Canadian Heritage Committee on March 10th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 69 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

As you know, this is going to be a hybrid meeting. It's taking place pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

While public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy no longer require mask-wearing indoors or on the precinct, masks and respirators are excellent tools to prevent the spread of COVID and other respiratory diseases. Of course, the World Health Organization says that we are still in a COVID pandemic.

I want to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that taking screenshots or taking photos is not allowed. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. If you want to know, you can go there to find out.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 28, 2023, the committee is meeting to begin its study of the activities of Google in reaction to Bill C-18.

Today we have witnesses from Google Canada. They are Sabrina Geremia, vice-president and country manager; and Jason Kee, public policy manager. Both are here by video conference.

We will begin with the opening remarks from Google.

You have five minutes to make your remarks. That means not each, but for Google, so you can decide how you're going to do that.

I will give you a shout-out when you have 30 seconds left, so that you can wrap up.

Thank you very much.

Please begin, Google, for five minutes.

[Sabrina Geremia, Vice President and Country Manager, Google Canada]

Good morning.

My name is Sabrina Geremia. I am joined today by Jason Kee, who is a subject matter expert on search, news and ads. This committee's work is important. We have made it a priority to be here to answer your questions.

Google has been in Canada for over 20 years, and we are proud of the many ways that we support and partner with Canadian newsrooms. Last year, we linked to Canadian news publishers over 3.6 billion times, helping them make money with ads and subscriptions. This free traffic drove an estimated $250 million in value to publishers.

Through the Google news showcase, we've signed agreements that support over 150 Canadian publications by paying for curated content and access to articles that would otherwise have been behind paywalls. The Google news initiative provides tools, training and funding to help Canadian news organizations innovate and build stronger, more sustainable business models in the digital age.

We have been transparent about our concerns with Bill C-18. We have worked constructively with parliamentarians and offered reasonable and balanced solutions. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 has some very serious problems.

Bill C-18 puts a price on free links to web pages, setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundation of the open web and the free flow of information. It incentivizes clickbait content over quality journalism.

Bill C-18 is intended to encourage voluntary agreements with news publishers, but the exemption and eligibility criteria have shifted so significantly that it would require subsidies to media companies, even if they don't produce news and are not online and we do not link to their content.

There is no clearly defined commitment to a code of ethics for eligibility in the bill, which threatens the standard of journalism in Canada.

Unreasonable timelines and unfair arbitration provisions would ensure that any reasonable offer from platforms would be rejected, creating a framework for bad-faith bargaining.

Bill C-18 would subsidize large legacy organizations and broadcasters and could hurt emerging and innovative players that are providing quality local news in communities across Canada.

This bill is no longer about supporting journalism.

Under Bill C-18, platforms would be subject to an uncapped financial liability merely for providing free links to the news that Canadians are searching for. Canadians should be concerned about the potential negative impacts on how they find and share news online.

As the bill has worsened at each step of the process, we've had to consider what product changes it may require. Potential product changes need to be tested.

My colleague, Jason Kee, will now share more about the tests.

[Jason Kee, Public Policy Manager, Google Canada]

Companies frequently use hypothesis-driven tests, also known as A/B testing, on a small percentage of real users to collect data about new features or changes before deciding whether to launch them at scale.

Google runs over 11,500 tests each year to assess potential changes to search, and only a small fraction of these end up launching.

The news tests in Canada were designed to assess the potential impacts of Bill C-18 on how news is linked to in certain products. They affect less than four per cent of Canadian users.

Bill C-18 would radically change the legal framework under which we provide free links to news for Canadians, but those are moving targets and we don't know if we will continue to be able to link to news as we do today, so we are testing a range of possible responses. Specifically, due to the vagueness and uncertainty surrounding Bill C-18, we are testing the impact of featuring varying amounts of links to news in our search results based on the scope of the bill. I want to underline that these are just tests: No decisions have been made about product change. We are simply doing our due diligence in the most responsible way possible.

Canadians can still access news sites at any time in a variety of ways, as they always do, including directly through their web browser, dedicated apps, social media or other means. We want to include news in our products. However, Bill C-18 puts a price on free links to news sites, provides no clarity or certainty as to what that price might be, and requires payment to an extremely broad range of outlets and organizations even if they don't produce news. This creates maximum uncertainty, disincentivizes voluntary agreements and moves us further from the shared goal of supporting news in Canada.

We remain committed to working constructively with the government on reasonable and balanced solutions that would fix Bill C-18 and contribute to a healthy, innovative and diverse news ecosystem for the digital age.

We welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That was excellent. You had four seconds to go. Thank you.

Now we're going into the question and answer segment. The first round of questions is a six-minute round. As that includes questions and answers, I again urge everyone to be as succinct in your questions and answers as possible.

We begin with the Conservatives for six minutes, and Marilyn Gladu.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

You've concisely described the concerns you have with Bill C-18. Did you make these concerns known to either the Minister of Canadian Heritage or perhaps government members on this committee?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

I want to start by saying that we share the goal of promoting a healthy news ecosystem for the digital age that's innovative and diverse, and we have been transparent and collaborative throughout the process.

