Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?

Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that the bill, as amended, be read the third time now.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, colleagues, for letting us commence this debate now.

I rise today on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people to speak on third reading of Bill C-18, the online news act. This bill compels large digital platforms, like Meta and Google, to compensate Canadian media outlets in return for posting news content on their platforms. It is a bill that we must urgently pass for the sake of the industry and, perhaps more importantly, for the sake of our public discourse and our commitment to democratic debate.

Senators are no doubt familiar with the bill, so I won’t dwell on the specifics. At its essence, the online news act will encourage digital platforms to enter into voluntary commercial agreements between themselves and the news organizations whose content they post on their sites. Those who don’t reach agreements will be subject to final-offer arbitration.

At issue is the fact that these same digital platforms derive economic benefit in the form of ad revenue from content that they do not produce. In some cases, they pay individual outlets for content, but in many others they do not.

Bill C-18 would ensure that those platforms can no longer pick and choose which outlets they will compensate. It is, in its rawest form, a bill aimed at levelling the playing field between those outlets that have agreements and those that don’t.

Many of the latter are small- and medium-sized outlets that have continued to publish on shoestring budgets, having already slashed jobs and wages. Since 2008, Canada has lost over 460 outlets. Just five months ago, Postmedia, which operates more than 100 large and small newspapers across the nation, announced cuts of 11% of its staff.

Many of the publications that this bill will help have already made heroic efforts to serve the public. I am put in mind, for example, of the public service performed by our nation’s minority language press in informing various diasporas on how to protect themselves from the coronavirus. New Canadians, many of whom don’t speak either English or French, had nowhere else to turn for information that — it is no exaggeration — they needed to survive. These publications stepped up, with some operating at a loss. It’s fair to ask whether they will still be there when the next public health emergency surfaces.

Others, like hard-pressed rural and northern outlets, have continued to publish the goings-on of their community, connecting the farthest-flung parts of our country to our larger population centres. This is a crucial role they play at a time when polarization in Canada and the rest of the world interferes with our ability to talk to each other.

Still other publications in the racialized, Indigenous and official minority language spheres work hard to inform their often underserved readerships. This initiative will help those I just mentioned if they want to be part of it.

Let me hasten to add, though, that Bill C-18 should not be seen by anyone as a panacea. It is but one of a number of programs already undertaken which are aimed at helping our challenged news industry weather and, hopefully, thrive in the ever-changing digital environment.

It is my own view that the future of journalism will be shaped not just by the surviving legacy media outlets, but by the many smaller, flexible and adaptable outlets that have begun to spring up.

A number of them appeared before us during committee hearings. One such outlet is The Logic, a digital-only publication that covers the innovation economy by providing in-depth reporting on organizations, policies and people driving transformational change. This is an issue, as senators might know, that is close to my heart.

Despite The Logic’s devotion to such pioneering subject matter, it finds itself at a competitive disadvantage, forced to contend with larger outlets that already have agreements with the big digital platforms. Indeed, the publication’s Chief Executive Officer, David Skok, has said it’s unfortunate to be in a situation where he must rely on agreements with private industries like Google to help fund his publication’s journalism. The Logic feels compelled to support the act because Big Tech selects which outlets it wants to support through voluntary agreements and refrains from supporting others. This creates an uneven playing field.

If we want to encourage the development of publications like The Logic — which I believe are the future — we cannot allow the larger platforms to sign deals only with the big players. This makes for competitive unfairness and, more disturbingly, allows Big Tech to pick winners and losers — exactly the criticism that gets levelled at government for launching initiatives like this bill.

It’s far better, in my view, to treat everyone equally, particularly in an industry that provides such an important public service as does journalism.

Adding this initiative to others that have been enacted by government, including the Canada Periodical Fund, the Local Journalism Initiative and the journalism labour tax credit, will go some ways to sustaining the industry as it continues to find its legs in the new environment.

The bill, of course, is not free of criticism. Some have criticized it, for example, for potentially keeping alive publications that have not done the work required to adjust to the new reality. I will leave that judgment to others more familiar with the efforts being made at some of these outlets, many of which have been publishing for generations.

I would say, however, that the consequences of not supporting those publications risks the loss of something bigger than the publications themselves — namely, the infrastructure which supports the whole profession.

What is ultimately at stake here is the removal of experienced and guiding hands which maintain a mature industry over time. In our own review of the bill, it became clear that younger journalism graduates have fewer and fewer mentors to whom they can look up. These younger journalists are put into positions of leadership which, in previous years, would have taken many of them more years to reach. The pool upon which even the best publications rely on to hire promising up-and-comers is becoming shallower by the year.

Given this contraction, is it any wonder that publications that deal with misinformation and disinformation are becoming increasingly influential? Relying on such outlets to convey information would be bad even for Big Tech, which makes me wonder why they continue to use bullying tactics to oppose this bill. As you know, the big platforms have gone so far as to experiment with blocking access to news on their sites. Just this week, Meta began blocking news for some Canadians on Facebook in a test that is expected to last most of the month. Google did the same thing earlier this year.

