THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 6, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I would like to invite my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, New Brunswick.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
[English]
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Honourable senators, we’re meeting to continue our examination on Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.
For our first panel, I am happy to have with us today, from the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Monika Ille, Chief Executive Officer. Welcome. We also have with us from Dadan Sivunivut, Jean LaRose, President and Chief Executive Officer. Welcome.
Each of you will have five minutes for your opening statements, and then I will turn it over to my colleagues. We will start with APTN. You have the floor.
Monika Ille, Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network: Thank you, good morning. Jean LaRose and I have a statement that we will be doing together.
Jean LaRose, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dadan Sivunivut: We’ve compressed it to five minutes to give the committee more time for questions.
The Chair: Well, the chair will be very lenient since you will be combining your opening statements. You have the floor.
Mr. LaRose: Thank you very much. Greetings, Mr. Chair and all committee members and honourable senators.
First, I want to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation, and we thank them and all their ancestors for welcoming us here today.
Ms. Ille: [Indigenous language spoken]
Hello. My name is Monika Ille. I am an Abenakis from the community of Odanak.
[Translation]
I am the Chief Executive Officer of APTN. Launched in 1999, APTN is the world’s first national Indigenous broadcaster. APTN is available to all Canadians as part of the basic service on most cable and satellite services. We broadcast hundreds of hours of Indigenous programs each year, including national newscasts and current affairs programs. We broadcast in English, in French, and in 15 or more different Indigenous languages.
[English]
Mr. LaRose: Kwai. My name is Jean LaRose, and I am also a citizen of the Odanak First Nation in Quebec. I am here as the President and CEO of Dadan Sivunivut, a company that was established by APTN in 2019 to oversee and develop the potential of Indigenous creators in the media and music production and distribution industries.
We are here to speak to Bill C-18. We are here to fully support this legislation and the stated goal of ensuring that news content is properly funded by the platforms that use it, especially in Indigenous communities as well as in rural and remote communities.
We have worked closely with MPs to highlight the importance of Indigenous storytelling. This work was rewarded with amendments to the bill which recognize Indigenous storytelling as a unique form of news reporting that highlights the reality of being Indigenous: the history, languages, cultures and ways of storytelling that are very specific to our communities. The changes in the bill reflect that work and cooperation with MPs from many parties.
Ms. Ille: While we feel the bill’s intent to support Indigenous media is clear, we have expressed our concerns regarding the precise definitions in the bill for “Indigenous news outlets” and “news content.” The wording in these definitions may unintentionally limit Indigenous participation in the news ecosystem. This is because the current definitions imply that Indigenous news outlets may be restricted in scope to focus only on Indigenous communities and, similarly, that Indigenous storytelling is meant only for reporting amongst Indigenous peoples. That is not how we think of Indigenous news and our role in Canada.
At APTN and many other Indigenous media outlets, we have engaged widely with Canadians for decades now. We are a national service available in households throughout the country. It is important, as part of our role, to connect with all Canadians. They are now keenly interested in learning that part of Canada’s history that was unknown or hidden from them.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has specifically highlighted the importance of APTN as the Indigenous voice in Canada in Call to Action 85. The TRC said:
We call upon the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, as an independent non-profit broadcaster with programming by, for, and about Aboriginal peoples, to support reconciliation, including but not limited to:
i. Continuing to provide leadership in programming and organizational culture that reflects the diverse cultures, languages, and perspectives of Aboriginal peoples.
ii. Continuing to develop media initiatives that inform and educate the Canadian public, and connect Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.
It is this broader role, which APTN shares with other Indigenous media, that is missing from the definitions in the bill. It would be better to fix the definitions now than to regret it later.
[Translation]
Mr. LaRose: We have received some assurances in our discussions with officials that the definitions used in the bill are not meant to be limiting and will not affect the ability of our media to obtain the sustainable funding we need to operate.
We take comfort in these assurances, but we do believe it is important to raise it with this committee since we did discuss our concerns with some of you already.
While we would like to see clarifications made to the existing definitions in the bill affecting Indigenous news outlets, we don’t want to lose sight of the fact that the bill now includes critical recognition for Indigenous media in Canada.
By including Indigenous news outlets in the bill, and recognizing Indigenous storytelling as a legitimate form of conveying news information, Canada is taking a significant step in supporting and implementing the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ensuring a strong voice to Indigenous peoples in Canada in our own media.
Article 16.1 states that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.
This legislation not only recognizes this right in a concrete way, but provides for it to be funded sustainably, which is a first in legislation in Canada. Kchi wliwni. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
We will turn it over to Senator Simons to launch it off.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: Thank you and welcome to both our guests.
[English]
Mr. LaRose, you and I had a long conversation, just the two of us, about my unease about the phrase “Indigenous storytelling,” so I wanted to recreate that conversation here. One might say that all news reportage is storytelling, but I do worry, as a former journalist myself, that when we say “Indigenous storytelling,” we could be encompassing a lot of things that simply aren’t journalism. I mean, APTN, for example, does all kinds of storytelling work that is really important broadcasting but is not journalism. How do we understand Indigenous storytelling, and how do we make this so that it doesn’t include dramatic programming or comedy or other forms of storytelling that happen on Indigenous radio and television? This is not meant to be a bill to support the arts; it’s meant to be a bill to support news reporting.
Mr. LaRose: You will recall from our conversation that it is very clear to us that this bill is meant to support news, not to support production of a wide variety. When we speak of Indigenous storytelling in the context of news reporting, we speak of it in the sense of how we view the news and how we view the context around a news event from the perspective of the community. It is a way of looking at a story, it’s a way of looking at an event and it’s a way of looking at an activity that also speaks to who we are as Indigenous peoples, but it is still focused on reporting on news events.
I will let Monika speak to this example, but when the discovery in Kamloops was made, the APTN covered the story. Monika, you might want to tell that story and explain the difference.
Ms. Ille: That was in June 2021. There was a cultural ceremony near the residential school in Kamloops, so we did a story. Tina House, a reporter in Vancouver, did a story that was about 4 minutes and 11 seconds that talked about the ceremony and what was going on and interviewing people on the site. It was a very strong story. CTV picked up the story and wanted to present it to their audience. However, they felt that 4 minutes and 11 seconds was too long for them. They said they wanted to cut it down. We said that if they want to cut it down, we want to be part of that cut, so our reporter worked with the CTV editor to bring it down.
When you compare both stories, you do have the facts and understand what happened; however, in our story and left out of what we cut down for them is a residential school survivor who talked about his experience and the fact that he lost family in residential schools and what that meant to him. So when you compare both stories, the story that we presented, giving voice to Indigenous people talking about their stories, was more relatable and more emotional.
That’s what’s important for us in our storytelling. For too many years, Indigenous voices have been silenced. Now we have the opportunity to tell our stories. When we talk about news stories, a lot of stories that happen are unfortunately very tragic. We’re talking about residential school survivors and the Sixties Scoop. Telling our stories, as my mom told me, is part of our healing journey, so we will give voice to the people and victims, and put their stories out there so that people, especially non-Indigenous people, have a better understanding. That’s what we talk about when we talk about Indigenous storytelling. It’s giving our side of the stories and how that impacts or has influence on Indigenous people and communities. That’s the main difference of Indigenous storytelling.
Senator Simons: To me, with respect, that’s journalism; that’s clearly journalism. When the bill says “Indigenous storytelling,” to me the clear understanding of that language would encompass many things that are not journalism. I know, Mr. LaRose, it’s clear to you what you mean by that, but for a law, it can’t just be clear to you. There has to be clarity for the platforms, for Google and Facebook, and there has to be clarity for the CRTC, and there has to be clarity for the courts. How do we understand that this only includes things that are current events, current affairs or historical context programming as opposed to all the other kinds of Indigenous storytelling that happen in Indigenous broadcasting?