We've offered different types of solutions that could perhaps get to this objective in different ways, and throughout the process—as the eligibility has broadened and as many of the provisions have changed—we have made our input and our feedback very clear.

I can pass it to Jason for more input on that.

[Jason Kee]

Thank you.

Yes, we have engaged extensively with the minister's office and a number of others with respect to our key concerns. As Sabrina indicated, we've been quite transparent and certainly in our view have offered a range of potential solutions to find a reasonable solve for some of these concerns that would actually maintain the objectives of the bill.

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

In fact, you provided or suggested amendments to the government that would address your concerns. Did the government bring any of those amendments forward?

[Jason Kee]

No, at least during the course of the legislative review period of the bill, none of the amendments that we proposed to resolve our core concerns—again predominantly around making the availability of news very broad, including linking, and with respect to concerns about the eligibility criteria and the application of codes of ethics, etc.—were raised during the course of the committee hearings.

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

Yes, indeed the Conservatives brought some of the amendments forward because we agreed with some of the concerns about putting a price on links and some of the provisions that might cause misinformation or clickbait to be more prominent on the web.

Now I warned the committee at the time that in other jurisdictions, some of the larger streamers have taken action to block content. We saw that happen in Australia with Meta, and there have been several other jurisdictions. Has Google ever blocked content in other jurisdictions?

[Sabrina Geremia]

I just want to make it clear that news is available. If you think about how you access news today, this morning on the way to work you probably watched some TV, listened to the radio, went to your app and visited a social media site, and so on. News is available, and it is available through browsers, including the Google browser, etc.

In terms of the differences between the tests—and I want to reiterate that this is a test, not a product decision—versus Australia, my colleague, Jason, is an expert in search, ads and news, and I'd like to pass it to him.

[Jason Kee]

Thank you.

As Sabrina indicated—and this is important to constantly reiterate—this is just a test. There has been no decision made with respect to the outcome of the test. We are literally in a process of trying to gather information to ascertain what the potential impacts of Bill C-18 will be.

We routinely conduct these kinds of tests. We make, again, 11,500 tests per year on search. Not surprisingly, some of these kinds of tests have an impact on news. Many of them are actually intended to elevate authoritative content, which would include news content. We have conducted these kinds of tests in a variety of jurisdictions. It's normal course for us to conduct these kinds of tests, especially if there's also legislation being introduced into a marketplace that may have an impact on our products.

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

Yes, absolutely.

I certainly share your concerns with the bill. I have been saying all along that it's not going to help small and local media stations in Canada. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that CBC, Rogers and Bell Media will make off with 75% of the money should this go forward. The alternative suggested was that organizations would provide funding for small and local media outlets as a group fund that they could sort out among themselves.

Now I understand Google has offered to do some sort of funding in Taiwan. Could you tell me how that came about and describe how that works?

[Jason Kee]

Certainly. I would be happy to.

This is actually a news innovation fund we've launched in collaboration and in partnership with the Taiwanese government. It is essentially a product of extensive engagement and conversations with respect to the government, which also, like the Canadian government, was looking to see further investment from Google and other similar platforms with respect to the news industry. It is specifically also focused on news innovation. We want to ensure that various news publishers are properly transitioning to the digital age and building sustainable business models to ensure that they can continue to survive.

We actually engaged in extensive conversations and worked with the Taiwanese government on building this. Then there is an independent third party—the Taiwanese digital prosperity organization, I believe it is called—that is essentially going to administer the fund. Google and other digital platforms will contribute to that fund. This independent agency will then administer those funds.

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

If the Canadian government were willing to consider a similar type of arrangement, would Google be willing to have those discussions?

[Jason Kee]

Absolutely. Again, this is actually an innovative model that we welcome, that we encourage other jurisdictions to consider and adopt. We have consistently supported the concept of a fund, certainly throughout the Bill C-18 process. In our view, it is a way of resolving some of the core issues that Bill C-18 presents in terms of its structure. However, it still ensures that large platforms like Google are contributing into a fund that is supporting the news ecosystem, that this money is being focused on developing sustainable business models, and also, frankly, that it's supporting local and regional publications and resolving the issue of news deserts that everyone shares a concern about.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Gladu, your time is up.

We now go to the Liberals and Anthony Housefather for six minutes.

Go ahead, Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to remind everybody why we're here today. Google has had ample opportunity, including before this committee, to talk about its views on Bill C-18.

Today, we're talking about a situation in which we have over 30 million Internet users in Canada, and Google has a dominant, 92% share of the search engine market. Google applied a test to block news from its search engine to approximately 4% of users, according to its public statements. That suggests that approximately 1.2 million Canadians were affected. That's why we're here today.

Ms. Geremia, my questions are for you. I would appreciate a yes-or-no answer unless I ask you to expand upon it.

As part of this scheme, did you use individual user data to block users from accessing news sources, yes or no?

[Sabrina Geremia]

I would just like to disagree with the premise of this question.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, but I asked you a question.

[Sabrina Geremia]

News is available—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Ms. Geremia, it's my time.

My question to you is this: Did you use individual user data to block users from accessing news sources, yes or no?

[Sabrina Geremia]

Given the technicality of this question, I think Jason, who is an expert in ads and news, is the best person to answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Kee.