Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is on debate.

I do not intend to block something that could become a financial lifeline for some of the country’s traditional media outlets, even though I don’t think they’ll all be saved.

The most recent report on the federal government’s annual advertising spending clearly shows that the government gave 55% of its budget to the digital media targeted by Bill C-18. That represents $64 million, versus $53 million for our Canadian newspapers and radio and television stations.

It made me wonder: How do we reconcile the fact that the government wants to pass a bill to tax web giants like GAFA for the benefit of traditional media, when the government and its advertising choices are largely to blame for making them so poor? That’s my contribution to the debate.

[English]

Senator Housakos: Government leader, thank you for highlighting the problem with your government. You just highlighted — in your talking points — exactly what I’m complaining about. It’s never the fault of the minister or the Prime Minister — it’s the employees in their office, it’s the bureaucrats who didn’t brief them or it’s their email that is too blocked up. That is the problem with your government. This government always has its homework being eaten by the dog before it arrives at school, and it has to stop. Do you know what the concept of ministerial responsibility means? I think, in this Trudeau government, there isn’t anyone left who understands how Parliament works.

I will ask you two simple questions: Can you define for this chamber what ministerial responsibility means as it applies to Parliament? And is the Prime Minister unwilling to apply ministerial responsibility to Minister Mendicino because no one has applied ministerial responsibility to him?

Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much for your work on this bill.

In the event that this bill is not passed rapidly, before we rise, what will be the most obvious consequence of it not passing this chamber?

Senator Omidvar: I will state again — and thank you, Senator McPhedran, for your question — lives will be at risk. Babies will die. Women will be at risk. They will have no food, no shelter, no protection. It is a matter of lives saved today rather than not saved.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Omidvar, for the speech. Obviously, this is a pressing bill and a pressing situation. Given the fact it got such overwhelming support in the House and was sent to committee in the House for in-depth study, why isn’t there relief to pass the bill right away? Why does it need to go to committee in this chamber and not pass quickly with leave?

Senator Omidvar: That will be the will of the chamber.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jon Reyes, Manitoba Minister of Labour and Immigration. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Osler.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator. As I have explained many times, I have immense respect for the Chief Justice and his late father as well.

The government is working to fill the vacancies in various provinces and there is a whole process in place to find interested, qualified candidates.

The department has spoken with members of the judiciary and bar to encourage more people to apply. The government continues to make appointments at a steady pace, and the number of vacancies continues to decline.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Canadian officials and individuals working in the field of sickle cell anemia. They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Mégie and Gerba.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Cardozo: I don’t make those budgets, but I don’t disagree with you at all. I think what we’re trying to do here is help this media.

One of the things that you and I asked a number of people — who appeared before us in committee — is what is going to happen to the small media, ethnic media and so forth. One of the things that gave me the most assurance was our witnesses from Australia, who said that, in fact, the small media got disproportionately more resources than the big media, and that gives me some assurance. It’s certainly an issue that we will follow, and I think it’s an important issue that was addressed extensively in our hearings. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: We have cell bills and internet bills or connectivity bills, right? See what those giants are charging Canadians compared to other nations around the world.

By the way, they’ve become as big as they are because they gouge consumers and taxpayers and because of the regulatory protection we have afforded them for decades through the CRTC and through governments — successive governments, by the way — Liberal, Conservative and other ones. At some particular point, we’ve got to stand up for the consumer and for Canadians and say, “Enough is enough; some competition is good.” And let’s stop saying every time we have a business model that is failing because somebody is more innovative, more cost-effective and is garnering more customer service that we’re going to step in and we’re going to make it an equal playing field. We’re going to help those with the bad ideas and bad fiscal results and we’re going to prop them up with taxpayers’ money. Let’s call this what it is: a shakedown in an effort to protect the status quo.

Big tech isn’t stealing content. They aren’t taking the work of journalists and profiting off it without journalists being fairly compensated. The passage of Bill C-18 won’t result in one journalist in this country getting a raise. More importantly, let’s also keep in mind that a lot of the content that we are talking about that’s being stolen by tech companies is being downloaded and placed there by journalists themselves.