Mr. LaRose: Again, to your point that it is clear to us what Indigenous storytelling is when it comes to news, it’s in part what we have been trying to do with our news reporting at APTN for the last 21 years?
Ms. Ille: It’s 23 years, and soon 24 years.
Mr. LaRose: Time flies when you’re having fun.
For example, there’s a small Indigenous news outlet in B.C. called IndigiNews. As part of the output of that small online newspaper, they quite often have stories — news items — that speak the language and speak to a variety of issues that some might not consider news. To us, it’s news, because if you are someone who was pulled out of your community during the Sixties Scoop, for example, and you never had the chance to learn Cree, then here is someone who is providing you that information but also telling the general Canadian population more about the history of the language, the history and the story behind words or what have you. That is Indigenous storytelling, but it’s still Indigenous storytelling in a broader news context.
The goal here is certainly not for us to start looking at creating comedy series or getting funding for APTN to do its entire series of programming. The goal is to focus on how we can tell news so that when we go to a funding organization, we’re not told, “We don’t consider that reporting or news in the way that mainstream does, and we will not fund you,” which is what happened to us with the Local Journalism Initiative on a few occasions. They said that what they’re doing with IndigiNews is not news. There was an elder telling the story of a community, or there were a few columns on languages. “That’s not news,” they said to us. “That’s just general information, and we don’t consider it news. That doesn’t qualify.”
That’s what we’re trying to avoid this time around. To us, it’s key that we are not again setting ourselves up for a missed opportunity to be able to talk to Canadians and our communities, and to talk broadly about what the reality is.
For example, there was a First Nations community with whom I worked in the 1990s. Two weeks ago, one of their young members, a 15-year-old girl, was murdered in Cowichan. The way IndigiNews and The Discourse covered it was totally different. We work with The Discourse, which is a mainstream organization. It’s totally different than how the mainstream media in that region covered it: a deceased body found, what have you, end of story. But when you look at IndigiNews, which went further into it —
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LaRose. The time for Senator Simons’ questions has finished.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The subject’s been well covered, but I’d like to hear about your financial health and your business model, because we don’t know much about Dadan Sivunivut. We’re a little more familiar with APTN. I imagine that you want to take part in the negotiations for financial reasons. You say that you’re not eligible for funding under the local journalism initiative. Could you tell us, then, about your financial model and the state of your finances?
Mr. LaRose: Thank you very much. Dadan Sivunivut was created to build on the activities that the APTN network has carried out since 2008. In 2008, we created a production and distribution company for Indigenous productions. We later established two ELMNT FM radio stations — one in Ottawa and one in Toronto — as well as two music companies.
The Canada Revenue Agency reviewed APTN and told us that we had created all of these small companies for profit, except for the radio stations, which are not-for-profit. In the CRA’s view, that does not fit within the mandate of a charitable organization. Therefore, APTN separated these companies from its responsibility and created Dadan Sivunivut to become responsible for them. The aim is to make them profitable and enable them to grow.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: How are your radio stations doing?
Mr. LaRose: As far as the radio stations are concerned, on the one hand there’s the news, but they survive on advertising revenues and the pandemic hasn’t particularly helped us in that respect. There are other radio stations that are also experiencing major difficulties. Our radio stations are in the same situation. The only thing radio stations are interested in as far as Bill C-18 is concerned is the news. We’ve had to lay off all our journalists. We don’t have any reporters. So, if we have the support to be able to rehire journalists...
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So you don’t have any journalists?
Mr. LaRose: We don’t have any journalists right now. We’ve become strictly a music format, because that’s all we can afford to do until our revenues increase enough to allow us to rehire staff.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If you have no journalists, how can you negotiate under Bill C-18?
Mr. LaRose: If we did have financial support in this area, we would have journalists. Our aim is to create an environment where we can hire journalists. We have a partnership with IndigiNews. They’re also looking to hire journalists, with a view to gradually expanding the concept of this online newspaper based in British Columbia. We have one journalist in Alberta and we’re looking to expand the concept across the country.
It’s a question of what we can do sustainably for small organizations and small newspapers that are looking to establish themselves and create local and regional news, which is almost non-existent right now in some parts of the country. I am here to represent the community that’s really seeking the necessary tools to establish these small institutions, these small newspapers, these online publications, radio stations like ELMNT FM and others. They would like to have support to hire quality journalists and to have journalists in more remote areas to provide them with content. It’s strictly related to news. We’re not trying to have two DJs in the morning and two in the afternoon. Our objective is strictly news.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ms. Ille, in terms of your business model, where do you stand, particularly in terms of advertising and funding?
Ms. Ille: Approximately 85% of our revenues come from cable operators. APTN is mandatory. We currently receive 35 cents per subscriber per month. Then there are advertising sales, which represent between $2 million and $2.5 million. Then we have a few strategic partnerships. Those are very limited revenues. Cable companies... We’re well aware that people are increasingly cutting the cord. Every year, we see about a 3% drop in our cable revenues. That’s really hurting APTN right now. We’re looking for other sources of revenue. This bill is very important for that reason.
APTN is very active in news. We’re privileged to have a news team made up of Indigenous journalists, covering current events across Canada from Indigenous perspectives. APTN made a huge difference in that capacity when it was created 24 years ago. APTN is still growing. We want to make sure that our news is well recognized and that APTN is recognized as a professional news medium. Because we have the word “Aboriginal” attached to APTN, we’re not seen the way we should be. We’re seen as more of an activist group, because of the word “Aboriginal.” We have to take care and set ourselves apart. This bill is very important for us to be recognized and for our narrative to be just as well recognized. In other media, a four-minute news item is sometimes too long. Other media say, “No, that’s not for us, it’s almost like a short documentary.” For us, four minutes allows us to put things in context. We take the time to explain and connect the dots. That is what sets us apart. The APTN network is really unique in that respect.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: How many journalists do you have?
Ms. Ille: About twenty journalists across Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Welcome and thank you for your presentations, which help us to better understand. I know about APTN, but I don’t know much about how you operate. I’d like to come back to Bill C-18 and to the relationship you may have with Google and Meta. I don’t know if you currently have any agreements with them. Do most of your members, for example, make content available on these platforms, Google and Facebook? If so, what type of content is it? If the bill is passed, would you be the entity negotiating on behalf of your members? I understand that you do have members.
I’ll ask you my second question right away. You can answer both. You mentioned the audience. Obviously, your audience isn’t just Indigenous. I’d like to know what proportion of your audience is non-Indigenous. Whom do you reach? We need numbers to help us better understand your reach, and especially to understand how this bill would enable you to negotiate. How do you imagine this negotiation process with Google and Meta? I’d like to have a better understanding.
Ms. Ille: I’ll try to answer all these questions fairly succinctly. I’m not sure I understand the question when you talk about members. Could you be more specific?
Senator Cormier: I understand that you, Dadan Sivunivut, as an organization, are a member of the APTN network? No? Sorry, my mistake. You’re not a member. Let’s forget about that and talk instead about the issues around your relationship with Google and Meta.
Ms. Ille: Social media is important to APTN because our news is available on these platforms. We put our news on Facebook; like everyone else, our news is also on TikTok, which works very well to reach a younger population. We have our podcasts and our news on YouTube, where we get a little bit of money, but it’s really minimal.
