Whatever the Liberals do these days—even if it is groundbreaking, and puts $100-million into the creation of domestic news stories—they cannot win.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 4, 2023.

OTTAWA—The government’s Google announcement last week should have been met with applause all the way around.

Canada has always been a leader in new ideas and instruments to protect culture, and obviously the survival of local news is a key to spawning more Canadian content.

But whatever the Liberals do these days—even if it is groundbreaking, and puts $100-million into the creation of domestic news stories—they cannot win.

Pundits variously described the agreement with Google as “dodging a bullet,” a self-inflicted wound, and another cock-up by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Talk about kicking a guy while he is down.

We know the numbers for the Liberals look grim. According to the latest polls, they are running neck and neck with the New Democratic Party. But how that unpopularity can be expanded to include the government’s Google agreement is pretty hard to swallow.

The Canadian government has followed the lead of Australia, which was the first country in the world to regulate the social media landscape in an attempt to secure funding for domestic content.

This is one area where Canadians have a fair bit of experience, and the decision to take on Google, Meta, and the other social media behemoths was a courageous one. Some said the Liberals should just wait to take their lead from the G7 or the OECD. That advice would have meant no action, as the Americans are usually opposed to public intrusion into what they consider their media space.

The European Union has been making its own inroads into taking on big tech. The EU fought Apple in a decision last year as it moved to standardize chargers for smartphones and tablets sold in Europe. Canada announced a similar decision in the last budget, and the European market of 450 million people will receive a standard USB Type-C charging port by the end of next year.

As Europe takes on Apple, Canada goes for Google. One jaded journalist went so far as to claim the Canadian government was involved in a “shakedown.”

Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne tweeted that there was “no actual legal, logical or moral case for forcing Google to underwrite the Canadian media.” He called the agreement “strictly opportunistic: 1) Google has a lot of money. 2) We want some. 3) Make them give it to us.”

In fact, there is plenty of precedent for content transmitters to chip in on Canadian story development. That model has been used in the television world since the private cable industry was required to establish a fund to support Canadian content.

Their fund morphed into partnership with the government via the Canadian Television Fund, and then into the Canada Media Fund, which currently invests $366-million annually into media production. That investment triggers $1.7-billion in industry activity in Canada, providing employment for more than 244,000 people.

As television and streaming collided through the introduction of internet media content creation, it made sense for the Canadian government to require new media players to do their part in the creation of content. As Google traffics in the news, it can also help to pay for local news creation, using a tried-and-true model that will now likely be copied by dozens of other jurisdictions around the world.

The Liberal government should be congratulated as a leader in public policy on the issue of social media transmission. Instead, even though last week’s announcement will assist in the survival of local media outlets, there were no kudos for Trudeau.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has already promised to trash the Google deal with the same vision he uses to promise defunding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The Google story was not big news across the country as it was an inside-the-beltway negotiation, but the outcome of this new investment could be critical for the survival of local media in the next decade.

Most people may not care about the intricacies of public policy when it comes to the creation of Canadian content. But without government leadership, the chance to grow a dying news industry is slim to none.

Last week’s announcement should have been met with at least one day of positive coverage. But when the media decides that it is time for a change at the top, nothing—not even a trailblazing move to save media—will kill the main story.

The appetite for political change is fuelled by negative Trudeau stories on a daily basis.

That is not going to change.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Google leadership told a parliamentary committee that the government’s attempt to monetize internet news content for local support would not work. They said the same thing in Australia and, according to the government there, the move has provided almost $200-million in payments to news providers since the bill passed in 2021.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 27, 2023.

OTTAWA—Google’s Canadian muzzle may not work.

The company says it is cutting off service to four per cent of the population on a temporary basis.

But rest assured, the four per cent will be those who feel it most.

Canadian Heritage is on the hit list.

That direct line of fire suggest this is an attempt to convince Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez to drop legislation which will require internet giants like Google to compensate Canadian news outlets for populating their sites with stories by Canadian journalists. Google says it is limiting access to news content to assess possible responses to the bill.

Google says the legislation doesn’t work, and is obviously doing everything in its power to stop it.

That temporary blockage on Canadian Heritage information and other key providers coincides with second reading of Bill C-18 in the Senate.

It is the last stand for an internet behemoth that has no interest in paying for the news content consumed through its portals.

But similar legislation has been in place in Australia since 2021 and appears to be having the desired effect.

Our Bill C-18 is modelled on the Australian law, which has been effective in stemming the cash hemorrhage facing many Aussie news outlets.

In Canada, newspapers are dropping like flies. And it isn’t just the printed word that is suffering.

Just last week, Quebec television network TVA announced layoffs of more than 200 people. A couple of weeks earlier, The Vancouver Sun wielded a similar axe to its editorial staff.

Google leadership told a parliamentary committee that the government’s attempt to monetize internet news content for local support would not work.

But they said the same thing in Australia, threatening to pull Google out of the country altogether before the legislation was finalized.

In the end, Google complied with the requirement to sign commercial remuneration deals with the news outlets that populate their sites.

According to the Australian government, the move has provided almost $200-million in payments to news providers since the bill passed in 2021.

As the Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications undertakes second reading of the our version of the bill, the usual suspects are lining up in opposition. University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist is calling Bill C-18 an attack on freedom of expression for all Canadians in one column, published Nov. 1, 2022 and headlined “Why Bill C-18’s mandated payment for links is a threat to freedom of expression in Canada.” Geist claims that seeking payment for some news retransmission is the basis for this threat. His argument runs counter to the fact that for more than a century, Canadians have paid, in some form or another, for access to news.

