44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this place to speak to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, which has been returned to the House by the Senate with amendments.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to point out once again the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who imposed time allocation on this bill for a second time earlier today. If that was not egregious enough, yesterday a member of the government interrupted a member of an opposition party in the middle of their speech to give notice that it would be moving a time allocation motion on Bill C-18 today. The government then switched debate to Bill C-42, forcing that opposition member to finish their speech this afternoon. Perhaps it is understandable that the government is in such disarray as it stumbles from scandal to scandal, mismanaging its agenda in the House so poorly that it must now rely on these heavy-handed measures at the end of this session, although it can always count on the blind support of its NDP backbench to bail it out.
Moving on to the bill, this bill will require digital platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay Canadian media outlets for sharing their news content. Digital giants will have six months to negotiate private deals to compensate Canadian media outlets before being required to enter into arbitration. The proposed legislation will also create a framework for the arbitration process.
This is yet another ill-conceived bill from the NDP-Liberal government. Subject matter experts have raised numerous questions and concerns about it, including the impact it will have on news media, the Internet in Canada and the benefit or lack thereof to Canadian media.
Some questions remain unanswered: Why was the CRTC selected to be the regulator? Does the CRTC have the knowledge and expertise capacity to do the job properly? Does the CRTC have the capacity to enforce the regulations once they are created? The answers to these questions and others are impossible to know, because they will stem from the regulations that will follow if this bill is passed into law.
Essentially, what the government is asking of us is to grant them these new powers and just trust that it will be fair in its application. It is a ridiculous thing to ask for. The government has been chronically plagued with introducing deeply flawed and deliberately vague legislation, leaving the details to be fleshed out by the bureaucrats through regulation, which does not get the kind of public scrutiny that bills do through a debate in this place.
It is not only that: The government has also been chronically plagued with scandals and cover-ups. How can it be trusted to do the right thing when it has shown time and time again that it is prepared to abuse its position of power to help out its friends?
The fact that the CRTC, which is a government entity, will decide which news outlets qualify under this legislation is effectively a form of indirect funding. This bill allows the CRTC to pick winners and losers by determining which news businesses are included and will get to bargain for compensation and which news outlets will be left in the cold. Conservatives proposed amendments to level the playing field but were voted down by the other parties. While the government may suggest that the CRTC is independent, I am not reassured. The WE Charity scandal came out of a supposedly independent process. The SNC-Lavalin scandal came out of that same supposedly independent process. For the Liberal government, an independent process is independent in name only.
Another flaw in the conception of this bill is the idea that hyperlinks possess monetary value. While 99.9% of Canadians may not be aware of it, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011 dealt with this very issue. In the case of Crookes v. Newton, the Supreme Court stated clearly in their decision that hyperlinks are akin to footnotes. Since footnotes do not carry a monetary value when used in publications, why should hyperlinks? Although access to the information behind the link is much faster than having to look up the reference in a footnote, the two are considered to operate in the same way.
The Supreme Court was quite clear in their findings on this case. Experts are asking why the government is ignoring the Supreme Court in this matter and whether it planning on challenging this decision from over a decade ago. How does it reconcile what is in this bill with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2011?
Another flaw in thinking that links have monetary value is that often publishers and sellers are paying to feature their links at the top of search engines or to boost their outreach on Facebook. It is interesting that when organizations are paying to feature their links on these sites more prominently, the government now turns around and says that it is the one that should be getting paid.
Initiating this “link tax”, as it has been called, can open the door to other issues, such as the ability of larger organizations to take less money per link than smaller organizations, making the larger organizations a more attractive partner for big corporations. That raises the question of how smaller websites will be able to compete.
The reality of media marketing is that organizations pay money to push links to their sites on platforms like Google and Facebook all the time. They spend quite a bit of money to do this. This boosting of their links is essentially an advertisement for their respective websites. Does providing access to these sites not boost user engagement with their articles? If Google or Facebook were taking the articles of Canadian news outlets and republishing them as their own, then we would have a real issue, but it is an issue that can already be addressed through existing laws and legislation. However, that is not the issue at hand. Anyone who has used Google would know that search engines do not republish articles in this way. If I were to search for an article, I would need to click through to the article in order to access the content behind it.
