Hon. Leo Housakos: I appreciate that — I’m glad you find it such. It’s a simple question.

The government says that they are so committed to helping print media, as well as diverse local and regional media. Can you explain to me why the government spends about $140 million a year in media buy-in for all of their government agencies, and why do they spend a maximum of about 2% to 2.5% on ethnic and local media, while the rest of the budget goes toward the giant broadcasters in Canada?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I see that Senator Housakos has a question. Senator Cardozo, will you take a question?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I want to speak at third reading of Bill C-18, which I have been following closely in part because I was a journalist in my former life, but also because I met with several groups, read a lot of analyses and reports, and took part in the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications’ detailed study.

Essentially, Bill C-18 is a response to the fact that many media outlets, especially traditional ones, other than CBC/Radio-Canada, are struggling financially, having lost a significant portion of their advertising revenue to giants such as Facebook and Google, which are getting away with an awful lot — some would say too much — in our democracy.

That is a fact, and the government was right to intervene, because news and journalism contribute significant value to society in any democracy.

The chosen solution is based on the Australian model, which forces those platforms to either negotiate compensation agreements with media outlets or be designated by law and subjected to arbitration. The committee adopted an amendment I proposed, which states that the bill will come into force no later than six months after Royal Assent. That is essentially the window that Google and Facebook will have to negotiate voluntary agreements with the media.

However, the committee study revealed that Bill C-18 does have certain shortcomings, which concerns me.

I’m concerned because I want Google and Facebook, which are indirectly responsible for the crisis in the media, to contribute to the economic viability of these businesses, and because I also want Google and Facebook to continue distributing Canadian journalistic content.

Unfortunately, certain aspects of Bill C-18 could result in platforms deciding to stop sharing this content. Yet for many media outlets, being visible on Google and Facebook is essential. The availability and sharing of hyperlinks to news content on these platforms often drives over 50% of web traffic to the media. It would be regrettable — catastrophic even, in some cases — if this traffic were to disappear as a result of the bill’s overreach.

I want to highlight a number of things that I think are problematic in Bill C-18. First of all, while it was being studied, the House of Commons adopted amendments that significantly increased the number of media outlets eligible under Bill C-18. The list grew from about 200 organizations, which had been identified based on strict criteria of eligibility for tax credits, to 650 or 700. Actually, we don’t even know exactly how many there are, which makes it hard to determine how many agreements the platforms would have to enter into to gain an exemption. That makes the negotiation process unpredictable.

This expansion also distances Canada from what is happening in France and Australia, where the number of news outlets included in the negotiation process is much smaller.

I have a lot of sympathy for community media and student radio stations, where many journalists begin their careers, but I personally believe that these organizations would be better served by targeted federal or provincial support programs than by business deals with Google and Facebook. As I see it, it doesn’t really make sense to force those platforms to pay volunteer-run student radio stations for content that is of virtually no value to them.

During clause-by-clause study, the committee rejected an amendment that would have limited and clarified the number of media outlets covered by Bill C-18’s commercial negotiation regime. Unfortunately, this rejection could give Google and Facebook ammunition.

I have a second argument. In the Australian code that was used as a model for Bill C-18, the platforms can be exempt from the application of the law if they have, and I quote:

 . . . made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content of Australian news businesses. . . .

In the Canadian version, however, the possibility of being exempt depends on a long series of criteria that remain vague. For example, what is fair compensation? How will we know if the money received by the media goes toward the production of news? How will the platforms know if they have entered into enough agreements with diverse media? What is meant by the requirement that a “significant portion” of the agreements be concluded with official language minority communities?

I haven’t even mentioned the additional requirements that could be specified in regulations.

[English]

I have no doubt that the intentions behind these criteria are noble, of course. And, of course, I also want strong, diversified and financially healthy media in our country. But this long list of criteria gives the impression that the survival of Canada’s entire media ecosystem rests on commercial agreement with two — or one — foreign companies. Is this really the model that Canada wants to put forward? Do we really believe that the survival of Indigenous media, official language minority community media or local and community media should be made dependent on commercial agreements with American technological giants who can choose to remove this content from their platforms at any time? I am skeptical.

During our hearings, we also heard sharply contrasted views between the media and the platforms on the object of the negotiations. In its briefing documents, the government states that:

Bill C-18 proposes a market-based approach that seeks to ensure digital platforms and news businesses reach fair commercial agreements based on market value. . . .

However, several news outlets have said that they expect Google and Facebook to pay around 30% of their newsroom payroll, which sounds more like a subsidy.

