Canadian Heritage Committee on March 10th, 2023

[Sabrina Geremia]

Respectfully, Madam Chair, the team is evaluating your requests. These things take time. They're being collaborative. They are working with your side. I can't speak to their deadlines.

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

As the CEO, I would imagine that you can speak to many of your team's deadlines. Isn't that true?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Respectfully, Madam Chair, I think I've already answered the member's question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

There seems to be some disagreement about that in the room, Madam Chair.

In terms of the information that has been requested, can you tell this committee how you were prepped for this meeting and how you prepared?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Respectfully, Madam Chair, we were here to talk about the product tests. I have prepared with my colleague Jason Kee to discuss these product tests and the potential impact of Canadian legislation on our users in Canada.

The important thing is that we're committed to a path forward. We support the goal of this mission. We are contributors to news in Canada. We contribute in really valuable and meaningful ways. We drive 3.6 billion visits. These are free visits. Canadians get to news sites when they click on a link. It's worth about $250 million of value to them. We have licensing agreements in place with over 150 publications coast to coast. This is called Google news showcase. It gives newsrooms the ability to—

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

I believe you covered that in your introduction. I appreciate that. I'm going to move along with my time. Thank you.

Google claims that the censorship decision was made in response to the oncoming Bill C-18. However, that bill isn't law yet, nor is it a censorship bill.

This seems extremely troubling in view of the fact that now Google is voluntarily engaging in the censorship of news content. Is it normal for Google to censor news?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Madam Chair, I have to disagree with the premise. News is available to Canadians. Canadians consume news in so many different ways. It's available through browsers. Many people actually subscribe. That's an important part of the news ecosystem. They go to social media. They do other things.

The tests are in response to the great uncertainty that we described in the earlier remarks. Bill C-18 will radically change the legal landscape for linking in Canada. This is the foundation of how the Internet works. It's how we share our links. We share information and the free flow of information online. We can't assume that we're going to be able to link in the same way that we have in the past.

Due to this uncertainty, tests were conducted. These are tests. They are not product decisions. They are tests, because there is just so much uncertainty right now with this legislation. We just need to understand that.

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

Right, but you yourself have said that you have incredible access to Canadians. I believe Mr. Housefather said 1.2 million Canadians are potentially impacted. This absolutely does have an impact, whether it's a test or not, and that's being voluntarily done by Google at this point.

I hope I have time, Madam Chair, to squeeze something else in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have a little less than a minute.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the concerns you have raised is that ultimately this will hurt smaller news sources—that it won't allow for those news sources to come forward. However, in response to the bill, some of the changes that my colleague Peter Julian, part of the New Democratic team, made have been highlighted by specific indigenous news media sources and by the spokesperson for Independent Online News Publishers of Canada.

How is it that those people in the trenches find this a positive move, yet Google does not?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Innovation, diversity and having different voices in news is really important to us. We do a lot of work on that on the Google news initiative. We've trained 1,500 journalists. We're on the way to training 5,000. We support newsrooms with tools. We've actually done a series of start-ups and boot camps for emerging voices in news from coast to coast across the country.

The question is a very good one on just this notion of the broadened eligibility versus how the bill is constructed and who it would benefit.

I'd like to pass it to Jason Kee, who's an expert in this area.

[Jason Kee]

Thank you.

Essentially, the core concern of the structure of this bill versus, say, the adoption of a fund or a similar model is that using links as the basis for payment actually has the potential to incentivize clickbait journalism. Also, it will nationally benefit the larger legacy publishers or broadcasters that have more content to link to, rather than smaller players that are not necessarily producing content of that same kind of volume.

Given that we're actually looking to incentivize long-form investigative journalism that's thoughtful versus short-form, low-quality journalism, the entire structure is going to necessarily lean towards supporting larger players—

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Kee. Are you suggesting that Google is the source on what is low-quality journalism entirely?

[Jason Kee]

No, not remotely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're going to have to go back to this answer, Mr. Kee.

You're well over time, Ms. Mathyssen. I'm sorry.

