Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[Chris Ashfield]

In respect of your first question, with the publication that's been published since 1893, it's the Whitewood & Grenfell Herald Sun newspaper. It was published as the Whitewood Herald for about 115 years.

Approximately five years ago, I purchased the Grenfell and Broadview newspapers in neighbouring communities and merged them into one, just because of the demographics and the dynamics of the industry. That paper has been publishing since 1893. At the time that I merged them, it was actually the oldest continuing weekly newspaper in the province, meaning that it was the oldest paper that had run under the original name from its start-up.

My family has actually been involved—

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

I'm really sorry to interrupt. I have limited time. It was just a quick question.

My second question was on Manitoba and Alberta.

[Chris Ashfield]

I'm sorry. Manitoba and Alberta have similar concerns, but I'm not actually speaking on behalf of Manitoba or Alberta. However, we do communicate with them, and they do have concerns that are similar to ours.

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

Would it be fair to say that all three community newspaper associations—we certainly heard from the Quebec Community Newspapers Association as well—are in favour of Bill C-18, if there is a guarantee that there will be supports going to the local level and that we have a similar outcome to what happened with Country Press Australia, where 150 community newspapers were supported through that fund?

[Chris Ashfield]

Yes, that is correct.

We are in favour of it, with a few amendments, such as some of the concerns that Jeanette also mentioned with the confidential deals and the fairness and things like that, to make sure that small publications are benefiting from it as well.

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

Thank you. I certainly appreciate that.

I note that with those four community newspaper associations, that represents more than half of all the Conservative members of Parliament. I certainly hope they take that under advisement as well.

My question is for Ms. Ille.

Other committee members have highlighted the importance of APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, and of the quality of their shows. I have had the honour on several occasions of being on APTN's shows to discuss issues such as housing and reconciliation. The network offers tremendous quality, and you do fantastic work.

That being said, do you feel that the issues around indigenous people and indigenous communities are fully outlined in Bill C-18, or would you like to see amendments and improvements that ensure that not only APTN but also other indigenous broadcasters and indigenous publications...that there are going to be the supports we're all hoping for to bolster that sector?

[Monika Ille]

Definitely. There needs to be a recognition of indigenous news organizations within the bill. The way it's drafted, we're just included in a large...and the idea of diversity is at the way end.

What we bring is often underestimated in the news industry. By telling the stories our way, we bring stories at another level. We push them further, and we often put them into context so that non-indigenous people understand our struggles and our issues.

We would hope that this bill would be in compliance with UNDRIP, article 16, which says that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages..”.

APTN has been consulted, and we've shared our concerns. Canadian Heritage has told us that they are looking into this and they want to find a solution. They definitely want to be more inclusive of indigenous media organizations and that it complies with UNDRIP as well.

I know that's been shared, and I hope to see that.

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

Thank you. If you could share any information that you have specifically addressing amendments with the committee, that would be appreciated.

Thank you for that.

I'll move over to Madame Ageson.

You've been very clear on the exemption orders and very clear on ensuring clear benefit to smaller news organizations.

You've also talked about the importance of transparency. Could you elaborate a bit more about what you would like to see changed in the bill to ensure that transparency?

[Jeanette Ageson]

Certainly, and a lot of this has to do with the CRTC acting as the arbitrator, and it has to do with regulations that I don't think we've seen fully yet. Instead of relying on the judgment of the arbitrator, we would like access to complete and timely information so that we can make our own assessment of whether we are getting a fair deal that is commensurate with what some of the larger publishers with more bargaining power have access to.

I understand that the collective bargaining process is meant to achieve this, but from what I understand, that means it's only if you are within a bargaining unit that you will get access to information about what is being negotiated for the publishers. For various reasons, we may want to create separate bargaining units, so what we're asking for is the ability for publishers to have access to information between bargaining units.

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

You of course have mentioned the issue of the two employees, of freelancers part time, as Saskatchewan has as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I have given you a bit of leeway. I am sorry, but you have come to the end of your time.

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

Thank you for the extra 35 seconds, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You've been given the Nater extension.

Now we're going to go to the second round. This is a five-minute round. It's going to start with the Conservatives.

Ms. Thomas, you have five minutes, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

My first question here goes to Mr. Menzies.

First off, I just want to thank you so much for taking the time to be here with us today to shed light on this piece of legislation.