The question therefore arises: Is Bill C-18 proposing a subsidy model for newsroom expenses or a commercial negotiation based on the exchange of value between two parties? Unfortunately, the bill did not really settle this question.

In a brief submitted to the committee, Konrad von Finckenstein, former chairman of the CRTC, noted this problem. He writes:

The Act should spell out the specific subject of negotiation (...). Without such precision negotiations (and possible arbitration) will be unfocused and raise issues not germane to the question to be determined.

The amendment we proposed, which was adopted by the committee, was inspired by testimony from government officials and even the minister, who all agreed that the negotiations should be about the value of the content of news for the platforms and the value that the big platforms bring to the media — in other words, an exchange of value.

[Translation]

In his testimony before the committee, Minister Pablo Rodriguez described the process set out in Bill C-18 as follows, and I quote:

 . . . what we want is to have them both sit down at the negotiating table and to make sure all of this is based on free and informed negotiations. The platforms would be on one side of the negotiating table and the news media would be on the other. The platforms will say that the fact that they’re sharing the news media’s content and that they’re on their platforms has value — which it does — and the news media will say that they do research and that that has value. They will sit down together and negotiate based on that.

In light of this testimony, the committee adopted an amendment that spells out the purpose of the negotiations and that is also based on the Australian code, which served as our model.

The new clause 18.1 reads as follows, and I quote:

The purpose of the bargaining process . . . is to determine the value that each party derives from the news content of an eligible news business being made available by a digital news intermediary and to determine the portion of that value that will be transferred to the eligible news business.

Of course, this amendment doesn’t fix all of the problems with the bill, but it may help to clarify its objectives and bring the parties together.

In conclusion, as you can see, I’m more critical of this bill now than I was when I began my research. For example, I don’t think Bill C-18 should cover mere hyperlinks. The European model seems to have a more balanced approach to that.

Google has actually entered into agreements that with 1,500 news outlets in 15 European countries. Those agreements don’t cover hyperlinks.

Bill C-18 certainly has its flaws, but at least it offers an action plan to rebalance the power dynamics. The government drew on the Australian model in good faith. That was a good idea.

Obviously there’s no way to predict what happens next. The government says the platforms are bluffing. Are they? They keep saying they’re serious. Are they?

What happens if Google and Facebook take news content off their platforms, the media outlets don’t collect a dime and their web traffic plummets? Le Devoir told us that nearly 80% of its web traffic depends on links from various platforms. What impact will this have on news available to Canadians?

I have to say that I’m concerned because it’s clear that Google and Facebook see Canada as a bit player in an international negotiation and believe that we are out of our league.

I will therefore be voting in favour of the bill, but what I really hope, beyond this debate, is that the government’s gamble will pay off. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, this Wednesday, Bell Media announced that it was consolidating its newsrooms across the country, laying off 1,300 people. Gone from the company are two names that those in the Parliamentary Precinct will know well: Joyce Napier, who was CTV Ottawa’s bureau chief, and Glen McGregor, who was CTV’s senior political correspondent. CTV will be closing its international bureaus in London and Los Angeles and scaling back its Washington bureau. The company is also closing six of its radio stations, including Edmonton’s beloved sports talk station, TSN 1260. That station had been on the air in various guises and genres since 1927, a legacy of community service spanning almost a century. Then, yesterday morning — poof — it was gone.

These shocking new cuts are just the latest in a long and painful litany of media meltdowns. All across the country, our newspapers, magazines, radio stations and TV stations are fighting to stay alive in the wake of a seismic digital disruption that eroded advertising revenues, subsumed subscription sales and ruptured relationships with readers and audiences.

In the face of this crisis, we have before us Bill C-18, which holds forth what I fear is a false and illusory promise of media renewal. Now, you may not understand why I, a person who spent 30 years working as a journalist, do not support Bill C-18. So let me be as clear as possible. This bill is neither a plebiscite on the importance of journalism nor on the value of a free press. It should be starkly evident by now that Canadian journalism is in crisis and that this crisis is having a dire impact on our democracy and our society. If I thought this bill would save Canadian journalism, it would have my full-throated support. But it can’t, and it won’t.

In a year where Everything Everywhere All at Once won the Oscar for best picture and where Spider‑Man: Across the Spider‑Verse is the hit of the summer, it’s hard to ignore the lure of multiverse metaphors. So let’s look at two possible outcomes of Bill C-18.

