape.

APTN is made available to all Canadians in the basic package of most cable and satellite services. Each year, we offer hundreds of hours of indigenous programming in English, French and 15 indigenous languages.

In April 2000, APTN launched its first national indigenous newscast. In August 2022, we celebrated the third year of Nouvelles nationales d'APTN, our French-language national newscast.

Our journalists encourage Canadians to have an open dialogue on Canada's history with indigenous peoples. APTN News brings the voices of indigenous peoples to the forefront, conveying stories on climate change, economic development, indigenous language revitalization, indigenous athletes, sports, art, music and how indigenous youth are leading the way to reclaiming their place on our lands. Our newscast covers the stories that others won't.

In the last few years APTN has received numerous journalism awards such as a Michener Award, Canadian Screen Awards and Canadian Association of Journalists awards.

In 2021, for the first time in Canada's history, production of the federal leaders' debate included indigenous media representation. APTN's journalist, Melissa Ridgen, became the first indigenous journalist to represent a national indigenous broadcaster at the televised federal debate. If it wasn't for APTN and other indigenous media, indigenous peoples would be severely under-represented in mainstream media. By bringing these voices to the forefront, indigenous media teaches the public about what it means to be indigenous by sharing our stories of struggle and also of success.

As viewership is migrating to online and as online news consumption is increasing, it is essential that APTN and other indigenous news outlets receive support from dominant digital news intermediaries and that we receive fair compensation for our news content. We support the principle and intent of Bill C-18.

To the extent that we have a concern, it is to ensure that indigenous news media is properly reflected in the bill. For example, clause 11(1) of the bill deals with the types of agreements digital news intermediaries need to reach with the news sector to be exempt from the more formal final offer process. Intentionally or not, it creates a kind of hierarchy of Canadian news services. Diverse news outlets, including those serving indigenous communities, are last.

I suggest we need language in the bill to ensure that any agreements with digital news intermediaries involve a significant portion of indigenous news outlets and meaningfully support their sustainability in the same way the bill supports local news outlets.

Kchi wliwni. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ille.

The next witness is Jason Kint, chief executive officer for Digital Content Next.

Go ahead, Mr. Kint.

[Jason Kint, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Content Next]

Good morning, Chair Fry.

I'm here on behalf of DCN.

DCN is the only trade organization exclusively focused on the digital future, and dedicated to serving the unique and diverse needs of high-quality digital content companies that manage trusted, direct relationships with consumers and advertisers. Our members include more than 60 media companies and thousands of brands, including news organizations, ranging from local to national to international, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Financial Times.

I am pleased to express our full support for Bill C-18, the online news act. As you know, the online news act follows enactment in 2021 of a very similar bill in Australia, the news media bargaining code, which DCN also strongly supported. I closely followed your hearing on Friday, including the testimony of former chair of the Australian competition and consumer commission, Mr. Rod Sims. I believe there's no greater witness in evidence as to the strength of your bill than the experience that's already happened in Australia. At a time when parliaments from around the globe are investigating, and learning from each other on how the duopoly of Google and Facebook have captured nearly all growth in digital advertising, draining the lifeblood of the local news press, it's critical we learn, and then build and improve on each other's work, as you will be doing here by passing Bill C-18.

Recognizing you're already familiar with the details of the bill, I will briefly list what I see as the most important elements, and I'm happy to take any questions on the broader market.

As background, I have nearly 30 years of technical and operating experience in digital media, having spent nearly two decades running highly trusted digital content businesses, even writing code in the early nineties at the advent of the web, before transitioning into my current role, advancing the future for trusted content brands.

I'll now go to Bill C-18.

First, the law will help rebalance bargaining power. Publishers' brands are proxies for trust in value. The inclusion of news content from premium publishers has certainly played a large part in developing the daily search and social media habits of Canadians, allowing Google and Facebook to become dominant gatekeepers. The lack of protection and negotiating rights for the content, coupled with, importantly, nearly unlimited access to the data of the web for microtargeting advertising, has led to a market where publishers and their content have become interchangeable commodities. An expensive and vitally important news report can be reduced to the same value as a copy piece of amateur work or aggregated content.

The online news act will protect a publishers' intellectual property rights, and provide balance in negotiations with online platforms to receive fair compensation, and thus promote a free and plural press.

Second, the bill under consideration relies primarily on the market to determine how and how much publishers should be compensated for their content. This flexible approach allows for diverse publishers to seek deal terms specifically tailored to their business needs. Some start-up publishers may want to forgo revenue in favour of audience reach, while established publishers may want to ensure maximum return for their high-value brands. Thus, we do not support a government role in setting rates for content. The bill's final offer arbitration is an elegant solution to accelerate negotiation towards a fair deal at a time when it may likely determine how many journalists can be employed for the coming year.

