The consultations being held at the CRTC are ongoing. It seems that Canadians are pushing back against the Online News Act.
Last week, I noted that the CRTC consultation into the Online News Act is now open. The submission form for that consultation can be found here and the consultations are open all the way up to April 12.
For our part, we filed our intervention with the CRTC in the unlikely event that the CRTC would actually take reasonable suggestions for how best to implement the legislation. Our submission raised the concerns that we (and others) raised during the debates when it was known as Bill C-18. It covered what the ultimate results were after critics like us were flatly ignored as well.
From there, we suggested allowing news organizations to opt out of the Online News Act or allow for news organizations to offer free licenses to platforms to carry news links again. A long shot idea to be sure, but better than the status quo of innovative news organizations suffering the consequences of large media companies unchecked greed. As we pointed out in our intervention, not all news organizations are on the same page when it comes to this bill. Some (like us) know better and know full well how news appearing on social media works in the real world.
While there’s still a little over two weeks left for interventions to be submitted, we took a look at the interventions that were filed. What we saw contained a couple of surprises. One of the big surprises is the fact that the legion of lobbyists, thus far, are completely absent from the consultations. I would’ve expected one or two submissions to be published by now, but, of course, there is still time.
Another interesting thing is that the interventions that were sent have been almost universally negative towards the Online News Act in general. For instance, here is the intervention by Riley Murphy of Nova Scotia:
I have been against Bill C-18 from the start. It unfairly sets small stations like mine (CFEP 105.9 Seaside-FM) at a severe disadvantage. I’ve noticed that there hasn’t been rhyme or reason for why some stations and media outlets are allowed to have their Facebook up and some are not. Seaside-FM is banned for simply being a community station, while major news outlets like CBC and commercial radio stations are not. We were not even given the option to stop posting news in order to keep our page alive. It was just taken down without conversation.
This has negatively impacted our listenership, audience engagement, live events, advertising, our 50/50 fundraiser and so much more.
This Bill is about censorship, power and money, and it’s taking our country in a terrible direction. This needs to be reversed immediately. The Bill is the equivalent of me saying “I won’t play local musicians on my radio station unless they pay me” Meanwhile I’m playing superhits from huge international artists. It makes no sense!
John Langer of Nova Scotia had this to say:
The battle with the Online News Act began shortly after I started my position at 105.9 Seaside FM.
I strongly oppose the act. Why? Because, for one, it has been unfairly implemented. In the year 2024, where big companies get richer and small companies become obsolete, we continue to bring in legislation and bills that will hurt the small guy. It is interesting, as Canada is such a “small guy” compared to the rest of the world, or even our neighbour to the south, you would think that supports are put in place to help the process of community and campus stations.I feel like the government and companies such as Meta has thrust us in the middle of a massive fight. While I struggle every day to grow our reach that we accomplished over 21 years, other stations such as Q104, Virgin Radio, Move 100 etc are allowed to do and post whatever they want. Additionally, news pages such as Haligonia is allowed to continue their work, as well as some CTV accounts and other news outlets.
Once again, the small falls. We are immediately put at an unfair advantage. When I appealed to Meta (after 4 months of being ignored) and they said because we are a community/campus/Indigenous station, we are AUTOMATICALLY considered a news outlet. It’s funny, because commercial stations, like I mentioned above, who are FOR-PROFIT, do not fall into this category. Why?
Money. Which brings me to my next point.
Why else do I not support this act? Because it is all about money.
Money, money, money. The bane of our existence, or the very reason for it? You may have heard the saying “radio is dying”. So why do people continue going into the industry? Well, it’s not for the money, I can promise you that. When this act was introduced, it was said to help even the playing field and provide compensation from large companies to small companies for their journalistic work. My question is whether this money will cancel out our losses in: Advertising. Fundraising. Public Reach. Online Reach. FM Reach. Notability in the Community. Reputation. Etc.
This was truly never about money. It was about controlling the news and controlling the internet. It is baffling that after Australia, Canada still decided to go through with this.Not only that, but the NCRA are the only ones helping with this issue, although there is not much they can do. The Government ignores us. Meta ignores us. Google ignores us. 90% of our MPs ignore us. Maybe if we had our reach from before we would get an answer. Unfortunately, the past 21 years of work will need to be redone.
Anita Li of Ontario wrote this:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to provide comments on the proposed Online News Act, formerly known as Bill C-18, from the perspective of a small independent publisher. As the founder and head of a newly established media outlet, I believe it is crucial to consider the implications of this legislation on emerging and diverse voices in Canadian journalism.
While I appreciate the provision that allows small news outlets to negotiate as part of a single collective, I have concerns about who holds the power in this collective bargaining process. The largest platforms that distribute news content must bargain with news businesses, and when a platform demonstrates that it has agreed to provide fair compensation to a wide variety of Canadian news businesses, it can apply for exemption from mandatory bargaining.
To qualify for an exemption, any platform must issue an open call for news businesses that could be eligible to receive compensation under the Act. In return, news businesses respond to the open call by filing an attestation. The platform may then enter into an agreement with a single collective that would represent all news businesses that have filed an attestation.
As a small independent publisher without any full-time staff, relying on a team of fellows and consultants paid on short-term contracts, I am concerned about the power dynamics within this collective bargaining process. Will the interests of large legacy media organizations overshadow those of small, independent, and BIPOC-led newsrooms like mine? What guarantees do we have that the collective will prioritize fair and equitable compensation for all members, regardless of size or influence?