In one timeline, it’s possible that both Meta and Google will make good on their threats and block access to Canadian news. Imagine Canadians suddenly unable to read or share news on Facebook or Instagram, which are two of Canada’s most popular social media sites. Imagine that suddenly you can’t share a story with your neighbours about a hostage-taking in your neighbourhood or, less dramatically, about plans for a high-rise tower at the end of your block. Imagine that you can’t share a story about Donald Trump’s latest legal woes with your cousins or a story about wildfire smoke with your mother-in-law who has emphysema or a restaurant review from your local paper with your friend the foodie.

Meta has signalled its intent to block all news, including international news, the day Bill C-18 is given Royal Assent. That wouldn’t just impinge on our ability to keep ourselves and our friends informed; it would undermine the ability of news publishers to post and share their stories, attract audiences and serve advertisers. It would reduce readership and revenues overnight, leaving Canadian publishers and broadcasters worse off than before.

As well, if Google stops surfacing Canadian and international news stories on its mighty site, well, the effects would be even more dire. Google curates the world — 90% of the globe uses Google as its search engine, an outrageous and dangerous monopoly that no country, including Canada, has truly challenged, although the European Union is trying, having just launched a major antitrust action against the search giant this very week.

If Google stops indexing us, well, suddenly, for millions and millions of Canadians who rely on Google, all news stories would just quietly disappear. And we wouldn’t even know what we’re not seeing. Our reality will just shift in ways we cannot imagine or anticipate. Indeed, many Canadians who — I hate to break it to you — have not been glued to the Bill C-18 debate might not even realize that their news just vanished — not, perhaps, until we face some kind of public emergency, health crisis or political upheaval, and they suddenly find themselves in the dark without vital information they need for themselves and their families.

According to Statistics Canada figures released just this past March, a full 80% of Canadians get their news online, and 90% of those with university degrees rely on the internet as their primary news source. As for Canadians between 15 and 34, well, 95% of them rely on the internet as their primary source of news. If Google and Facebook suddenly start blocking our access to our news, which will be their legal right as private American companies, then we’ll all be cut off from the news, and Canadian journalists will be cut off from readers and viewers, reporting stories that no one can find.

At least that is one scenario. It may not happen — it’s just, you know, one hypothetical. Let’s look at another scenario.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Facebook and Google are simply bluffing and that they are making empty threats and have neither the technical capacity nor the political guts to do anything so drastic. Let’s assume that, after some huffing and puffing, they concede and enter into negotiations with Canadian news outlets and agree to subsidize Canadian journalism to the tune of, say, $300 million a year to pay for 25% or 30% or even 35% of the cost of Canadian newsrooms. Well, you may say, if that happens, then Bill C-18 will have done its job, Senator Simons.

But it’s not that simple. What happens if formerly independent Canadian news organizations become utterly beholden to Google and Meta for their survival? What happens if we give these two American behemoths even more control over what we read, watch and hear? We have already had a taste of this because, in an effort to head off Bill C-18, both Google and Facebook have been busy striking secret side deals with major publishers across the country. Read a story about Bill C-18 in the media right now and you will quite often see a little note at the bottom of the page informing you that the media outlet is already receiving some form of compensation through a private agreement with one of the big social media giants. It will then be left to you to judge whether that subsidy has had any impact on the way the story about Google or Facebook was reported.

Just the other day, someone asked me why Bill C-18 has received so much less media attention than Bill C-11. I fear the answer is self-evident. Some — though perhaps not all — Canadian publishers both large and small have pulled their punches and engaged in self-censorship, whether consciously or unconsciously. Who could blame them? Bite the hand that feeds you too hard, and you could end up with a punch in the nose.

Now imagine just how independently and freely news might be reported if Facebook and Google held the purse strings in a stranglehold? You don’t have to imagine. Dr. Sara Bannerman, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance at McMaster University, has painted some ideas. In her brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, she notes that there is nothing in Bill C-18 that prevents the growing influence of digital platforms over news coverage. Dr. Bannerman notes that companies such as Google and Meta could provide remuneration to news organizations in the form of training, technical support, technologies or technology licensing discounts. That sounds fine, but Dr. Bannerman writes that this, in turn, would deepen the integration of news organizations with digital platform data and technologies. Let me quote from her brief:

Such technologies could not only allow data and information about users and news to flow back to platforms (the bill makes no mention of privacy), but also shape how newsrooms view and evaluate their own activities.

The door is also open for platforms to invest in specific capital or projects rather than (or as well as) paying in cash. This would result in platforms gaining influence over the structure and infrastructure of news organizations and/or the content they produce.

