Canada’s Bill C-18 could lead to ‘global spread’ of similar laws targeting Big Tech, MPs hear
'A lot of countries are looking at it because of the nature of these global platforms, a lot of countries are in the same position we are'
Article content
Other countries are likely to follow Canada’s lead with their own legislation forcing companies like Facebook and Google to share revenue with news publishers, MPs heard Friday, as they were also warned the bill takes a “dangerous” approach around value for links.
“A lot of countries are looking at it because of the nature of these global platforms, a lot of countries are in the same position we are,” said Taylor Owen, associate professor and director of the Centre for Media Technology and Democracy at McGill University. He said Bill C-18 has “improved materially” on a similar law Australia put forward last year.
He told MPs studying C-18 that the legislation has “significantly increased the likelihood that other countries, such as the U.K., Germany, South Africa, and maybe even the U.S., will very soon adopt a similar model.”
It’s that threat of “global spread” that Owen said has “shaped the character of the platforms’ response to this bill.”
Both Google and Facebook parent company Meta have been vocal in their opposition to the bill in recent weeks, with Meta going as far as to threaten to pull news from its platform in Canada.
The meeting Friday was the last in the House of Commons heritage committee’s study of Bill C-18 before MPs move into clause-by-clause consideration, where they will consider amendments. One possible change is expanding the eligibility criteria to smaller news outlets, which the Liberal government is considering, the National Post reported earlier this week.
Bill C-18 would force Google and Meta to sign commercial deals with Canadian news publishers, which could end up funding 30 per cent of the cost of producing news in Canada.
Some critics of the bill say the language of the legislation effectively forces the online platforms to pay for online links—something supporters of the bill deny, pointing out C-18 doesn’t mention links specifically (Postmedia, which publishes the National Post, is in favour of the legislation).
But critics say the language of the bill does ascribe value to online links to news content, and that runs counter to what the Supreme Court has previously ruled. University of Ottawa professor and Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law Michael Geist said at the committee Friday that the inclusion of links is “not in doubt.”
The bill is aimed at online platforms that make “make news content available to persons in Canada,” which the text of the legislation defines as reproducing it or facilitating access “by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.”
Geist told the committee in an earlier appearance that linking to the front page of a newspaper’s website would count as “facilitating access to news.”
He said Friday “once law says some platforms must pay to permit expression, the same principle can be applied to other policy objectives, and the entire foundation for sharing information online is placed at risk.” He suggested the government instead consider a fund model.
Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez told the committee on Oct. 21 there “isn’t a cost or fee per link or click, precisely,” under the bill.
“What you do is look at the overall material that is used by a platform from a media source. The negotiations are then based on that overall information that is used. They sit down and negotiate.”
But Matt Hatfield, campaigns director at internet advocacy group OpenMedia said the links are realistically the only numbers-based criteria that can be used to determine value under the bill.
“I don’t think anyone really knows how the determinations are going to be made around what the payments are based on, but spread of links and content and clicks appear to be the only criteria that are at all quantifiable in this bill,” he said during an Oct. 28 appearance. “It’s either that or… just a sense that there must be an intangible amount of extra value being delivered.”
Canadian Association of Broadcasters president Kevin Desjardins said during his own October appearance that the bill would not create a “link tax.” “It would not break the Internet, as it has not in Australia,” he said.
Former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies said in late September he doesn’t understand how there can only be value to news links and not to other kinds of content. “Why don’t I get paid per tweet, right? Why don’t I get paid every time I post of a picture of my grandchildren on Facebook? Why don’t I get paid for my links? This sort of reserving it for this area is not a good idea,” he said.
Jen Gerson, co-founder of the Line, told MPs in September the issue behind the bill isn’t that Google and Meta are “stealing” content, but that the two tech giants have decimated the business models of traditional news media. Google and Facebook now take 80 per cent of digital advertising revenue in Canada.
“I wish we could be a little bit more candid about what we’re talking about. When we say that Google and Facebook are in competition with news media outlets, we’re not in competition for content; we’re in competition for advert revenue,” Gerson said.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.