Now, it’s not my business to say whether such moves are counterproductive for a company’s Canadian reputation or its bottom line. It defies credulity when these corporations argue that it is somehow their free-market right to derive ad revenue without compensating those who create the content.

Musicians who write pop songs get paid when those pop songs are played on the radio. Playwrights get a royalty when their work is put on a stage, even at the local community theatre. When a famous individual’s image is used to advertise a certain product, that person is paid for the value of the personal brand he or she has created through many years of hard work.

As Ronald Reagan learned, if you want to use “Born in the U.S.A.” as a campaign theme, you’d better ask The Boss first.

These platforms claim that news holds little value for them. This is too hard to buy. Users come to social media and search engines to access the totality of the internet; 77% of Canadians get their news online, including 55% of Canadians who use social media platforms as a pathway to news.

Professor Dwayne Winseck, who testified before our committee, estimates that in 2021 Google’s advertising revenue in Canada alone was $4.9 billion while Meta’s was $4 billion.

What these foreign multinationals are really worried about is a check on their dominant market position. International observers whose nations are considering similar compensation initiatives are noticing this behaviour. Damian Collins, a British MP and former tech minister — by the way, a Conservative MP — had this to say:

It says a lot about the values of a company like @Meta that in Canada instead of paying modest compensation to news companies for the free distribution of their content, they’d rather block it. A big win for disinformation pushers if they flow through.

These same observers are watching the Canadian experiment and our experience very closely. That these internet giants would rather cut off Canadians’ access to local news than pay their fair share is a real problem.

The international community is also measuring the effectiveness of this bill, in many cases to see if they can use it as a guidepost for their own legislation.

The United Kingdom and New Zealand are putting forward comparable legislation while the European countries are implementing the EU copyright directive, which puts comparable requirements on platforms to compensate news publishers.

They will, no doubt, create legislation tailored to their own circumstances. They may even improve on our bill, just as we have improved on the Australian version, which raises the better question: Could this bill have been made better? Time will tell.

Let me say, though, that the committee which reviewed Bill C-18 has done so in a rigorous and thoughtful way and added a number of amendments that are supported by the government. They include, for example, putting a tripwire in place for the full regime to come into force within six months after Royal Assent, guaranteeing that an outlet does not have to participate in the regime if it does not wish to do so, and adding language that deals with official minority language communities as well as Black, Indigenous and other racialized communities.

However, the government expressed opposition to one amendment passed by committee. This amendment would force negotiators to set boundaries on bargaining by setting a simple value for news content and potentially curbing negotiations over other items of value. I expressed opposition to this amendment because it would likely result in less favourable negotiations for news outlets.

Currently, the legislation intentionally does not set boundaries on what parties can negotiate overall, allowing them to bargain over the elements outside the scope of news content. Under the current bill, the CRTC — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — would be required not only to consider the value of news content but also the value of a reader’s personal information, which can be used for other purposes.

This amendment reduces potential compensation to the outlets. Don’t take my word for it; take the word of the industry members who are surprised by this amendment. They say it handcuffs them and helps the platforms more than the media.

Paul Deegan, the CEO of News Media Canada, which represents 560 titles, said the following:

The amendment would limit the ability of news publishers to negotiate fair compensation with dominant platforms. Value will be determined during negotiations.

Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, President of La Presse, agreed:

This amendment would tie one hand behind our back and hamstring us in negotiations with the platforms that enjoy a massive power imbalance over news publishers. The majority of media outlets in Canada have tried to get deals with Facebook and Google, only to have the door slammed in their faces. This is particularly true in Quebec, where La Presse, the Quebecor titles and the Hebdos have all been left out in the cold. This amendment benefits the platforms at the expense of publishers.

So says Pierre-Elliott Levasseur.

Allow me, again, to underscore the need for urgent action. Big Tech would like nothing more than for this bill to be delayed beyond the summer, eating up crucial time to negotiate badly needed agreements with news outlets which are already in a very tight spot.

You need look no further than the announcement this week that BCE Inc. plans a news division consolidation by cutting 1,300 positions and closing or selling off nine radio stations.

It is also not hyperbole to say the very fabric of our democracy depends on a robust and diverse media; without it, the body politic will not have the information it needs to make informed decisions on our nation’s future.

If you doubt this, have a look at the nations that do not have access to unfettered press and the unchecked power wielded by their often autocratic leaders. I am not just speaking of the most vicious examples, like Vladimir Putin. I also think of a nation like Hungary, led by authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. Reporters Without Borders currently ranks Hungary eighty-fifth in the world when it comes to press freedom. Ten years ago, it ranked fortieth.

Turkey is another example. In the month of April, during that country’s recent election, the state broadcaster devoted 60 times more coverage to the incumbent — and the eventual winner — President Erdoğan than to his main opponent, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

Both of these nations were heretofore relatively strong Western democracies.

Here in Canada, we are obviously not living in the same environment. But we must be more vigilant about protecting democracy than we have been.

If you believe I’m exaggerating, look at the threats to pluralism that have taken root in the country south of us — and I don’t mean Mexico. We may not have appreciated it before, but it’s clear that democracy is fragile.