Another deep concern with this legislation is that the CBC would be the largest beneficiary of the provisions in this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the majority of the money—three-quarters of it, to be exact—would go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell, with less than a quarter left for newspapers. After the larger newspaper businesses take their share, very little, if any, would be left for local and ethnic media.
Canadians already give over $1 billion to the CBC each year. If the purpose of this bill, as the government purports, is to support smaller domestic media sources, why include the CBC? Again, Conservatives proposed an amendment to exclude the CBC so that more money would go to local and independent news sources, but it was voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc.
In conclusion, I am very concerned that rather than helping Canadian news outlets, this bill would harm them by restricting their reach, as I have mentioned. Independent media are foundational to Canadian democracy. Experts in the field have raised the concern that this legislation would negatively impact this principle in Canada. When the government creates criteria for access to funds, even media organizations may self-censor to ensure they qualify. This could lead to Canadians having less information, fewer options and an unbalanced media field.
Once again, I am unable to vote for this bill in its current form.
1308 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is somewhat disappointing and disheartening when we see the type of support that is out there for this legislation.
I will use something that was brought up earlier as an example. We can look at the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association or the media outlets, or we can look at the amount of concern that Canadians have with regard to media and the important role that the media play in some of the foundations of our democracy, and then we can look at what is happening inside the House.
We have the NDP recognizing that the bill is good. We have the Bloc recognizing that the bill is good. We have members of the Green Party recognizing that the bill is good. Obviously the Liberals recognize that the bill is good. We used to have the Conservative Party, under a different leader in the last election, saying that the bill, in essence, was good. In fact, it was in the Conservative election platform.
Could the member explain to Canadians why, under this current right-wing leadership of the party today, the Conservatives cannot support good legislation that is modelled after Australia's and France's, something they incorporated into their own election platform?
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my speech I outlined a number of concerns that we have with this bill. I hope that the hon. member was listening to it.
Conservatives are not saying that addressing the issue that the bill is trying to address is completely without merit, but rather that this legislation is not the right solution for the problem. Once again, it is deeply flawed.
The NDP-Liberal coalition is not really looking for fair solutions. It is only seeking more centralized power and bureaucracy in Ottawa through this piece of legislation.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, in 2020, $9.7 billion of online advertising revenue was generated. Out of that $9.7 billion, Google and Facebook benefited, receiving 80% of this revenue.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she could explain why her party consistently neglects to protect small start-up independent online publishers and news media outlets in Canada over online giants like Google and Facebook.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the answer is quite simple: This bill will not do that. Although there are a few small publications that will benefit from Bill C-18, the vast majority of local and ethnic media will not.
During the study of this bill at committee, Steve Nixon, the executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, made this point. He said that only four out of the 56 publications will benefit from this legislation.
The PBO has stated, as I mentioned in my speech, that 75% of the money will go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell. This government does not want to help small publications, and neither does that member's party.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, the Conservatives are against the idea of CBC/Radio-Canada and other public media outlets benefiting from this because they are publicly funded businesses. They also said that smaller media outlets would not benefit.
The legislation could be amended to provide more support to smaller media outlets. Would my colleague agree that multinationals like Google, Meta and others need to be regulated and that, otherwise, they will stifle smaller media outlets and traditional media?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's observations about the CBC and small media outlets, as well as about Google and Facebook.
The bottom line here is that the CBC does not need any additional support from Canadians, contrary to what some members might believe. It already receives over $1 billion a year from taxpayers. I, for one, question if Canadians are getting value for those tax dollars that are being spent.
If the purpose is to support smaller domestic media outlets, this bill will not do that, and we do not need to give more money to the CBC.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my riding there are 13 weekly newspapers. The NDP voted against a number of them receiving it because one person is the proprietor, owner and reporter. The NDP voted against our amendment to support small local media in my riding.
I think the MP from Saskatchewan would probably respond, as it is similar in her riding, but the NDP voted against that.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think this is obviously a result of the partnership between the NDP and the Liberals. The NDP seeks to support the Liberals in whatever the government presents. It is actually almost comical that the NDP is trying to make it harder for working Canadians to access government handouts.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Censoring the good people of Lethbridge during a censorship bill is the height of hypocrisy—
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 8:06:09 p.m.
