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 Housakos: Can I ask for five more minutes to wrap up?

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 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.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, the default setting of the members of your cabinet, including the Prime Minister, is always to claim that they weren’t briefed, they didn’t receive an email or they just weren’t told. Are these familiar lines? Mr. Trudeau said it about MP Han Dong when he claimed ignorance — we now know that’s not true. Mr. Blair said it about the threats against MP Chong’s family. Ms. Joly said it about her staffers going to a garden party at the Russian embassy. Mr. Sajjan said it about the fall of Kabul, claiming he had too many emails, and he couldn’t possibly read all of those emails. Of course, that isn’t fitting on the part of that minister; that is complete incompetence.

Mr. Mendicino has said it on numerous occasions — most recently about the non-existent closure of illegal police stations being operated in Canada by Beijing, and now about the transfer of Paul Bernardo out of a maximum-security prison.

We have two options in front of us, government leader, and there is not a third option. Either the minister knew that the information he was giving to the House and the Canadian public was wrong, and he was intentionally misleading everyone, or he has absolutely no handle on his office, and his staff is running completely amok because of zero leadership on behalf of the minister.

Either way, this is my question for you: Where is the ministerial responsibility? If he won’t do the right thing and resign, why won’t the Prime Minister — your leader and the leader of this country — do the right thing and hold the minister to account?

Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. This report summarizes our committee’s study of and amendments to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, or in short, the online news act.

This bill was referred to committee for study on April 18, 2023. We held nine meetings in total, heard from 58 witnesses, including departmental officials who were on hand during our clause-by-clause consideration. There were also 27 written briefs submitted.

During clause by clause, which was completed in one meeting this past Tuesday, June 13, 2023, there were 18 amendments proposed by Senators Carignan, Clement, Cormier, Dasko, Miville-Dechêne, Simons, Wallin and the government itself. Of those proposed, 12 amendments were adopted. I have to say, like its predecessor Bill C-11, perhaps what I found most interesting about the bill was that even its most ardent supporters came to committee drawing attention to flaws in the legislation and seeking amendment.

While I do believe that some small changes of improvement have been made to the bill through some of the amendments we adopted at committee, I believe others run the risk of further complicating an already convoluted bill and making it even more unworkable.

While other reasonable amendments that were proposed and defeated were missed opportunities to vastly improve this flawed legislation, perhaps the most egregious of those missed opportunities was an amendment put forward by Senator Carignan that would have safeguarded against forcing platforms to pay for hyperlinks, including links that the news outlets themselves proactively post on those platforms.

This isn’t a practice where a news item is reproduced. The item appears on Facebook, for example, as a link that goes directly to the website of the news outlet. Facebook is actually providing the news outlet the vehicle with which to drive more traffic to their own sites. That’s why it’s the news outlets themselves who post these links on these platforms and encourage others to do so as well. Had this amendment been adopted, it would have removed perhaps one of the main criticisms of this legislation. A failure to fix this not only cripples the legislation, but may very well result in platforms not allowing that practice and thus crippling the very industry this bill is supposed to protect.

Another opportunity gravely missed was one that would have removed the eligibility of CBC to take part in the scheme. As Senator Carignan pointed out in moving this amendment — and I wholeheartedly concur in my comments — the CBC can hardly be described as a struggling news outlet. Yet this whole bill is predicated supposedly on the government’s desire to throw a lifeline to struggling media.

Smaller, independent and ethnic media outlets in this country already have to compete against the behemoth that is the publicly funded CBC for ad dollars. That’s already an unfair advantage to CBC. Now they are getting a significantly larger piece of the pie from this funding scheme. It boggles the mind that they would be included, and even more so that Senator Carignan’s amendment was defeated.

As for the 12 amendments that were adopted at committee, they include amending language in clause 2 that will expand the definition to specifically include official language minority community news outlets; amending clause 2 to limit the definition of Indigenous news outlets to one whose primary purpose is to produce news content. This was an amendment by Senator Simons that I would be surprised if it is supported by Indigenous media, and certainly seems to be at odds with the emphasis typically placed, in theory, by the Trudeau-appointed senators on listening and taking into consideration Indigenous input.

There were several others from Senators Clement, Cormier and Miville-Dechêne that were adopted, including, as previously mentioned, some that further complicate an already convoluted bill.