This is an essential bill aimed at providing one of our most important democratic institutions with some degree of protection.

It needs to become law and receive Royal Assent before we rise for the summer to ensure that those who need it can derive benefits before it’s too late.

I therefore urge your support for this important third reading vote. Thank you.

Did you have a question, Senator Dagenais?

Senator Harder, would you take a question?

No.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the online news act, at third reading.

The news media business in Canada is in trouble, and Bill C-18 is designed to be part of the solution.

Many news organizations, particularly newspapers, are in dire straits. A 2021 Statistics Canada report surveying newspaper publishers in Canada revealed that operating revenue of Canadian newspaper publishers declined to $2.1 billion in 2020, down 22% from just two years earlier, in 2018.

Declines in revenues have led to closures and job losses; over 469 news outlets have closed from 2008 to 2022, including over 300 community newspapers, and one third of journalism jobs have disappeared since 2010.

Just yesterday, Bell Media announced the elimination of 1,300 jobs, mostly affecting their news operations, including nine radio stations and foreign bureaus.

The other side of this picture is that the internet has increased its share of advertising revenue as that of newspapers and other media has declined. Government background documents estimate that Google’s and Facebook’s revenues from digital advertising were $9.7 billion in Canada in 2021, which was 80% of the total digital ad revenue of about $12 billion.

Bill C-18 aims to fix the balance. The rationale behind the bill is that news organizations are not getting fair compensation for the news they produce from the digital platforms that distribute this news to the public.

Bill C-18 requires that major digital platforms make deals with news businesses to pay these businesses for information that is shared on their platforms.

Bill C-18 lays out the framework behind these deals. If voluntary deals are made between digital platforms and eligible news media within certain timelines that meet certain criteria, digital platforms would be exempted from the required portion of the act, which is to enter into a formal negotiation process that could lead to final offer arbitration. The CRTC will take the role in developing a code of conduct to guide the bargaining process and determine if agreements reached meet the conditions for exemption, among other roles it will take on.

Bill C-18 is a complex bill, and it needed fulsome study. We had a good process at committee, but I feel we needed to do more.

Bill C-18 came to this chamber at first reading on February 2. We heard the sponsor’s speech on February 7 but did not hear the first witnesses at our Transport and Communications Committee until April 25. From February 7 to April 25 is a very long time at second reading during sitting weeks, which, in my view, should have been spent studying the bill at committee. Our 10 meetings might easily have expanded to 13, 15 or even more meetings. Let’s compare our 10 meetings to the 31 meetings we had on Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, and I’m not saying we should go there, but that bill was a similarly complex communications bill. I feel we needed more time on Bill C-18.

I want to focus on some of what we learned at committee and where I see issues going forward that we were not able to examine.

Our nine meetings with witnesses — of course, we had one meeting for clause-by-clause consideration — focused primarily on the views of stakeholders. From our 60 witnesses, we learned that Bill C-18 has widespread support, particularly across the newspaper sector, including large and small organizations, as represented, for example, by News Media Canada, but it also has significant support among broadcasters such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. It has strong support among online publishers and multicultural media.

However, the two digital platforms, Google and Facebook, which would now qualify as the operators responsible for making deals with news organizations under the act, are aggressively opposed. During the period of parliamentary review of the bill, both companies launched “market studies” which involved blocking access to news on their platforms to some of their users and subscribers. While market studies are legitimate, and I can say this from 30 years in this industry, the timing of these studies was provocative, to say the least, and is rightly seen as a shot across the bow at the government and at the news industry in this country. Minister Rodriguez described these actions as threats, and even the Prime Minister weighed in, accusing the companies of using bullying tactics and saying that the federal government would not back down.

When both tech giants appeared as witnesses at committee on May 3 and were asked how they would respond if the bill were to pass in its current form, Google Vice President of News, Richard Gingras, did not want to speculate. He replied:

We’ve been clear on the considerations we have, which is to do with whether we need to assess how we use links or whether we need to assess whether it is logical for us to continue to provide a service like Google News . . . . I have no certainty right now as to what we might do.

Facebook, however, was categorical. Rachel Curran, Head of Public Policy for Meta in Canada, stated:

Because the legislation ignores the realities of how our platforms work, the preferences of people who use them and the value we provide news publishers, we have no choice but to comply with it by ending the availability of news content in Canada if Bill C-18 is passed as drafted.

We have two very large, very powerful, very angry foreign‑owned tech giants required by law to negotiate with way smaller Canadian firms. What could possibly go wrong?

Some have debated whether the company’s threats to leave are real or, in fact, a bluff. But if they are real, there is reason to be concerned. That is because we also learned at committee about how many news publishers rely on these platforms for their own business operations and successes.

Jeff Elgie of Village Media told us:

. . . we benefit greatly from the traffic back to our sites that we, in turn, are able to monetize and form new audiences, subscribers and followers that we would otherwise be challenged to reach. . . . Google and Facebook combined generate almost 50% of our traffic on an ongoing basis. . . . You will find similar numbers across our entire industry, legacy or new.

If that traffic were to be lost, the business would be over.

