Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[Jason Kint]

Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

Especially over the last decade, what we've seen is that increasing strength and market power. We've tracked it from a dollars' perspective. They're getting sometimes 80% to 90% of the incremental growth in digital advertising. Literally for every $5 billion the market grows, $4 billion may be going to Google and Facebook. Then the question becomes why.

The two companies collect more data than any other companies across the web and across our lives, so they have access to our locations, they have pixels and tags across most of the web. They are constantly able to harvest data and use that data to target advertising, which no individual company can do.

Much of that time it's against consumers' expectations. They don't want to be tracked as they're browsing the web, but it gives market power to Google and Facebook in a very unique way. Google is able to extract more value out of that by controlling much of the design of the web. They have the dominant operating system, the dominant browser, and importantly—and they're under lawsuits for this around the world—they have the most dominant buying and selling platforms for advertising, so on both sides of the market they are also extracting power.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Should we be concerned about this access of power?

[Jason Kint]

Absolutely.

You have a lot of discussion for the downstream harms, and that can be everything from censorship and bias to privacy, to where the actual dollars are going. I think it's across parties. I see it in the U.S., too. Upstream, it's the market power that is the common concern, and that's what needs to be addressed.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

We've heard a couple of times even today that Bill C-18 would affect journalistic independence somehow, that the government would somehow have more influence on news publishers, or Facebook and Google might have some power to direct news operations.

Can you speak to that? From my perspective it's actually the opposite, because this is a bill in which news producers negotiate directly with the tech giants. Government and the tech giants are left out of it. It's purely a business decision.

Can you go into that a little bit?

[Jason Kint]

That would obviously be a huge concern if that existed, but I don't see that at all in the bill, and I didn't see it in Australia, and it didn't play out that way either.

The role of the CRTC is administrative in terms of if it gets to a certain point. More than likely it won't even get to a final arbitration type of deal if it plays out like it did in Australia. It's the threat that compels them to negotiate and use the market indirectly by laterally negotiating or collectively bargaining with the platforms.

It doesn't give Google and Facebook any more power, which is almost comical to argue; they could have more power than they do right now anyway. On the government side, the government has a pretty limited role, and they are in no way dictating rates, and that's where we would be very concerned. It uses the market, and that's what's so elegant about it.

I just really commend that you've built on Australia here and you've improved a few things.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. That's an excellent segue, because we do have the example of Australia. We have this legislation. It's in place. We've seen what's happened, and yet we're still seeing a lot of.... I mean, we heard today that this bill is as likely to kill journalism as save it. But we have an example. We have evidence. I'm wondering why we're seeing all these disaster scenarios going around.

I'm wondering if you could talk to the tactics that some of the tech giants have been using around the world, including in Canada, including in Australia, to disseminate their point of view.

[Jason Kint]

Yes. We've seen that play out in all those areas.

We've seen Google use their actual gatekeeping power to spread that information. On Search and on Gmail, they'll use their gatekeeper choke points to tell consumers and creators that this is going to break the Internet, or that this is going to be bad legislation. That's a problem. We see private forums, closed-door, and Google has something each year called Newsgeist that uses Chatham House rules and is practically off the record. They will actually have sessions. They had a session about Australia, where they had a professor, like you did on Friday, who spread misinformation that was false. It didn't play out the way he said it would in Australia.

That's powerful, and they use significant money. I mean, in the U.S. we've seen almost $100 million reportedly being spent to try to stop our antitrust legislation that has bipartisan agreement in the U.S. The only thing holding it back is being introduced to the floor. They use their power across the market in all sorts of ways.

In the case of Facebook, I'd even say they've used it to avoid having to have their top executives come and testify in front of parliaments and in front of the public, which they did here in Canada and in the U.K., when they were summonsed to come and testify—Mark Zuckerberg and so on.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. I think I have only 30 seconds left.

I'm wondering, Ms. Ageson, if I can ask you about your concerns about eligibility. We heard in our last meeting a suggestion that rather than changing the terms of eligibility, the Canadian government should offer more incentives so that more platforms can come online and become eligible and hire more journalists.

From my perspective as a former journalist, we need more boots on the ground. We need people out there at the meetings, talking to people and digging up the information, not just more people publishing their opinions online. It's a lot cheaper to just publish an opinion. I think that's part of why we've seen a decline in people's assessment of journalism.

I'm wondering what you think of this idea: Keep the eligibility the way it is, but offer more incentives so that small or online organizations can qualify eventually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I am so sorry, Lisa. We've run out of time. We're going to come back, and I'm sure you can follow through on that.

Yes, Mr. Nater.

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

Madam Chair, I think there would be agreement to hear just a brief answer on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, if we keep going over time, you're not going to have enough rounds, guys.

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

I've got extra time, and I do think there's interest to hear that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Listen, I am sure...if Mr. Kint would have enough time to answer when somebody else asks him a question.

I'm sorry about that.

