Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 4th, 2022

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Yes. My view would be that the CBC should be excluded from the process altogether. The legislation already recognizes the need for regulations to include them, so I would say, for example, that they would only be eligible if regulations are established, at a minimum. That is one way to try to address that part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Dr. Geist.

Dr. Owen does not have any opportunity to answer that question because we have gone over time.

I would again ask witnesses and questioners to please be as concise as you can so everybody can have input. Thank you very much.

Now I'm going to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux for two and a half minutes, please.

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to go back to what I was discussing with Mr. Owen earlier, which is the transparency requested by several organizations. I'm talking about disclosure of the content of agreements. I understand that there are several benefits to this request. Mr. Owen had started talking about them earlier. I, for one, am not convinced that the big media companies and groups that have banded together to negotiate with the web giants would have much to gain from disclosing the content of their agreements.

Don't you think there's a competition issue in there that might make them a little skittish about disclosing that information?

[Dr. Taylor Owen]

It depends what they are being asked to share and with whom. If it's with the public, I think we have seen that there is clear hesitation to share the nature of these commercial arrangements between private actors. I think that's a very legitimate position for them to take at the moment.

The question for me on transparency.... Professor Geist is right. Transparency gets thrown around. It's this universal good. Let's just make it transparent, and then it will be okay. I don't think that's the case. I think there are very particular reasons and objectives for wanting different types of transparency in this policy.

I, for one, think that the public should have a maximum legal view into the nature of these deals. That's part of the reporting process that I think should be more regular, more expansive and spelled out in legislation rather than left purely to regulation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In your opinion, would it be possible or conceivable to designate a body to whom all facets of an agreement could be disclosed so it could judge whether it's fair compared to what is generally being done in the industry?

[Dr. Taylor Owen]

Yes, that's the second piece, I think, the second objective. The first is public accountability, so we should all, as the public who consumes this journalism, get some access into the nature of the funding agreements, but the arbitrator who is deciding the outcomes of these negotiations and these deals needs a far greater view into their detail. I don't think there are commercial prerogatives that would limit the sharing of that data to a regulator.

A third piece that I think is really important here is that the individual publishers themselves would benefit from a greater degree of transparency over the deals that others have received, because, when we talk about the independent publishers in particular right now, they are at a real disadvantage. Publishers who have not reached deals do not know what other companies have gotten, and it allows the publishers to be played off each other. Some degree of visibility into those deals will substantially increase the equity of what everyone enters into.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Owen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Martin.

I'm glad for one thing that we don't have to follow the John Nater formula on this particular committee hearing.

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

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My next set of questions will be for Mr. LaRose. I've asked everyone these questions—well, almost everyone.

Why is it important not to give in to threats from the big tech companies over the implementation of Bill C‑18?

Then there's the whole issue of definitions. I understand very well what you're suggesting when, with respect to first nations and Indigenous journalists or media sources, you're saying that the definition must be more in line with community needs.

Do you believe that Bill C‑18 in its current form gives journalists from first nations and Indigenous communities the opportunity to engage in negotiations that could lead to more resources to enable them to practice journalism for those communities?

[Jean LaRose]

No, I don't believe it does. We are of the opinion that the bill is written in such a way that the opportunities for Indigenous communities are at a lower level than the opportunities given to local media. In our view, it's very important that we be considered in the same way, that we be considered journalism and media sources as equally important as local media.

In terms of the business model and sustainability, for example, those are not mentioned for Indigenous organizations, but they are for local media organizations.

In our opinion, the bill should put us on the same level, and should even give us the opportunity to have access to certain negotiations. I don't know of any Indigenous publications right now that are part of the 130 or so agreements reached to date with Google and Meta. In my view, the bill does nothing at all to address this imbalance.

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

What you're saying is the amendments you're proposing are crucial.

[Jean LaRose]

We believe they are. So far, we've talked to several groups and we're absolutely not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. LaRose. Perhaps you can wrap up your answer.

[Jean LaRose]

I will, very quickly.

In my opinion, they are crucial, yes, because they haven't been included in any agreements to date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I will go to the Conservatives for five minutes.

Kevin Waugh, you have five minutes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions will be for Randy Kitt of Unifor.

Tell me again why CBC, Bell and Rogers should be involved in Bill C-18? CBC got $1.2 billion this year in funding, plus yesterday, in the fall economic statement, we heard that they're getting an additional $42 million. The stock price today for Bell Media, which I worked for for 39 years, is $61.35. For Rogers, the stock price today is $41.73.

Why would we allow these three media conglomerates into this bill? You know and I know—because you're with Unifor, and I was with Unifor for decades—that Bell Media is shutting radio stations down by the month, and yet they could be on the receiving end of Bill C-18. So why is that fairer to the rest of the media in this country trying to compete with Bell, Rogers and CBC?

[Randy Kitt]

Thank you for the question.

I would ask why the broadcasters shouldn't be included. We applaud the government for making this bill platform-agnostic. Facebook and Google profit from broadcast news just the same as from print journalism.

Also, just to echo Professor Owen's comments, pitting the smaller journalist organizations against the bigger journalist organizations is counterproductive in this forum. We love to hate the big telcos, and we can look at their share prices, but we know that the issue right here is that Facebook and Google are paying for and compensating these outlets for news, big or small. The big players, whether they are broadcast or print, employ a lot of people. They make a lot of journalism, local and otherwise, and they should be compensated on scale for their efforts.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Let me say this. I agree that Facebook and Google should be compensating other media in this country. I totally agree with you.

Tell me, why did Bell Media shut Prince Albert? It had 85 Unifor members in Prince Albert years ago. It is down to one reporter now. It shut down CKOS Yorkton. It's down to one reporter when it had over 40 people.

Now we're going to give them money. For what? Are they going to reopen Prince Albert and Yorkton, or is the head office in Montreal going to decide it will just take the money and decide where to put it?

I can tell you, and Unifor knows very well, that there will be no more jobs in Prince Albert. There will be no more additional jobs in Yorkton. I don't know what Bell Media is going to do with the money it will get from Facebook and Google, but as a long-time Unifor member, I'm going to tell you I don't see Prince Albert opening up a full newsroom, nor do I see Yorkton opening up.

You're responsible for this because Unifor is fighting for members. Can you not see what I've been saying in the last several months here with Bill C-18? This bill will destroy medium and small companies in this country.

[Randy Kitt]

I'm just going to quote here that, since 2012, private conventional TV has been a big money loser for nine years straight. They've lost.... In 2019, it was 7.0%; in 2020, it was 18.6%; and last year they lost 12.4%.

These losses are real to our members. We love to hate—I'm going to say it again—Bell, Rogers and Shaw, but they're not so rich that we should just assume they're going to continue to fund local news as they continue to lose money. I want to point out—

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

They're not so rich? Hold on now. They own television networks in Canada. They own the Blue Jays baseball club and the Raptors. Are you telling me Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, owned by both Rogers and Bell, is suffering? Give me a break.

You don't believe what you just said, do you?

[Randy Kitt]

The numbers are there. They're losing money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

The last time I checked, the Maple Leafs, the Raptors and the Blue Jays, all three were doing very well, and—

[Randy Kitt]

The last time I checked, Facebook and Google were also doing very well, so—

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes. That's why we're here.