44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/19/23 5:31:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely important question.
I mentioned earlier that nearly 500 media outlets and newsrooms had closed down. These were media outlets across the country, both in urban centres and in the regions. They were in ridings like my colleague's, which we had the opportunity to visit together. We had a great time doing that. In fact, I bought several things in his riding to support the local economy.
There is a direct impact. There are regions where there is no media reporting the news at all. This shows a lack of respect and is deeply undemocratic. It is concerning when a region does not know what its member of Parliament is doing in Ottawa, what its member of the National Assembly is up to in Quebec City, or what decisions its municipal councillor is making. These businesses must be allowed to resist, and even to rebuild, so that Quebeckers and Canadians have access to free, independent and unbiased news. This is fundamental.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have seen the bill through; we had collaboration from the NDP and the Bloc. If we go back in our time machine a bit, to the last election just about a year and a half ago, we saw support for this very initiative in the Conservative platform. I believe it was at page 152.
When did the Conservatives flip-flop and become shills for big tech?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:33:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this shows how good he is. I will quote a portion of the Conservative platform in the last election, which says:
Canada's Conservatives will:
Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook. It will:
Adopt a made in Canada approach that incorporates the best practices of jurisdictions like Australia and France.
This is exactly what we are doing here in Canada, but they changed their minds.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:34:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member was using a prop. He was holding an image up to the screen. The minister is maybe a relatively new member in this place, but I think he knows the rules relating to the use of props.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:34:14 p.m.
- Watch
He was quoting from a document, which is allowed. On the other side was the text the minister was quoting.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:34:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am just sorry he sees their platform as a prop.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:34:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am tabling, in both official languages, a document entitled “White Paper on the Status of Trans and Gender Diverse People”, written by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and Dylana Thompson.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the online news act. I do so in response to a bill that has returned to the House, after being in the Senate for quite some time. It was sent to the Senate earlier this year. I believe the Senate started to study at the end of January or the beginning of February. It has arrived back in the House as of June 16, and it has been considered by the government; a motion has been drafted in response to the Senate amendments.
To refresh our memories, Bill C-18 is about supporting local media and building a fairer news ecosystem, so said the minister. I will get to these false claims in a moment. The bill would compel digital platforms, such as Google and Facebook, to enter into monetary negotiations with a news outlet and pay when they simply provide a link to a news source and not the entire content. Under this bill, those negotiations would take place between the two parties, and there would be no transparency with respect to what the negotiations look like or any terms the platforms might put on these news outlets. That being the case, one has to wonder about the implications for journalistic independence and what this would do to true journalism and news coverage in this country. I will get to that in a moment, but I would like to highlight that as one of the main issues in this bill. It is also an issue the government had an opportunity to fix.
In order to fix the bill, there were amendments brought forward by my Conservative colleague and me here in the House of Commons and at committee. There was an amendment brought forward by a Conservative Senator to fix this problem as well. Therefore, the government had plenty of opportunity. We heard from witness after witness that the bill was a direct threat to journalistic independence, so it is on that premise that we must begin the discussion today. We know that the bill fails not only journalists and news outlets but also Canadians, because they deserve access to news that is independent of any pressure from a government or a platform.
We have to begin by looking at the importance of media. The Liberals try to paint us as being against media. They have accused us of being on the side of tech giants. The bill is not at all for the media or the independent journalists, who are proud of their work, day in and day out, and want to maintain that good work going forward. Let me talk about this a bit here.
The media plays a few key roles in society that we support. It is the watchdog. In other words, it protects the public interest. For example, just this year, in the last six to eight months, we have seen stories in the media with respect to the government turning a blind eye to China's interference in our elections. We know that there was interference both in 2019 and 2021, because of a brave whistle-blower who came forward. We know the Prime Minister's Office was aware of this. We know the Prime Minister turned a blind eye and chose to do nothing with intelligence reports from CSIS that were put on his desk or perhaps in his hands. Based on his chief of staff testifying at committee, we know that he reads everything and that he is shown everything.
Here we are in the House of Commons, and we have had committee meetings and asked questions with respect to this issue of interference in our elections. The reason we have been empowered to do this is that a brave whistle-blower came forward. This person works within CSIS, Canada's foremost intelligence agency, and brought forward the truth. Documents were produced and given to the Prime Minister, and he turned a blind eye and allowed Beijing to interfere in our elections, because it would benefit the Liberals in the long run. We know that because of a brave whistle-blower using the vehicle of media.