As I have said many times before, these platforms are actually providing a service to news outlets to drive traffic to their products and to their content. We aren’t talking about the reproduction of content without fair attribution or compensation. We’re not talking about links taking consumers to the actual Global News or CTV News websites.

I consider Facebook to be the Uber or even the cab driver, and Global News is the restaurant. Would we expect the cabbie to give the restaurant a percentage of the fare that was collected? Of course not. Just because someone, in this case, has figured out a way to monetize someone else’s product, it does not mean they are stealing that product. It doesn’t mean the manufacturer of that product is being any less fairly compensated. As long as the copyright laws are being respected — and they are here — nothing is being stolen.

None of us are forced to post our work. Senators, local restaurants, every single business in the country, artists of all sorts — they’re posting their stuff. We’re all posting our stuff on these websites, and we’re posting it because we’re getting more reach. We’re getting more of our constituents in our home provinces to see the work we do here in the Senate, advocating on their behalf.

Journalists add their links to their stories on Facebook because it accentuates their work; it drives more people to their website. So if you’re writing articles for La Presse in Montreal and you post it on your Facebook account, it’s because that journalist is benefiting from people that are being driven to La Presse‘s website, and, of course, that’s a paywall. If more people are driven to the site because of a journalist promoting their product, that paywall grows, and that business grows.

By the way, back to my earlier point, there is a lot of print media in the country that is flourishing because of digital platforms. There are a lot of them that have to be lauded because they were ahead of their time and they realized they needed to adjust. The Globe and Mail adjusted. The Globe and Mail is as effective today as they were when I was a kid. They have great coverage. They still have a great product, and they are still making money, but they were also one of the first to sit down and make a deal with these platforms, and the platforms understood that this was a good product for them to make a good deal with.

And there are many more. Village Media was cited by one of the colleagues who spoke earlier. They’re a huge success story, as is Western Standard News Media Corp. There are so many out there, and, really, I don’t want to miss any, but Blacklock’s Reporter is another one. They’re an online subscription digital paper. They’re doing as well as ever.

The only one trying to steal their content, colleagues, is the government. They are in court right now because the Trudeau government that wants to protect independent journalistic organizations has been taking their product and spreading it around ministries without giving them their due. But Bill C-18 is going to save the industry? Why don’t we start with having our government departments respect paywalls of journalists and respect their content before we start passing legislation to protect certain giants?

Traditional media and some journalists themselves are struggling to adapt to the digital world and what that means for delivery and consumption of news. Shaking down big tech and driving them to the point where platforms like Meta and Alphabet will stop promoting your content is not the win this government and a lot of people in media think it is. I fear this legislation will have the opposite of the desired effect.

We have seen how serious Meta is about stopping the dissemination of news information. The people that will be hurt when that happens — and I believe it will happen. I think there is no reason why a business model that’s designed to be free to give consumer choice and to drive traffic is going to continue to drive traffic for the media and the journalists in this world if they have to pay for that service. Their whole business model will be disrupted, and the loser will be Canadian consumers. The loss will be the taxpayers’ because I think there will be a detrimental growth. We had witnesses who came before our committee, including print associations that represent journalists in this country, who say that thanks to Meta, their traffic is up as much as 31%, 32% or 33%.

We all know that the only way you make money — I don’t care if you’re a journalist or if you’re selling hotdogs or if you’re a local gas station — is you need traffic and you need people to be attracted to your product. The only people who don’t need to attract consumers are government agencies or government Crown corporations, because they have taxpayers’ money to compensate, so they don’t have to be that agile and they don’t have to be that good. That’s the truth.

Facebook and Google are at a point right now where, like any business, when you have a government that wants to come in and regulate you and tell you what to do with your business enterprise — and I don’t care who it is — at some point, you’re going to say, “You know what, I’m going to shut down and go elsewhere; there’s no future here.” Again, the loser will be our country because we live —

[Translation]

Senator Simons: Your Honour, I do seriously wish to apologize. I’m slightly mortified. I apologize to Senator Housakos and to the chamber.

