Evidence of meeting #52 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 journalism.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Kitt.
I have about 40 seconds left to ask Mr. Owen a question.
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Owen, you and others have talked about how you would like agreements to be publicly disclosed. We've heard a lot about it. However, in the business world, people don't generally share that kind of information in such a carefree manner. Agreements are usually quite confidential. That's precisely why there are agreements to that effect.
How would knowing the results of other negotiations serve the news organizations that have to negotiate? Won't that cause tension at some point?
I know it took a while to ask my question. Can you answer me in a few seconds?
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I wonder if Mr. Owen can answer that question when he gets another chance, because we're over time.
Peter Julian might be so kind as to do that.
Peter, you're next up for the NDP for six minutes, please.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all of our witnesses for coming forward today.
Mr. Kitt, I would like to start with you.
Mr. Waugh took about about a third of his question period for a statement. I would like to preface my questions with a statement coming from the National Post. It's an editorial from this morning that talked about the threats by Meta to withdraw services, similar to what we saw in Australia.
The National Post editorial said, “the Conservative members of the [heritage] committee did a disservice to their constituents, and Canadian democracy as a whole, by giving far too much deference to a company using fear tactics to try to escape its obligations to the media companies it has spent years siphoning revenues from.”
Mr. Kitt, my question for you is, first, how important is it that we push back against these fear tactics? Second, you raised issues around inclusivity, accountability and transparency. The question I would ask on that side is to what extent the bill needs to be improved to ensure this is present—particularly the accountability and transparency—at all levels.
1:50 p.m.
Media Sector Director, Unifor
I think we saw Facebook try to flex its muscle in Australia, and we saw how that ended up for them. This is exactly why we're in this position, because these companies have so much marketplace power and it just shows the abuse of power that has to be stopped. Bill C-18, I think, is one step toward levelling the playing field.
As for inclusivity, I want to touch on Michael Geist's comment on why broadcasters should get contributions, because we applaud the government for making this bill platform-agnostic. Journalism is journalism, whether it's print, digital or in a podcast or a broadcast. It's simply a matter of bandwidth. Print journalism was affected first, and now that the Internet can easily handle video on all the networks, broadcast is equally effective. Facebook and Google profit from broadcast news, just the same as print journalism, so they should also be included.
Everybody loves to hate the big telcos, Bell, Rogers and Québecor, but they employ a lot of journalists. Those journalists tell our stories, so not including them would be a disservice. This is about fixing the entire ecosystem, and that includes players big and small.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
When you reference inclusivity, you're talking about a broadening of the definition so that local valid community news outlets can actually be part of this solution.
1:50 p.m.
Media Sector Director, Unifor
Exactly. I don't think Unifor is saying who should be included. The QCJO designation sets out the great standards, and the CRTC is also going to have some leeway to allow for inclusivity.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks so much, Mr. Kitt.
I'd like to move to Dr. Owen now.
The question is again on these threats from Meta that have been decried far and wide, and how important it is to push back against the threats.
My second question for you—and I think I have an accurate quote—is about your reference to ensuring that they don't increase false or misleading sources, and about how the bill has to ensure that. The quote I have from you is this: “Clarity around non-discrimination is a fairly easy fix.” Can you clarify what you see as the fix when we're looking at false or misleading sources, particularly from the far right, as we've seen with the rise of far-right disinformation? How do we ensure in the bill that we get that right?
1:50 p.m.
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
Thank you for your questions.
On the easy fix, I think that in clause 51 a sentence can just be added about how the indexing and ranking of variable news through the usual course of search engine optimization should not being considered unreasonable advantage. I think it's a bit of a straw man there that we can fix quite easily.
On Facebook Australia, I know this committee has discussed what happened there in some detail, so I don't think it's worth recounting, but I just want to correct one statement that was just made, which was that Facebook threatened to turn off news in Australia. I actually think they won in some respects. They got some fairly significant concessions in that bill, so I think it's worth just observing the power that they exerted and that the internally stated goals—which we now know about from the whistle-blowers' report—were achieved. It was an exertion of power, but it was also a meaningful outcome on their part.