Whether it’s included in the cost of a television cable package, or financed by an annual newspaper subscription, access to content created by journalists has been financed the consumers of that content.

Geist and other “freedom of expression” proponents know that the internet is not exactly free, either.

Providers like Facebook and Google are currently charging for advertising to monetize their information offerings. Their advertising totals $9.7-billion a year, representing more than 80 per cent of online ad revenues.

So, Geist’s free speech claim doesn’t really hold water. Every consumer of online news is subject to the influence of those paid advertisements. Hardly free at all.

The irony is that the news outlets whose stories are populating the internet are not paid a penny as a share of that whopping annual total of almost $10-billion in advertising revenue.

Conservatives are opposing the legislation, partly because they say the CBC will receive remuneration as an outcome.

But they are not speaking too loudly because they agree that local news outlets in Canada are in real trouble and need some help to survive.

Bill C-18 is not going to solve all the problems facing the Canadian news-gathering ecosystem.

Most internet-surfing young Canadians have never even bothered to subscribe to any made-in-Canada news service. Their news reach is global and much of what populates their feeds could loosely be called infotainment, not information.

The goings-on of Hollywood are much more interesting than the trajectory of a Canadian bill to save local newsgathering.

Government is also tackling the tricky issue of how to deal with fake news, and deliberate foreign interference in Canadian public policy decisions, including elections.

Last summer, Rodriguez and Justice Minister David Lametti set up an advisory roundtable on how to tackle internet disinformation and fraud.

Recent reports have alleged Chinese interference in the 2021 Canadian election.

Russian internet news influence in the last American election has been well-documented.

Internet information transmission is here to stay.

But it is time to pay the piper.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

This fall, Twitter and Facebook advertising influence will probably outstrip the combined effect of radio and television.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 1, 2019.

OTTAWA—Twitter received kudos last week for finally announcing the suspension of political advertising during the summer.

The social media feed was late to that party, having been publicly scolded by Democratic Reform Minister Karina Gould for its silence on recent government legislation limiting social media advertising.

Michele Austin, head of government and public policy for Twitter Canada, publicized the decision after initially refusing to comment on new legislation requiring companies to set up registries if they are selling political advertising. Foreign ad placement is also illegal.

Facebook, Google, and Microsoft had already announced their intention to comply.

Twitter only promised to ban advertising until the formal election call, which will happen in September. Surprisingly, Austin said issues-based political advertising would be exempt from the summer ban.

Google has decided not to run ads during the election, while Facebook plans to advertise, with the requisite registry.

Twitter followers will understand the weakness of the Twitter response. The federal election is an opportunity to log in lots of advertising in a confined media space that is particularly attractive to political junkies.

What better way to monetize a social feed that is probably the most direct way to reach so-called vote influencers in an attempt to shape the direction of the election.

Of all social media platforms, Twitter is the one that really draws in those influencers.

From #MAGA to @JustinTrudeau, friends and enemies alike can get political messaging directly from their respective leaders. They can also pollute opponents’ tweets, with retweets that add a negative twist to the original message.

The platform can be a perfect “gotcha” where leaders are exposed for saying one thing and doing another. After the Liberals announced an end to single-use plastic, the prime minister posted a staff meeting photo on Twitter where plastic forks were included in the pizza lunch.

Just last week @CanadaProud offered a $1,000 reward on Twitter to anyone who could snap a photo of the prime minister sipping from a plastic straw.

@CanadaProud was launched following the successful @OntarioProud attacking the Liberals and electing Doug Ford. The founder said the new arm of the organization was launched with the express purpose of defeating Justin Trudeau and electing Andrew Scheer.

Allegedly, the group has nothing to do with the Conservative Party. As a registered third party, it bills itself as a non-partisan, not-for-profit, grassroots organization.

When Jeff Ballingal, a former communications staffer in the Stephen Harper government, launched the organization, the purpose was very clear. “We want to defeat Liberals all over the country.”

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, much has been written about the participation of union Unifor spending on advertising to defeat Andrew Scheer. Another third-party group called @EngageCanada includes board members with close ties to the Liberals and New Democrats. They recently launched a campaign with the express purpose of defeating Andrew Scheer.

Both so-called third-party organizations are working overtime this summer to get their competing messages out.

They have a fine line to walk, as any direct link to a political party running in the campaign could result in the loss of their tax-deductible status.

The onslaught of advertising in traditional and social media is on the uptake because legislation covering political advertising only kicks in when the election is called.

The obvious abuse of third-party advertising needs to be curbed. The easiest way to fix the situation is to ensure that Elections Canada has the power to manage all political, and third-party advertising, whether an election is in the offing or not.

Recent advertising trashing Trudeau even went so far as to use the same actors as the Conservative campaign back in 2015.

Pre-writ advertising does not require naming of the party that paid for any ad. But the blurred lines between political parties and third-party advertisers really need to be re-examined.

What Twitter and Facebook offer are platforms for an easily transmittable message that any follower can flip to friends with little effort and maximum political trending impact.

So with a small investment, a third party can mobilize followers and grow their data base, simply with the flick of a finger on Facebook or Twitter.

Precisely because of the impact of third party players in Ontario, the provincial government has new laws limiting advertising spends even before an election is called.

This fall, Twitter and Facebook advertising influence will probably outstrip the combined effect of radio and television.

The time has come to legislate all political advertising 365 days a year.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.