One of the most meaningful amendments, as far as improving this deeply flawed bill, came from Senator Dasko in clause 27, page 11, thus limiting the CRTC’s discretionary power as it relates to designating an eligible news business. This will leave it to news outlets themselves to determine if they wish to apply to be part of this program rather than having it forced on them.

Another important amendment came from the government, and it struck me that the bill made it as far as it did without this much-needed correction. That correction was in clause 36, page 15, line 11, which was amended to address a major gap to properly protect confidential information from being exposed during arbitration. This amendment adds further requirements and sanctions related to the improper disclosure of information by the arbitration panel or each individual arbitrator.

In fact, I was surprised that the government supported as many of the committee’s amendments as they did. Despite all time they had to draft this bill and all the months it has been in the House of Commons, it’s like they realized that it is really a bad bill, but they made promises to certain stakeholders to have this done so here it is.

Here we are, both chambers, in quite the spot at the end of the session, with only days left on the calendar. We will be rushing through third reading, with limited debate, in order to send an amended bill back to the other place so they have time to reply and we have time to accept their message before we all go home for the summer.

This is not the way Parliament should be conducting itself, but has become a hallmark of how it has been conducting itself. They make grand promises and either fail to deliver them altogether or throw together a piece of legislation at the last minute, resulting in poor drafting. Then it’s up to Parliament to fix it, but doing so in a rush to meet the government’s self-imposed deadline.

So now, despite all of the concerns raised by witnesses, committee members and many senators, the government wishes to move this bill into law as quickly as possible with the content of the bill itself becoming almost secondary.

That brings us to the last amendment adopted by our committee in clause 93, page 39, after line 26, that changes the coming-into-force provision. It now requires that the entire bill come into force within six months of receiving Royal Assent, which I have no doubt will happen in the next few days. When it does, the government will then have to show exactly how it will support small businesses, possibly without the involvement of large platforms and possibly in the face of significant trade implications.

With all of that said, I would like to thank all witnesses and senators, including Mr. Owen Ripley who has been a steadfast presence in our deliberations for a number of months. I would also like to thank Marc-André Roy and David Groves from our Law Clerk office for their diligent work; Jed Chong and Khamla Heminthavong from the Library of Parliament; our committee’s administrative assistant, Natassia Ephrem; and our unflappable committee clerk, who did tremendous work both on Bill C-11 and now on Bill C-18, Mr. Vincent Labrosse.

Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the committee and our excellent staff who work to support us and provide the wonderful results that we see in the work we do. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable colleagues, initially, I thought I might actually support this bill, believe it or not, despite the report I gave earlier. The Coles Notes version that journalists should be fairly compensated for their work sounded noble enough, and, colleagues, we all recognize — as the reflex is — we want to protect and ensure a thriving free and independent press. It’s crucial to our democracy. It’s crucial to our society.

I remember as a young man in my university days that newspapers were teaching tools. All of us relied on them for more than just information. It all sounds good that we’re trying to save, in a noble way, struggling journalism today, but you need only scratch the surface of Bill C-18 to understand that that’s not what it seems to be really doing.

Yes, traditional news media in this country is struggling. I say “traditional” because the truth is the industry as a whole isn’t struggling. It is just evolving, changing. It’s not just in journalism. We see it in every walk of life. We see it the way the restaurant industry works, the food industry and the transportation industry. The digital world has made significant changes. The whole world and everything we do is moving online. It’s progress. That’s why you see even the traditional broadcasters slowly abandoning their business model and their old way of doing things because the world, eyeballs and consumers are going in a different direction.

Is that concerning given the lack of regulation and the rise of misinformation and disinformation available on the internet? Sure, but that doesn’t mean, as Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner claimed, that online news is fake news, for example.

Somehow that we come to the conclusion that what’s going on in online news is misinformation and somehow traditional news broadcasters are more accurate or that they have more rigid standards, I think, is exaggerated. The news industry has been self-regulated for years. They’ve been setting their own standards.

Shame on MP Hepfner for maligning decent, hard-working Canadians who are making their living in this country delivering solid online news. The fact is online delivery is the future of news, and traditional media know it to be true. They have to adapt their business model or they will be left behind.

Many have adopted their models. In the meantime, there are massive job cuts and have been for several years. Bill C-18 isn’t going to fix that. I would support the bill if I were convinced that it would.