Coming back to the question about exemption criteria, those are actually what differentiates the Canadian approach, I think, from the Australian one. When you have a very binary view of designation, as there was in Australia, there is a lot of leeway—
1:55 p.m.
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
—in the criteria that platforms could use to not be designated or exempted. That's going to be much more difficult here because there are specific criteria they have to meet, and they have to report against those criteria to the regulator. They will be adjudicated on that basis, perhaps even in a public hearing of some sort.
I think that protects us to a certain degree from that kind of behaviour, but I do think the threat is real and, in my view, egregious.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
Peter, that's it. That was a nice try, though.
Now we're going to go to the second round, which is a five-minute round. Again, please try to be as clear and concise as possible with your questions and your answers. Thank you.
We're going to go to Marilyn Gladu for the Conservative Party.
You have five minutes. Please go ahead.
November 4th, 2022 / 1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
Obviously, the goal of Bill C-18 is to try to protect these smaller, local media outlets that have been under such attack and diminished, and I support that. I just don't think this bill is actually going to achieve it, especially when I hear that Bell, CBC and Rogers are going to end up with three quarters of the money.
I sort of liked Mr. Kitt's initial idea. He said he thought at the beginning that the government should levy a fee on the large ones and put it into a news fund. You could have the journalists across the country figure out who gets what.
Mr. Kitt, expanding on that, do you think that would be better than what we have today? If you don't agree, then how do we address making sure that all the small and local folks are included? Do you have to have two journalists, minimum? Do we drop the general news focus so that ethnic and diverse media can be included? What would you suggest?
1:55 p.m.
Media Sector Director, Unifor
As I think another witness said already, there's no one-stop solution to the fundamental problems that journalism is facing right now.
Yes, a news fund, I think, is a great idea. I think the Public Policy Forum is working on a proposal to expand the LJI news fund to also include philanthropy and other governments chipping in. That's a fund that folks could work from. That's coming up in two years.
On Bill C-18, we proposed, by the way, a hybrid model at one point. I think a news fund is a great idea. I think Bill C-18 addresses a lot of our issues. As I said, the CRTC will deal with eligibility. I think the government has given them a directive on that.
Bill C-18 is one step. We have to get this passed because these news outlets are bleeding money, and that's broadcast and print.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I do take your point, Mr. Kitt.
Can I ask just one question? Is the QCJO definition of a qualified journalism organization better to use than, for example, the list of journalistic organizations found in the Income Tax Act?
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Okay, thank you.
I'll go next to Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen, did you have any consultations with the office or the department of the Minister of Heritage before you appeared in front of us today?
1:55 p.m.
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
No, not about this in particular.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I was surprised to see your name on the list, because you have received direct funding from them. Over the last number of years, you've received thousands of dollars for your organization. Do you not think it's a bit of a conflict of interest for you to appear on the minister's bill?
1:55 p.m.
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
I'm not sure I appreciate the tone of that, frankly.
My research institution at the university has received funding through the digital citizen initiative, as have hundreds of organizations across the country. If none of those organizations are capable of speaking to a bill on which they have academic expertise, then I think our public policy debate is greatly diminished in this country.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
Maria, I liked the idea of changing the definition to make sure that we can include all the ethnic publishers coming in. Do you have a recommendation for wording that you'd like to see in the bill?
2 p.m.
Executive Director, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada
The thing to acknowledge is that the only difference between us and official-language media is that we traditionally write and report in a third language.
A very important thing to consider here is changing the owner-operator journalist to be part of that qualification. That is going to be huge. A lot of our outlets are mom-and-pops.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I appreciate that. I think that's good.
Mr. Geist, I'm concerned when I hear that there's a constitutional problem with the DNI definition that we have—