Senator Harder: No.

[English]

Senator Harder: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, colleagues, for letting us commence this debate now.

I rise today on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people to speak on third reading of Bill C-18, the online news act. This bill compels large digital platforms, like Meta and Google, to compensate Canadian media outlets in return for posting news content on their platforms. It is a bill that we must urgently pass for the sake of the industry and, perhaps more importantly, for the sake of our public discourse and our commitment to democratic debate.

Senators are no doubt familiar with the bill, so I won’t dwell on the specifics. At its essence, the online news act will encourage digital platforms to enter into voluntary commercial agreements between themselves and the news organizations whose content they post on their sites. Those who don’t reach agreements will be subject to final-offer arbitration.

At issue is the fact that these same digital platforms derive economic benefit in the form of ad revenue from content that they do not produce. In some cases, they pay individual outlets for content, but in many others they do not.

Bill C-18 would ensure that those platforms can no longer pick and choose which outlets they will compensate. It is, in its rawest form, a bill aimed at levelling the playing field between those outlets that have agreements and those that don’t.

Many of the latter are small- and medium-sized outlets that have continued to publish on shoestring budgets, having already slashed jobs and wages. Since 2008, Canada has lost over 460 outlets. Just five months ago, Postmedia, which operates more than 100 large and small newspapers across the nation, announced cuts of 11% of its staff.

Many of the publications that this bill will help have already made heroic efforts to serve the public. I am put in mind, for example, of the public service performed by our nation’s minority language press in informing various diasporas on how to protect themselves from the coronavirus. New Canadians, many of whom don’t speak either English or French, had nowhere else to turn for information that — it is no exaggeration — they needed to survive. These publications stepped up, with some operating at a loss. It’s fair to ask whether they will still be there when the next public health emergency surfaces.

Others, like hard-pressed rural and northern outlets, have continued to publish the goings-on of their community, connecting the farthest-flung parts of our country to our larger population centres. This is a crucial role they play at a time when polarization in Canada and the rest of the world interferes with our ability to talk to each other.

Still other publications in the racialized, Indigenous and official minority language spheres work hard to inform their often underserved readerships. This initiative will help those I just mentioned if they want to be part of it.

Let me hasten to add, though, that Bill C-18 should not be seen by anyone as a panacea. It is but one of a number of programs already undertaken which are aimed at helping our challenged news industry weather and, hopefully, thrive in the ever-changing digital environment.

It is my own view that the future of journalism will be shaped not just by the surviving legacy media outlets, but by the many smaller, flexible and adaptable outlets that have begun to spring up.

A number of them appeared before us during committee hearings. One such outlet is The Logic, a digital-only publication that covers the innovation economy by providing in-depth reporting on organizations, policies and people driving transformational change. This is an issue, as senators might know, that is close to my heart.

Despite The Logic’s devotion to such pioneering subject matter, it finds itself at a competitive disadvantage, forced to contend with larger outlets that already have agreements with the big digital platforms. Indeed, the publication’s Chief Executive Officer, David Skok, has said it’s unfortunate to be in a situation where he must rely on agreements with private industries like Google to help fund his publication’s journalism. The Logic feels compelled to support the act because Big Tech selects which outlets it wants to support through voluntary agreements and refrains from supporting others. This creates an uneven playing field.

If we want to encourage the development of publications like The Logic — which I believe are the future — we cannot allow the larger platforms to sign deals only with the big players. This makes for competitive unfairness and, more disturbingly, allows Big Tech to pick winners and losers — exactly the criticism that gets levelled at government for launching initiatives like this bill.

It’s far better, in my view, to treat everyone equally, particularly in an industry that provides such an important public service as does journalism.