Third, the bill applies only to a situation in which there's a significant power imbalance between the news publisher and the intermediary platform. Importantly, the news publisher retains the option of whether it even wants to participate. The dominant platform does not.

Fourth, in no way, shape, or form does this change the structure of the web, or in any way demand payment for links. This is, frankly, misinformation that we spent many late hours rebutting in Australia, as Google and Facebook's favourite advocates suggested the law would break the Internet. Two of these advocates shared commentary to this committee on Friday. Nevertheless, the Internet is still working as well as ever in Australia.

Fifth, this is important, the bill permits publishers to bargain as a group. As I was pleased to learn from Mr. Sims on Friday, the small publishers who collectively bargained in Australia received more payment per journalist than the larger publishers. That's exactly the framework we seek to bring new resources to the local and emerging press media.

In summary, the bill creates a new duty to bargain for intermediary platforms, and it permits publishers to bargain as a group. These two provisions form the linchpin of this bill. We've already seen this work in Australia.

The ability for trusted and valued premium publishers to have an equal playing field is critical to the permanence of Canada's news marketplace, and we at DCN urge the House of Commons to advance this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to Jeanette Ageson, publisher of The Tyee, Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, for five minutes, please.

[Jeanette Ageson, Publisher, The Tyee, Independent Online News Publishers of Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Jeanette Ageson. I am the publisher of the independent online news magazine The Tyee, based in Vancouver. Since 2003, our non-profit newsroom has worked hard to build sustainable revenue to support in-depth public interest journalism. Today, we employ over 20 journalists and media workers.

I am here today not just representing The Tyee, but also to present the concerns of over 100 similar companies.

The independent online news publishers of Canada coalition includes local news outlets, English and French news outlets, indigenous news outlets and news from diverse voices. Collectively, we employ thousands of journalists and reach millions of news readers, viewers and listeners across Canada.

We are the new generation of the online news in Canada, and we have serious concerns about the online news act, a bill that is supposed to exist to benefit organizations just like ours. In May, we came together to publish a joint open letter, which some of you may have read. We are here to ask you to consider amending and strengthening Bill C-18. Our concerns have to do with transparency, fairness, eligibility and the exemption clause.

The first up is transparency. If these deals between big tech and publishers are allowed to remain confidential, it will make it harder for smaller publishers to negotiate fair deals and make worse Canadians’ mistrust in the media.

Canada is facing not one news crisis, but two. One is financial. The other is the crisis of distrust. Canadians are expressing unprecedented distrust towards the news and the reporters who deliver it. Canadians need to know who is funding the news they receive and on what terms. We need to rebuild trust in news, not damage it further.

Allowing deals to remain confidential also puts smaller publishers at a disadvantage in the bargaining process. In the first day of hearings last week, we heard many speakers express concern that smaller publishers who are filling the gaps in communities will be left out. In response, we heard that smaller publishers in Australia are happy with their deals, and that the intention of Canada’s process is to ensure fairness between newsrooms.

While we appreciate the assurances, we see nothing in the legislation that guarantees us the tools we need to achieve and independently verify an equitable outcome. In order to fully participate in this process, we need complete and timely information about the deals between news organizations and tech platforms that they are agreeing to.

Bill C-18 also needs to be amended to ensure fairness. As it currently stands, the intervention into Canada’s journalism industry by big tech is already under way, with some publishers having struck secret deals with the platforms. However, if you are not a newsroom that has been hand-picked by these platforms, it is unclear how one would seek such a deal, what the terms are and what is considered fair compared to other organizations, and we do need legislation to address that.

If nothing is done, Google and Meta will continue to strike uneven deals on a case-by-case basis that favours the largest legacy news publishers, based on formulas they don't have to share or deals based on which news publishers lobby the hardest or criticize tech companies the loudest. Over time, these uneven deals will determine which news organizations survive and which ones die.

Google and Meta cannot be allowed to decide the future of Canada’s journalism industry. We believe a universal funding formula should be applied consistently to all qualifying news organizations, based on how much money each organization spends on editorial costs.

We need to amend Bill C-18 to prevent barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship. We need to help entrepreneurs who have been risking their own money to serve their communities with news and who otherwise will be excluded and penalized because they risked their own money.

If a journalist starts a news company and they do the work of reporting and/or editing, they should be counted towards qualifying criteria. We should be encouraging hundreds more micro newsrooms to fill our news deserts, not disincentivizing people from launching them. Currently, these newsrooms are shut out of Bill C-18.

