Heritage committee opens hearings on news compensation legislation

The government’s plan to force social media platforms to negotiate compensation deals with Canadian news organizations is either “rent-seeking behavior” that will prop up a handful of ailing legacy media organizations and push Canadian readers away from credible journalism, or it is an essential bill that will level the playing field amongst Canadian news organizations and protect a vital public service with a positive example in Australia. That’s according to the varied testimony Friday in the House of Commons heritage committee’s opening day of hearings into the Online News Act, also known as Bill C-18. It's the government’s effort to allow news organizations to bargain collectively with social media platforms to negotiate compensation for the sharing of their content by platforms like Meta Inc.’s Facebook and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. “Based on the Australian experience with its news media bargaining code, Bill C-18 should be strongly supported,” Australian National University professor Rod Sims told MPs. Sims was Australia's former competition commissioner until March of 2022 and helped design the Australian news compensation legislation. Similar to Canada’s C-18, the Australian news compensation legislation allows news organizations to trigger arbitration with platforms if negotiations are unsuccessful. “The threat of arbitration evens up the bargaining power, as all parties wish to avoid having an arbitrator determine commercial arrangements,” Sims said. The Australian code has been “extremely successful,” the code’s architect told the committee. He said it has led to a raft of hiring within the Australian journalism industry. He also noted that what he called “threats” from Facebook and Google to pull out of the Australian market in the run-up to the legislation have not materialized. Sims also disagreed with an assertion, offered earlier in the hearing by independent journalist Jen Gerson, that the Australian code was chiefly beneficial for large legacy media organizations like the type owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch. “The amounts paid per journalist were usually much larger for the smaller businesses,” Sims said, pointing to the organization Country Press Australia which Sims said represents some 180 rural publications, which he told MPs received “possibly the highest payment per journalist employed.” Gerson, who publishes the blog The Line on Substack, a publishing platform, argued against the bill generally. She said it was fundamentally “predicated on a lie” that social media platforms are unduly profiting by publishing news content. The value proposition, she argued, flows the other way, from the platforms to the news organizations. She added that Bill C-18 risks pushing platforms toward promoting unreliable and less-mainstream content, should platforms be forced to pay for mainstream journalism. University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist told MPs that he foresees four central problems with the bill. First, the bill treats the notions of access and reproduction of news content far too broadly. Second, the bill treats the linking to a news organizations front page as a compensable act. Third, and echoing Gerson, the bill risks increasing the amount of misinformation because of a lack of standards for what qualifies as journalism in the bill. Fourth, Geist said the bill may run afoul of a number of treaty and constitutional obligations. Geist said that section 24 of the bill, which excludes copyright limitations and exceptions from the bargaining process, might violate the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works because of the convention's mandatory "rate of quotation". Geist also said that the legislation may violate the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (CUSMA), including what he said amounts to a “must-carry” obligation for platforms to link to a third-party, and are vulnerable to a challenge under CUSMA's prohibitions against imposing performance requirements on businesses. “With regards to constitutional concerns, the bill isn’t broadcast, it isn’t telecommunications, and it’s not copyright. How then does it fit within federal powers?” Geist said. David Skok, CEO and editor of The Logic, said the bill functions as “a backstop” that “levels the playing field” amongst Canadian news outlets, that will force news outlets and tech platforms to negotiate in the open. President and CEO of News Media Canada Paul Deegan - who appeared alongside News Media Canada’s Jamie Irving -- said that without the bill, tech platforms will only negotiate with larger, legacy media organizations. Deegan also praised the Australian legislation that he said has seen over $200 million injected into the media market. — Reporting by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca.

Heritage committee opens hearings on news compensation legislation

Broadcast | September 23, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Heritage committee opens hearings on news compensation legislation

Broadcast | September 23, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta’s fight with feds impacts emergency info sharing for southwestern Ont. municipality

OPINION: The Online News Act is a dismal failure that must be replaced

Fiscal 2024 off to a strong start: Stingray

Feds, Cogeco, Quebecor, say goodbye to Meta

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us