Adding this initiative to others that have been enacted by government, including the Canada Periodical Fund, the Local Journalism Initiative and the journalism labour tax credit, will go some ways to sustaining the industry as it continues to find its legs in the new environment.

The bill, of course, is not free of criticism. Some have criticized it, for example, for potentially keeping alive publications that have not done the work required to adjust to the new reality. I will leave that judgment to others more familiar with the efforts being made at some of these outlets, many of which have been publishing for generations.

I would say, however, that the consequences of not supporting those publications risks the loss of something bigger than the publications themselves — namely, the infrastructure which supports the whole profession.

What is ultimately at stake here is the removal of experienced and guiding hands which maintain a mature industry over time. In our own review of the bill, it became clear that younger journalism graduates have fewer and fewer mentors to whom they can look up. These younger journalists are put into positions of leadership which, in previous years, would have taken many of them more years to reach. The pool upon which even the best publications rely on to hire promising up-and-comers is becoming shallower by the year.

Given this contraction, is it any wonder that publications that deal with misinformation and disinformation are becoming increasingly influential? Relying on such outlets to convey information would be bad even for Big Tech, which makes me wonder why they continue to use bullying tactics to oppose this bill. As you know, the big platforms have gone so far as to experiment with blocking access to news on their sites. Just this week, Meta began blocking news for some Canadians on Facebook in a test that is expected to last most of the month. Google did the same thing earlier this year.

Now, it’s not my business to say whether such moves are counterproductive for a company’s Canadian reputation or its bottom line. It defies credulity when these corporations argue that it is somehow their free-market right to derive ad revenue without compensating those who create the content.

Musicians who write pop songs get paid when those pop songs are played on the radio. Playwrights get a royalty when their work is put on a stage, even at the local community theatre. When a famous individual’s image is used to advertise a certain product, that person is paid for the value of the personal brand he or she has created through many years of hard work.

As Ronald Reagan learned, if you want to use “Born in the U.S.A.” as a campaign theme, you’d better ask The Boss first.

These platforms claim that news holds little value for them. This is too hard to buy. Users come to social media and search engines to access the totality of the internet; 77% of Canadians get their news online, including 55% of Canadians who use social media platforms as a pathway to news.

Professor Dwayne Winseck, who testified before our committee, estimates that in 2021 Google’s advertising revenue in Canada alone was $4.9 billion while Meta’s was $4 billion.

What these foreign multinationals are really worried about is a check on their dominant market position. International observers whose nations are considering similar compensation initiatives are noticing this behaviour. Damian Collins, a British MP and former tech minister — by the way, a Conservative MP — had this to say:

It says a lot about the values of a company like @Meta that in Canada instead of paying modest compensation to news companies for the free distribution of their content, they’d rather block it. A big win for disinformation pushers if they flow through.

These same observers are watching the Canadian experiment and our experience very closely. That these internet giants would rather cut off Canadians’ access to local news than pay their fair share is a real problem.

The international community is also measuring the effectiveness of this bill, in many cases to see if they can use it as a guidepost for their own legislation.

The United Kingdom and New Zealand are putting forward comparable legislation while the European countries are implementing the EU copyright directive, which puts comparable requirements on platforms to compensate news publishers.

They will, no doubt, create legislation tailored to their own circumstances. They may even improve on our bill, just as we have improved on the Australian version, which raises the better question: Could this bill have been made better? Time will tell.

Let me say, though, that the committee which reviewed Bill C-18 has done so in a rigorous and thoughtful way and added a number of amendments that are supported by the government. They include, for example, putting a tripwire in place for the full regime to come into force within six months after Royal Assent, guaranteeing that an outlet does not have to participate in the regime if it does not wish to do so, and adding language that deals with official minority language communities as well as Black, Indigenous and other racialized communities.

However, the government expressed opposition to one amendment passed by committee. This amendment would force negotiators to set boundaries on bargaining by setting a simple value for news content and potentially curbing negotiations over other items of value. I expressed opposition to this amendment because it would likely result in less favourable negotiations for news outlets.

