Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I want to briefly take part in this debate on Bill C-18 in order to offer some clarification on two of the amendments that I presented and that were rejected by the government.

At this stage, I accept the elected members’ decision, even though I do not accept the justification for this rejection. My role as a senator is to propose legislative changes that seem necessary to me, but I’m not about to lead a one-woman crusade against the will of a majority of MPs. I note, however, that the Senate has three former journalists among its ranks and that, at the end of the day, not one of them supports Bill C-18 in its current form.

I want to clear up any lingering misunderstandings over the amendments that I proposed, which sought to enshrine into law the concept of an exchange of value, monetary or otherwise, between the platforms and the media.

After months of study, consultation and discussion with experts and stakeholders, it became clear to me that there was a flaw in this bill.

It was the witness Konrad von Finckenstein, former chairman of the CRTC and an independent voice, who first brought it to our attention: The bill didn’t specify what had to be negotiated between the media and platforms such as Google and Facebook, resulting in very different expectations on both sides. Mr. von Finckenstein suggested to the committee that the objective of the negotiations be stated in the bill.

Of course, I’m perfectly aware of the imbalance of power between news outlets and internet giants. That’s obvious.

Nonetheless, I believed it was necessary to explicitly state in the bill that the negotiations and the arbitration had to focus on an exchange of value, monetary or otherwise, between the two parties, and not be a wage subsidy for newsrooms.

This didn’t come from me. That is what the government and its spokespersons told us. That is what they stated publicly, and this realistic reference to an exchange of benefits is included in the Australian code, the model on which Canada has mostly based its legislation.

No one, and definitely not Google or Facebook, made me move this amendment. Rather, it is a logical consequence of our debates, our research and the witnesses we heard from.

I won’t deny that I was hoping this clarification — an explicit and pragmatic recognition of the two-way relationship between the media and these platforms — could reduce tension and enable a more constructive dialogue among Facebook and Google, the government, and the media.

What I want most of all, of course, is for quality journalism that’s independent, accessible and financially healthy to continue to exist in Quebec and in Canada so that we, as citizens, can be informed and critical.

That’s one of the requirements for a healthy democracy. In these times of technological change, the fair, equitable, realistic solution isn’t obvious.

As I’ve said, I sincerely hope the government’s gamble will pay off. Thank you.

[English]