It’s important to be visible and available; it’s a matter of discoverability. We are very active in that respect. Obviously, we’re trying to have more of a news presence on Facebook; that poses some challenges for us. We are looking at that more closely. Requests to have more news on Facebook are often denied. When we ask why, they say it’s adult, political, or social content, and doesn’t meet their standards. It’s a process we have to go through with them. It’s important for us, because the purpose of making news is to share it with the widest possible audience, so that people can understand, and be informed and educated. Especially among Indigenous people, there’s an appetite right now for stories that are available to everyone. When I talk about stories, I’m talking in general, not just about documentaries or entertainment; I’m talking about stories in the clear sense of the word. First, it was a question about accessibility and why we want to be—
Senator Cormier: You’re on the platforms?
Ms. Ille: We’re on the platforms. We’d like to be compensated for the news we provide.
Senator Cormier: How do you see the process? I’d like to understand the negotiation process.
Ms. Ille: I would like to know and understand how that could happen. Keep in mind that APTN is a small non-profit organization. Google, Facebook and others are huge. It will be difficult to negotiate with them.
Senator Cormier: Would you join a consortium?
Ms. Ille: We’ll have to. We have no other choice: to create a force, we will have to come together to move forward and position ourselves well. However, there has to be a recognition on their side of the work we do, for Indigenous media and the type of news we produce. We need that recognition. It’s important that this bill properly reflects the work we do and the value we have in order in having the clout to negotiate with them.
Senator Cormier: On the matter of non-Indigenous audiences?
Ms. Ille: APTN subscribes to Numeris, which tracks audience ratings. In their sample, perhaps 0.1% of the audience is Indigenous. The audience is made up primarily of non‑Indigenous people. We still see that we have a reach and that APTN is watched by a non-Indigenous population.
Senator Cormier: You have no data?
Ms. Ille: We have data, but we don’t share it, because we don’t think it’s representative of our audience.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Full disclosure, I should say that I had the really good fortune in my life to be on the CRTC when APTN was licensed, and, certainly for myself and the other commissioners who were involved, it was the highlight of our time at the CRTC. I think you presented at that time a very rich and ambitious plan, which a lot of us were very excited about. Some people had doubts, but you have met and surpassed those plans a long time ago. They’re way back in the dust, and you’ve gone further, so congratulations to you.
Myself and two other senators, Senator McCallum and Senator Osler, had a chance to tour your facility and headquarters in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, and it’s really encouraging to see the way you’ve advanced in a very professional manner, providing enormous services. I got so much out of that, and there was so much information.
I’m going to ask you, for the benefit of my colleagues, if you can just remind us how many feeds you have, how many radio stations you have, how they are funded and how Dadan Sivunivut is funded. That’s all in relation to the issue we’re dealing with as I’m looking and thinking about whether you really need any more or if you are just flush with cash.
Ms. Ille: I can start with APTN. At APTN, we have four broadcast feeds right now: the east, the west, the north and our HD feed, and, as I mentioned, the vast majority of revenues come from cable subscribers.
Mr. LaRose: For Dadan Sivunivut, when we separated from APTN, APTN provided a bit of seed money for us to launch. At the time, there was no anticipation of a pandemic. The companies are all basically for profit. For example, the music companies operate on the revenues from the royalties of the artists. They get a share of whatever royalties go to the artist. They are also responsible for organizing concert tours, record launches, CD launches and what have you. They also generate revenue through commercial operations, like any other talent‑management agency. The rights agency is getting royalties for all the music they licence. Our music catalogue is being used by CBC, CTV and Global, and a whole range of producers and production companies, Indigenous and non, that want Indigenous content for their productions. It is also starting to sell worldwide. So it is all revenue generated from operations.
The radio stations were meant to generate revenue through advertising. What happened, though, during the pandemic — and I think other networks experienced the same — is that the audience drifted away from traditional radio. A lot of people were locked down at home. They discovered streaming and all sorts of other sources. They created playlists. It started before, but it accelerated during COVID. The audiences dropped, which means revenues dropped. They dropped 95% in the first two months following the start of the pandemic, from March to April and into May. It has just slowly started to recover. Right now, we are struggling along, and as a business, if revenues won’t pick up, then we will have to seriously consider shutting down the radio stations.
We’re operating on a business model. We have no government funding. There is no government funding for what we do — for Indigenous radio.
Senator Cardozo: Do you have two or three stations?
Mr. LaRose: There are two stations, one in Ottawa and one in Toronto. Those are the two most challenging markets to break into, if you wish. I can tell you from experience that they are very challenging. At the same time, we are generating an audience and interest.
The other entity that we’re working with, IndigiNews, which I mentioned earlier, works on a donation or monthly subscription basis. People who enjoy the newspaper and the content and who want to know more will either give a donation or become a monthly subscriber. Right now, there are many more non‑Indigenous people subscribing to IndigiNews than Indigenous people, because they are interested in the content and the stories. They had a community meeting in Cowichan, I think, last week. Most of the attendees were non-Indigenous, coming to hear about how the organization was surviving and how they were doing and encouraging them to keep doing it because they needed to hear the stories that we were bringing to them.
From that perspective, we know we are connecting with Canadians and with our communities. We are meeting the objectives and the mission we set ourselves in 1998 when we appeared before the commission. We want to expand that to truly give Canadians the opportunity to get to know who we are as Indigenous people. That is also true for our musicians. When you listen, you will hear musicians you won’t hear anywhere else. They are now generating revenues from royalties as well. Canadians are starting to discover them and inviting them to take participate in concerts that are not Indigenous-specific. The goal is to create a place for ourselves in this country that gives us the opportunity to be on a level playing field with everybody else.
Senator Cardozo: To briefly get back to the main issue you raised at the beginning, can the change you are looking for be accommodated through regulations? I ask that because there is an issue of making amendments and whether that delays the bill. There are also certain benefits to things being in regulations because they can be changed and amended over time a lot easier than the Broadcasting Act can be.
Mr. LaRose: We know about that. I agree. That’s what I alluded to in my presentation. We have had conversations with senior officials at Heritage and in the minister’s office. They have given us the assurance that the regulations will be broader than what we interpret and see in here. That’s why we have come forward here. We wanted to say that while we recognize that we have a concern, we can accept that the regulations will work to provide us a broader perspective and ensure we are not excluded, as the definitions could lead us to be. That was our concern.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Between you two, you’ve been CEO for over 20 years or so?
Mr. LaRose: For 24 years.
Senator Cardozo: Congratulations for what you do, and thank you for coming here today.
Mr. LaRose: Thank you.
Ms. Ille: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here today.
This is a very important topic for the bill. I want to understand a couple of things, really following on Senator Cormier’s questions with respect to negotiations. I want to start with your concern about the definition as it is now in terms of Indigenous news outlets producing news content primarily for Indigenous peoples. Is your audience primarily not Indigenous peoples? Is that why you feel you might be adversely affected?
Mr. LaRose: Our primary audience is Indigenous peoples, but our goal is to reach all Canadians. So we have —
Senator Dasko: But you wouldn’t be disadvantaged by the way it is now, because it does say “produces news content primarily for Indigenous peoples.” Does that describe your mandate now, essentially?
Mr. LaRose: The mandate is to create news content that speaks to the Indigenous reality. That’s our reality.
Senator Dasko: Right. Yes.
Mr. LaRose: We have to present the realities of being an Indigenous person in Canada — events and so forth.
But by the same token, what has been happening, especially since 2021 with the discovery in Kamloops, a lot of Canadians have started to turn to us to learn more. They are saying that they never knew this part of their history. That’s why we think it is important for us to speak to everyone, not just to ourselves. That’s where the concern was. We don’t want to be seen —
Senator Dasko: I’m just saying that, right now, you actually fit in perfectly with this definition; isn’t that correct?
Mr. LaRose: We do except where it says —
Senator Dasko: Because that’s what your mandate is and it’s who your audience is mainly.
Mr. LaRose: Yes.