Currently, the legislation intentionally does not set boundaries on what parties can negotiate overall, allowing them to bargain over the elements outside the scope of news content. Under the current bill, the CRTC — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — would be required not only to consider the value of news content but also the value of a reader’s personal information, which can be used for other purposes.

This amendment reduces potential compensation to the outlets. Don’t take my word for it; take the word of the industry members who are surprised by this amendment. They say it handcuffs them and helps the platforms more than the media.

Paul Deegan, the CEO of News Media Canada, which represents 560 titles, said the following:

The amendment would limit the ability of news publishers to negotiate fair compensation with dominant platforms. Value will be determined during negotiations.

Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, President of La Presse, agreed:

This amendment would tie one hand behind our back and hamstring us in negotiations with the platforms that enjoy a massive power imbalance over news publishers. The majority of media outlets in Canada have tried to get deals with Facebook and Google, only to have the door slammed in their faces. This is particularly true in Quebec, where La Presse, the Quebecor titles and the Hebdos have all been left out in the cold. This amendment benefits the platforms at the expense of publishers.

So says Pierre-Elliott Levasseur.

Allow me, again, to underscore the need for urgent action. Big Tech would like nothing more than for this bill to be delayed beyond the summer, eating up crucial time to negotiate badly needed agreements with news outlets which are already in a very tight spot.

You need look no further than the announcement this week that BCE Inc. plans a news division consolidation by cutting 1,300 positions and closing or selling off nine radio stations.

It is also not hyperbole to say the very fabric of our democracy depends on a robust and diverse media; without it, the body politic will not have the information it needs to make informed decisions on our nation’s future.

If you doubt this, have a look at the nations that do not have access to unfettered press and the unchecked power wielded by their often autocratic leaders. I am not just speaking of the most vicious examples, like Vladimir Putin. I also think of a nation like Hungary, led by authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. Reporters Without Borders currently ranks Hungary eighty-fifth in the world when it comes to press freedom. Ten years ago, it ranked fortieth.

Turkey is another example. In the month of April, during that country’s recent election, the state broadcaster devoted 60 times more coverage to the incumbent — and the eventual winner — President Erdoğan than to his main opponent, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

Both of these nations were heretofore relatively strong Western democracies.

Here in Canada, we are obviously not living in the same environment. But we must be more vigilant about protecting democracy than we have been.

If you believe I’m exaggerating, look at the threats to pluralism that have taken root in the country south of us — and I don’t mean Mexico. We may not have appreciated it before, but it’s clear that democracy is fragile.

This is an essential bill aimed at providing one of our most important democratic institutions with some degree of protection.

It needs to become law and receive Royal Assent before we rise for the summer to ensure that those who need it can derive benefits before it’s too late.

I therefore urge your support for this important third reading vote. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Simons: I find myself perplexed. Perhaps it is the rush with which we did this, but, Senator Housakos, the amendment you described is not one that I proposed nor one that passed. We did have discussions in committee about the definition of Indigenous storytelling, but the amendment I proposed to clause 2, as I hope you recall, simply removed an example and broadened the scope rather than narrowing it. Can I help you clarify your understanding?

Senator Housakos: My position is what I stated in the report as I interpreted it. I’ve been consistent throughout the study. I don’t think it actually broadens it — that’s my opinion. You have the right to stand up and clarify, senator: We all have that privilege. And we have the privilege of agreeing to disagree on all issues. That’s what we do here, so you are free to put forward your interpretation of your amendment as you see it, and you can do it in your speech. You can do it, of course, now in debate. I’m entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours.

Senator Cormier: I just want to say that it actually does more than that, senator. On page 4, the amendment takes away the notion that there’s a diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes, and that makes me very uncomfortable. Thank you for your answer.

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Gold, the directive issued by the minister yesterday to ensure that the Victims Bill of Rights is respected has existed since 2015. That means that Mr. Trudeau’s government must have issued a directive in 2015 to not abide by the bill of rights, rather than to abide by it.