Therefore, make no mistake, media has an important role to play in our society. Media has a role to play with respect to telling stories, raising awareness and with respect to accountability. Media has an important role to play in celebrating incredible things going on in our country and in our local communities.
Media has an important role to play in educating folks with regard to various things that are going on, for example, right now, the many wildfires taking place across the country. We are thankful for the key role that media plays in our country.
The way that media is able to play its greatest role is when it is kept independent, when it is allowed to thrive without government intervention, without undue pressure, without being dictated to. What Bill C-18 would do is put the government squarely in the middle of the newsroom.
The government determines, through this legislation, what the CRTC will do. The CRTC then makes decisions and those decisions are applied to media. According to this bill, the CRTC can compel information from these news businesses, even confidential information.
Further to that, through the bill, there also has to be these negotiations that transpire between the platforms and the news businesses. We do not know what the terms of those negotiations are. Let us just say that the terms of those negotiations are that, as a news business, one gets rewarded for the number of clicks. As a news business, one is motivated to create clickbait. That is not news. At least, it is not the type of news that we would expect. It is not the type of news that is most beneficial to Canadian society.
We can see right off the bat that there is this massive problem with the bill. Therefore, when the minister says that this bill is about levelling the playing field, that it is about creating a more fair news ecosystem, that it is about access, that is just wrong.
At the end of the day, yes, we do need media, but we need independent journalists who are going to tell the stories that need to be told without pressure from the government or tech giants. We need journalists to truly be free to come at things from a non-partisan angle. I wish we had more of that in our country. It would benefit us all.
The minister has claimed that the landscape has changed and therefore this bill is needed. I would agree with him in that the landscape indeed has changed. Where I would disagree is that I do not agree that the bill is, in fact, the answer.
We know that the landscape has changed. We know that fewer people are buying newspapers. We know that fewer people are watching news on television. We know that more and more people are shifting their attention online. They like to go on a website, or they like to click on a Facebook post or they like to access it through Twitter.
We know that folks prefer to stream in the moment if they are going to watch their news. Many are going to read their news. However, we know that they are not necessarily going to read from a paper; they are more likely to read from an iPad or a phone.
Yes, the landscape is changing. As a result of that, because the consumer, the Canadian, is changing his or her habits, it means that more and more traffic is going online. Because more and more traffic has gone online, it means that ads are also being placed online, which means that those entities that have been innovative and have evolved in that space are getting the ad dollars.
Of course, when one is advertising, one is going to go where to the people are, and the people are online. What has happened is that one has these legacy media companies, whether it is newspapers or broadcasters such as the CBC, Rogers and Bell Media, and they have started to see the shift in their ad revenues, and, of course, it is not in their favour.
As a result, many concerns have been expressed to the minister. In response, the minister has come up with Bill C-18. It is in direct response to legacy media. It does not account for the innovative or creative ways of incoming media outlets that are actually thriving in this new tech space.
I would like to read a couple of quotes into the record.
This entity was heard from at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is by Independent Online News Publishers of Canada:
Any government intervention into the free press, however well-intentioned, must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence.
This is a key warning regarding this legislation and the impact that it is going to have.
Further, Professor Dwayne Winseck of Carleton University's School of Journalism and Communication and director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project said:
The media's money troubles are long-standing and this latest proposal is a bandaid on a bullet wound.... I just think the whole thing is a real dog's breakfast.... This bill is being saddled with expectations and being sold as a rescue package — that, I think, [is] really disingenuous.
In other words, as much the government might want this legislation to be the answer to the many problems faced by media and, in particular, revenues dwindling, it is not the answer.
The world innovates. The world generates. The world moves forward. Instead of punishing those individuals who are new, innovative and going to that next place, and rewarding legacy media, I believe it is the government's responsibility to take a step back and allow the world to evolve, to allow consumer demand to evolve, and to allow journalistic independence to maintain itself.