Ms. Ille: Let me rephrase this. We want to be sure that Indigenous media is not only for Indigenous peoples and that there is an understanding that what we do is for all Canadians to understand and to appreciate. We want to be sure there is that distinction. Hopefully, that will give us some bargaining power.
Don’t forget that we have to go and fight and get what we should be compensated for with our news so they don’t say, “You are just Indigenous, so because this is the Indigenous population of Canada, this is the ratio we have in mind and what you should get.” It is just to make sure that it doesn’t play against us and that they understand that Indigenous media is for all. Our stories are not only for Indigenous peoples.
Senator Dasko: Actually, that takes me to my next question about negotiations. I was just a little confused, Mr. LaRose, when you said that you wanted to negotiate to receive funding for future investments. My understanding of the bill is that you have to go there with arguments that say, “This is what we are doing now” and not what you’d like to do. Many organizations would like to do many things, but my understanding is that you go there and state what you do now — “This is it our news content, and this is our news content available online.” You can’t go and say, “If we had more money, we would do all these great things.” I am a little confused.
Mr. LaRose: If it came out that way, I apologize. That’s not what I meant.
Senator Dasko: That’s what I took.
Mr. LaRose: I was trying to say that, for example, with ELMNT FM, because of the current financial situation and the impact of the pandemic, we have had to lay off our reporters. We had four reporters before then, and we want to rebuild back to that. It is not as if we’re looking to build the organization to have 40 reporters. The goal is to give us the capacity to do news again. That’s what the bill is for. The bill is to give the capacity to sustain a news operation within your media organization, whether it is television, radio, a newspaper or whatever.
So it would be the same rule as it applies to everybody else. We would be going there — and I really have no clue what the negotiation process will look like. I don’t think any of us really do. Will we go there looking for a salary range per reporter, or how will it work? I have no clue.
For us, it is just a question of ensuring that the way the wording has been put in the bill, the sustainability of Indigenous news outlets —
Senator Dasko: It’s the ecosystem. That’s what it is talking about, and the ecosystem is everybody.
Mr. LaRose: Correct. Because with IndigiNews, we know what it costs us to have a reporter in a remote community, covering very local and regional stories, and the same with APTN. Over the years, we expanded to 12 bureaus across the country, I believe. If you are doing news in Nunavut or in remote parts of the country, it is very different from having a reporter in Toronto who covers City Hall two blocks away and comes back. Your costs are a totally different scale. So that’s the goal here.
Senator Dasko: Do you envision that you would be negotiating with other Indigenous producers or with non‑Indigenous? It is not easy to envision the process. You mentioned earlier possibly being part of a consortium, but then you also said you might be concerned about that because the other members of the consortium might not appreciate your unique situation. Do you think you might then be negotiating with Indigenous organizations?
Ms. Ille: I really don’t know. That’s a very good question, right? It could be with other Indigenous media organizations, but also there are small, independent non‑Indigenous media that also need support. It is hard to say, right now, and to envision how that’s going to pan out. What I know is that we are all small and independent, and we will need to work together to create the strength to have some negotiating power.
Mr. LaRose: Some of us have talked amongst ourselves, NCI, other small Indigenous radio organizations across the country, and we’ve had initial chats about, well, maybe if we band together. We started having preliminary conversations about how we might band together and see who else we could bring in, but it’s very preliminary. We don’t want to go off in one direction only to find out that’s not the way the process will work. But there is an openness, certainly from our end, to work together. For example, I mentioned we have a partnership with The Discourse and Indiegraf and what have you, and we will see if these small online publications and independent organizations, what have you — if we can, as a group, have those conversations. Again, it will depend on what happens. We are reading Meta’s presentation to the committee, and if this bill goes through, then there won’t be any news anywhere so nobody gets paid. We have no idea what’s going to happen in the future. Certainly, we will react according to where we land in the end.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, who is a new member of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. Welcome, Senator Saint-Germain. The floor is yours.
Senator Saint-Germain: I am an “old” new member, because I’m returning to the committee. Thank you both for your presentations. Incidentally, it’s a pleasure to hear the witnesses directly in either official language.
I have a main question and a supplementary question, both of which relate to your recognition and the adaptation of the legislation to your status.
First of all, I must tell you that in 2016, when I was Quebec’s ombudsperson, I conducted an investigation into the detention conditions of people incarcerated in Nunavik. I gave an interview to your northern station that has been the subject of three documentaries, and I have no doubt that this interview was done by professionals. It is by far some of the best, most accurate and critical coverage I’ve received on this report. Everyone talks about their experiences; this is the one I had with you.
My first question has to do with the fact that you stated in 2022 — it was in September, I believe, in the House of Commons — that you were concerned about the hierarchy of status given to the various news services, including the diversity media, the one that serves Indigenous communities. When I look at the definitions and interpretations at the outset, I very quickly see, on the contrary, a recognition — I would say at the same time an appropriate recognition — of what you are, and I link that to my colleague Senator Simons’ question. When we talk about Indigenous communities that have information media in the form of Indigenous stories, news content, to me that’s the same as a documentary in what you might call the more traditional media.
I would like you to reassure me that this hierarchy is correct or, on the contrary, is it a particular recognition of your situation?
Ms. Ille: Thank you for the question. Yes, indeed, I was talking about subparagraph 11(1)(a)(vi) at first reading, which states the following:
they cover a range of news outlets reflecting the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace, including diversity with respect to language, racialized groups, Indigenous communities…
It was hidden. It was the only mention of Indigenous peoples, and it was in that subparagraph. There was therefore no recognition. A lot of work has been done, and we were heard. Then, at third reading, there is this recognition. Yes, that hierarchy no longer exists, and we are very grateful for that. We were listened to, we were heard, and our concerns about this were understood.
Senator Saint-Germain: Great. Do you have anything to add, Mr. LaRose?
Mr. LaRose: All I would add to that is that the parallel for us was the former Broadcasting Act, the 1991 act, in which we had a special place. When resources were available, there would be support for the Indigenous sector.
Except for APTN, the resources have never materialized in a country that is still one of the richest in the world. For us, it’s still a question of how we can really create a space that will allow us to play on an equal footing with the rest of the industry, where we have the same possibilities and the same opportunities to establish our institutions, make them profitable and speak to Canadians.
Senator Saint-Germain: My supplementary question, Mr. Chair, is really related to Senator Dasko’s question, and it has to do with your business plan once this legislation is passed. Beyond what the act will stipulate, you already have a business context that can enable you to forge alliances with other Canadian and international media outlets for rebroadcasting your stories.
It seems to me that you may be expecting that once passed, this act — and its very important regulations — will solve a problem in the financing and development of your business, which is not the original purpose of the legislation. I just wanted to hear what you had to say about your business plan in relation to who you are and the nature of the audience you want to broaden, and I would also like to know how this legislation can be a lever. At the same time, beyond this legislation, there must still be other initiatives that are, in my opinion, yours.
Mr. LaRose: Absolutely, and that’s the point I was trying to clarify. In fact, the bill would be useful for two of the groups we work with: the two radio stations that do not currently have reporters — and we think it is very important for them to have reporters — and also IndigiNews, an online Indigenous publication that was launched with The Discourse in British Columbia and is being expanded across the country. We would like to have at least one or two reporters per province, eventually.
The business plan, here, is focused on news in both cases, for radio and for IndigiNews, to have resources to establish media positions that will cover Indigenous news in communities, but also very often the non‑Indigenous reality and the Indigenous interaction that can occur, as is currently being done with IndigiNews in some communities in British Columbia. Our business plan is not to raise funds to support other initiatives; that is not the goal.
