Canadian Heritage Committee on March 10th, 2023

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Under oath, you're saying specifically that the tests and the timing of these tests have absolutely nothing to do with the passage of Bill C-18.

[Sabrina Geremia]

Well, the fact that the committee process broadened it and it has not passed is why the tests were conducted. We're trying to understand one solution of many. We hope that there are other solutions to work through, because we share the objective of what this bill is trying to do.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

I have another question, and it actually follows along the line of Mr. Bittle's questioning in terms of all the things that have been censored, in terms of what information people were able to get.

Do you happen to know if any members of Parliament were part of that test?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Again, I want to make it really, really clear that these are random tests. The line of questioning just confuses me in terms of A/B testing in technology that tech companies across the world and Canada do. That's not the way tests are run. I want to be super clear on that, although I'm not the expert on it. That is, really, how tests are run. It is a no.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of that randomization—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Irene....

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Irene. Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Oh, I'm sorry, Lindsay. I'm sorry for invoking your mom.

Now we go to Mr. Deltell for the Conservatives.

You have five minutes, Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Chair, I am very happy to see you. This is the first time I have had the privilege of serving on this committee, which you chair so well. I am here today replacing the member for Lethbridge, Ms. Thomas.

As permitted and required by Standing Order 108(2), I am tabling the motion of which Ms. Thomas gave notice over a month ago. I will read it:

That, given that

(a) the Senate made substantial amendments to Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act and has returned the Bill to the House, and

(b) the Government will be preparing their response to those amendments imminently,

the committee immediately undertake a study of the subject matter of the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 and report their recommendations to the House.

We are tabling this motion because we are well aware that Bill C‑11, which is under the purview of this parliamentary committee, has been hotly debated for a very long time. Let's remember that in other times, a few years ago, this bill was number C‑10. The current government decided at that time to call an election, which we all remember cost $620 million, to achieve a result that was pretty much exactly the same as before. At the end of the day, we lost months and months of work.

The fact remains that this is the reality and we have to deal with it. This bill, as we know, is a major one. It is about the Broadcasting Act and it is about refreshing a long-standing piece of legislation and dealing with the challenges of the 21st century, the year 2023 in particular, and other years.

This major bill therefore deserves major work. That is why the Senate has debated it and been concerned about it. As we know, our political party has no control over what happens in the Senate. However, the senators, true to their reputation and obligations, have done a studious job and decided to table several amendments, which of course must be examined. As expected, our job as parliamentarians will be to determine what is good and what is not in these amendments. This is not a minor matter.

What we are talking about is the future of Internet and the future of radiodiffusion in this country. This is why we have to be very serious in our study. The senators have done their job directly and well. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, but they have done what they are supposed to do, and they have done it well. If we want to be serious on this bill, we have to hear what they have to say and look at what they have adopted.

We have also given notice of this motion, which allows some latitude, as you will have noticed.

In the last few weeks something has happened that is not trivial. I'm a Quebec fellow and I'm the member of Parliament for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Of course, what happens under provincial authority in the capital of Quebec has an impact on us. Since we are concerned, we feel that it is the duty of the 78 members from Quebec and the 338 members of the House of Commons to take note of the fact that a provincial assembly is taking a position on a bill debated in the House of Commons and the Senate, the two houses of the Canadian Parliament.

Thus, on February 4, the Honourable Minister of Culture and Communications of the Government of Quebec requested that the federal government take into account and acknowledge Quebec's wish to express its views on this: the possible ability that the government has given itself in clause 7 of the bill to directly guide the choices of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. The Government of Quebec wishes to speak out on this matter.

We believe that when a provincial executive takes a step in this direction, it is our duty as parliamentarians to take it seriously. Let us recall that, a few days after this letter was sent, the 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion asking for exactly the same thing: that the will of Quebec be respected and that Quebec have a say in this matter, since, as we know, Quebec is the home of the French fact in America.

In view of the fact that the provincial executive, that is to say the government, and the provincial legislature have asked with one voice that Quebec be allowed to have a say in this bill, it is quite clear that this request is legitimate. I would remind several of my co-workers that my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, on more than one occasion, offered the Minister of Canadian Heritage the opportunity to give his point of view on this issue and on the request made by Quebec. We didn't ask for it just once, we asked for it twenty times.

That is why we want this motion to be adopted.

I would have much more to say, but my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Waugh.

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

Madam Chair, I'll be very quick.

I would like this to come to committee. We have seen the concerns out of Quebec. I've been with Bill C-10 and Bill C-11 for over two years. I would love one more shot at coming back here to look at the eight amendments that were turned down by the Liberals in the Senate. I would like to have one last look at it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak to this?

Ms. Gladu.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to have this talked about at committee, this motion, because I missed the joy of studying Bill C-11 when it came by the first time. I'm very concerned that one of the Senate amendments that would protect...would exclude individual user content was rejected by the government.

Definitely, we need to have this back for that discussion and to hear some testimony about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Seeing no other hands up to discuss this, I will call the question on the motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We will go back to the order of the day. I think we have 15 minutes left.

We have Mr. Housefather next up, for the Liberals, to question our witnesses.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Coteau is going to take the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Coteau, for five minutes.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I guess my first question is for the CEO of Google.

How much revenue does Google Canada make per year?

[Sabrina Geremia]

I am the country manager of Google Canada.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The country manager. I'm sorry.

[Sabrina Geremia]

Thank you.

We're a global company, and we report our revenues globally—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

You can just tell me the amount—how much—if that's okay.

I'm sorry. I have only five minutes. I don't mean to be disrespectful.

[Sabrina Geremia]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're a global company, and we report our revenue globally. We don't report out country by country, but we do have an impact of $37 billion of economic impact in Canada, and this is the 1.9 million businesses that work with us that actually use our products.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much. Again, I have only a few minutes.

From my research, I know that digital advertising is about $15 billion in this country. I think Google is responsible for about half of that across the country. It's a relationship that works well between Canadians and Google Canada. Obviously, there's a service that's provided and they benefit mutually. I understand that.

This relationship on Google's side comes with a lot of responsibility. You're the distributor of news, of content, and I believe that blocking news from people intentionally is a breach of this responsibility, of this trust that should exist between the citizens of this country and an international organization like yours.

Back in the late 1700s, the postal offices in the United States had control of all distribution of news. They didn't create the news, but they distributed the news, like Google does. There were certain news agencies that were being blocked, and legislation was passed to say that the postal office couldn't interfere with the distribution of content in mass media like that. To me, it seems like this is happening. Even if you say it's a 4% testing piece, it's still happening. You're actually blocking news and content from Canadians, and there's a huge responsibility you have as an organization to allow the news to be accessed freely.

I have a question for you. Who do you report to?

[Sabrina Geremia]

I report to the president of the Americas.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

From a governance perspective, board-wise, do you report to a chairman, a chairperson, a chairwoman of a board in Canada, or is it directly to the CEO of the Americas?