Evidence of meeting #47 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 c-18.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Is the non-disclosure agreement part of that mutually agreed term?
12:25 p.m.
Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
It's a part of most commercial agreements, as I understand.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Without asking you for details about how much each news producer is getting, can you tell us how Google decides how much each organization will get?
12:25 p.m.
Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
We don't make that decision. We talk to each organization about the package that would be included in an agreement that would help them address their challenges as a news organization. That includes the level of revenue exchange, I guess you would say, but also programming, technical support and other elements.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
With these agreements that are already in place—I understand they are two- or three-year agreements—would Google be prepared to renew all of those agreements if Bill C-18 does not pass in the House of Commons?
12:25 p.m.
Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
We've been negotiating these agreements since striking these partnerships with journalism organizations, since before Bill C-18 was introduced. It's a reality of the journalism industry in Canada and globally. We remain partners and we're committed to the success of journalism.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you for that.
I'll go over to Mr. Scott.
I appreciated, in your opening statement, your reframing the argument to a public interest perspective rather than the public versus the tech giants. You said that the revenue has to go towards the production of news. Tell us how you see that best happening. How can we best ensure that extra revenue from Google and Facebook would go towards the production of news?
That's for Mr. Scott, with Reset. Thanks.
12:25 p.m.
Director, Reset
I think you can bake that into the criteria reviewed by the regulator when they look at the deals and make sure the companies receiving these commercial agreements can demonstrate that they're putting money into the production of news. I think most publishers would be very happy to do that, because that's what they want to be doing with the money.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you.
I'll go to Mr. Kevin Desjardins.
We've been talking about how, under the QCJO requirements, an organization should have two journalists. What do you think about that? Do you agree that we need more journalists and that anything that will promote and help organizations to hire more journalists is a good thing? Do we maybe need more support so the smaller organizations can hire more journalists and so that overall we have more journalists in Canada?
12:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters
Thank you. I appreciate the question.
I think that bar of two journalists is a pretty low bar. I respect the fact that there are small publishers of community papers, say, that may have a struggle in some ways, but I think the point is that there are probably a lot of people who are used as freelancers, stringers and whatnot, and maybe for some of those organizations it motivates them to bring those people on as full-time employees.
If that's a piece of the legislation that motivates getting more journalists employed in newsrooms, then I think that's a good thing, rather than us trying to bend ourselves backwards into a pretzel to figure out a way to make sure that certain newsrooms are allowed to continue to use part-timers, stringers, volunteers or what have you. I think two is a pretty low number, and I think the hiring of more journalists in newsrooms is something we should be encouraging.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Do we need more support from the Canadian government as well to make that happen, like the local journalism initiative, for example? Do we need to add to those programs to be able to help more news organizations qualify for this new structure?
12:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters
I think one of the themes that came up through some of the discussions today is the fact that people are pointing to a number of different initiatives.
I would say that Bill C-18 is something that can really help us in moving forward and in helping to keep journalism sustainable and vital, but it's not the only thing. There have to be a number of different things that are working together.
We've put some things into our pre-budget submission in terms of addressing the way that advertising tax exemptions are managed. There are a lot of different things out there. Cal, from CHCH, mentioned the independent local news fund. All of these things have to work together, and I don't think there is a single solution.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Thank you, Mr. Desjardins.
Thank you, Ms. Hepfner. Your speaking time is up.
We have time to do a third round of questions. We will start with the Conservative Party.
Ms. Thomas, the floor is yours for five minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
Chair, just on a point of clarification, I'm up in this next round, but my colleague Marilyn is also up for questions and she hasn't had a chance to go yet. I just want to make sure we're going to get to her.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Perfect. Thank you.
I have a couple of quick comments that I'll state for the record.
Mr. Desjardins, I believe the point you were making with regard to employees.... You were saying that two is a “low bar” and that it's no problem and should be expected.
I would just highlight, for those who might be reading this material or listening to this, that that is actually a rather privileged position. Nothing says that two journalists working full time equals good journalism. If that is in fact the goal of this legislation—to continue to support good journalism—then there is no reason we should have a bar of two journalists. Instead, the criterion should in fact be good journalism. I would just like to highlight that for the benefit of anyone who might be watching.
Mr. Coteau insinuated that there is this secret deal that has taken place between Google and media sources. He insinuated that we therefore need Bill C-18 in order to help prevent that. I would like to expose that actually Bill C-18 doesn't require any transparency. In fact, it perpetuates secrecy. All of these negotiations can be had behind closed doors, and the results of these negotiations don't have to be made public. Let's be very clear about that.
My question is for Google, which of course is Mr. McKay, who is here at the table today. My question for him is this. Publishers used to use newsstands in order to have their newspapers displayed or magazines displayed—
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Just a moment, Ms. Thomas. Mr. Coteau has a point of order.
You have the floor, Mr. Coteau.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to make it very clear that my question specifically to Mr. McKay was around his relationship—or Google's relationship, I should say—with publishers. That was the questioning. The member opposite just said that I said we needed Bill C-18 to open up this transparency. I never made that statement, so maybe she could correct her record.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
My question for you, Mr. McKay, is this. Publishers used to use newsstands. Magazines and newspapers would have an opportunity to be sold through these newsstands. We know that those publishers would actually pay the newsstands in order to make those available. Today in modern society, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., function as those newsstands, making access readily available.
Again, if this bill is about access, if it's about making news readily available to Canadians, if it's about the public good, then I have questions with regard to that. I'm wondering to what extent this bill will actually ensure that that is the case versus to what extent it will stifle the opportunity that Canadians have to be able to access a plethora of sources, rather than just a select few that happen to be able to enter into negotiations.
Mr. McKay, do you care to comment?
12:35 p.m.
Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
Thank you very much for the question.
As it stands, Canadians come to Google Search to seek an answer to a question. We provide them with multiple trustworthy and authoritative sources. They are presented in order of relevance and then trustworthiness and quality of information. That includes many Canadian publications. It also includes many other Canadian sites.
The challenge I identified in my opening remarks is that this legislation contains terms that would create an imbalance in the relationship between Canadian media and the presentation of information fairly in Google Search. It would incentivize, in some cases, misinformation and clickbait that may not be generated by the sort of journalism organizations this legislation is meant to support and help grow.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you. I think that's a good point. While the intent might be good, to help facilitate journalism, to help make sure Canadians are given access to news, to ensure that the public good is protected—I can get behind those ideals—this legislation actually appears to do the exact opposite, which is the point you've raised here today.
My next question is this. If a news source, a publisher, doesn't want Twitter or Facebook or Google to be able to promote their site or provide a link, they have the ability to opt out—but they don't. They don't opt out. They seem to be benefiting, then, from these platforms that are perpetuating their links. Otherwise, why stay in?
Do you care to comment?
12:35 p.m.
Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
There very definitely is a value to any site, including publishers and journalists, making their content available on search and on other services. There is also an opportunity, as Mr. Myles identified, for them to handle those information seekers and those users to convert them into readers and into subscribers as soon as they land on their website.
We are, in effect, providing that newsstand service, but at no cost and with immediate response and relevancy to Canadians.