My understanding is that the bill is about finding resources to support the creation of news and nothing else. This is very important to us. I remember what the news service cost APTN when I was there; it was a significant part of our budget, because of the distance and all the territory to cover. The same is true for radio. For example, when we have two reporters in Ottawa covering the news, they have to go all the way to Kitigan Zibi or Pukatawaga to bring the news from our communities back to audiences here. It’s strictly for news, not to get a DJ or something; it’s strictly for news.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the clarification.
[English]
Senator Wallin: I will follow up on that. You seem to be saying, as you did to Senator Dasko, that this is about fuelling expansion. You want this to fund expansion, not existing operations.
Mr. LaRose: I don’t think that’s very different from what other major newspapers are saying, which is that they want to rehire and create regional reporting positions, et cetera, because they’ve had to close those bureaus and let go of those reporters. We’re trying to create something that doesn’t exist. If we are looking to expand IndigiNews into Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we are taking news from those areas that are not only underserved but unserved and create an opportunity for news reporting from those areas to connect with our communities and with the rest of Canada.
Senator Wallin: I think what we’ve heard from existing operations is that they want to be compensated for the use of existing material by the platforms, not to expand into areas that they might want to expand into, as everybody says. Everybody would love to grow their markets, but that’s not reality. Markets are shrinking.
Mr. LaRose: I don’t disagree with that comment, but I’ve heard some of them, for example, at Newsgeist last year, saying that they were hoping this legislation would provide them the opportunity to re-establish remote bureaus, et cetera, that they had close because of a lack of resources.
Senator Wallin: Who funded those operations or those reporters in your operation prior to the pandemic? You said that it was kind of all —
Mr. LaRose: We were funding them through revenues, but when revenues collapsed by 95%, there was no money left. We were funding them from operations, from our revenues, just like The Globe & Mail was funding an expansive news organization before they started to also —
Senator Wallin: Was that material being captured by the streaming services?
Mr. LaRose: Some of it was. With ELMNT FM, quite often, clips of our radio stories would be aired. We would post them on—
Senator Wallin: You would post them?
Mr. LaRose: We would post them for people to pick up on them, and we —
The Chair: I apologize, but we must move on. We will go to a second round.
Senator Simons: Facebook/Meta has made it abundantly clear, whether it is a threat or a promise, that they will block all content that is encompassed by Bill C-18. Google has been a bit more oblique, but I think that is their intention as well. Are you concerned at all that by making the definition “Indigenous storytelling,” that you could effectively create a situation where Facebook blocks everything that could be shared from APTN if they interpreted “Indigenous storytelling” to encompass your entire modus operandi?
I am very sympathetic to the point you made, Mr. LaRose, that you were not able to get funding out of the Local Journalism Initiative, which sounds ridiculous to me. Clearly, if people are doing local journalism, they should qualify. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should course correct by scoping in everything. I am really concerned that if Google and Facebook make good on their threats, you could be shuttered completely from being serviced on the internet.
Mr. LaRose: If we are taking news here, certainly every news organization in Canada will be impacted by Facebook’s actions. If they decide to block — and Google also did tests, apparently — so if they both have the infrastructure to block any news from any news organization, like I said earlier, that impacts everybody. Not only are we not getting the exposure that helps us generate some interest now, but we are not getting anything for what we’re doing anyway. It’s a lose-lose all around from our end.
If that is the case — and I’m not familiar with what the negotiations were in Australia — but there were some conversations between the government and those institutions, and they came up with an arrangement that worked. Now, there’s something in place that seems to be working.
Of course, we can get blocked —
Senator Simons: But my question is this: By putting in the definition of “Indigenous storytelling,” which I know you say is clear to you — but if I were Facebook’s lawyers, I would be telling them to block everything you do because everything could be considered “Indigenous storytelling.”
Ms. Ille: I went through all the amendments that Facebook put forward, and they definitely take out “storytelling,” but they don’t explain why. They explain other rationales for what they want removed. We don’t know why —
Senator Simons: They took out all broadcasting from there. They took out everything broadcasting.
Ms. Ille: I know, but I’m saying that I don’t see the rationale why. For other amendments or deletions, they explain why but not for this one. That’s confusing to us. They also lump Indigenous with other — requiring us to also have two employees and a journalistic code of ethics. Basically, they are excluding broadcasting altogether. That guts everything. I don’t think that this wording has that big of an impact. I think the picture is way bigger than that. I’m trying to have a better understanding of where they’re coming from and why they are bringing this forward. Why did they scratch that out? What’s the threat in having “Indigenous storytelling” put in there? That’s my question I have for them.
Senator Simons: I guess the existential threat to you is —
Ms. Ille: Not only us.
The Chair: Senator Simons …
Senator Simons: Okay, my point is made.
Senator Dasko: I just want to clarify something: You don’t have any agreements with the platforms.
Ms. Ille: No, we don’t.
Senator Dasko: Have you approached them to negotiate at all?
Ms. Ille: We don’t have much of a relationship with them.
Mr. LaRose: We have worked with Facebook. We were promoting a contest we had on the ELMNT radio stations, and they provided us ad credits to do that. But that’s the arrangement they have currently with a lot of Indigenous organizations, non‑Indigenous organizations and small media. It’s on a per offering, if you wish. It is nothing major.
We have talked to them about a program for not-for-profits that they have, which we thought the radio stations might fit into, but we never got beyond the conversation stage. With this bill in process, I think they are stepping back to see what will happen here before anything comes on.
So we do not have anything in place, and there are no talks happening that would put something in place.
Senator Dasko: The value proposition for the platforms is the news content that you make available online. Can you tell me about how much news content you make available online now?
Ms. Ille: Most of our stories are available online. We are very active putting our stories there because it reaches a different and a bigger audience. We are very active on our news site.
Senator Dasko: Most of what you do goes online?
Ms. Ille: Most of what we do goes online, yes.
The Chair: Thank you to our panellists today for being with us and sharing your views.
For our second panel, I am pleased to welcome, from The Logic, David Skok, Founder and Chief Executive Officer; from All Business Online News Group, Ben Wood, Publisher; and from Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, Jeanette Ageson, Publisher, The Tyee, and she is joining us by video conference.
Welcome and thank you for joining us. You will each have five minutes for opening statements, and then I will turn it over to my colleagues for Q & A. We will start off with The Logic. Mr. Skok, you have the floor.
David Skok, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, The Logic: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am the founder, CEO and controlling shareholder of The Logic, a made-in-Canada business and tech publication celebrating our fifth anniversary.
We employ almost two dozen reporters and editors in five bureaus across the country, including one of the only English‑language bureaus remaining in Quebec. We are an independent small business with no lobbyists, no trade association backing and no allegiance to any start-up or legacy interests. Despite these humble origins, last year The Logic won more Association for Business Journalists — or SABEW — awards recognizing Canada’s preeminent business journalism than any other publication outside of The Globe and Mail, beating out top international news outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.
In over 25 years working in media, I’ve been in the middle of the evolving relationship between big tech and publishers, which brings me to Bill C-18. I ask you to please approve this legislation without delay. While it is not a perfect bill, it will level the playing field in three key areas.
First, Bill C-18 is a backstop forcing publishers and platforms to come to the table for fair and equitable agreements that don’t privilege those only with negotiating power.
Secret deals already exist between big tech and their chosen news companies, significantly distorting competition and further tilting the playing field in the platforms’ interests. And that’s not just in Canada, by the way. Around the world, big tech is throwing money at their preferred publishers in an effort to avert legislation. In the process they are picking winners and hindering competition and innovation in an industry that citizens rely on for information.
Just last month, it was reported that The New York Times would receive $100 million from Google over three years. As a colleague from The Globe and Mail told this committee, its deal with Google gives them tremendous benefits not just in terms of cash, which they’ve used to fund their operations and hire staff from other news outlets, but also preferential visibility in Google Search and consulting on optimizing their products for mobile.
