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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Aimée Belmore
Jean LaRose  President and Chief Executive Officer, Dadan Sivunivut
Maria Saras-Voutsinas  Executive Director, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada
Randy Kitt  Media Sector Director, Unifor
Taylor Owen  Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
Michael Geist  Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

You have 30 seconds.

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Okay, Madam Chair.

In the same article, Mr. Owen, you talk about the importance of having rules governing the digital giants' data and algorithms in order to establish a healthy relationship between the media and democracy.

In 30 seconds, can you tell us more about this issue?

2:10 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

Dr. Taylor Owen

Absolutely, but I actually think it's beyond the bounds of this bill. The opacity, the incentive structure and the design of the algorithmic systems that determine what we see and don't see on platforms should be the subject of a public policy conversation, but I don't think it is this one.

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Peter Julian for two and a half minutes.

November 4th, 2022 / 2:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I did want to come back on the Conservative attempt to link people who are receiving legitimate funding from the federal government to somehow...something that should be brought to committee. We've had Conservative witnesses who get direct funding from big tech, and they are still able to testify despite that very clear conflict of interest.

I wanted to make that comment to start off, and then go to Ms. Saras-Voutsinas.

Thank you so much for being here today. Your organizational members do a huge service—we've seen this through the pandemic—in often reaching a wide variety. In my community, there are over 150 languages spoken, and many of the publications that are part of your organization have made a huge difference. I know that people have been struggling to keep alive those community newspapers that are in languages other than the official languages.

How important is it to have an owner-operator component so that people can access that funding even if the journalists are also owner-operators? If we don't put that component into the bill, what percentage of your publication members do you think would not be able to participate or may even shut down?

2:10 p.m.

Executive Director, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada

Maria Saras-Voutsinas

I believe a large number of my membership will not be able to meet the criteria. Unfortunately, we're at a point right now, just because of the lack of funding coming in and advertising revenue, where the owner-operators are the journalists.

A lot of these are family businesses as well, including my own. My father started our Greek Canadian newspaper 50 years ago. Because of the hand I was given, I am an owner-operator of the newspaper as well. It's literally night and day having that designation.

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Congratulations on your 50th anniversary, by the way. That's extraordinary.

2:10 p.m.

Executive Director, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada

Maria Saras-Voutsinas

Thank you. It is.

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Peter, you have 11 seconds left.

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

If that definition is not changed, what percentage of your members would not be able to participate?

2:10 p.m.

Executive Director, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada

Maria Saras-Voutsinas

I would estimate it would be 75%. It will be that high.

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Thank you very much, Ms. Saras-Voutsinas.

Now I would like to move to the Conservatives for five minutes.

Martin Shields, go ahead, please.

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Geist, my father started a weekly newspaper. He was the owner-journalist. He would never have qualified for this.

Many weekly papers have told me that the fed advertising money is all gone to the foreigns. Our taxpayers' money is going to the foreign big guys. If they said they'd give it back to us, we'd be fine.

Yesterday, $40 million more was given to the CBC, which already gets $1.2 billion. None of that will go to the weekly newspapers in my ridings.

You talked about a lot of things, possibly. You didn't get a chance to talk about the copyright. That's a huge issue that we've kicked around in a number of committees here on the Hill.

Would you like to get into that one?

2:10 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

I would. Thanks for that question.

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

I would like to suggest, though, that we are dealing with Bill C-18 and not with copyright.

Can Mr. Geist answer quickly or succinctly on the topic that we're dealing with, please?

Thank you.

2:10 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There's a full section on copyright in the bill. I'm referring specifically to clause 24 in the bill, which has the effect of removing limitations and exceptions from the prospect of negotiation.

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

All right. Go ahead, then.

2:10 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

Thank you.

I think it's important to recognize that we need to ask this question: What exactly is being compensated here?

I don't believe it can simply be that we're compensating because one set of companies have done well and another set of companies are struggling. We didn't ask Netflix to pay Blockbuster because they came up with a better model. What we're compensating is use. It talks about use here.

If what we were talking about was full publication of these works, then I think you could credibly say that if Facebook or Google are copying full text, we would like to see compensation for that. I actually believe that's what the agreements that they've reached with these publications are for. That's why they're commercial agreements—different from the agreements we see in this bill.

That's not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about full publication. We're talking about something as simple as a link. A link, I would argue, from a copyright perspective, is certainly not an act of republication.

Even further than that, the kind of use that is being used with this link is clearly permitted under the Copyright Act. I'd argue, frankly, that it may not even fall there, in part because it is so de minimis. It doesn't even rise to the level of substantial use. If it does, though, this is clearly fair dealing. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that this is a user's right that is core to our copyright law.

For this legislation to say that those rules simply don't apply to a particular class of users, that scares me. What happens when you turn around and say that education isn't entitled to this? What happens when you say that other certain large publications aren't entitled to this and they should be compensating?

I think that we rely upon, and journalists rely upon, fair dealing. That insertion in the Copyright Act, which I should note does not appear in the Australian legislation, is a mistake that should be removed.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you.

You also mentioned the possibility of different ways to get into the financial aspects rather than link money. You didn't get an opportunity to say the ways you would do it, other than the way that they're talking about compensation now.

2:15 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

We've had several people talk about the fund model. Quite frankly, the fund model is not the same as some of those existing funds. Those existing funds that we've already heard about are quite positive and they've had a positive effect, which is why you've seen over the last couple of years a balance, essentially, between new start-ups and entities that have been closing.

However, a fund model here would require the Facebooks and Googles to contribute. It could be on the basis of the revenues they are generating or it could be from general tax revenues. There are a number of ways that you can try to do that and remove the whole series of issues, because now you're funding journalism. You'll get rid of these eligibility criteria questions, because anybody is eligible to apply, as long as what they're doing is actively engaged in journalism.

You'll get rid of some of the other questions about why all this money is going to broadcasters. If broadcasters are producing the stuff and putting in applications to a fund, then they'll be able to get it. It levels the playing field for who has access, removes the questions around the lack of transparency on these deals and removes the influence that some of these companies have over those issues.

I think, frankly, it's a far better model that gets rid of many of the concerns that have been raised in this context, and it gets to the heart of what I hear the government is saying it wants to achieve, which is to support more journalism. The fund could help do that without some of the negative externalities that are coming out of this particular bill.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

That, I suppose—

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Shields.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

The transparency issue you talked about is to have that as transparent as possible.

2:15 p.m.

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

We should be clear on transparency. Everyone talks about how this bill is more transparent. The deals are still not public under this legislation. There are aggregate numbers that are made available. I suppose there may be some benefit to that. The truth is that some of these companies are public companies anyway. We may be able to divine from some of their public statements the kinds of benefits they're getting from this.

This bill doesn't throw open the very deals that I keep hearing talked about at this committee. What an open system would do—

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Please wrap up your answer, Dr. Geist. You are over time.