This sentiment was echoed by journalist and commentator Jen Gerson, who stated at committee that independent media, start-up media and media trying to build its brand in the marketplace are reliant on social media to build a brand, develop an audience and get a network across. The loss of Facebook, she believed, would be serious.

The policy framework behind Bill C-18 emphasizes that news organizations are not getting fair compensation from the platforms, but how will these realities figure in the negotiation process?

If we had those extra committee meetings I mentioned earlier, we could have invited more experts to dig deeper into the policy framework to understand how it works and its possible contradictions, and we might have been able to offer solutions. For example, how does the need for commercial deals, which must be negotiated privately, square with the regulatory requirements such as the transparency demands? We know that those transparency demands will increase. It seems pretty clear to me. What will be the impact of this policy on the internet, and what will be the impact on innovation? Does the long list of requirements that must be met for exemption, which go beyond fair compensation, create an undue burden on the commercial negotiation process as claimed by witness Philip Palmer of the Internet Society?

There were some other concerns: Our committee didn’t look at advertising or consumer behaviour even though the movement of advertising and consumers onto platforms, social media and search engines is central to these developments. How will news consumers be impacted by this policy? These are all important issues going forward.

As I said earlier, our committee did excellent work in the time we had, passing nine substantive amendments in one meeting. These have already been described by Senators Harder and Housakos, so I will not attempt to go through them.

I am pleased the amendment I proposed, which would remove the ability of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to designate news businesses as eligible, was accepted. The news businesses should decide for themselves if they wish to apply and be part of this framework.

Colleagues, I love the news media, and it is painful to see what’s happening to the news today. I deplore the threats of the tech giants. I feel that despite its flaws, Bill C-18 is our only hope at this particular moment in time to help this industry, which is vital to our democracy. If all the pieces fit together and if all the players do their part, it could be a wonderful thing. It could be a wonderful assistance to this industry. That is why I intend to support it today.

Thank you.

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.

Our phone bills.

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 —

I’m sorry, Senator Housakos, but your time is up.

Can I ask for five more minutes to wrap up?

Leave is not granted.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is on debate.

I do not intend to block something that could become a financial lifeline for some of the country’s traditional media outlets, even though I don’t think they’ll all be saved.

The most recent report on the federal government’s annual advertising spending clearly shows that the government gave 55% of its budget to the digital media targeted by Bill C-18. That represents $64 million, versus $53 million for our Canadian newspapers and radio and television stations.

It made me wonder: How do we reconcile the fact that the government wants to pass a bill to tax web giants like GAFA for the benefit of traditional media, when the government and its advertising choices are largely to blame for making them so poor? That’s my contribution to the debate.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise to say a few words on Bill C-18. We heard from a number of Canadians on this, and I listened to the many speeches that we have heard along the way, especially today. My comments will be brief and in three parts. I will speak first about the purpose of the bill, then about the role of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, in overseeing the bill and then about the larger context.

The purpose of Bill C-18 is to rebalance the power dynamics in the digital news marketplace in order to ensure that Canadian media and journalists are fairly and equitably compensated. The bill creates a new legislative and regulatory framework. It also expands the mandate and powers of the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.

The bill rebalances the power dynamics in the digital news marketplace in order to ensure fair compensation for Canadian media outlets and journalists. It creates a new legislative regulatory framework to enable digital news intermediaries, such as Google and Facebook, to negotiate agreements. This is the core of the bill: negotiating agreements with Canadian media to authorize them to disseminate Canadian media content on their platforms.

The bill also creatively sets up a process that enables smaller media outlets to bargain collectively. It gives the CRTC responsibility to make the necessary regulations, as well as a code of conduct to govern bargaining between digital news intermediaries and news businesses in relation to content. It also mandates the CRTC to determine whether agreements are outside of the bargaining process — meeting the conditions for exemptions.

Here are a few comments about the CRTC in relation to this bill. I have addressed in the chamber — a couple of times — the general role of the CRTC in relation to this bill, and I don’t want to be repetitive, but I’d like to summarize a couple of points that are made in criticism of the CRTC, and share with you my perspectives, given my experience with that agency.

The CRTC is an arm’s-length agency that oversees or implements several acts, and does so rather diligently — sometimes standing up to the cabinet and the Governor-in-Council when they disagree with them. While commissioners are always appointed by the federal cabinet, the process of selecting commissioners is open and transparent, and people have to apply. Once they are appointed, they have to avoid interaction with ministers and parliamentarians, and must do so quite diligently.

I should tell you this: When I was appointed, the riot act on this matter was read to me by the director of appointments. There were a few MPs — that I knew from different parties — whom I didn’t see for six years. At the end of those six years, I came out and met them, and found that their children had grown up, while they had become older and greyer, and it was like being in jail for six years. There were a lot of people who I had no contact with whatsoever for those six years.

It has been said that the CRTC can designate parties on a whim. Well, let me tell you, the CRTC does not and cannot do whim. It is incapable of doing whim, and that is by design. When I was there, I had a colleague who tried very hard to have a commission rule on certain issues from the bench. He tried throughout his time there, but was not successful. The process is always thoughtful, and they don’t do things at the drop of a hat — for better or for worse. The CRTC always does extensive consultations before finalizing its regulations through a process that often has two rounds of negotiations.