Despite our best efforts, The Logic has not struck a deal with any of the big tech platforms included in Bill C-18. As a result, for the last two years, we have faced a competitive disadvantage in the war for talent, resources and distribution against already‑well-resourced incumbents like The Globe and Mail and The New York Times. Bill C-18 seeks to rectify this imbalance.
Second, Bill C-18 is about fairly compensating news publishers through commercial licensing deals for the use of their fact-based journalism, a critical need with the rise of artificial intelligence, or AI. Increasingly, search engines answer users’ questions with integrated content on their own sites versus links that drive us back to a publisher’s website. This requires platforms to harvest factual reporting, lifted without permission, to keep users engaged on their sites. Now, that would be fine if publishers were fairly compensated for it. If not, some would argue that’s theft. Big tech should want licensing deals now because it alleviates some of the long-term copyright challenges and expensive lawsuits generative AI is sure to spark later. Just as syndication deals work today, if you license the content, you are free to use it. If you don’t, you can’t.
Third, every day that this legislation is delayed is another day closer to the extinction of Canadian newsrooms. With a level playing field, The Logic can continue to grow and fill the voids left in our news deserts. However, we also can’t ignore the devastating impact of these job losses, which are wiping away decades of journalistic experience and people that we could then hopefully hire and grow with our team. The rebuilding has to start now.
I do not blame big tech for building a better mousetrap. Technological progress has allowed journalism to be read by more people than ever in its history, but that doesn’t mean big tech should be dictating how journalism works in this country. I’ve watched this happen for far too long, most recently with the testing of news blocking for some Canadians. Whatever the tactic, platforms have defined the rules of engagement and distribution of journalism without bearing any of the costs of its collapse.
Would I like more transparency in this bill? Yes. Would I like more platforms included in this bill, given the AI copyright issues? Of course. But we’ve already lost two years, and with the pace of change, nothing will ever be perfect in legislation.
Bill C-18 opens the door to greater progress for journalism, serving as a step to more fair, proportionate and equitable licensing structures with platforms. I urge you to pass this legislation quickly so that Bill C-18 can receive Royal Assent and I can get back to doing the work I love: building a business that provides high-quality reporting to Canadians from across the country.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wood from All Business Online News Group, you have the floor.
Ben Wood, Publisher, All Business Online News Group: Hello senators. I’m the publisher of a chain of online newspapers serving a growing audience of thousands of paying subscribers who enjoy our daily coverage of business and politics in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and now Saskatchewan.
I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-18 for targeted financial support for small to medium news organizations, since evidence from Australia suggests that a disproportionate amount of the benefits from the proposed legislation could flow to the handful of large news organizations that already dominate the domestic market.
We launched allNovaScotia.com in 2001 with the belief that news is worth paying for, and we have grown our operations to over 40 staff reporters and editors working in six newsrooms across the country. Virtually all of our 50 staff are shareholders in our company, a team that is focused on expanding our trusted brand of in-depth journalism to new Canadian markets.
Our digital-only business model, providing top-quality information to paying subscribers behind a hard paywall, is proving that there is a good future for in-depth, balanced journalism in this country, but it has been a slow process to get where we are today. We know that giving away information for free — even relatively small amounts for promotional purposes — halts subscription growth. Hence, we don’t post any stories on social media and are not searchable on Google. Our slow and steady business model wouldn’t impress Bay Street investors, but 84% of our revenues now come from circulation, enabling us to grow our coverage every year and pay our people salaries that are fully industry competitive. We did it all without making a single Facebook or Twitter post in 22 years.
That said, Bill C-18 is not going to be a game changer for us because we will not post our articles outside of our hard paywall. Our profitable publication has multiple reporters at provincial legislatures, city halls and the courts, covering important industries like transportation, utilities, real estate and oil and gas, but we do not give away our content, the lifeblood that sustains us, and a link to a hard paywall will never go viral. However, the legislation will provide a shot in the arm for the largest news organizations in the country which post content for free and which we compete with for new hires and subscribers. These large organizations with dedicated social media staff, free content and lots of general interest stories should perform well under this proposed system.
This being the case, we say small and medium news organizations, including subscription-driven players like us, may be damaged by Bill C-18 unless the government ensures the continuation of some sort of level playing field. One such option would be the continuation of the Canadian journalism labour tax credit that was introduced by the federal government in 2019, which could be instead targeted to small- and medium-sized qualifying news organizations or capped at a certain amount per organization, something that would lower the overall cost of the program.
Another option would be a fund topped up by social media companies and the government, one that, like the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit, could be administered by an independent body.
Making deals or financial support tied to the payroll spent on journalists could also work, as long as there is fair and increased support for small- and medium-sized players and new market entrants. It should also encourage those organizations which are hiring more journalists and paying good full-time salaries or supporting more freelancers, not just making more links on social media.
Digital news organizations tend to spend a greater share of their budgets on journalists’ salaries than larger, more complex organizations that have distribution, printing, sponsored content and other divisions, so each dollar distributed to those smaller players should fund more journalism.
Targeted support for small- and medium-sized organizations will also encourage podcasts, newsletters and emerging business models that may not fully benefit from links deals with internet giants. In our view, targeted support for these organizations is critical to the new journalism Canada needs, and it must be written into Bill C-18 to offset the uneven playing field it may create.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
I will turn the floor over to Jeanette Ageson.
Jeanette Ageson, Publisher, The Tyee, Independent Online News Publishers of Canada: Good morning, and thank you so much for inviting me to speak today.
I’m here wearing a few different hats. I’m the publisher of The Tyee, a 20-year-old non-profit news site based in Vancouver. I’m also a member of a coalition, the Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, that has come together to have our voices heard about Bill C-18. Additionally, I’m a director of Press Forward, a new association for independent digital publishers.
When Bill C-18 was introduced last year, our coalition of over 100 independent digital publishers quickly formed to discuss our concerns around how this could play out for the smaller publishers in Canada. Right away, we saw that the legislation could disproportionately benefit the large legacy news organizations and give crumbs to newer, smaller entrants and possibly leave out many altogether.
We’ve heard that in Australia, smaller publishers did eventually get deals with the platforms that they are happy with, and that is encouraging, but I also understand that deals with many smaller publishers were delayed. Initially, the platforms were not responsive to requests for negotiations, and eventually, a billionaire’s charity needed to step in with funding to help a group of smaller publishers negotiate a deal. All’s well that ends well, I suppose, but if we are to be modelling our approach after the Australia code, let’s also look at ways to avoid that same pattern.
Small publishers in Canada are already contemplating if we need to start fundraising for professional negotiators to ensure we get a good deal. Most of us have small teams and modest resources, and we don’t have surplus capacity or funds to hire teams of negotiators to help us in this process. That’s why our coalition is advocating for measures that lower the bar in negotiations by ensuring transparency and fairness as part of Bill C-18.
As the bill was considered by Parliament, we spoke at committee hearings and achieved an amendment to make eligible very small newsrooms who might include the owner of the publication as one of the working journalists. We’re pleased with that, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been any movement on ensuring that details of deals will be publicly available or that deals need to be made according to a fair formula across publications. It appears that it will be up to the CRTC to determine fairness, but we won’t be able to tell if we’d agree with that assessment. At this time, it would be very helpful if we were able to know the terms of the deals reached in Australia, but those details are under strict NDAs.
There is no doubt that Canadian journalism is in trouble, with thousands of jobs lost and a drastic reduction of public interest journalism available to people in Canada. Yes, a big part of that is because the advertising-supported business model for journalism has been disrupted, but that doesn’t tell the whole story about what is going on in the industry. In a very challenging and quickly changing industry, small independent newsrooms, like The Tyee, have sprung up, and many of us are stable and growing, though not at the rate to replace all the jobs lost since the heyday of newspapers, to be sure. But there is something there. We are doing something right. We’re experimenting with new business models, including earning support directly from our readers. The Tyee, for example, is supported by nearly 10,000 individual donors, making up about half of our overall budget. We also crucially have operating support from a core major donor, who has allowed us to invest in quality and attract a loyal and paying audience.