Finally, Bill C-18 needs to be amended to keep big tech out of our newsrooms. Under Bill C-18, tech companies will receive exemption orders by assuring government that the money they pay to news publishers is being spent properly on news content: on local news, on diverse news and on innovative news. Those are all worthy goals, but let me be clear: Google and Meta should have no role in our newsrooms and no authority to determine or make promises about what kind of news we cover or how we spend the money.

These exemption order conditions represent a fundamental threat to the independence of the Canadian press. They also don't specify whether a tech company must strike deals with three newsrooms or 300 to qualify. Within that uncertainty lies the possibility that hundreds of qualifying news organizations will be shut out. Instead, we ask that exemption orders be removed from Bill C-18 or modified to minimize these potential threats.

Our coalition has prepared a detailed brief containing specific language for these amendments, which should be circulated to each committee member. The stakes for the free press in Canada—and our democracy—could not be higher.

Thank you. I'm prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ageson.

We'll now go to the final witness, the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association.

[Chris Ashfield, President, Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association]

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

Here's a bit of background. I'm a fourth-generation newspaper publisher and the publisher of five community newspapers in southeast and south central Saskatchewan, the oldest of which has been publishing since 1893.

In the more than 100 years that my family has been involved in the newspaper industry, never has it been under such peril. Yes, there have been moments throughout history that challenged our industry, but nothing like we are seeing today.

Steve and I are here today speaking on behalf of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, SWNA. However, the issues are similar in all three Prairie newspaper associations—AWNA, SWNA and MCNA—that represent almost all community newspapers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That's approximately 200 publications. Our memberships range from small, independent ownership to titles owned by Canada's largest newspaper publishers.

Protecting public interest journalism is critical, probably even more so for our smaller remote and rural communities. The importance of locally generated journalism cannot be underestimated. In western Canada—we are sure it is the same in all rural and remote parts of Canada—it is the local newspaper that protects democracy and reports on the current affairs of the community it serves. It is also important to point out that the community newspapers are, in most cases, the only record of history for most of these communities.

Today, we have come to advocate on behalf of the independent newspapers across the Prairies. We believe that it's important to have a good understanding of the existential crisis facing small, independent community newspaper publishers, and that Bill C-18, the preferred solution for large publishers, may do little to address the financial distress of small publishers. Just like Canada's largest media companies, they too have seen the advertising revenues that once supported their newsrooms steadily diminish as revenues get displaced by digital platforms that focus on target marketing strategy. These are primarily Google and Facebook, now known as Meta.

It is important to understand that we do not believe there's a single solution for media, whether it be community newspapers, mainstream media or legacy media, as some have been labelled. We may all do journalism, but our business models are widely different and based completely on what best serves our individual communities, particularly when you consider the challenges presented by the digital revolution.

It is easy to charge that media has failed to transition to digital platforms. It's exceedingly difficult to pull that off in markets of less than national or global scale. In other words, what may work for The Globe and Mail with its national audience is not going to work for most community publishers. They simply do not have the scale or the population to generate much, or any, revenue in the digital world modelled on using clicks. A clicks and eyeballs method of sustainability will not work for small community media.

We cannot overemphasize how serious the situation has become for community journalism. Advertising revenues have declined to the point where most community newspaper publishers are operating with a skeleton staff, leaving the publisher-owner to absorb the extra hours in workloads themselves.

The quality of journalism is suffering because the revenues are no longer there to pay sustainable wages to our reporting journalists. Pandemic supports made the difference between life and death for many publishers at the time. However, they have now been scaled back or eliminated completely, while advertising revenues remain severely depressed. Communities are on the verge of losing their newspapers and with them the coverage of their municipal councils, school boards, sports and cultural events and all the independent local news coverage residents have relied on for decades.

With respect to Bill C-18, we are encouraged by the success of a similar bill in Australia, especially when it comes to the smaller community media. Community journalism is under threat with the digital revolution, yet there is no model for smaller communities to join that will maintain the level of community journalism that is required to protect local democracy and continue to record the history in hundreds of communities across the Prairies.

In closing, we insist that Bill C-18 include provisions that allow for a collective bargaining model for community newspapers, should they deem themselves unable to negotiate on their own.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ashfield.

I want to congratulate all the witnesses. You all came in under five minutes. That was great. That gives us a lot more time for questions.

I'm going to begin the question and answer session. The first round is six minutes for questions and answers. We need to be very clear and try to be as succinct as we can, so we can get in as many questions and answers as we would like to.

I will begin a six-minute round for the Conservatives and John Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today. I thought that was a good swath of information presented by each of the six individuals and organizations represented on today's panel.

I want to start with Mr. Menzies appearing here today.

Mr. Menzies, I see that you're wearing your orange shirt. I would note that at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, the sales from those shirts, I believe, go to the traditional knowledge-keepers program that's operated at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum. I want to note that and the good work that's being done there.