In April, you wrote an article about Bill C-18. You said:

...this is legislation that was initiated at the request of poverty-stricken newspaper publishers and wound up being, to put it kindly, the world's most audacious attempt to pick the deep pockets of online entities.

We often hear the government justify exerting more control over the Canadian media in order to create a level playing field. In your opinion, I would be curious as to whether or not Bill C-18 actually creates a level playing field. Or does it pick winners and losers? What would your response be to that?

[Peter Menzies]

The point I was trying to make here really is that the current playing field is not level. It perpetuates an unlevel playing field. Really, what Canada needs.... Bill C-18, very broadly, is a reaction to a particular situation. It's not part of a broader policy framework, which is what the country needs in order to get through a period of transition. Maybe it's part of it. Maybe it isn't, but the current playing field is not level.

The CBC gets subsidized. It's fine to have a public broadcaster that's subsidized, but if you're going to have it compete commercially with everybody else in a world in which news has moved and will be inevitably entirely online, that's not helpful. The CRTC plays a role as well.

This, on its own, is not going to help. It's going to create, as I tried to say, more mistrust, and it's not going to end well.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

I want to pick up on something that Mr. Kint said. He said that this will not demand in any way “payment for links”. However, when asked on CTV's Evan Solomon show, the minister, Minister Rodriguez, actually said the following:

Because there's a value to that. If you click on the link and go to the news, there's a value...”.

He was asked with regard to the commodification of links, and the minister seems to be confirming that in fact there is a value that can be attributed to that.

Now, you've written extensively on this, Mr. Menzies, in terms of the harm or the danger of going in this direction. I'm wondering if you would care to elaborate on that.

[Peter Menzies]

Well, I think if you get into, first of all, links, I don't understand how there can be a value to links, particularly given, albeit a different situation, that the Supreme Court has already spoken on that—that there isn't a value to links—and then you reserve it only for newspaper links. I mean, why don't I get paid per tweet, right? Why don't I get paid every time I post of a picture of my grandchildren on Facebook? Why don't I get paid for my links? This sort of reserving it for this area is not a good idea.

The other thing is that links themselves don't necessarily create the best long-term behaviours for media. Media build their integrity one story at a time, but not by one story. If you create a situation where they're earning revenue by the amount of linkage they can get, or clicks, you're incenting rash judgment, I believe, in newsrooms. Newsrooms maintain their integrity by being trustworthy over a long period of time. If you're incenting behaviour that creates untrustworthy behaviour in the short term, it's not helpful.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Menzies, you've suggested that Bill C-18 will actually inhibit journalistic independence and will actually make newsrooms more partisan in nature, which is part of what you're talking about right now. It's that trust and accurate reporting.

I'm wondering how you see this playing out.

[Peter Menzies]

I'm not sure it will make them more partisan. It will make them be seen to be more partisan. Once you're dependent on somebody other than yourself, whether you're dependent on Facebook, on Google, or on the government in power.... Let's face it, governments do change and the people who today think the media is toadying up to the Liberal government will at some point in the future believe that they're toadying up to somebody else.

It doesn't really matter whether they are or not. What matters is that people won't believe them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

We've gone over time here and I'm not extending the Nater extension to the second round. Thank you.

Now we have Michael Coteau for the Liberals.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses joining us here today.

I'm going to ask Mr. Kint if he has any response to Mr. Menzies' comments.

[Jason Kint]

“Links” is an exhausting, tiring talking point that's been fed, in particular, by Google. The word “links” doesn't appear anywhere in the bill.

What matters here, and it mattered in Australia, is that the entire legislation is built off the imbalance in bargaining power that exists. That's what it's anchored on. Yes, in the multi-year investigation Australia did and the U.K. has done, etc., they describe that platform power. In it, it's mentioned that they provide access to content, but the idea that any payment for links is dictated is just hogwash.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'd like to ask some questions of the CEO of APTN.

Ms. Ille, specifically around the relationships between the big tech giants and an organization like APTN, do you currently have a relationship with the big tech giants?

[Monika Ille]

We have no relationship with Facebook or Google, but we do have a relationship with YouTube.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

How do you feel about these deals that have been put forward by big tech giants and other publications? Does it feel like it's not a balanced approach to what's currently happening?