Another individual who spoke to this bill at committee was Jen Gerson. She is the co-founder of The Line and Independent Journalist. About the bill, she said:
...this bill...is predicated on a lie. The bill adopts a very ancient complaint of newspaper publishers that aggregation-based news websites and social media networks are unduly profiting by 'publishing' our content. However, we know this isn't true. In fact, the value proposition runs in exactly the opposite direction. We publishers are the ones who benefit when a user posts a link to our content on Facebook, Twitter and the like. This free distribution drives traffic to our websites, which we can then try to monetize through subscriptions and advertising.
It is so clearly stated.
We have these online entities that can be connected to through platforms posting links. In other words, it is propagating or propelling free traffic. It is doing the advertising for these news sources.
This individual, Jen Gerson, is calling it what it is. She is saying the sharing of their links is actually a good thing. That is what drives people to their sites and gives them the opportunity to make money. This legislation is built on the wrong foundation. It is built on the foundation that somehow these platforms should not be sharing these news links, that they should be punished by having to pay a financial penalty for sharing these news links. That does not make any sense.
The way that information flows online is when links are shared. If we want the news to be read, if we want the source to be accessed, then allow for the links to be shared. If we allow for the links to be shared, of course it drives more traffic.
If it drives the traffic, then of course there will be more people viewing the content, and if there are more people viewing that content then there are more people who will want to advertise with the source of that content. What she is saying is that, really, the government has this bill all wrong.
Let us get into some of the nitty-gritty of the bill. There are many serious concerns that were raised at committee, both in the Senate and here in the House of Commons with regard to where the benefit lies. Government officials said that this is going to generate about $215 million for the various news sources across Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent entity, said that this bill is going to generate about $350 million. What is going to happen with that money? The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was reported that 75% of the money will go to the CBC, to Rogers and to Bell, which leaves less than 25% for newspapers.
Despite this entire bill having been put forward by the minister to protect local newspapers, that is not true. This bill will not help local newspapers the way he has said it will. This bill will not help ethnic media sources. This bill will not help digital media sources. This bill looks to the past. It does not look to the future, so this bill is incredibly problematic. While the CBC, Rogers and Bell would accept 75% of the revenue, local newspapers in cities like Lethbridge, or towns like Picture Butte, Coaldale or Coalhurst in my riding, are not going to get a dime from this legislation. The minister continues to be incredibly disingenuous in how he touts this legislation, saying that it is going to benefit the smallest newspapers when in fact this legislation was built or designed solely in favour of legacy broadcasters.
Further to that, this bill gives a tremendous amount of control to the CRTC. The CRTC now will be responsible for determining if a news outlet is truly a news outlet. How will it be defined? We know somewhat. We do not know entirely, but we know somewhat. We know that some of that definition will be based on whether the entity has a licence with the CRTC. That is interesting to me. Just because an entity has a licence with the CRTC does not mean it produces news. That begs the question then of where the money will go. Is it truly going to local news? Is it truly going to ethnic media? Is it truly going to digital sources? Is it truly going toward the future of news in our country? The answer to that question we already know is “no”.
The CRTC will not only determine if an entity is an eligible news business, but the CRTC will also determine some of the negotiating factors. There is some independence. In fact, the CRTC again can compel these new businesses to give up information, including confidential information. Here is what a few people had to say: “Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.”“If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18”. Who said that? It was the former CRTC commissioner, Peter Menzies.
Peter Menzies went on to say:
Bill C-18 is as likely to kill journalism in Canada as it is to save it. The very prospect of it is already perverting news coverage and undermining trust, the commodity upon which the industry depends most. Bill C-18 will permanently entrench the industry's dependency not on the loyalty of citizens, readers and viewers, but upon the good graces of politicians and the ability of offshore, quasi-monopoly tech companies to remain profitable.
Could there be a more damning statement?
If we truly value the independence of our press, if we truly value the future of our country and if we truly value having access to real news, everyone in this House should vote against this bill in a unified manner.
Here is another quote from Dr. Michael Geist, who is at the University of Ottawa and specializes in this area. He said:
Bill C-18 doesn’t only increase the power of the Internet companies. It also provides exceptional new powers to the CRTC. These include determining which entities qualify as [news businesses], which agreements create an exemption, which Canadian news organizations qualify as eligible news businesses, and whether the arbitration decisions should be approved. On top of that, the CRTC will also create a code of conduct, implement the code, and wield penalty powers for failure to comply. Far from a hands-off approach, the CRTC will instantly become the most powerful market regulator of the news sector in Canada.