I want to turn to your expertise—30 years in newspapers, 10 years with the CRTC—and it's that CRTC angle that I want to touch on. You appeared before us on Bill C-11. You talked to some of the unintended consequences that might happen with Bill C-11. I'm wondering if you have similar concerns about Bill C-18, some of the unintended consequences that may flow from a bill such as Bill C-18.

[Peter Menzies]

I do. In terms of Bill C-18, the fact that it directs any money from this commercial agreement to have to go to news is certainly well intended, but if this is a commercial transaction between two willing parties, what business does the CRTC or the government have, for that matter, saying how it will be spent? If a news company wants to spend it on new computer equipment or they want to paint the newsroom, they should be free to do that.

The other thing is that the CRTC tends to get bound into certain subject areas that it prefers and it is, again with good intentions perhaps, supposed to promote. If you look at the CBC's recent licence renewal, you can see that in terms of certain designated groups that it's supposed to promote.

All of those have good intentions, but you could end up with companies wishing to please the CRTC or the CRTC feeling pressure to make sure money in newsrooms is spent on certain topics, and they might be good topics, but it's frankly none of their business to have.... An independent press spends its money on whatever it wants.

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

To follow up, you mentioned the CBC licence renewal, and I think we all know the significant length of time it took for that renewal process. We see the government now sending that back to the CRTC to revisit that, but I want to touch on the CRTC's capacity to deliver what is being asked of them in this piece of legislation.

The legislation itself does give the CRTC discretion on different matters. Some of the phrases are “The commission is of the opinion that”, “where the commission considers reasonable”, and these other types of challenges where the CRTC is provided with that discretion.

There are two angles. Do you believe the CRTC has the capacity to actually do what is asked of it? Also, do you think it's appropriate that the CRTC have some of this discretion that is being granted to it within this piece of legislation?

[Peter Menzies]

First of all, the CRTC is going to be a very busy place these days. There's a search on for a new chair. The initial search had to be extended, so the incumbent has been extended for four months. It will take that new chair a year to organize the place the way he or she wants. You have all the stuff from Bill C-11 coming through. I'm not sure if there won't be things coming through from online harms legislation to come soon, and then you have this. It's not an area in which it traditionally has expertise. I would think that we would be better off just for the CRTC's role—if anybody had a role, and it doesn't need to be the CRTC—to confirm that, if you're going to go down this route, both parties are happy with the agreement, end of story.

The terms of it need to be no one's business if it's a purely commercial agreement. If it's a public subsidy, then the terms of it need to be everybody's business. That goes to what Ms. Ageson was saying. We need transparency. Is it a subsidy? If it's a subsidy, then everybody needs to know everything. It looks like a subsidy to me, the way it's structured, because the government is directing how the money should be spent. If it's not a subsidy and it's a commercial agreement, then it's nobody's business.

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

I appreciate that. And that gives a segue to ask a question of Ms. Ageson.

You mentioned in your commentary, as well as in your open letter of May 31, some of the concerns, some of the changes that you thought ought to be considered, including the idea that the threshold may keep out certain start-ups and the basic role that could be dictated by the tech giants in terms of what the funding could be used for.

Do you think there ought to be a clear indication in this piece of legislation that removes that discretion, that ensures that the government or the CRTC or frankly the tech giants, for that matter, are dictating changes, dictating what could and should and ought to happen?

Do you think there should be that clear prohibition within the piece of legislation?

[Jeanette Ageson]

Are you referring to the tech platforms being able to assure the money that they are providing is going towards certain kinds of coverage and editorial expenses?

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

Yes, it's that angle from that side, what happens within the newsrooms, but also from the CRTC and the government's standpoint of who's eligible to even participate in the program to begin with, to ensure there is not that ability to pick and choose who can and cannot participate.

[Jeanette Ageson]

To the first point, I would support removing that provision, that it's up to the tech platforms to assure that money is being spent in a certain way.

I just don't understand how that relationship would exist without there being a further imbalance of power between the publishers and the tech platforms without having to make that information available and without us being able to make good business decisions about how to best run our organizations.

The point about the eligibility is meant to reflect what's actually happening—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Ageson, could you bring this back when you have another question to answer, because Mr. Nater is now 39 seconds over his time.

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

It was a wonderful 39 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It was a wonderful 39 seconds. We agree with that.

We now go to Ms. Hepfner for the Liberals.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to direct my questions to Mr. Kint in the room here.

Thank you very much for your time today. I'm wondering if you can go back to this idea of the imbalance of power and explain how this happens. How do the tech giants like Facebook and Google use their access of power in this marketplace in terms of the editorial decisions they make and the algorithmic decisions they make?

Can you go into that? Is that clear?