Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 28th, 2022

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

It's the section under “Eligible news businesses—designation”, clause 27 under the title “Eligibility”.

[Annick Charette]

As I said earlier, we firmly believe that all professional news media should be eligible, no matter their size. Those media that focus on specialized fields, whether economics, arts or culture, should also be eligible. Furthermore, some large media companies have a business section, a section on culture, or a sports section, all of which is considered general information. We can't understand why professional journalists that deal primarily in sports, culture or the economy shouldn't be able to benefit from the agreement as individuals.

We also believe that public broadcasting newsrooms, although there aren't that many, should also be eligible, because they, too, create content. We all pay for the content created by the CBC, for example. If that organization is compensated, then at the end of the day, all Canadians will benefit.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 20 seconds left.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll end there, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. I know that you are here to replace Mr. Julian, but those are big shoes to fill, Mr. MacGregor, and you did it very well. Thank you.

Now I would like to go to the next round. The next round is a five-minute round.

I will begin with Marilyn Gladu for the Conservatives.

You have five minutes, please, Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I'm happy to see my Liberal colleagues beginning to realize that without significant amendments to this bill, we may see some unintended negative consequences, like 22 million Canadians having their content blocked by Meta.

My question is for Mr. Chan. In Australia, when content was blocked and thereafter similar legislation was brought, there were amendments that were requested and put in place. What were those amendments, and what should we be doing to Bill C‑18 in order to prevent that same adverse outcome?

[Kevin Chan]

If I may, I just want to correct the record on a previous round where I was not allowed to answer but I had very clear answers. I think, for the record, it's important for the committee to hear the truth. I've never signed an NDA, just to be clear, so I wouldn't want someone making the opposite claim because that would obviously be inappropriate.

I believe it's fair to say—and the team just wanted me to correct the record—that we did seek an opportunity to appear with committee members and I believe we were told that we should fully expect to be invited. But as everybody will appreciate—and perhaps it's important for me to outline how these things work because not everybody gets the opportunity and the fortune to appear—you obviously can't force your way into a committee; you need to be invited. They're called invitations.

I just wanted to correct the record on those two things.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, that was very clear, to make sure the committee needed to invite and hear what Meta would say.

So what changes do we need to make to Bill C‑18 to make sure we don't have the same consequences as Australia?

[Kevin Chan]

I think there are a number of amendments that we are going to share with the committee in due course.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Will you submit them in writing?

[Kevin Chan]

Yes, we will.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Excellent. That's all I need, then. Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Hatfield. I only have five minutes.

I'm very concerned as well that although the intention of the legislation is to try to protect these smaller news organizations that have missed revenue, the criteria that have been set don't allow anybody with just one journalist or a couple of part-time journalists to participate, and the criteria don't even require the basic standards of journalism—we say in Canada they can self-define—and are focused on general news.

I'm worried that we're going to be excluding, for example, ethnic media. Many times these are mom-and-pop shops or smaller organizations, and they may not be considered general news. Do you share that concern?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes, absolutely. I think the challenge we're seeing is that the criteria set out focus on organizational features: having two journalists or a certain focus to your news. They don't seem to have any examination of the quality of what's being produced: “Are you making great journalism? Are you contributing to the discourse in Canada?”

We think both of those things need to be amended—a bit of tightening in one area and a bit of loosening in the other—in order to get people a result they will actually like.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm also concerned that the government here is now determining who's included and excluded, and rewarding the larger media conglomerates and not the smaller ones that were intended. It certainly doesn't seem to be freedom of expression and freedom of the media.

Would you agree, Mr. Hatfield?

[Matthew Hatfield]

I definitely think there's a concern here. No one wants the government deciding who does good news. That's a scary prospect for anyone who thinks seriously about it.

At the same time, the way they've set this up.... They've forbidden private entities from making those judgments, so they're creating a new system where no one is taking a hard look at whether this is quality content being distributed. That's actually undue interference in the rights of platforms like Meta, Google or others to make those decisions. I think people want to see the most trusted outlets appear fairly high up in their feeds—The National Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Globe and Mail, and so on.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Chan, do you also think this bill is an erosion of freedom of expression in Canada?

[Kevin Chan]

Yes. As I noted earlier, it is challenging when you include within scope, effectively, a toll on links. You are going to end up seeing severe friction on that. That is an erosion of freedom of expression.

I would note, if I may, Ms. Gladu, that the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go through the chair, please, Mr. Chan.

[Kevin Chan]

Madam Chair, I would also note that it is, of course, doubly challenging, because 2022 is the year Canada chairs the Freedom Online Coalition, which is very much for, and supportive of, a free and open Internet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chan.

Ms. Gladu, your time is up. I'm sorry.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Chris Bittle, for the Liberals.

Chris, you have five minutes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

It's shocking that Facebook throws a public temper tantrum to appear before this committee, and then refuses to answer questions unless they're friendly softballs from the Conservatives. I don't know why you didn't just go ahead and have a press conference standing shoulder to shoulder with the Conservatives while you threaten Canadians.

Mr. Dinsdale, you stand here and threaten Canadians—threaten to do what you did in Australia, which is to take away supports and information about vaccines, suicide crisis centres and fire services. You put Australians' lives at risk, and you come here and threaten the same thing to Canadians. It's absolutely shocking. Meta is demonstrating modern-day robber baron tactics, yet you say, “Don't regulate us. We're good corporate actors.”

It truly is amazing to look back at what happened in Australia and—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

There have been times, in this committee, when assumptions like the one Mr. Bittle is making or accusations towards a witness have been made and, as chair, you've ruled them out of order. I'm wondering if you would consider doing the same in this case.