(Ottawa) Representatives of Google Canada defend Friday, in a parliamentary committee in Ottawa, the decision of the “web giant” to limit access to journalistic content on its platform for certain Canadians while the company’s senior executives shine by their absence.
The digital company decided to carry out the blocking in reaction to Bill C-18 aimed at forcing digital giants such as Google and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to negotiate agreements to compensate Canadian media companies for displaying or providing links to their news content. Google says this limited access is due to testing that is expected to span five weeks.
“We want to include news in our products […] However, Bill C-18 would create an unreasonable demand to pay publishers for the ability to provide links to their websites, which sends valuable, free traffic to those publishers,” argued Jason Kee, Manager public policy for Google Canada.
Appearing before the House of Commons Heritage Committee, he argued that Google’s testing meets the company’s “duty of care” “in the most responsible way possible”.
PHOTO SEAN KILPATRICK, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Public Policy Manager for Google Canada, Jason Kee
Mr Kee insisted that these are tests that are being conducted and that no final decision has been made.
Because many important details remain uncertain, we are conducting these tests to obtain the information we need to assess potential responses to Bill C-18 and to assess how potential changes will impact Canadians who use our products.
Jason Kee
The vice-president of this Canadian division of the company, Sabrina Geremia, told MPs that Bill C-18 “sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the very foundations of the open web and the free flow of information. information “.
A few weeks ago, a spokesperson for the company confirmed to The Canadian Press that the company would limit access to news on its search engine to less than 4% of its Canadian users. He indicated that this was intended to respond to Bill C-18, currently under study in the Senate.
This tactic by Google immediately aroused the ire of all the main parties represented in the House of Commons. Last week, they united in committee to subpoena senior Google executives, including the company’s chairman and CEO, Sundar Pichai. The latter refused to appear, members of the committee said.
MPs from all major parties have deplored the absence of senior American leaders from the “web giant”.
NDP House Leader Peter Julian said Monday that Google was “irresponsible” in its actions. Google’s testimony was originally scheduled for Monday, but had to be postponed due to technical issues.
It is also a lack of respect for Canadians. […] It shows, I think, how disconnected Google CEOs are from people’s reality. They don’t have the ability to do whatever they want.
Peter Julian, NDP House Leader
Liberal Anhony Housefather went on to say that Google’s actions were “insulting and offensive” to Canadians.
“If they were discovered, what was the purpose? To pressure the Senate? On the Canadians? […] I hope Google will stop doing things like that,” he said.
Conservative Marylin Gladu thinks the Liberals are to blame — at least in part — for the current situation. “There were a lot of discussions between Google and the government and Google made some amendments for C-18 and the government refused to agree to discuss,” she said.
Bloc Québécois Martin Champoux does not share his opinion and believes that the bill, in its current form, is appropriate. “He was greatly improved in committee. The version we currently have, which is being studied in the Senate, is a good version. It is a good bill. It’s going to be a good law, ”he argued.
The Heritage Committee is looking into Google’s decision to block news from its interface, but must go further in its examination.
The motion passed to trigger parliamentary review requires the web giant to provide federal elected officials with copies of all “internal or external communications including, but not limited to, emails and text messages […] in connection with planned actions or options considered in relation to Canadian Bill C-18”.