I’m not saying that if left completely alone, the current market conditions will produce a high level of accessible public interest journalism in communities large and small across Canada. I don’t think that is necessarily the case, or it might take a very long time to get there. I do think that having solid, trusted journalism is too important to let die if it is not profitable. However, we don’t want to end up in a situation where these news innovators have delayed or unfair deals from Bill C-18 just because of our relative size and lack of incumbency status. Having timely access to information about the deals reached through Bill C-18 and what the terms are could mitigate this, as well as establishing a fair funding formula based on editorial expenditures.
I welcome conversations with all involved in this process, and I am available to take your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, we have a long list of requests for questions, so please keep questions and answers within four or four and a half minutes. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Skok. You are the head of a specialized media outlet that reports on computer science and technology. Are you sure you’re covered by any agreements with the platforms? It’s more about general‑interest news.
Second, I would like to hear what you have to say about Facebook’s latest actions. Obviously, if you no longer have Facebook to deliver your news or get it read, since you are also a media outlet that specializes in technology journalism, it seems to me that this will hit you harder than others.
I also know that you have had different opinions on Bill C-18. You now agree, but you felt some anxiety when the bill was being drafted. I would like to hear from you briefly on those three topics.
[English]
Mr. Skok: Thank you, senator. That’s a lot. I’ll try to answer that in my brief time.
First, we are eligible as a QCJO. We have a bureau here in Ottawa, for example, that has two reporters, so we cover civic issues, such as this hearing that we’re at. I’m not involved in that, but we do cover those things. We also have five bureaus across the country. My view has always been that local journalism is about being locally relevant, not necessarily being locally based. There are stories like Sidewalks Lab in Toronto, for example, which our journal has covered. It was a national story that started as a Toronto story. We covered that before any of the local outlets covered it. So I would argue that we are not as specialized as we first seem.
The other thing I would say about that is that, as innovation happens, what starts today as specialized needs to be given time to flourish and grow. We have every intention to grow as a publication, but we need a level playing field in order to do so we could take on more as time goes on.
In terms of Facebook’s action, the direct impact to our business would actually be negligible, because we, like my colleague, did not build our business on the backs of social networks or search engines. In fact, we didn’t ask for any of this, but we got dragged into it because of the licensing deals that were struck with others that put us at a competitive disadvantage.
I would say the impact on society concerns me quite greatly. Losing factual information in a sea of disinformation by these actions is not a good thing. My own personal opinion is that these actions should leave no doubt that these are private companies that are responsible only to their shareholders. As such, we need policy-makers like you to bring them in line.
I’d also say that if this is how a company like that negotiates with a G7 country, you can only imagine how those negotiations went with a small business like ours. The government does have some levers to play here. Last year, according to the government’s own advertising report, $54 million was spent on programmatic advertising with Google and SEO, or search engines and social with Facebook. I think that $54 million gives the government more leverage than I would ever have.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Under this bill, we are now at at about 700 media outlets. Does that make sense?
Mr. Skok: Ironically, when the bill was being debated in the other place, the platforms were going around telling small publishers that they wouldn’t be included in the bill and that they needed to rally. Yet, they then sat here and testified that there are now too many. It’s not really for me to decide whether it’s too many, but I would argue that the platforms themselves have not been congruent in how they have responded to that.
Senator Simons: As a former journalist, the three you here give me a much-needed boost of confidence that journalism is not dead. I am a big fan of The Logic and The Tyee. Mr. Wood, you need to start a publication in Alberta so I can be a big fan of yours, too.
It does concern me that we have created this Rube Goldberg device with all of these complications. Mr. Skok, I’m still not certain that The Logic is even covered as a business publication.
I want to address this question to Ms. Ageson and Mr. Wood first, because they haven’t had a chance to answer a question yet. What else could the government do that would have been a simpler, more practical way to support the kinds of journalism that you do? In Mr. Wood’s case, it is really local journalism that we desperately need. In The Tyee’s case, there is a lot of long‑form investigative work, particularly about environmental issues.
Mr. Wood: As Mr. Skok said, there is a large advertising budget that would help. Advertising is only a small part of our business. We also have many subscribers within various federal government departments, which is great. We love their support.
The federal government already created what I think is a much less flawed program in the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. It’s transparent, and it is tied to the wages of journalists so you can hire journalists and get a percentage of their wages credited back. It’s tied to employing more journalists and having more people ask more questions around this country versus this legislation, which I’m not sure if it’s tied to posts or links. I don’t know if AI can post these links. That program was great. It was arm’s length and administered by an independent panel. I think a continuation of something like that would have been more appropriate and more effective.
Ms. Ageson: There are all kinds of things that the government could do in future, which is a fascinating conversation we could also have.
But yes, there are things like the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit, which has been very helpful for news organizations, including ours. There is the diversion of digital advertising dollars to publications that run advertising, for sure.
One could set up a fund. There are certain models for funding that I find really interesting. For example, there are certain revenue streams created by legislation. In B.C., there is one called the Law Foundation of BC and the Real Estate Foundation of BC. From what I understand, they make their money from interest gained on the transactions that are involved in legal cases and real estate transactions. Legislation was created to divert that interest, which essentially belongs to no one, into a fund to fund public-interest legal work. Then, for the Real Estate Foundation of BC, I think it’s land-use policy work and policy to do with housing and initiatives to do with housing. Those are interesting models that can be looked at. For the situation where a tax creates a fund, we don’t know how successful that would be either. I’m not a specialist on this. Could we run into problems with international trade law? That might be fruitless. So I’m not quite sure.
I have all kinds of ideas for things that we could do, but we’ll be here for a while. Those are just a few things that could be done.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Skok. Some of the critics of the bill have said that the bill is itself a threat to the independence of journalism. What is your sense of that?
Related to that, there is some concern among some critics of the role of the CRTC in “meddling” in journalist independence. Could we have your view on the independence issue as it pertains to this piece of legislation?
Mr. Skok: Thank you, senator.
My understanding of the legislation is that the CRTC is a backstop and that it allows us to first form a collective, if that’s what we so choose, to then negotiate directly with the platforms.
By the way, just in terms of the negotiation, if we join a collective, the collective defines how we then distribute those funds. It’s actually quite elegant. The collective will then dictate. If it’s about the number of journalists, then the collective will distribute those funds based on the number of journalists.
For some of the noise around the CRTC, I would say, look, I was in broadcasting before I was in print or digital. It hasn’t, to the best of my knowledge, and when it has, people have been terminated from jobs when they’ve gotten involved.
I would also argue that if I had a good deal with Google or Facebook right now that I’d been sitting on for two years, and if I knew that deal was then going to be disclosed at the CRTC, I would think maybe my next deal won’t be as good because there’s no way that the platforms will want to provide that level of support for all 700 organizations.
I think it’s a bit cheeky, quite frankly, and an interesting tactic to say that the CRTC is the problem here when some are sitting with deals and have not disclosed themselves how much those deals are for.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much for being here, and thank you for what you do. Like Senator Simons, I have a lot of respect for what you’re doing. I think you’re really at the front line, the future of news in this country. Thank you for doing that and for being here.
Mr. Skok, I take your point that it’s better to go with the bill that we have than not. You probably understand the unpredictability of politics between this house and the other. We never know what could happen if we send it back with amendments. I understand a lot of people would rather have this and move along.