- Watch
This has been addressed numerous times today. The Speaker will return to the House with a ruling.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yellowhead.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
I rise today to speak about my concerns related to Bill C-18. This bill should be strongly opposed. We Conservatives believe that Canadian news media deserves to be fairly compensated, while the Liberals continue to fail to create effective legislation to support Canadians.
First and foremost, the Liberals claim that Bill C-18 would help smaller newspapers and media outlets. However, they fail to mention the fact that, according to the government's Parliamentary Budget Officer, more than 75% of the funding would go to large media outlets, such as the CBC. Less than 25% would be left for small media companies. The Liberal government claims to support small businesses, yet it continues to funnel tax dollars to its friends at media companies. Small news outlets' main competition is from corporations, such as the CBC.
We Conservatives proposed amendments that would level the playing field and support local and ethnic media. These amendments were rejected. The Liberals want to pick and choose their friends instead. Is $1.2 billion to the CBC not enough?
In the Senate, Senator Carignan tried to bring forth a motion to fix this. It was rejected.
According to former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies, “Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.” He said, “If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.” Do the Liberals admit that they do not like a free press? The Liberal government continues to help its elitist friends in high places and big corporations, while it forgets about the local and ethnic media outlets.
Dwayne Winseck, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication and director of the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project for Carleton University said, “Canada's largest media conglomerates—some with revenue multiple times higher than what Google and Facebook earn in Canada—will likely be the biggest beneficiaries of the bill”.
In December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses at committee, silencing experts from dozens of independent and digital news outlets who wished to speak. Rather than focusing on Canadian experts, the government relied mainly on non-Canadian critics of the digital platforms Google and Meta to tout Liberal talking points.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage deceptively stated that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. However, he failed to mention that the same study he was referencing showed that hundreds of new news outlets had opened during the same time period.
After criticizing digital platforms for not disclosing the details of existing agreements with news outlets, the Liberal and NDP MPs on the committee rejected a proposal brought forward by Conservatives to require greater transparency. Now they have brought on time allocation to silence Canadians' concerns. The Liberal-NDP government has no interest in listening to these concerns. It wants to silence anyone with opposing views.
Furthermore, Bill C-18 poses a grave threat to privacy rights. The bill includes provisions that would expand the government's surveillance capabilities, allowing it to collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data without sufficient oversight. This erosion of privacy is deeply troubling. We should have the right to live our lives free from unwarranted surveillance and invasion of our private affairs.
By giving authorities unchecked powers to collect and analyze our personal data, this bill would put our privacy at risk and set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives. Just like Bill C-11, Bill C-18 would infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Conservatives believe in the importance of a free and independent press. This bill would have significant implications for journalistic independence. Bill C-18 would empower the CRTC to obtain any information it considers necessary, including confidential information from news organizations. Conservative MPs brought forward amendments to guarantee the freedom of the press, but they were voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc Québécois.
Another concern is that Bill C-18 would impact small businesses and start-ups. The bill would introduce stringent regulations and compliance requirements that would disproportionately burden smaller online platforms. This would create a significant barrier to entry for entrepreneurs, stifling innovation and competition. We must foster an environment that nurtures small businesses and start-ups, as they are often the driving force behind economic growth and job creation.
By favouring large corporations, the bill threatens to consolidate power in the hands of a few, reducing consumer choice and limiting opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship. The bill would enable the CRTC to pick winners and losers among media; to no one's surprise, the Liberals' friends are going to be picked as winners. Conservatives brought forward motions to fix this. They were rejected.
Many experts feel that the bill is on a path to destroying Canadian media. They agree that the bill has deep flaws, which would lead to millions of dollars in lost revenue. This would set back media by years, and the projected losses that would be incurred because of Bill C-18 are greater than the funding and the tax credits.
The Liberals have extended the eligibility to foreign news outlets, and they have the audacity to claim that this will help Canadians. Broadcasters who are licensed by the CRTC but do not produce news are eligible.
From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai has warned that Bill C-18 would have serious trade implications for Canada. In a recent press release, a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy stated the following: “We have...concerns it could impact digital streaming services and discriminate against U.S. businesses”. The U.S. has warned of trade retaliation, which would likely be equivalent to whatever the U.S. believed U.S.-based digital news intermediaries had lost as a result of Bill C-18. According to the PBO, this would be $300 million-plus. The Liberals have found a way to give Canadian taxpayer dollars to American companies, while at the same time, making trade relations with the United States worse.