Again, this bill fails to protect the independence of the press, and when it fails to protect the independence of the press, it then fails Canadians as a whole, because Canadians depend on being able to access news that is not a result of pressure from tech companies or from the government. As such, when the government points fingers and says that Conservatives are in the pocket of the tech giants, actually the government is. The government is squarely in the pocket of the tech giants, because it created legislation that directly benefits those tech giants, as those tech giants get to give direction to these new outlets as to what to produce and what not to produce. It is the government that took power and gave it all over to the tech giants. Let us make no mistake of that.
Let us talk a bit about this bill and whether it actually supports local newspapers.
I have already said that in my riding, there is hardly a dime to be gained, but mine is not the only one. We know that many local newspapers across this country are struggling right now, and we know that many of them are dependent on only one journalist. Because of that, they will not be able to apply for this. They will not get the CRTC's stamp of approval as an allowable news outlet, so this bill will put them under. This bill has nothing in store for their future. In fact, this bill will result in their demise, because this bill will raise up legacy media and big broadcasters and put them in a favourable position, while simultaneously pushing down those local newspaper outlets that exist in ridings like mine.
Shame on the government for trying to mislead Canadians.
I should mention that it is not just that this bill will support the big Canadian broadcasters or the big Canadian newspapers; I should also mention that this bill is so broad that it actually extends to foreign new outlets, such as The New York Times. I should also mention that it will extend to hundreds of broadcasters that are licensed by the CRTC, whether or not they produce news.
The question is this: Is this bill actually doing what the government says it is? The answer is no.
This bill will not revive the media. This bill will not save local entities. This bill is not the solution. In fact, I would argue that this bill actually is the problem. It perpetuates the problem. It personifies the problem. It embodies the problem. It is synonymous with the problem.
I will read another quote from Andrew Coyne. He is a columnist in The Globe and Mail. It took a lot of courage for him to provide this, but nevertheless it is an important one. He says:
The premise, that the problems of the newspaper industry can be traced to search and social-media platforms like Google or Facebook “stealing” their content, is utterly false. The platforms don't take our content. They link to it: a headline, sometimes a short snippet of text, nothing more. When users click on the links, they are taken to our sites, where they read our content. Much of the traffic on our sites, in fact, comes from social-media links, which is why we go to such lengths to encourage readers to post them - indeed, we post such links ourselves, hundreds of times a day.
Again, let us make no mistake: When platforms post links to news, it is of great benefit to the National Posts of the world, the Globe and Mails of the world and so on and so forth. That is what Andrew Coyne is getting at here. It is of great benefit to have these links posted.
Here is the problem, though. Because of this legislation, Facebook has already said that it will no longer be carrying news links and Google has indicated that it is considering doing the same, which means that these links would no longer be made available to Canadians, not on Meta or Facebook, not on Instagram and not on Google. If that is the case, this bill would kill newspapers, because Canadians would no longer have those links available to them within the framework of a Google search or within the framework of Facebook or Instagram.
That is a problem, because, as I just read into the record, Andrew Coyne makes it very clear that the entire model is dependent on those links' being made available. In fact, the news outlets themselves post those links. In fact, he said they do not just post them once or twice but hundreds of times per day, so the government, in forcing this legislation upon Facebook and Google and causing them to make a business decision to retract and not carry news links anymore, will actually kill newspapers.
But the government does not care. The government would prefer that people did not know that, because at the end of the day this legislation, though touted as something that would benefit newspapers, is actually built to benefit CBC, Rogers and Bell Media. We know that. The government has built this piece of legislation on a lie, but it sounds nice. It sounds like the government is for local media. It sounds like it is for ethnic media. It sounds like it is for progress, and the Liberals like that word, “progress”.
In fact, this bill is one of the most regressive pieces of legislation that I have ever seen, and it would put a spear directly through the heart of newspapers. Eventually, other outlets would dwindle too. Make no mistake.
Let us talk about this legislation for what it truly is. Let us talk about the fact that the CBC would receive the greatest amount of benefit from this legislation and let us talk about the fact that the CBC is already funded to the tune of about $1.2 billion per year in taxpayer dollars. Let us talk about the fact that this legislation then would allow the CBC to enter into negotiations with platforms and thereby gain more money. Let us talk about the fact that this legislation would actually benefit the CBC to a massive extent: It would get money from the government, money from its negotiations with Google and Facebook, and money from advertising revenues.
