Canadian Heritage Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Kent Walker]

I apologize; I'm not receiving a translation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, can we suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to get themselves connected properly?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We'll start your six minutes all over. We'll wait for translation.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Chair, I don't have a problem with translation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras, there could be a button on the bottom of your screen. It looks like a little globe.

Martin, maybe say a few words here.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

With pleasure, Mr. Chair.

Can everyone now hear the interpretation? Yes? Problem solved.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

That's our fault. I probably should have started that at the beginning of the meeting. I'll take that one for the team.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I'm not good with technology.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Gingras, my colleague Mr. Housefather asked you a nuanced question earlier, and you answered by evading it rather neatly. You talked about your concerns if this type of legislation were passed by the American government. However, my colleague's question was whether you would have acted the same way in such a case.

We could debate it here, but we found that the timing for conducting tests with 1.2 million Canadians this spring, by blocking their access to Canadian news content, was especially curious, if I may take the liberty of saying so.

So, Mr. Housefather's question was whether you would have acted the same way if the American government passed similar legislation, and if your intentions would have remained the same regarding Bill C‑18. It's therefore not just a question of concern, it's a question of action. Would you have conducted the same tests at the same time if this had happened in the United States?

[Kent Walker]

Perhaps I can weigh in on this one. It's difficult to speculate, of course, but I would say that we have raised similar concerns about the proposals in the United States as we have fairly consistently in countries around the world. When faced with potential new regulations, we try to evaluate how those regulations would impact our services. In this case, the bill has been under discussion for some time. As it started to take shape and have clearer outlines, we did our best to review it and understand what classes of publications might be affected. That was what the tests were meant to understand.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'd like to get an answer. I know you conducted tests, but you answered Ms. Thomas earlier, saying that you could not reveal the results of those tests. However, I think that Quebecers and Canadians subjected to those tests have the right to know what purpose they served.

Once Bill C‑18 passes, do you intend to comply with it, or will you use the results of those tests to block news content? What is your intention in light of your recently obtained test results? Will you block content?

[Kent Walker]

We continue to be optimistic, but the Canadian Parliament has an opportunity to evolve the current file of Bill C-18.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Walker, let's imagine that Bill C‑18 passes in its current form. Do you intend to continue opposing it and to attempt to block Canadian news content?

[Kent Walker]

We are continuing to raise concerns, but that's absolutely right. We think that there's a better model. We have not reached the final decision as to what business actions we might have to take.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That the clearest answer we've gotten so far. Thank you for your transparency.

Mr. Gingras, you are vice president of the news division. Google raised a concern fairly often about Bill C‑18. This concern always makes me smile a little, because it alleges that the bill will jeopardize the quality of journalistic content.

You already signed agreements with news production companies, before Bill C‑18 was even put forward. What are Google's criteria for quality journalism? Which criteria did we include in Bill C‑18 that differed from yours? What makes your criteria better than what's included in our bill?

[Richard Gingras]

In entering the agreements we have entered into with publishers in Canada, the criteria we followed were very similar to the criteria used in Canada for the journalism tax credit, which is very thoughtful. In fact, we've used that to guide our publisher relationships not only in Canada but elsewhere. We think they were codified quite well.

It's not about quality; it's more about intent. We can't judge quality, and we don't judge quality. Our concern with Bill C-18, as we expressed, is that the definition of “eligible news business” is extremely broad such that we feel that the quality [Inaudible—Editor] in journalism that we believe is the stated object of the test will not benefit versus all other kinds of content that are not quality journalism for local communities.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I do find it strange, however, that you're telling me you have criteria for quality journalism, when you rely exclusively on criteria which, in fact, exclude any adherence to a code of ethics.

You say you have criteria for quality journalism, and that Bill C‑18 will undermine journalistic content and quality news. However, we've added criteria to this bill that affect eligible companies; they must adhere to a code of ethics and a code to meet journalistic standards.

I therefore do not see why this threat to the quality of journalism is being raised again. On the contrary, Bill C‑18 reinforces it. You should be satisfied with that, Mr. Gingras.

[Richard Gingras]

It is my sense, in my reading of the draft of Bill C-18, that the requirement for journalistic ethic standards does not apply across the various components or cohorts that are included as eligible news businesses in Canada.

Now, it is not for us, globally, to prescribe what those ethics are. As I say, we strive to provide diversity of view, diversity of perspective and diversity of source.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

My time is almost up, Mr. Gingras.

I would simply invite you to reread Bill C‑18 carefully and the clause on eligibility for businesses with which you may need to sign agreements. It clearly outlines that they must meet basic criteria, meaning current journalistic standards recognized almost unanimously by every news company in Canada, and probably in the United States as well. I'd like you to familiarize yourself with that clause. We may come back to it later.

[Richard Gingras]

Thank you. I will.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Peter Julian of the New Democratic Party for six minutes or so.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

While reviewing testimony heard a few weeks ago, it is very clear that the committee has not obtained the answers it wanted. Unfortunately, there is a very obvious link—a very clear similarity—with Hockey Canada during the first meetings we held with them. However, Hockey Canada ended up answering our questions, and we're really hoping to get answers today.

We certainly appreciate the witnesses being here. We hope that we will be getting answers that we didn't get from the initial session that we had just a few weeks ago.

Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingras, you spoke about the Australian test. In response to a question from Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Walker was saying it was roughly similar to Australia. It is our hope that you will provide the details around that test to committee.

I would like to know, how many commercial agreements were signed with Google in Australia after the legislation was passed in Australia?

[Richard Gingras]

With regard to the situation in Australia, we did have issues and concerns with the original proposed bargaining code. I will note that those concerns, at least in part, were addressed and codified into law. However, I would also note that we were given fairly good guidance—

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

I apologize, Mr. Chair, to the witness.

The question was, very specifically, how many contracts have been signed in Australia?