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Gold, the directive issued by the minister yesterday to ensure that the Victims Bill of Rights is respected has existed since 2015. That means that Mr. Trudeau’s government must have issued a directive in 2015 to not abide by the bill of rights, rather than to abide by it.

Despite all his empathy for victims, the minister forgot that he was in Truro two months ago, where about 15 families were listening as the Mass Casualty Commission report was read out, but neither he nor Mr. Trudeau met with these families.

In light of the concerns raised and the minister’s failure to protect and prioritize victims’ rights, will the minister resign?

Senator Loffreda: Yes.

Senator Moodie: Yes, at the age of 12, Anthaea-Grace will be graduating with an Bachelor of Biomedical Science honours degree from the University of Ottawa. Anthaea-Grace started at the University of Ottawa at the age of eight years old after her mother, Dr. Johanna Dennis, noticed her talent as a young child who learned to read at two years of age. At the age of six, she was tested and found to be at a Grade 8 level.

Senator Moodie: Yes, at the age of 12, Anthaea-Grace will be graduating with an Bachelor of Biomedical Science honours degree from the University of Ottawa. Anthaea-Grace started at the University of Ottawa at the age of eight years old after her mother, Dr. Johanna Dennis, noticed her talent as a young child who learned to read at two years of age. At the age of six, she was tested and found to be at a Grade 8 level.

Anthaea-Grace is a true researcher, having completed a 40-page thesis on the relationship between functional activity in the cerebellum — that part of the brain responsible for coordinating balance and movement — and handedness — that is, whether you are right-handed or left-handed. The paper concluded that connectivity between the brain and the hand is significantly different for people who are right-handed versus those who are left-handed. This is incredible work at any age, but particularly at 12 years of age.

Now, do not mistake Anthaea-Grace as simply a generational talent or a generational mind, if you will. She is in many ways a normal kid. She did ice-skating, musical theatre, dancing, swimming and she plays the violin. She loves hanging out with friends and, of course, learning.

There is no doubt that Anthaea-Grace owes a lot of her success to her mother and to her family. I want to acknowledge Dr. Johanna Dennis, an accomplished woman in her own right, for providing her daughter with the support, nurturing and environment that she needed to achieve this historic accomplishment.

What’s next? Anthaea-Grace is considering pursuing her education and is looking forward to a career in academia, where she can gain new knowledge through research and share her knowledge through teaching.

It has been an absolute pleasure getting to know you, Anthaea-Grace, and to witness your humility, brilliance and love of learning. You are an example of the potential that exists in all our children if we take the time to discover their potential and to foster and nurture their growth. Who knows? You may be back here soon enough as a witness in front of a committee or maybe, in 18 years, as a senator. Until then, keep making us proud. We look forward to all that you will do. On behalf of all senators, congratulations, and well done.

Senator Loffreda: I think we have a right to defend minorities in this chamber. We are a voice for minorities. That is exactly what I’m doing.

I don’t think every amendment made in this chamber concerns or reflects what the other place is thinking. As I said in my speech — and I don’t want to repeat it — there is a danger in retaining those references, and that is why I’m amending the bill as is.

Senator Loffreda: The reference to the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, which includes Bill 96, is being challenged in the courts. The “notwithstanding” clause was used pre-emptively, which leads us to believe that it’s not constitutional, and I don’t believe that’s the way to govern.

Senator Loffreda: The reference to the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, which includes Bill 96, is being challenged in the courts. The “notwithstanding” clause was used pre-emptively, which leads us to believe that it’s not constitutional, and I don’t believe that’s the way to govern.

Now, I don’t believe that is the situation or the case in the other provinces, and this is why I would like to remove these three references from Bill C-13. What happens when we change Bill 96, if we ever do change the Charter of the French Language law? Do we change Bill C-13?

I don’t believe the same situation as in Quebec is present in the provinces you have mentioned, which is kind of diminishing English minority rights, and that is why I feel these references should be removed.

[Translation]