Indeed, I would argue that Facebook and Google have already had a direct and detrimental impact on the way newsrooms present their stories whether it’s because Facebook enthusiastically insisted that newspapers pivot to video, which largely turned out to be a waste of time, resources and talent, or whether it was because Google led newsrooms to rewrite and torture ledes and headlines in a vain attempt to search engine optimize their stories.

I can only imagine how much more direct that kind of influence might become in a regime where Facebook and Google are underwriting the news.

Let me quote again from Sara Bannerman:

Allowing platforms’ business models to potentially shape news in this way can be bad for news quality. It can result in newsrooms pursuing clicks and platform incentives rather than stories and formats that are important to an informed electorate and citizenry.

We certainly tried in committee to make small amendments to make Bill C-18 less damaging. I myself was quite disappointed when, by a narrow margin, the committee defeated my own amendment that strove to make Google and Facebook more accountable for the way they use their algorithms to boost some news stories and suppress others. I sought to model my amendment on the data transparency protocols that have already been embraced by the European Union to no avail, I’m afraid.

I did have one other tiny amendment pass, which simply removed the phrase “such as a section of a newspaper” from clause 2. That, by the way, was passed unanimously. I fear that Senator Housakos, in the rush today, might have confused me with my good friend Senator Clement, who did indeed propose an amendment that had an impact on Indigenous news reporting — although it broadened the scope rather than narrowed it — but that was her amendment, not mine. Perhaps when Senator Housakos is back from his little walk — sorry, I’m not allowed to say that. Perhaps Senator Housakos will be able to offer an apology at an appropriate date to both me and Senator Clement.

Senator Dasko, however, was successful with a far more important amendment that allowed media companies that do not wish to be part of the Bill C-18 regime to opt out. Originally, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, had the power to order companies to be part of the deal making with Google and Facebook, even if they didn’t want to do so. I’m glad to say that Senator Dasko was able to make that important change.

Another critical amendment was proposed by our deputy chair, Senator Miville-Deschêne. Her amendment aims to create a solid framework for negotiations between platforms and news organizations based on a legitimate exchange of value, giving arbitrators some functional rubric to adjudicate. The amendment attempts to inject some economic common sense into the airy fantasy of Bill C-18, but even though the amendment was accepted by the committee, the government opposed it. I greatly fear it might not survive.

So what are we left with? Not a bill that saves Canadian media, but a bill that leaves us impotent and at the mercy of the whims of Alphabet Inc. and Meta, two slightly sclerotic giants that are both facing economic stresses all their own.

My friends, it breaks my heart. The government had so many other things it could have done. Suppose it had stopped buying so many millions of dollars in ads on Facebook and Google, and spent some of that money instead buying ads in local newspapers and ethnocultural, Indigenous and minority language publications. Suppose it had broadened its tax rebate program and rewarded Canadians directly for subscribing to newspapers and magazines. Suppose, as was suggested by one of our witnesses, independent writer and publisher Jen Gerson of The Line, they had simply given more money to the CBC and thus allowed the public broadcaster to stop selling ads and stop competing with newspapers and private broadcasters for advertising revenues.

Instead, we have invested so much time, energy and political capital on this weird Rube Goldberg device of a bill that might completely backfire or that might undermine the independence and integrity of Canadian news, if it works at all.

I got my first professional, full-time job as a reporter in March 1988 when I was 23 years old. I worked full-time as a journalist until October 2018 when I was appointed to the Senate. I still write a bi-monthly column for Alberta Views magazine and host my own monthly political podcast, “Alberta Unbound.” My entire adult life has been made up of newsprint, ink and radio waves. Journalism was — and is — my life. In my Senate office, I have a bookshelf full of National Newspaper Award certificates to suggest that it was a life fairly well lived.

What has happened to the news industry in my city, my province and my nation doesn’t just break my heart, it guts me, and it makes me fear for the health of our democracy and our society. I hope against hope that I am absolutely and spectacularly wrong about Bill C-18. I hope — I really do — that it works, and that its success makes me look like a cynical old fool. Instead, my friends, I have rarely felt more like Cassandra, the Trojan princess who was blessed with the power of prophecy and cursed with the inability to make anyone hear or believe her.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Downe, yes, that is the case. You cannot refer to a senator being absent from this chamber at any time. I believe that the senator said, “Oops, I wasn’t supposed to say that,” and I take that as an apology on her part.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Your Honour, I stand on a small point of order.

I’m sure all senators want to follow the rules, but we all understand that who is absent from the chamber can’t be stated in the chamber. I know you know that rule, but you might want to bring it to the attention of the senators.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Very well. We are resuming debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

An Hon. Senator: Now.

Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed on the following division:

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on the bell?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.