Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Champoux.

I'm going to Peter Julian for two and a half minutes.

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

Thanks.

Mr. Singer, I would like to come back to what we were talking about a few minutes ago, hate and disinformation.

We have seen Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter and the deliberate promotion by him of appalling disinformation around the attack on Speaker Pelosi's husband. We have had criticisms levied against big tech for their refusal to act promptly to counter disinformation. I wanted to see if you had any comments about that growing disinformation coming from big tech.

Also, there's the other side, which is having responsible journalism. We have the crazed extremism of Fox News and we counter that with the kind of journalistic integrity, for example, that comes from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is often opposed by extremists.

To what extent does the JCPA cover public broadcasting like PBS in the United States? To what extent do you feel it's important that public broadcasting be covered by an approach, for example, like Bill C-18 that helps to counterbalance this crazed extremism we see from Fox News and the deliberate disinformation that we're seeing from Elon Musk's Twitter and from other big tech companies that seem to profit from the engagement that comes from this disinformation?

[Dr. Hal Singer]

What I want to say first is that I'm a defender of big tech's freedom to engage in content moderation and particularly when it comes to keeping anti-Semitism or inflammatory violence.... Hopefully, we could agree that any comments that incite violence should be under the domain of the platform and they should have the free rights to restrict and to engage in content moderation. I don't think that the JCPA at least infringes on their ability to do so. But in terms of the effect on broadcasters, I think you have a similar power imbalance where broadcasters are not being paid fair market value.

Interestingly, I would point out that broadcasters in the U.S. version of the bill did not want the same protections as the newspapers, and so the bill in the U.S. is written in such a way as to give them some mild protection, but they don't have this binding arbitration, baseball style arbitration, in which someone could actually compel a negotiation and compel a final payment to be made. That doesn't apply to the broadcasters, at least in the U.S. version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Peter. You were right on time.

I'm going to the Conservatives for five minutes.

Ms. Thomas, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, before I start my time, I would like to ask a question on behalf of the committee.

Looking at the clock, I'm curious if you would entertain the idea of finishing this current round of questions and then giving 2.5 minutes to each party to ask subsequent questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I will put that question after this round. Thank you.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

What I'm hearing at the table from the Liberal members and from Mr. Singer is that big tech is bad, and therefore, big tech should pay and somehow this equals quality journalism in Canada. That is what is being argued at this table.

Ms. Gardner, would you care to comment?

[Sue Gardner]

I do agree that a lot has been brought into the room today that is not germane to Bill C-18, and is not about news organizations and their relationship with news disseminating platforms.

I think we all agree, presumably, that there are many reasons to be critical of big tech. Those do include the algorithmic amplification of inflammatory material. I think that is something that the House is intending to grapple with through online harms legislation. That's a really important issue.

I'm on the board of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. That is what we track: anti-Semitism and hate of various kinds, and racism in Canada, including what's disseminated by the platforms. It's an important issue. I don't want to diminish or make fun of the importance of the issue.

I think your instinct is correct. There's an anti-big tech sentiment increasingly over the past, let's say, five years and it makes big tech a convenient target. I think that is some of what is happening here.

Big tech has a lot of money. I think it's perfectly reasonable to impose taxes upon big tech and, as I said, use that to fund journalism, but personally, I could live without the moral judgment because I don't think it's appropriate.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Ms. Gardner, it seems that, if we want quality journalism, then we have to allow for there to be innovation to take place within the news space.

Does this legislation facilitate greater creativity and innovation?

[Sue Gardner]

The people who are doing the creativity and innovation right now don't think so, and I think that their perspectives are probably correct, because they are the folks doing that work.

From my perspective, this bill will reward organizations that have deal-making capacity and employ lawyers and business development people, and it will reward organizations that have lobbying power and presence in Ottawa, and the little organizations definitely don't have that. They spend all of their time trying to innovate their product and sort of tweak it so that people like it more and so that they are more likely to pay a subscription for it or sign up on Patreon or whatever model the organization is using.

One thing I can tell you as someone who has run news organizations is that the more business models you have, the more complicated your life is; the more masters you have to serve and the more expertise you have to develop. When I was running the Wikimedia Foundation, we experimented with multiple business models for two years and then we doubled down on the one that was working, which was ordinary people giving us donations because they wanted to.