Any government intervention into the free press must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence. In its current form, Bill C-18, the online news act, fails this test, according to the independent online news publishers of Canada.
Furthermore, the vague and ambiguous language used in Bill C-18 raises concerns about potential abuse of power. The broad definitions and discretionary powers granted to government agencies leave room for arbitrary decision-making and selective enforcement. This undermines principles of fairness and due process, which are crucial to the functioning of a just society. We must demand legislation that is clear and specific, while respecting the rights of individuals and the rule of law. The Liberals intentionally used vague language to deceive Canadians so that they can interpret the wording in a way that will allow them to give more and more help and funding to their friends.
The legislation before us fails to address the needs of Canadian media outlets. Conservatives have brought forward amendments to fix these issues, but the Liberal-NDP coalition, along with the Bloc, voted them down.
Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians, stand up for small businesses and push back against the Liberal government giving money to its friends. Canada needs more common-sense legislation without ambiguous words. We need legislation that uses strong wording that can be easily interpreted.
In conclusion, Bill C-18 represents a disregard for small businesses, as well as the principles of fairness and due process. The bill would help neither those struggling to survive nor those trying to enter the marketplace. We oppose the bill and demand a more balanced and thoughtful approach that respects our fundamental rights and effectively addresses—
1341 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 8:16:22 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since 2008, we have witnessed over 450 media outlets of all different forms virtually disappear. We recognize these media outlets as having value; they are important to society, to our communities and to democracy. We have legislation before us that has support virtually across the board, from local communities and larger communities to political entities, including all of those inside this House, with the exception of the Conservatives. The Conservatives refuse to recognize the value of the legislation, which is modelled after what we have seen in Australia and France.
My question for the member is this: Why does he believe everyone else is thinking it would be healthy for our communities to preserve these systems into the future? Why does it have to be the Conservatives who are right, when it appears they are dead wrong on voting against this bill?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to admit that the Liberals paint a pretty picture, and I believe that is what is happening here. The Liberals have come out and said not to worry, that they are from the government, that they are here to help and that it is going to be good. The more they keep spouting this off, the more I worry that they are actually doing exactly what we are saying the bill would do. It would not help any of our small local media producers, which they promise it would do. Once again, the Liberals are helping out their best friends in big corporations, such as the CBC, and they are the ones who are going to get the most money. Our small conglomerates that the member says were going broke in the last few years would continue to go broke through the legislation.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised some points here, yet he has not really answered the concerns of people in his constituency. When he talks about small independent media, he has not once referenced the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, which worked with the NDP to get the amendments passed that would allow for small organizations to get funding. What does the hon. member have to say to the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, which is in support of this legislation and worked with the committee in the process as a stakeholder? Now, it hears this member from Alberta shutting the association out and suggesting that somehow that it is not a legitimate stakeholder in this discussion.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, once again, they are spouting off about how great this legislation is. That is funny. I am actually talking to my news reporters and the owners of these small papers within my riding. They are telling me that this is not going to help them one bit. We have tried to put an amendment in at committee to make sure that they could be represented, but the member voted it down. Therefore, those members are the ones who are not helping small businesses and media in our communities.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love the opportunity to reply.
It is strange to me. The member talked about speaking to the owners or managers of local businesses; we would assume that they have more than one employee. What is at stake here? What he has created is this red herring and false straw man argument. The misinformation the Conservatives have been spouting all night is that these small organizations would not get help. These organizations are precisely those the legislation is supposed to help. However, when he talks about big corporations, he does not have the courage to take on Google and Facebook, which are profiting from the work of his local community without paying for it.
This is a basic question of pay equity for workers, creators and local news agencies, so I will ask him this again: Did he consult with the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, and if so, how can he reconcile the difference he has today in this debate?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member spouts off a very good argument on his behalf, yet he is one of the people sitting here saying that this legislation is going to help everyone, that it is going to be great and that we should not worry about it. He asks why we are so concerned about this. He is the one who has to go and say that it is going to help all these people who are creators, from one person who owns a paper to potentially someone who has one or two part-time employees. These are small media sources. They do not have the revenue coming in that they need to survive, and the legislation would do absolutely nothing for them.
Therefore, the legislation is not something I can support now or in the future, unless it gets changed substantially.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the well-informed constituents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and speak to the Liberals' online news censorship act.
