Federal Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez tabled his ambitious bill on Tuesday that will force Google and Facebook to compensate news media for the circulation of journalistic content on their platforms. This is a step in the right direction, but it does come with caveats.
Minister Rodriguez insisted on the importance of correcting the imbalance in the market by forcing negotiations between the media and the platforms. Failing an agreement, there would be a process of mediation and arbitration binding the parties, all under the auspices of the CRTC, a new and unexpected partner for the news media which does not evolve under the authority federal.
The Minister is quite right to be concerned about the perverse effects of the saturation of the digital advertising market to the benefit of Google and Facebook, which earn nearly 80% of revenues. It is because there is an imbalance in the market that state intervention is justified: it is a matter of restoring equity in the balance of power. Some experts and representative associations avoid this aspect, preferring instead to denounce the “theft” of news content by Facebook and Google. It is a Manichean view of reality. News media have deliberately chosen to publish their content on digital platforms to increase discoverability; they could withdraw them, but at the risk of seeing their audience collapse.
We must therefore consider Bill C-18 for what it really is. Inspired by the “Australian model”, it is a form of compensation for the advertising revenue lost by the news media in the face of an unbeatable and formidable efficiency duopoly. A duopoly which has long escaped regulation and which has established itself in use as an essential intermediary in our digital interactions around the world. A duopoly on which the media also depend to meet their audiences.
The duty is a proud partner of Google, Facebook (Meta) and Microsoft, with whom we have signed confidential contractual agreements over the past few years. Contrary to what misinformed minds suggest, they were the subject of formal negotiations during which The duty was able to put forward its points, without having the terms of an agreement “imposed” on it.
We did (as did nearly 20 media outlets across Canada, including the Globe and Mailthe Toronto Star and the CN2i cooperatives), because we felt it was important to relaunch relations with the Web giants on a sound basis. Relationships based on trust and cooperation.
Incidentally, these principles will be decisive in the success of future negotiations under the new legal regime. The media that chose to preempt these talks stole nothing from others, or even compromised Ottawa’s intentions. They will have been precursors demonstrating that a new relationship with the digital giants is possible.
It remains to be seen whether this new framework will fulfill its promises of fair treatment, preservation of the diversity of voices, respect for the independence of the media and speed of action. It is not in the text of the law, but in the regulations to come, their application by all-powerful federal officials and the conduct of the CRTC that will come the definitive answers.