We go now to the Bloc Québécois and Ms. Desbiens for six minutes, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say hello to everyone this morning. I am honoured to be replacing my excellent colleague, Martin Champoux.

Thank you to all our witnesses. Your testimony is always relevant and extremely useful. It is a pleasure to hear your points of view which will help us in our work.

My question is for Ms. Ille, the chief executive officer of APTN. Ms. Ille, I would like to congratulate you yet again on the quality of your network's productions and your immeasurable contribution to our understanding of indigenous topics. This also increases Canadians' and Quebeckers' knowledge, and I am grateful.

You mentioned earlier that Bill C‑18 will also have an impact on broadcasters. That is interesting. The content that you produce is of a wide-ranging nature. Your images, your messages and your content could therefore be found on the platforms of the Internet giants. Actually, this is already happening.

What impact could Bill C‑18 have on your organization's total budget? Would you see an increase in funds? Could you give us an idea of the amount and tell us how this would help you in terms of content quality and your organization's development?

[Monika Ille]

Thank you so much for your kind words for the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. I am most proud. We acknowledge them with pleasure.

It goes without question that we support Bill C‑18.

APTN needs money. Our network is included in basic cable packages, but we need more funds, just like everyone else.

I know that our news content is well received and becoming more and more popular. Over the last year and a half, we realized that people were accessing more and more of our news on our website, www.aptn.ca, or on Facebook. They are doing so in order to get an indigenous perspective on news items that are about indigenous peoples.

As to how APTN will benefit from Bill C‑18, the answer is we don't know. We don't have an agreement in place at the moment and we have not been contacted on the matter. We still don't know if we will be able to negotiate such an agreement. I find that the necessary information that would allow me to answer your question is lacking.

However, the way that the bill has been written does not lead me to believe that indigenous media is being given a prominent spot. I think this is extremely regrettable, especially given the efforts made to pass Bill C‑11, which now recognizes indigenous media. It would be wonderful if Bill C‑18 also recognized indigenous media and was more inclusive of Indigenous peoples rather than merely mentioning at the end that indigenous points of view should be taken into account.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you for your answer. That helps me to understand things a bit better.

It is obvious that we are not able to establish the financial impact that Bill C‑18 will have. However, would you be able to tell the committee that you are fairly certain that you will reap substantial benefits?

[Monika Ille]

I don't know if the benefits will be substantial. In terms of financial impact, I can say that there will be some. It remains to be seen how much and how negotiations will take place.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Do you find the idea of grouping together smaller companies appealing?

[Monika Ille]

That is an excellent question.

I have thought about this a lot.

That could be advantageous. I wonder, however, if a formula will be established for companies. I believe that Ms. Ageson spoke earlier of a fair formula for all. It would be great if there was a formula. Otherwise, if everyone has to fight their corner, we wonder what will be the final outcome.

A lot of questions remain, and I can't provide any answers as to how things will play out. One thing is certain, however, and that is if I can get a positive result for APTN, that would be terrific.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

I now turn to Mr. Ashfield, whose situation is most interesting.

In my riding, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, there are many small local newspapers that have less than two full-time journalists on staff. I think that small newspapers are important because, as Mr. Ashfield stated earlier, they publish news on a more local scale, news that is relevant and meets residents' needs.

Can you tell us about the very real threats that will loom for this type of business if they are not included in Bill C‑18?

[Chris Ashfield]

In Saskatchewan, the outcome would be fairly detrimental to a lot of the smaller publications. The newspaper industry has changed. Most of the work is now being done by the publishers, who are multi-tasking.

In my own operation, I run five newspapers, but each newspaper has anywhere from a part-time reporter to one full-time reporter. Under the current situation, we would not qualify for that. We don't qualify for things like the local journalism initiative fund because we don't have two full-time reporters. Without amending it to allow for smaller operations with perhaps one reporter, or even a part-time reporter, it will have a financial impact on us.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ashfield.

That is what the reporter and editor of Autour de l'Île, an Île d'Orléans newspaper, that some of you may know:...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We are going to have to cut this off at the moment. Thank you very much.

Everybody's getting a little extra 15 seconds, because Mr. Nater set the scene for an extra 15 seconds.

I think you're now over time. You've gone 15 seconds over time.

Before we move on, I have heard from the interpreters that there is a bit of a problem with regard to the microphones of a couple of our witnesses, Mr. Menzies and Ms. Ille.

We would like to have a quick suspension so that we can fix that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think we're ready to resume, and we will now go to Mr. Julian.

Peter, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is so nice to have you with us again.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. It's very compelling testimony.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Ashfield.

I have two relatively quick questions to start.

First, you mentioned a newspaper in Saskatchewan that's been published since 1893. It would be great to know which paper you are referring to.

Second, you mentioned in your testimony that you are presenting what I understood to be a similar position for the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association and the Alberta community newspaper association. Could you confirm that as well, please?