Every single day, thousands of Canadians have their online identity stolen. Every single day, a woman has her privacy and dignity stolen by revenge porn. Every single day, the mental health crisis grows in scale, driven by social media use among teens. Online crimes run rampant. Do these Liberals care? No, they do not. Instead, their priority is propping up dying broadcasters and failing legacy media corporations.
They have already passed their online streaming censorship act. We are already beginning to see the consequences of that first stifling bill. Smaller foreign streamers are telling the CRTC they'll leave the Canadian market. These Liberals were warned this would happen. I personally warned the member for Winnipeg North what would happen if foreign-language streamers such as a Filipino streaming service blocked people living in Canada from watching their content.
Now, here we are again. Every independent voice is telling these Liberals that their plan is terrible. Their scheme to force two foreign companies to subsidize the entire Canadian media industry is obviously ridiculous. Even the legacy media have finally admitted they make millions of dollars from Google and Facebook. The legacy media even buy ads on Facebook and yet their lobbyists continue to lie, and claim that these two tech companies are profiting from their content. We know this is a lie. Facebook and Google do not profit off the dying legacy media. These companies profit off our privacy. These companies strip minor data and sell it to the highest bidder. News links generate very little profitable data. Google does not even run ads on most news searches. That is why these companies have been clear: If they are forced to choose between negotiating unlimited payments for links and blocking news links, they will choose to block news links.
Now the Minister of Canadian Heritage huffs and puffs about his chest. That it is just a bluff. Hearing the minister speak like that, I can understand why some of his critics think that he is incompetent. In fact, the government knows exactly what it is doing. It is called the Liberal coin flip. If it is heads, the Liberals win; if it is tails, Canadians lose. If Google and Facebook win, it is tails and Canadians lose. If Google and Facebook comply with the extortion, the legacy media become beholden to the Liberals' continuing in power. If Google and Facebook reject the extortion and block links, fewer Canadians will learn the truth about the government's corruption and incompetence. Heads they win; tails we lose.
However, it does not have to be this way. There is a third option. Facebook and Google could respect our democracy by seeking a solution in the courts. The legislation would require negotiation on a commercial basis. The news media representatives have now admitted they receive significant commercial benefit from links shared by Google and Facebook. Google and Facebook provide these commercial benefits to the news media industry free of charge.
It is clear from the Liberals' desperate talking points that this bill has no relationship with reality. It is based on the big lie first pushed by Rupert Murdoch's Australian media companies. This bill would never withstand judicial scrutiny. Facebook and Google have a choice: They can block news links and make Canadian democracy worse off or they can use their considerable resources to fight this law in court. Facebook and Google must keep the news links working, refuse to pay the blackmail and demonstrate they care more about the fundamental principles that the Internet was built on, which is the free flow of information.
If Google and Facebook refuse to fight this and they just give up on Canadians and proceed with blocking news, then the Prime Minister wins and Canadians lose.
How many Canadians learned about blackface from a Facebook post? How many Canadians have googled the words “Communist interference” and “Liberal Party” in order to keep up with the latest news leaks?
The government would be all too happy to see fewer news stories online. Failing that, it would settle for bringing the legacy media under the control of government. This bill would give the CRTC the power to demand any information from news media. At the recent convention, Liberal Party members cheerfully passed a policy to force news media to disclose their sources. Who is going to risk blowing the whistle on the government if the CRTC can demand any news media outlet reveal their identity?
The government claims it needs to force Google and Facebook to subsidize the entire Canadian media industry in order to save Canadians from the scourge of misinformation. Meanwhile, the minister of public endangerment is a one-man misinformation man. He claimed that police asked for the Emergencies Act. He claimed he was not banning hunting rifles while seeking to ban thousands of them. He claimed the secret Communist police stations had been shut down. The current government is the greatest source of misinformation in our society today. Now the Liberals want to bring news media under their control.
At its core, the government is confused. It has confused the fundamental right of a free press with the corporate interests of a news media industry. The survival of any one particular newspaper or broadcaster is of no importance to our democracy. What is important is the freedom for any Canadian to publish. Bill C-18 threatens that freedom. If Google and Facebook give in to the extortion, then the larger established legacy media will be given an unfair competitive advantage over any media not willing to get into bed with the CRTC and—
973 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