Lastly, the CRTC, in my view, is well equipped to take on this responsibility, as it does regulate broadcasting, which includes broadcasting news. Therefore, it will be expanding its purview by looking at print news and online news, and, in that sense, those are things that the CRTC has to learn, but they certainly have their base in place.

Let me address the larger context briefly: Here we are in the historic spring of 2023 — it needs a name. I recall the Arab Spring, but I think the artificial intelligence, or AI, spring of 2023 is a really interesting time. This is the time when AI has taken over the online world, and possibly taken over the whole world. The world has changed with the arrival of ChatGPT and other generative AI. In the context of the rapidly growing polarization in Canadian society and societies elsewhere, this kind of bill becomes all the more important.

Are we defending failing media or dinosaur media with this bill? Maybe we are, or maybe we’re not. But if we are, we need to do everything we can to save the free, balanced and legitimate media that is generally balanced and edited — rather than only having all of our news be reduced to individualized social media, which we know is increasingly biased, myopic and unreliable.

There are, as mentioned, many new and developing online media that carry many of the same good values — such as being balanced and edited — as the traditional media, but they are generally small and struggling. Until such time that they are strong enough to have the same broad, edited and balanced nature, I think it is important that we do what we can to help the traditional media. The online world often drives Canadians into silos rather than brings people together to create Canadian discussion, dialogue and debate that is fair and respectful.

While the web giants are threatening consequences in this collision of democratically elected governments versus multilateral corporations, it is vital that democracy stands firm. The web giants, in fact, make the point very well as to why we need this bill. This is about our harmonious democratic society slipping away into a Wild West of disintegration of our society.

For these reasons, I strongly believe that we need to do whatever we can to save and grow traditional media: print, broadcast and online. This is one step along the way in helping a free and fair media, and in securing our democracy, which is more fragile than it has been in many decades.

I see that Senator Housakos has a question. Senator Cardozo, will you take a question?

We are short on time. I will answer one quick question. It’s always a compliment when I receive a Housakos question.

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?

I don’t make those budgets, but I don’t disagree with you at all. I think what we’re trying to do here is help this media.

One of the things that you and I asked a number of people — who appeared before us in committee — is what is going to happen to the small media, ethnic media and so forth. One of the things that gave me the most assurance was our witnesses from Australia, who said that, in fact, the small media got disproportionately more resources than the big media, and that gives me some assurance. It’s certainly an issue that we will follow, and I think it’s an important issue that was addressed extensively in our hearings. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I want to speak at third reading of Bill C-18, which I have been following closely in part because I was a journalist in my former life, but also because I met with several groups, read a lot of analyses and reports, and took part in the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications’ detailed study.

Essentially, Bill C-18 is a response to the fact that many media outlets, especially traditional ones, other than CBC/Radio-Canada, are struggling financially, having lost a significant portion of their advertising revenue to giants such as Facebook and Google, which are getting away with an awful lot — some would say too much — in our democracy.

That is a fact, and the government was right to intervene, because news and journalism contribute significant value to society in any democracy.

The chosen solution is based on the Australian model, which forces those platforms to either negotiate compensation agreements with media outlets or be designated by law and subjected to arbitration. The committee adopted an amendment I proposed, which states that the bill will come into force no later than six months after Royal Assent. That is essentially the window that Google and Facebook will have to negotiate voluntary agreements with the media.

However, the committee study revealed that Bill C-18 does have certain shortcomings, which concerns me.

I’m concerned because I want Google and Facebook, which are indirectly responsible for the crisis in the media, to contribute to the economic viability of these businesses, and because I also want Google and Facebook to continue distributing Canadian journalistic content.

Unfortunately, certain aspects of Bill C-18 could result in platforms deciding to stop sharing this content. Yet for many media outlets, being visible on Google and Facebook is essential. The availability and sharing of hyperlinks to news content on these platforms often drives over 50% of web traffic to the media. It would be regrettable — catastrophic even, in some cases — if this traffic were to disappear as a result of the bill’s overreach.

I want to highlight a number of things that I think are problematic in Bill C-18. First of all, while it was being studied, the House of Commons adopted amendments that significantly increased the number of media outlets eligible under Bill C-18. The list grew from about 200 organizations, which had been identified based on strict criteria of eligibility for tax credits, to 650 or 700. Actually, we don’t even know exactly how many there are, which makes it hard to determine how many agreements the platforms would have to enter into to gain an exemption. That makes the negotiation process unpredictable.

This expansion also distances Canada from what is happening in France and Australia, where the number of news outlets included in the negotiation process is much smaller.

I have a lot of sympathy for community media and student radio stations, where many journalists begin their careers, but I personally believe that these organizations would be better served by targeted federal or provincial support programs than by business deals with Google and Facebook. As I see it, it doesn’t really make sense to force those platforms to pay volunteer-run student radio stations for content that is of virtually no value to them.

