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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 4, 2019.

OTTAWA—Netflix just hiked its Canadian prices by three dollars a month.

That represents an increase of almost 30 per cent and it barely made a ripple on the consumer outrage meter.

Can you imagine the public pushback if Rogers or Bell were to hike their prices by almost 30 per cent?

There would be parliamentary inquiries demanding that the big broadcasting behemoths stop their greedy exploitation of Canadians.

But the biggest behemoth of all is Netflix, and it is fighting tooth and nail to remain outside the Canadian media regulatory framework.

Netflix insists that it should not be subject to the same regulations as other content carriers. The usual suspects are lining up on both sides of the Canadian content issue.

The debate on Cancon is almost as old as the beginning of radio.

Back on Sept. 11 in 1929, the Royal Commission on Canadian Radio Broadcasting issued a report that established the first blueprint for how the public airwaves would remain in public hands.

Known as the Aird Report, its conclusions, as follows, have survived the test of time. “The commission therefore emphasizes the idea of broadcasting as a ‘public service’ and recommends that Canada establish a national broadcasting company that will produce programs of ‘high standard.’ It also advocates setting up a chain of high power stations which will be funded by revenues from receiver licence fees, advertising sales and government money.”

In 1932, the first regulatory body was established by law, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which was accorded the authority to control all broadcasting and to set up a national radio service. Four years later, a new Canadian broadcasting act abolished the CRBC and established the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The act gave the CBC the power to issue licences and also set up a bilingual radio service.

Fast forward two decades and the arrival of television prompts another update of the regulations.

In 1951, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences chaired by Vincent Massey, extended the examination of radio to television broadcasting. Included in the study was a recommendation to align television’s technical signal requirements with those of the United States, opening the door to the first cross-border exchange of program signals in the world.

The Broadcasting Act was passed with a mandate to “safeguard, enrich, and strengthen the nation of Canada from sea to sea.”

Throughout its history, the fight between supporters and opponents of CANCON has been eerily repetitive.

Supporters point out the need for Canadian spaces to tell Canadian stories while opponents say we should not interfere with the role of the free market.

The players may change, but the arguments remain the same.

Michael Geist, a longtime cancon opponent, holds the Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce at the University of Ottawa law faculty.

He has built a career on opposing Cancon, and was a key critic when as minister; I pushed for more regulation and the establishment of a national television fund which morphed into the Canada Media Fund.

Just last week, Geist penned a doomsday scenario for The Globe and Mail in which he claimed that broadening the definition of Canadian broadcaster would force consumers to pay for a digital wall consisting of new taxes and regulations.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Geist built his argument on the fact that the Canadian content industry is alive and well and making plenty of creative product for viewers.

But he neglects to point out the health of the domestic industry is prompted by the same regulatory framework he denounces.

Contributions from cable and television providers and government subsidies meant the fund invested $352-million into Canadian content this year.

The tax system was also instrumental in encouraging foreign companies to hire local by offering tax relief for employment of Canadian workers.

Geographic proximity to the United States and the relative discount of the Canadian dollar make Canada an ideal destination for Hollywood productions looking to maximize their return on investment.

Industrial productions are thriving. But they should not be mistaken for Canadian content.

The beauty of Netflix’s financial model is that it films universal stories that are designed to avoid highlighting a single, identifiable country.

Exempting Netflix from the rules that govern everybody else makes no sense.

Geist claims consumers would be victims in a Netflix Cancon world.

On the contrary, consumers will benefit from more content.

Netflix should play by the rules that govern everyone else.

Those rules have obviously been working.

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