I will go to the next list. It's a five-minute round.

We begin with the Conservatives. I think we have Mr. Shields up for questioning.

Sorry, Martin, it's not that I forgot you, but there you are.

You have five minutes, please.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

It would be a disaster to be forgotten.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I have been involved in negotiations at different levels. The blocking you've done is a problem for me. The unintended consequences of what you've done, I think, are a mistake.

When I look at the compensation you're looking at.... There are weekly papers in my riding. On both sides of it, I think we've missed the local papers on this one. This committee has known my opinion on that for some time, regarding the 13 or 14 weekly papers I have in my riding. I think you have missed it. I think we have missed it in this legislation.

Your attempt at blocking.... There could have been another mechanism, in my belief, that you could have attempted to use to resolve this issue with the ministry, with the minister, instead of playing games like we saw in the negotiations that happened with Australia.

I don't think this is the way to resolve this particular issue.

I think you were proactive with Taiwan.

I don't know what you thought of the amendments that came out of the Senate. Many were accepted; some weren't. We are probably on the side on some of the ones that weren't. We would support them. We proposed them.

You have legal problems in the U.K. You have legal problems in the U.S. They're coming at it in two different ways.

Blocking is something that irritates the local, grassroots people. I don't think the unintended consequences of this move are a way to negotiate. I think it's a mistake on your part.

What is your reaction?

[Sabrina Geremia]

The part about local news is very important. There are some really innovative stories about local news in Canada.

There's a story about Village Media. In 2016 they had a handful of employees, and now they have 145 people, 90 of whom are journalists. They're supporting 20 Canadian communities. We partnered with them through the GNI. That's one example of many. It is really important.

In terms of the premise of the question, these are product tests in response to a legal landscape for linking in Canada that has radically changed.

This is, again, the foundation of the open web. We can't assume that we're going to be able to link in the same way that we have in the past.

I really hope—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I need to interrupt you, because what you say in technological terms is not how it is seen. You can call it whatever you want, but it's not interpreted that way by the end user.

You can call it a test, you can call it a number of different things, but that's not how we perceive it. That's not how consumers will perceive it.

It's tactical negotiation. You've seen this story before. We've seen it with Australia.

When I talk about weekly newspapers, I'm talking about one mom and pop.... It's not going to grow to 15 or 20. It's going to stay at one.

I have communities that depend on the local papers. You're negotiating with guys who don't need this money compared to my weekly papers. They're not going to get the money. They're not going to get what you're offering. It's not going to go to them. They're at risk in my communities. This legislation and you are not going to fix it. I'm sorry.

You can call it a test all you want, but there are unintended consequences of what you're doing, and they're going to hurt.

[Sabrina Geremia]

You know, local news and innovative news and diverse news are important, which is why we recommended a fund. It's why we recommended solutions around that, starting with that, throughout this process. The Taiwanese example is one of more broadened thinking around this that excites me as well. I really believe in this objective and would love nothing more than a solution in this area.

I'd like to pass this to Jason, who is closer to the Taiwanese example, because I think it's an important example to discuss.

[Jason Kee]

As Sabrina indicated, the Taiwanese example is precisely the approach that we would like to adopt. It's precisely the approach to ensure that we are providing funding to, again, local and regional papers, the small players, and maybe also to those who are doing really interesting and innovative work. Those are the approaches that we've adopted.

I did want to make a quick mention that, to be clear, these are product tests. Product tests are actually a normal course of business when you're considering any range of product changes. This is actually very ordinary. I appreciate the observation with respect to how it's being perceived. It's certainly not the intent. It's also, again, us responding rapidly to a radically changing landscape, so that we can responsibly understand what the impact of those changes would be.

It's also worth noting that Bill C-18 is very different in structure from Australia's legislation. In Australia there were concerns that were basically raised.... We interacted with the government, and the government criticism—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

My time is running out. The last comment I'll make is that perception is reality. Perception is reality, and you missed it.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

Now I will go to the Liberals and Lisa Hepfner.

Lisa, you have five minutes please.