During clause-by-clause study, the committee rejected an amendment that would have limited and clarified the number of media outlets covered by Bill C-18’s commercial negotiation regime. Unfortunately, this rejection could give Google and Facebook ammunition.

I have a second argument. In the Australian code that was used as a model for Bill C-18, the platforms can be exempt from the application of the law if they have, and I quote:

 . . . made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content of Australian news businesses. . . .

In the Canadian version, however, the possibility of being exempt depends on a long series of criteria that remain vague. For example, what is fair compensation? How will we know if the money received by the media goes toward the production of news? How will the platforms know if they have entered into enough agreements with diverse media? What is meant by the requirement that a “significant portion” of the agreements be concluded with official language minority communities?

I haven’t even mentioned the additional requirements that could be specified in regulations.

I have no doubt that the intentions behind these criteria are noble, of course. And, of course, I also want strong, diversified and financially healthy media in our country. But this long list of criteria gives the impression that the survival of Canada’s entire media ecosystem rests on commercial agreement with two — or one — foreign companies. Is this really the model that Canada wants to put forward? Do we really believe that the survival of Indigenous media, official language minority community media or local and community media should be made dependent on commercial agreements with American technological giants who can choose to remove this content from their platforms at any time? I am skeptical.

During our hearings, we also heard sharply contrasted views between the media and the platforms on the object of the negotiations. In its briefing documents, the government states that:

Bill C-18 proposes a market-based approach that seeks to ensure digital platforms and news businesses reach fair commercial agreements based on market value. . . .

However, several news outlets have said that they expect Google and Facebook to pay around 30% of their newsroom payroll, which sounds more like a subsidy.

The question therefore arises: Is Bill C-18 proposing a subsidy model for newsroom expenses or a commercial negotiation based on the exchange of value between two parties? Unfortunately, the bill did not really settle this question.

In a brief submitted to the committee, Konrad von Finckenstein, former chairman of the CRTC, noted this problem. He writes:

The Act should spell out the specific subject of negotiation (...). Without such precision negotiations (and possible arbitration) will be unfocused and raise issues not germane to the question to be determined.

The amendment we proposed, which was adopted by the committee, was inspired by testimony from government officials and even the minister, who all agreed that the negotiations should be about the value of the content of news for the platforms and the value that the big platforms bring to the media — in other words, an exchange of value.

In his testimony before the committee, Minister Pablo Rodriguez described the process set out in Bill C-18 as follows, and I quote:

 . . . what we want is to have them both sit down at the negotiating table and to make sure all of this is based on free and informed negotiations. The platforms would be on one side of the negotiating table and the news media would be on the other. The platforms will say that the fact that they’re sharing the news media’s content and that they’re on their platforms has value — which it does — and the news media will say that they do research and that that has value. They will sit down together and negotiate based on that.

In light of this testimony, the committee adopted an amendment that spells out the purpose of the negotiations and that is also based on the Australian code, which served as our model.

The new clause 18.1 reads as follows, and I quote:

The purpose of the bargaining process . . . is to determine the value that each party derives from the news content of an eligible news business being made available by a digital news intermediary and to determine the portion of that value that will be transferred to the eligible news business.

Of course, this amendment doesn’t fix all of the problems with the bill, but it may help to clarify its objectives and bring the parties together.

In conclusion, as you can see, I’m more critical of this bill now than I was when I began my research. For example, I don’t think Bill C-18 should cover mere hyperlinks. The European model seems to have a more balanced approach to that.

Google has actually entered into agreements that with 1,500 news outlets in 15 European countries. Those agreements don’t cover hyperlinks.

Bill C-18 certainly has its flaws, but at least it offers an action plan to rebalance the power dynamics. The government drew on the Australian model in good faith. That was a good idea.

Obviously there’s no way to predict what happens next. The government says the platforms are bluffing. Are they? They keep saying they’re serious. Are they?

What happens if Google and Facebook take news content off their platforms, the media outlets don’t collect a dime and their web traffic plummets? Le Devoir told us that nearly 80% of its web traffic depends on links from various platforms. What impact will this have on news available to Canadians?

I have to say that I’m concerned because it’s clear that Google and Facebook see Canada as a bit player in an international negotiation and believe that we are out of our league.

I will therefore be voting in favour of the bill, but what I really hope, beyond this debate, is that the government’s gamble will pay off. Thank you.

Honourable senators, this Wednesday, Bell Media announced that it was consolidating its newsrooms across the country, laying off 1,300 people. Gone from the company are two names that those in the Parliamentary Precinct will know well: Joyce Napier, who was CTV Ottawa’s bureau chief, and Glen McGregor, who was CTV’s senior political correspondent. CTV will be closing its international bureaus in London and Los Angeles and scaling back its Washington bureau. The company is also closing six of its radio stations, including Edmonton’s beloved sports talk station, TSN 1260. That station had been on the air in various guises and genres since 1927, a legacy of community service spanning almost a century. Then, yesterday morning — poof — it was gone.

These shocking new cuts are just the latest in a long and painful litany of media meltdowns. All across the country, our newspapers, magazines, radio stations and TV stations are fighting to stay alive in the wake of a seismic digital disruption that eroded advertising revenues, subsumed subscription sales and ruptured relationships with readers and audiences.

