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.

Poilievre can bash Tait and gain support for his cause. But he would be hard-pressed to attack Rick Mercer or Catherine O’Hara. The other card the CBC has not played is what would Canada’s bilingual landscape would look like without Radio-Canada. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 13, 2023.

OTTAWA—”Defund the CBC” has been the Conservatives’ clarion call for decades.

Just about every leadership candidate promises to cut the public broadcaster’s funding, but as soon as they are elected, their tune quickly changes.

Pierre Poilievre is the exception to that rule. If anything, his anti-CBC rhetoric is getting more virulent.

So much so that the president of the CBC has actually launched her own attack on the Conservative leader.

Earlier this month, Catherine Tait stoked the fires for Tory fundraising by attacking Poilievre’s call to defund the CBC.

Tait told The Globe and Mail there is “a lot of CBC-bashing going on—somewhat stoked by the leader of the opposition.”

That was just the trap the official opposition leader was hoping she would fall into.

Poilievre makes his mark by picking fights. And his followers fund those fights.

So as soon as Tait made her comments, Conservative columnists like Lorrie Goldstein accused Tait of shooting an own goal.

The attack was followed by a fundraising email from Poilievre accusing Tait of being “the president and CEO of Trudeau’s $1.2-billion propaganda arm.”

He said it confirmed that “the CBC is now openly attacking me. They’re not even pretending to be unbiased.”

Tait has not expressed any regret for her comments, saying it is her job to communicate to Canadians –including politicians– the value of the public broadcaster, no matter whether they are Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrats.

However, as president of the public broadcaster, she should be smart enough to stay out of politics.

When Canadians understand the value of the public broadcaster, they reject politicians who muse about defunding the organization.

But Tait’s comments have managed to give life to what was only shadow-boxing until last week.

Her ill-advised comments were part of a wide-ranging interview designed to explain why the CBC was planning to move away from over-the-air television broadcasting in favour of digitalizing all content.

One wonders who is giving Tait communications advice when she thinks the end of over-the-air television is a good piece of news for her to be deliver to a major national newspaper?

If the public broadcaster cannot deliver the signal to all parts of the country, who will?

Tait did not walk back her Poilievre comments, but her announcement on the digital trajectory of the CBC has been clarified.

It won’t happen for a long time.

But the mere mention of ending over-the-air broadcasting has sent the group formerly known as Friends of the CBC into a political frenzy.

Friends used to be known as ‘Friends of the CBC’, but changed their name to simply Friends, and say their mandate is to build a robust Canadian broadcast system.

The notion that rural Canadians or those who still depend on antenna delivery would lose their service does not sit well with public broadcasting supporters.

In an interview, the CBC president has managed to provide oxygen to the Conservative defund initiative and annoy supporters.

Tait defended her anti-Poilievre comments by saying she was not a journalist.

There she is correct. It is her job to defend and promote the values of public broadcasting, but she should be astute enough to avoid opening the door to a political fight with an avowed enemy of the CBC.

Tait needs to promote a positive campaign on why the public broadcaster is worth funding.

She and the CBC board should be engaged in a proactive counterattack, underscoring why government investment has enhanced Canadians’ capacity to know and understand their own stories.

From Schitt’s Creek to Kim’s Convenience, from Rick Mercer to Catherine O’Hara, there are Canadian actors, comedians and storytellers who have garnered an international reputation.

They should be the spokespeople for advocating positively for continued investment in public broadcasting.

Poilievre can bash Tait, and actually gain support for his cause.

He would be hard-pressed to attack Mercer or O’Hara.

The other card that the CBC has not yet played is what would Canada’s bilingual landscape would look like without Radio-Canada.

When Poilievre sends out his fundraising missives, they are targeted to an English-speaking audience. The notion of trashing Radio-Canada would kill his chances of ever forming the government.

Millions of Canadians believe in the importance and power of public broadcasting.

They should be the target of a proactive communication initiative, including the minister of Canadian Heritage and parliamentarians who believe in public broadcasting.

The “Defund the CBC” salvo needs a rebuttal.

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