Guess who does not have the benefit of all of those sources of income: local newspapers. Guess who else: ethnic newspapers. Guess who else: innovative, creative news start-ups.
Make no mistake: This bill is not about supporting the future of news. This bill is not about supporting newspapers. This bill is all about supporting legacy media. It is all about the CBC, primarily, and secondly it is about Bell Media and Rogers. That is what this bill is about. If the government wants to present this bill under a true premise, I would be more than happy to debate it under that premise, but the one that has been put forward today is altogether false and incredibly misleading.
It should also be considered that this bill would likely violate our agreements with the United States of America, and that point has been brought up.
Ms. Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, has warned that Bill C-18 has serious trade implications for Canada. We have been warned that if we move forward with this legislation, the U.S. is likely to retaliate, and if it retaliates, that will be to the tune of about $350 million. That means that the government is choosing to benefit legacy media at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses in our country that are going to be subject to that punitive response by the United States.
The government shrugs its shoulders, because it does not care. It is going to pass a bad piece of legislation that is going to result in newspapers dying, ethnic media dying and new start-ups not gaining a dime of support. Then, on top of that, it is also going to result in punitive outcomes for our small and medium-sized businesses that are going to have trade barriers or penalties placed against them.
At the end of the day, this bill is a lose-lose-lose. There is nothing here to be gained. If the government wanted to give the CBC more money, it could have just cut a cheque. It does it all the time. However, the biggest thing is that Canadians lose. Canadians lose because they want access to a variety of media, and unfortunately, that variety is going to be depleted. Canadians lose because they want access to independent media. They want to be able to trust the journalists who are bringing forward the stories that they so long to hear, but this bill would not protect journalistic independence.
Furthermore, Canadians lose out because right now they enjoy the convenience of being able to go online and find links to news, and this bill would result in those links largely being removed. Therefore, at the end of the day, this bill is a direct attack on Canadians and their ability, and I would even say their right, to access the information that they depend on as timely news in this country, and there is no one else to blame for that shift, that change, that damaging effect than the government.
It had opportunity after opportunity. Whether it was here in debate, hearing from witnesses at committee, incorporating amendments that I or my colleagues brought forward, or Senate amendments, the government has had plenty of opportunity to correct this bill, and every step of the way it has chosen not to. That is to its shame, but sadly, it is also the shame of Canadians, because they are the ones who are ultimately punished by this bill.
That said, because this bill is so damaging to Canadians and their ability to access news from independent sources, a plethora of sources, in a convenient and timely manner, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the first word “That” and substituting the following:
the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
4547 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:10:14 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:10:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote into the record and get the member to respond to it.
This quote is from nothing other than the Conservative Party of Canada's election platform. Not that long ago there was a national election, and this is what the Conservative Party of Canada was telling the people of Canada:
Canada’s Conservatives will:
Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.
That is what this legislation is all about. If the Conservatives voted in favour of the legislation, they would be able to say it was something they campaigned on in the last election.
Something has happened, once again, in the far right element of the Conservative Party. They have now taken yet another flip-flop. We talked about the price on pollution before, and we all remember that flip-flop. Here is another one.
How can the member have gone to knock on doors to talk about how this was what they were going to do? This legislation is doing what they said they were going to do, and now, not only is the member going to vote against it, but she is also spreading all sorts of misinformation about the bill? Why is that?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:12:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting when the members opposite throw around the word “misinformation”.
It is the usual buzzword Liberals go to to sling mud in this direction without having substance over there in that direction. It is the word they go to when they think that it cannot be argued against. They think it is a nail in the coffin. They think it is trump card played. They think that, if they call something “misinformation”, they can silence the individual's voice.
Witness after witness who appeared before our committee here in the House of Commons and the Senate committee raised incredibly rich and significant concerns with this bill. For this member to state that my speech, and the concerns that were raised there, are misinformation is for him to launch an attack against those witnesses who come with a greater understanding of this legislation than he certainly has. They probably have a greater education and professional background as well, and he is choosing to silence them.