In the face of this crisis, we have before us Bill C-18, which holds forth what I fear is a false and illusory promise of media renewal. Now, you may not understand why I, a person who spent 30 years working as a journalist, do not support Bill C-18. So let me be as clear as possible. This bill is neither a plebiscite on the importance of journalism nor on the value of a free press. It should be starkly evident by now that Canadian journalism is in crisis and that this crisis is having a dire impact on our democracy and our society. If I thought this bill would save Canadian journalism, it would have my full-throated support. But it can’t, and it won’t.

In a year where Everything Everywhere All at Once won the Oscar for best picture and where Spider‑Man: Across the Spider‑Verse is the hit of the summer, it’s hard to ignore the lure of multiverse metaphors. So let’s look at two possible outcomes of Bill C-18.

In one timeline, it’s possible that both Meta and Google will make good on their threats and block access to Canadian news. Imagine Canadians suddenly unable to read or share news on Facebook or Instagram, which are two of Canada’s most popular social media sites. Imagine that suddenly you can’t share a story with your neighbours about a hostage-taking in your neighbourhood or, less dramatically, about plans for a high-rise tower at the end of your block. Imagine that you can’t share a story about Donald Trump’s latest legal woes with your cousins or a story about wildfire smoke with your mother-in-law who has emphysema or a restaurant review from your local paper with your friend the foodie.

Meta has signalled its intent to block all news, including international news, the day Bill C-18 is given Royal Assent. That wouldn’t just impinge on our ability to keep ourselves and our friends informed; it would undermine the ability of news publishers to post and share their stories, attract audiences and serve advertisers. It would reduce readership and revenues overnight, leaving Canadian publishers and broadcasters worse off than before.

As well, if Google stops surfacing Canadian and international news stories on its mighty site, well, the effects would be even more dire. Google curates the world — 90% of the globe uses Google as its search engine, an outrageous and dangerous monopoly that no country, including Canada, has truly challenged, although the European Union is trying, having just launched a major antitrust action against the search giant this very week.

If Google stops indexing us, well, suddenly, for millions and millions of Canadians who rely on Google, all news stories would just quietly disappear. And we wouldn’t even know what we’re not seeing. Our reality will just shift in ways we cannot imagine or anticipate. Indeed, many Canadians who — I hate to break it to you — have not been glued to the Bill C-18 debate might not even realize that their news just vanished — not, perhaps, until we face some kind of public emergency, health crisis or political upheaval, and they suddenly find themselves in the dark without vital information they need for themselves and their families.

According to Statistics Canada figures released just this past March, a full 80% of Canadians get their news online, and 90% of those with university degrees rely on the internet as their primary news source. As for Canadians between 15 and 34, well, 95% of them rely on the internet as their primary source of news. If Google and Facebook suddenly start blocking our access to our news, which will be their legal right as private American companies, then we’ll all be cut off from the news, and Canadian journalists will be cut off from readers and viewers, reporting stories that no one can find.

At least that is one scenario. It may not happen — it’s just, you know, one hypothetical. Let’s look at another scenario.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Facebook and Google are simply bluffing and that they are making empty threats and have neither the technical capacity nor the political guts to do anything so drastic. Let’s assume that, after some huffing and puffing, they concede and enter into negotiations with Canadian news outlets and agree to subsidize Canadian journalism to the tune of, say, $300 million a year to pay for 25% or 30% or even 35% of the cost of Canadian newsrooms. Well, you may say, if that happens, then Bill C-18 will have done its job, Senator Simons.

But it’s not that simple. What happens if formerly independent Canadian news organizations become utterly beholden to Google and Meta for their survival? What happens if we give these two American behemoths even more control over what we read, watch and hear? We have already had a taste of this because, in an effort to head off Bill C-18, both Google and Facebook have been busy striking secret side deals with major publishers across the country. Read a story about Bill C-18 in the media right now and you will quite often see a little note at the bottom of the page informing you that the media outlet is already receiving some form of compensation through a private agreement with one of the big social media giants. It will then be left to you to judge whether that subsidy has had any impact on the way the story about Google or Facebook was reported.

Just the other day, someone asked me why Bill C-18 has received so much less media attention than Bill C-11. I fear the answer is self-evident. Some — though perhaps not all — Canadian publishers both large and small have pulled their punches and engaged in self-censorship, whether consciously or unconsciously. Who could blame them? Bite the hand that feeds you too hard, and you could end up with a punch in the nose.

Now imagine just how independently and freely news might be reported if Facebook and Google held the purse strings in a stranglehold? You don’t have to imagine. Dr. Sara Bannerman, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance at McMaster University, has painted some ideas. In her brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, she notes that there is nothing in Bill C-18 that prevents the growing influence of digital platforms over news coverage. Dr. Bannerman notes that companies such as Google and Meta could provide remuneration to news organizations in the form of training, technical support, technologies or technology licensing discounts. That sounds fine, but Dr. Bannerman writes that this, in turn, would deepen the integration of news organizations with digital platform data and technologies. Let me quote from her brief:

Such technologies could not only allow data and information about users and news to flow back to platforms (the bill makes no mention of privacy), but also shape how newsrooms view and evaluate their own activities.