In light of the ongoing consultation process to determine key aspects of the framework, such as the negotiation, mediation, and arbitration processes, the scope of behaviours considered undue preference or disadvantage, and the data collection and reporting requirements, I would like to propose the following strategies:
1. Ensure that the process for selecting arbitrators and the scope of final offer arbitration prioritizes the interests of small, independent, and BIPOC-led publishers. The criteria for arbitrator selection should include demonstrated understanding and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the media landscape.
2. Define undue preference or disadvantage in a manner that explicitly addresses the historical marginalization and underrepresentation of BIPOC and independent voices in the Canadian media ecosystem. This could include provisions that prevent the collective from negotiating agreements that disproportionately benefit large legacy outlets at the expense of smaller, diverse publishers.
3. Mandate that the independent auditor appointed by the CRTC to prepare the annual report on the impact of the Act across the Canadian digital news landscape has expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion in media. The report should include specific analysis and recommendations related to the representation and fair compensation of small, independent, and BIPOC-led news outlets.
4. Establish clear and transparent governance structures for the collective bargaining body, with fair representation and decision-making power for small independent publishers and BIPOC-led media, including in the negotiation, mediation, and arbitration processes.
5. Encourage and incentivize collaboration and collective bargaining among small and independent publishers, separate from the larger collective, to ensure their interests are adequately represented and prioritized in the negotiations with digital platforms.
It is essential that the framework developed under the Online News Act prioritizes diversity, innovation, and equity, rather than entrenching the status quo and privileging legacy players. The consultation process presents an opportunity to shape the framework in a manner that supports the growth and sustainability of small, independent, and BIPOC-led news outlets, which are vital to a vibrant and representative media ecosystem in Canada.
Thank you for considering these perspectives and potential strategies. I look forward to a constructive dialogue on how we can create a truly inclusive and equitable framework under the Online News Act.
Sincerely,
Anita Li
Publisher, The Green Line
Andrew Brown of Alberta (“VP, Director of Digital Solutions”) wrote this:
Bill C-18 is rooted in good intentions of keeping Canadian news outlets thriving, but is poorly executed leading to the country’s largest outlets getting most of the funding. More importantly however it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how linking on the internet works. Linking to news sites brings traffic to them, not the other way around. We would all be better off if the internet was left to function as open as possible without legislative interference and instead find alternate ways to fund journalism in Canada.
Ralph Laite of Ontario wrote this:
Stay out of the regulation of online domain’s. The previous bill of this type wasn’t helpful and continues to limit my access. Maybe focus on fixing our cell phone and internet oligrachy problems first
Steeven Gingras of Ontario wrote this:
I am against Bill C-18 completely, it will be repealed next year after the elections.
Richard Boudro of Quebec wrote this:
The act is is causing concern among experts and news organizations by removing reliable news sources, which will subject users to misinformation and hurt local news outlets that rely on the two platforms for visibility. Now, people in Canada who have come to rely on these platforms to find and access news and information about our country are now left with only unverified sources in their feeds.
Furthermore, it is another indent in the liberties and freedoms which the government seems to be bent on eroding, grain by grain.
Tricia Toso of Ontario wrote this:
Bill C-18 is very flawed, and should not be implemented. It is bad for journalism and for Canadians who want less government interference and more impartiality in journalism. The issue is not the digital platforms, but an outdated news production model; this approach will benefit big legacy media companies at the expense of independent and emerging publishers. It creates a disincentive for platforms to link to news material which is completely counter-productive. In 2024, people get their news from digital platforms so the government should be designing policy that rewards business model experimentation, with the aim of regaining financial sustainability within the sector. The Bill will stifle the user-focused innovation needed for the industry to work towards financial sustainability and has a chilling effect on the need for genuine and healthy competition for audiences. A better approach would to make more targeted interventions to support local, investigative, and accounting journalism. Good and impartial journalism is critical to the functioning of a health democracy, and this Bill threatens journalism and our democracy. Bill C-18 should be repealed and better policy should be developed and implemented. Canadians deserve better legislation and innovative policy that allows for a range of news programming and journalism to thrive.
S. A. Sinclair of Quebec wrote this:
So far, from my point of view as a n average citizen, the online news act is nothing but a headache, because it’s often impossible to say anything on common online fora (e.g. Facebook) without it being forbidden on the grounds that it is “news”.
So, it’s a pretty universal condemnation towards the Online News Act so far. Of course, as we noted earlier, it’s difficult to really see what the CRTC can do at this stage. Meta has already dropped news links and the Canadian government folded to Google. At this point, all players scoped into the new law have been accounted for. Really, what the CRTC is doing at this stage is little more than a formality at this point.
The best way to describe the consultation at the CRTC is that the CRTC is getting ratioed. In short, that means that it generated a massive amount of negative comments with little to no responses supporting it.
To be fair, the CRTC isn’t in a position to repeal the legislation. So, it’s not as though the regulator is going to somehow veto the legislation in any way. Still, contrary to what the media seemingly wished would be Canadians reaction to the law, Canadian’s are generally against this law.
It’s easy to see why. It is a backwards law that thinks that platforms are unfairly benefiting from news publishers when, in fact, the news publishers were the ones deriving the biggest benefit out of news links being shared. It flips copyright law on its head and demands payments for referencing material even though this falls well within the realm of Fair Dealing. What’s more, it fundamentally misunderstands how technology works today and tries to shoehorn an unfair advantage to large media companies in this country. Little wonder why so many Canadians are angry about this law in the first place.
What will be interesting to see is if the big name lobbyists turn up at a later point in time or not. Otherwise, we might see more Canadians continuing to boo and jeer at the law.