The member is choosing to call that information “misinformation” because it is made up of the quotes and the voices I have stood here to represent today. Shame on the member for trying to silence me.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Lethbridge for her brief speech. She spoke a lot about the fact that Bill C‑18 offers nothing positive for smaller media outlets, weeklies or newspapers.
Oddly enough, however, over the course of our study, the most vocal proponents of this bill were people like Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, president of La Presse, and Benoît Chartier and Sylvain Poisson of Hebdos Québec, an organization representing about 150 Quebec weeklies. There was also Paul Deegan of News Media Canada, which represents various media outlets across Canada. There was also Jad Barsoum and the folks from Quebecor, which is by no means a second-rate media organization. All of these people, who represent very small to average-sized media outlets and mega media companies, unanimously agree: Bill C‑18 is a necessity.
I have a simple yet complicated question for my colleague. I want to know whether she listened only to the version of the web giants like Google and Facebook and those who signed agreements with those companies. Did she also take the time to listen to the people from News Media Canada, Hebdos Québec, and other media outlets like La Presse and Les coops de l'information, who have been calling for a bill like Bill C-18?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:15:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer with a fact. I will take the emotion out for a moment here. This legislation states that, even to be considered for CRTC approval to enter into these negotiations, a news business has to show that it has a minimum of two journalists. Many local newspapers or ethnic media newspapers do not have two journalists. That means they would not even be considered by the CRTC to qualify. When I state that local media and ethnic media will be left out in the cold, I state that as fact.
While I understand there may be a few niche outlets that could benefit from this legislation, the vast majority of local and ethnic newspapers will not benefit.
The committee heard testimony from Steve Nixon, the executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. He said that they only have four publications out of 56 that would benefit from this legislation. That leaves 52 out in the cold. It means they are unlikely to make it because of the imbalance that would be caused by this legislation.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:17:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of providing funding to community newspapers is important. In fact, New Democrats fought for it. The hon. member referenced that they have to have a minimum of two employees. I believe it was the New Democrats who fought for 1.25 or 1.5 FTEs at the request of small independent outlets. That is more than one but not quite two.
The member would know that groups, including the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, fought for this in its final iteration. They wanted this. They wanted this legislation so they could compete with the big giants.
I am wondering, as the member talks about silencing expert testimony and witnesses, what she has to say in response to the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, from her neck of the woods, which actively fought for this legislation that she is now fighting so actively against?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope the member takes the time to post my answer with his question. I would like to correct the record.
Mr. Matthew Green: Probably not.
Mrs. Rachael Thomas: He probably will not. That is what he said.
Mr. Matthew Green: I will censor it.
Mrs. Rachael Thomas: He will censor it, he said. That is true. That is exactly what will happen.
Madam Speaker, this is your House. I will let you bring it to order.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:18:35 p.m.
- Watch
Could we allow the honourable member for Lethbridge to answer the question?
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:18:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for the NDP just stated that the NDP brought forward a motion asking that there be allowance for news outlets with 1.25 or 1.5 full-time employees to be considered. I am curious if one person would be doing the work of 1.25, 1.5 or 1.75 full-time employees. They would not. Two journalists would work that amount of time.
My point still stands. This bill is designed such that, if an outlet has fewer than two journalists, it would not be considered.
To correct the record for the member, because I am sure he would not want to mislead anyone, it was Conservatives who brought forward a motion calling for a minimum of one journalists and for an outlet to be considered based on that premise. The NDP voted against that common-sense Conservative motion asking for the consideration of outlets with only one journalist.
The NDP insisted that there be a minimum of two. Whether those are two people splitting one full-time job or two people splitting one and a half jobs, I guess that is up to the outlet. Nevertheless, there have to be two individuals for the outlet to be considered. That is just not the case in so many of these local regions.
Further to that, I will just raise that this is rather rich for the NDP members. They are socialists. They very much like to complain that people are not making enough wealth. They like to see government handouts and things of that sort. Their arguing that two journalists should split a job that is one full-time job or one and a half full-time jobs is rather concerning to me. I was advocating that there be two journalists, each with full-time wages.
302 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:20:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-51, entitled An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed reported back from the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:21:36 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. minister moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Drummond.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is never a dull moment in the House. It truly is incredible. There is always some event or other that grabs our attention.