It's not, I don't think, a great idea to try to get start-ups to be in the business of not just pleasing their audiences and aiming, presumably, for user pay in many circumstances but getting good at negotiating with Google and Facebook and coordinating with other entities to do that and also to get good at government through local journalism funds and whatever other mechanisms the government has. That's another stakeholder and another revenue generation area.

That is a lot of complexity for something that is really small when the person doing business development is also writing the news and maintaining the website.

I think it will be bad for innovation, and I think innovation is badly needed. What we want ideally is a sustainable journalism industry, and to get there, you have to innovate.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Gardner.

Mr. Palmer, comments were made by Mr. Singer around.... There seemed to be this claim that there were these two pots of money, which again points to his misunderstanding of this legislation. He pointed to the fact that newspapers are going to be able to apply for money but then other news outlets will be able to apply for money. That's not the case. Within this bill, there are not two pots of money. There's only one pot of money and, indeed, you will have smaller newspapers competing against larger organizations like Bell.

We've heard from two different individuals who came before this committee, one representing Alberta newspapers and one representing Saskatchewan weekly newspapers. Alberta newspapers said that, within that province, 50% of newspapers would not be eligible because they don't have two or more full-time journalists. Then, with regard to Saskatchewan, he said that 80% would not be eligible because they do not have two or more journalists.

If the point of this bill is truly to protect local newspapers, will it accomplish that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I don't think we have time for the answer, Ms. Thomas. We have moved on in your time.

Now I'm going to the Liberals for five minutes.

We have Lisa Hepfner, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Singer, let's pick up on that line of questioning. Can you see anything in Bill C-18 or in your American equivalent, the JCPA, that would stifle innovation in news?

[Dr. Hal Singer]

No, nothing would stifle innovation.

If you can figure out a way to infuse newsrooms with new-found money, it should do the opposite. It should grow innovation, and it's going to do so by inducing them to invest in journalism.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Would you agree that, when you encourage organizations to hire more journalists, and you have more journalists on the ground, in the newsrooms, in the city halls, in the court rooms and on the street talking to people and collecting information, you do end up with more good journalism because you have more journalists going through the training?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Or you have to qualify initially.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Chair, I'm being interrupted by the member across the table. Maybe she could keep her voice down and whisper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry.

Can you please move on, Ms. Hepfner? I would ask people to keep their voices down and be respectful to other speakers and witnesses.

Thank you.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Sir, do you agree that more journalists and creating an environment to have more journalists working leads to more good journalism?

[Dr. Hal Singer]

Of course. It leads to more journalism, more democracy, greater innovation—all good things.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Explain why a funding formula wouldn't be the best way to tackle the market imbalance and the risk to democracy that we face right now.

[Dr. Hal Singer]

Well, I think a funding formula is the best way. It's the most efficient way. I mean, the alternative is what I think Ms. Gardner was saying, that we should have taxpayers step in to fix the problem that's being caused by the platforms, and I respectfully disagree.

If you can calculate the appropriation of value that news publishers are bringing to the table by the platforms, it ought to be incumbent on the platforms to pay that value, what would be paid in a fair market, voluntary transaction absent the power imbalance. I do think that a structured bargaining with one pot of money for news publishers.... Somebody said before that I said there were going to be two pots. I was talking about a different pot for broadcasters. So, one pot for news publishers—everyone's in it together—is the best way to tackle this problem.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, sir. There's a lot of confusion on the other side of this table.

You have—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Ms. Thomas is again.... There are outbursts in the room, which is kind of shocking, because she is the first person to jump up and demand respect, but she is the last person to give it to any member of this committee. It's really become shocking to the point of absurdity that this MP continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with Facebook and laughs at anyone who would suggest otherwise, Madam Chair. It's truly disgusting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

I would kindly ask all members of the committee to be respectful of each other when they're speaking and to be respectful of the witnesses when they're speaking. You will have your turn, and when you have your turn, you can say what you wish. Thank you very much.

Carry on, Ms. Hepfner. I stopped the clock, by the way.