The door is also open for platforms to invest in specific capital or projects rather than (or as well as) paying in cash. This would result in platforms gaining influence over the structure and infrastructure of news organizations and/or the content they produce.

Indeed, I would argue that Facebook and Google have already had a direct and detrimental impact on the way newsrooms present their stories whether it’s because Facebook enthusiastically insisted that newspapers pivot to video, which largely turned out to be a waste of time, resources and talent, or whether it was because Google led newsrooms to rewrite and torture ledes and headlines in a vain attempt to search engine optimize their stories.

I can only imagine how much more direct that kind of influence might become in a regime where Facebook and Google are underwriting the news.

Let me quote again from Sara Bannerman:

Allowing platforms’ business models to potentially shape news in this way can be bad for news quality. It can result in newsrooms pursuing clicks and platform incentives rather than stories and formats that are important to an informed electorate and citizenry.

We certainly tried in committee to make small amendments to make Bill C-18 less damaging. I myself was quite disappointed when, by a narrow margin, the committee defeated my own amendment that strove to make Google and Facebook more accountable for the way they use their algorithms to boost some news stories and suppress others. I sought to model my amendment on the data transparency protocols that have already been embraced by the European Union to no avail, I’m afraid.

I did have one other tiny amendment pass, which simply removed the phrase “such as a section of a newspaper” from clause 2. That, by the way, was passed unanimously. I fear that Senator Housakos, in the rush today, might have confused me with my good friend Senator Clement, who did indeed propose an amendment that had an impact on Indigenous news reporting — although it broadened the scope rather than narrowed it — but that was her amendment, not mine. Perhaps when Senator Housakos is back from his little walk — sorry, I’m not allowed to say that. Perhaps Senator Housakos will be able to offer an apology at an appropriate date to both me and Senator Clement.

Senator Dasko, however, was successful with a far more important amendment that allowed media companies that do not wish to be part of the Bill C-18 regime to opt out. Originally, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, had the power to order companies to be part of the deal making with Google and Facebook, even if they didn’t want to do so. I’m glad to say that Senator Dasko was able to make that important change.

Another critical amendment was proposed by our deputy chair, Senator Miville-Deschêne. Her amendment aims to create a solid framework for negotiations between platforms and news organizations based on a legitimate exchange of value, giving arbitrators some functional rubric to adjudicate. The amendment attempts to inject some economic common sense into the airy fantasy of Bill C-18, but even though the amendment was accepted by the committee, the government opposed it. I greatly fear it might not survive.

So what are we left with? Not a bill that saves Canadian media, but a bill that leaves us impotent and at the mercy of the whims of Alphabet Inc. and Meta, two slightly sclerotic giants that are both facing economic stresses all their own.

My friends, it breaks my heart. The government had so many other things it could have done. Suppose it had stopped buying so many millions of dollars in ads on Facebook and Google, and spent some of that money instead buying ads in local newspapers and ethnocultural, Indigenous and minority language publications. Suppose it had broadened its tax rebate program and rewarded Canadians directly for subscribing to newspapers and magazines. Suppose, as was suggested by one of our witnesses, independent writer and publisher Jen Gerson of The Line, they had simply given more money to the CBC and thus allowed the public broadcaster to stop selling ads and stop competing with newspapers and private broadcasters for advertising revenues.

Instead, we have invested so much time, energy and political capital on this weird Rube Goldberg device of a bill that might completely backfire or that might undermine the independence and integrity of Canadian news, if it works at all.

I got my first professional, full-time job as a reporter in March 1988 when I was 23 years old. I worked full-time as a journalist until October 2018 when I was appointed to the Senate. I still write a bi-monthly column for Alberta Views magazine and host my own monthly political podcast, “Alberta Unbound.” My entire adult life has been made up of newsprint, ink and radio waves. Journalism was — and is — my life. In my Senate office, I have a bookshelf full of National Newspaper Award certificates to suggest that it was a life fairly well lived.

What has happened to the news industry in my city, my province and my nation doesn’t just break my heart, it guts me, and it makes me fear for the health of our democracy and our society. I hope against hope that I am absolutely and spectacularly wrong about Bill C-18. I hope — I really do — that it works, and that its success makes me look like a cynical old fool. Instead, my friends, I have rarely felt more like Cassandra, the Trojan princess who was blessed with the power of prophecy and cursed with the inability to make anyone hear or believe her.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Your Honour, I stand on a small point of order.

I’m sure all senators want to follow the rules, but we all understand that who is absent from the chamber can’t be stated in the chamber. I know you know that rule, but you might want to bring it to the attention of the senators.

Senator Downe, yes, that is the case. You cannot refer to a senator being absent from this chamber at any time. I believe that the senator said, “Oops, I wasn’t supposed to say that,” and I take that as an apology on her part.

Your Honour, I do seriously wish to apologize. I’m slightly mortified. I apologize to Senator Housakos and to the chamber.

Very well. We are resuming debate.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

I think the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on the bell?