Certainly, it will give more revenue to large news outlets. It will make the big even bigger and the strong even stronger. The objective of trying to help diversify local news in the country will not be achieved with this bill. I believe quite the contrary. It will give more revenue to Bell Media, Rogers, Quebecor and tonnes more revenue to CBC, the government’s favourite place to put taxpayers’ money.

I want to also extend my concern, colleagues — and we all should — to the 1,300 employees who were fired yesterday by Bell Media. It is ironic. A lot of people are arguing that Bill C-18 is going to save media and journalists.

Well, we are on the cusp of passing this extremely important bill that is maybe not a magic bullet. I agree with Senator Harder that it is not a magic bullet, but why wouldn’t they wait and see the outcome? We’re rushing this bill through. Despite my reservations that this bill will not save and diversify journalism in this country, we are still giving it a shot. As you can see, we are not distracting from the objective of the government trying to put this bill forward.

I believe journalism is changing. It is inevitable. The reality of the digital world is changing, and journalists have to change with it.

Colleagues, once we pass Bill C-18, I suspect the 1,300 employees at Bell Media and all these journalists who lost their jobs in the next six months will be hired back, right? All the fat cats at Bell Media and CTV — I say fat cats because I guarantee the cuts we’ve seen in journalism over the years are not equivalent to the cuts we see in upper management of these corporations. I invite you all to go to the annual reports of Bell Media, Rogers and Quebecor and see what the executive salaries are. People think there are fat cats in the Senate and the gatekeepers here. Go check out the salaries of some of these executive vice-presidents. You’ll find it staggering. These same people who are so concerned about journalism and our democracy, go see how much they get paid compared to some of the hard-working journalists in this country.

It’s stunning to me that government talks a good game on following the science and embracing technology, but are doing the very opposite when it comes to digital internet media. The truth is companies like Bell have to adjust to the reality of the internet.

The other reality is that not one of these people who were let go yesterday will get rehired once this bill passes. I’m ready to bet on that and have that discussion when we review the outcome in a few months or even in a couple of years.

Contrary to what they said in their statement that things would have been different had Bill C-18 been passed sooner — the problem is we didn’t move quickly enough; it’s our fault — not one of those people who were let go yesterday would have held their jobs had Bill C-18 been passed one, two or six months earlier. I do want to point out how cynical Bell Media’s move is, both the timing and the blaming of it on regulatory burden and the slow passage of Bill C-18. I noticed that unlike in the case of Facebook and Google and their responses in regard to the implications of Bill C-18, Minister Rodriguez didn’t question Bell and their timing or accuse them of scare tactics and say he won’t be bullied or intimidated.

Colleagues, Meta and YouTube have been hiring Canadians across the country for years. I invite you to go to any region of the country where Google and Meta and Facebook have operations and visit their facilities. They’re hiring young Canadians at a record pace — these fat digital cats that need to be reeled in by the Canadian government because these are just terrible international corporations that are doing harm to our basic way of life. Go see all the thousands of young Canadians coming out of IT schools — the engineers and programmers — and see what kind of jobs they have and what kind of environment.

I went to visit a couple of the offices of Google last year, and, boy, let me tell you that I wish I was 25 or 30 again. That generation of kids, they know how to work, they know how to be innovative and they know how to create work-life balance. I was very impressed, and the future is bright. But we have to embrace them and give them an opportunity to grow, flourish and continue to be innovative.

Also, he can and should sympathize — I’m talking about my good friend Minister Rodriguez — with the people who lost their jobs yesterday, but I notice he didn’t say anything about the people who made the decision or call them out about their timing, as I said. That’s because it’s very easy to demonize big tech.

I have issues with them as well. I don’t think Meta and Alphabet are perfect. No corporation needs to be free to run wild, but I’m also not defending management at Bell Media or Rogers Communications or Shaw Communications, and I’m not picking sides. My sense is that when you look at this legislation, the government has a propensity to continue to defend traditional broadcasting, which we all know — we had this debate with Bill C-11 — is dead and done with, and they continue to side with big corporations: Bell Media, Rogers and Quebecor. They’re giants in this country, and they’re not giants because they offer the best service at the lowest price. Most of us in here are old enough to pay cable bills every month. Take a look at that bill. Call your friends down south in the United States or in Europe or anywhere else around the world and compare some of those cable bills.

Senator MacDonald: Our phone bills.

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?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Will Senator Omidvar take a question?

Senator Omidvar: Yes.