I am very happy Bill C‑18 has reached this stage. I am happy, but I can promise my colleagues that there are an awful lot of people at media outlets in my riding and pretty much everywhere in Quebec, not to mention everywhere across Canada, based on our conversations with stakeholders, that will let out a big sigh of relief when we finally pass Bill C‑18.
I would humbly like to dedicate my speech to the 1,300 workers in the news sector whose jobs were cut at Bell Media last week. We talked about it here in the House. I would like to spare a thought for two of them. I am sure that many of my colleagues have some in their ridings throughout Quebec and Canada.
Martin Brassard, a journalist with 35 years of experience at Bell Media, in my colleague's riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, lost his job to the cuts. Back home in Drummond, Louis‑Philippe Harnois‑Arel, a talented young journalist full of potential and promise who worked on the Bell-owned Noovo news desk, was also among those who lost their jobs because of these cuts.
Mr. Speaker, you may not have had a chance to read today's news yet, but in today's Le Devoir, Boris Proulx reports that my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood hinted that Bell's decision to cut 1,300 jobs and close six radio stations may have been part of a plan, made in cahoots with the government, to force the adoption of Bill C‑18 this week.
I wondered what kind of movie script we were playing out. Have we really got to the point where we believe that a company will fire 1,300 people just because we want to push through a bill that is long overdue and that was obviously going to pass in the coming days or weeks anyway?
Honestly, I think that is going a little overboard with the conspiracy theories. I wanted to say it. I really admire my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which we co-chair. I know that he loves the media industry and that before becoming an MP, he had a career in the media, as did I. He and I will definitely have an opportunity to talk about it again.
To provide some context, the media, and especially the news media, has been struggling for many years. Facebook and Google in particular appropriate the news stories, the news content, without paying royalties or compensation for the material produced with hard work and passion by newsrooms.
In the early 2000s, red flags were already being raised regarding the presence of the web giants, the major corporations that were taking up more and more space on the Internet. The government decided at that time to exempt them from the Broadcasting Act, to exclude them from those regulations. Perhaps the government was short-sighted. I do not want to criticize the decisions made back then, because they were based on the information available at the time, but I think the government could have shown a little more agility. The government may not have given itself sufficient freedom to re-evaluate its position over time.
For years, the news media in particular, but also the cultural industry, have been sounding the alarm and urging caution because these giants were taking up more and more space, and warning that the space taken by these giants was hurting them, eating into their revenues and putting jobs at risk.
That is exactly what has happened over time. Successive governments were warned, but no one ever bothered to lift a finger or consider whether something should be done for the news media and the cultural industry.
As I said earlier, I was in the media before switching to politics. I also worked in the private sector, always with some connection to advertising. For years, I had a front-row seat to the impact this new player in the advertising world was having on the market. For example, representatives would come to us to sell us advertising and explain that it was more profitable for us to buy advertising space from them than from the digital platforms, even though the digital platforms were offering rock-bottom prices compared to traditional media. Obviously, it was very tempting for all kinds of companies to choose the option of switching to digital media, to Google and its ilk.
Today, more than 80% of advertising revenue is generated online. The market has been cornered primarily by Google and Facebook, which, again, pay no royalties. They pay nothing to the people who produce the content. They get to monetize that content and use it to sell their advertising.
On top of that, they collect data. We know that data is even more lucrative than advertising. They are really raking it in and not leaving anything for anyone else. Journalists are slowly seeing their work picked up by digital media, and high-quality reporting by talented journalists is ending up being shared on Facebook or Google in search results. Not a penny goes back to them for that, and not a penny goes back to the media that paid to produce it.
This makes no sense to me. We urgently needed to address the calls from news media and implement legislation that would impose not specific amounts or a payment, but rather a framework for negotiations. Bill C‑18 does not tell companies that they have to pay a certain amount. What Bill C‑18 does is tell companies that they have an obligation to negotiate in good faith within the legislated framework. That is what Bill C‑18 is all about.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that this will give one party an advantage over another. It is going a bit far. I think this bill could likely be improved and it will not solve all of the problems. That is obvious. The news media have fallen so far over the past 10 or 15 years that Bill C‑18 alone is certainly not the solution. However, it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are certainly sending the right message to the web giants by telling them that they cannot cannibalize our news outlets' content and our cultural content.
It is urgent that we pass this bill and it is urgent to see what impact it will have so that we can then put measures in place to help media outlets—
1147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