Ms. Ageson, I want to give a shout-out to you and The Tyee for carrying Murray Dobbin. I think he was one of the great intellectuals of our country who did a lot of important reporting and book writing. I think the depth of journalism that you have displayed is important, and Murray Dobbin was an important component of that.
I would like to ask you each, in one minute, to talk about your thoughts about the growth of artificial intelligence and how that will affect your publications. It’s somewhat in the context of this bill. Does it make any difference if journalism is going to change hugely in the days and weeks and months ahead with ChatGPT and all the rest?
Mr. Skok: As I said in my opening remarks, these algorithms or these generative AI platforms need to harvest the information from somewhere, and they are harvesting it from factual information in order to do it.
On the one hand, I would argue that we are not, as of yet, being fairly compensated for that. While Bill C-18 is not a panacea on that front, it certainly is a start to accomplish that by getting some licensing fees. I’m not the first to say that. News Corp has said that, and The Wall Street Journal has said that as well.
The other thing that concerns me about it is the flooding of the zone of “not truthful stuff” that will be out there. It will certainly allow news outlets that are not really news outlets to flourish with cheap flooding-of-the-zone misinformation. I actually think it makes this legislation even more vital to happen now because, whether I am competing with another outlet or not, we also have a vital role in our democracy to provide truthful information in a sea of disinformation.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. I would ask Ms. Ageson to comment next.
Ms. Ageson: I completely agree with David Skok that the advent of generative AI actually makes something like Bill C-18 even more urgent. It sort of erases the pushback to Bill C-18, which is that publishers benefit by having traffic sent to our sites, and it’s then up to us to monetize. It also underlies or displays the kind of entitlement that a lot of these platforms have had or that assumption that news organizations can survive with having our business models completely disrupted because they will ingest our content and then display it without any compensation.
It also displays this sort of idea that news and facts are just lying about and that they exist without reporters actually going and reporting, making phone calls, showing up, doing interviews, bringing facts into being, rather than just having them lie around as if there was no labour involved in making that happen. The rise of generative AI means that legislation like this, in some form, needs to happen.
Mr. Wood: I have a couple of different points with AI.
It’s important to note — and you touched on this in your answer just now — that you have to look at what a journalist does to add value in picking up the phone, working the phones, having sources, showing up, like you said. These are the things that journalists should be focused on. Low-hanging fruit like baseball scores and weather and traffic jams, that will be taken over by AI. I’m an optimist there. I think there will always be jobs for good journalists with good sources.
The other thing I should say about AI is, “Close the door.” The reason that AI can come in and harvest all the information on your sites, regurgitate your stories, go through your back files, is the openness of your websites. The rise of AI is a discussion that all news organizations need to have in terms of how they present their information and some of the steps that they could take on the technology side to protect the lifeblood of their organization, their back files and all of their information.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Welcome to the witnesses, and congratulations on your work and your opening remarks, which shed light on the challenges of journalism in relation to Google and Facebook. My first question is for Ms. Ageson.
Ms. Ageson, during your testimony in the other place, you expressed very serious concerns about the fact that hundreds of micro-media outlets would be excluded from the bill. You mentioned it earlier, but I would like you to expand on it.
Are you satisfied with the amendment to clause 27, which reduces eligibility to two journalists who may own or be associated with a news business? Does it reassure you about the eligibility of small news outlets? If not, do you have any suggestions to make about that?
[English]
Ms. Ageson: Well, that is an amendment that we fought for in Parliament because, before, it said that the organization needed to regularly employ two journalists who were at arm’s length from the owner. We provided the perspective that many start-up organizations only reach that point in their third or fourth year of operation. Often, it’s a journalist who starts the news organization, and they are doing everything in the beginning, so it’s appropriate that they be included in that. For very small and early-stage organizations, taking on an employee is a big responsibility, and it’s not to be taken lightly. Oftentimes, in the beginning, people are working with freelancers because that’s the only sustainable or responsible thing to do at that point. A further evolution might be to consider the work of freelancers or contractors and not just employees in the production of news.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer.
[Translation]
My second question is for Mr. Skok and Ms. Ageson. If I read your testimony in the other place correctly, Mr. Skok, I think you were applauding the fact that the bill would give transparency to agreements protected by confidentiality provisions. I assume you were referring to clause 86 of the bill, concerning the independent auditor’s annual report.
Do you think this report sheds enough light on the agreements? Is there is a need to clarify the content?
Along the same lines, but conversely, Ms. Ageson, if I read correctly, it seems to me that you were a little concerned about the transparency of these agreements. Should we also clarify the content of the independent auditor’s report?
I would like to hear from both of you on this issue, which I think is important, in terms of transparency, of course.
[English]
Mr. Skok: On the one part, I would say there was an amendment done near the end of the bill in the House which at least gives the arbitrators the information so that they know what the deals are, in which case they can adjudicate fairly. That was one of my concerns from a transparency lens: How do you make sure you have equitable deals? That amendment is a great thing.
In terms of the public’s right to know, as I said in my opening remarks, I would love for this all to be public. We have nothing to hide. We show everything we have on our websites and disclose all of our funding to the best our ability as a private company. I would love do this as well. However, if it is a choice — and I think it is at this point — between getting this thing done or having that greater transparency, I will take the “get this thing done,” because as I’ve said, we’ve been at this massive disadvantage to our direct competitors for two years.
Ms. Ageson: Transparency would make this bill stronger. I understand that someone will be able to see the balance of the deals and try to provide a fairness lens, but I don’t know what lens that person is using. I don’t understand what their basis of fairness is. It would be preferable if those involved in the deals and the public could also agree, “Yes, I think that is fair.” We will just have to take someone’s word for it that they think that it is fair based on criteria I don’t know.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question relates more specifically to the independent auditor’s report that will be produced. Do you feel that, based on what’s in the bill, this report is adequate, or do you feel that the content should be clarified?
[English]
Ms. Ageson: It is hard to know because I don’t know what will eventually be in the reports. I don’t know if it will just be an opinion or if someone says, “I am the auditor. I have reviewed these bills. I think they are fair,” or if they will disclose actual real numbers. It is tough.
It would be helpful to know in year two or three or four how many journalism jobs have been retained or have grown as a result of Bill C-18, but that might need to involve a level of reporting from news organizations that they might not want to share. As a way around that, you could just disclose the amount that went to each news publication and on what terms and how those agreements were reached.
We are the same as David Skok. We also disclose all of the sources of our funding. It is a matter of importance because we try to build trust with our readers. We are not required to disclose all of that, but we do that proactively. I also don’t want to be in a situation where I am under an NDA and cannot share those things with my readers. I would think that would damage the trust that we have built over the years.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Skok, can you explain to me why you believe Bill C-18 will curb disinformation or misinformation? We don’t even have definitions of those words, actually. How do you think that would work?
Mr. Skok: It’s a very industrial policy answer I’ll give you: We need more journalists and more journalism jobs. We need more fact-based journalism. In 2008 and 2009, when we laid off a lot of journalists, what we really gutted was that mid-level editor, copy editor and fact-checker. The thing that has been really slow to be replaced is that. At The Logic, those were the first positions we hired. We have a ratio of two reporters to every editor, and we do that for a reason. It’s so that when we publish something, it has gone through the wringer before it comes out. My industrial policy answer is that more journalism jobs will have more fact-based reporting and editing.
I also deeply worry, as I touched on in the beginning, that the talent pool of young, up-and-coming journalists who get their training at small-town community newspapers and then can go somewhere else is gone. It is only going to erode further unless we stem that tide.
Senator Wallin: But this is a self-regulated business, really. There’s nothing in the legislation, as you see it? I didn’t want to leave the impression on the ground that somehow there’s a mechanism directly to stop misinformation or disinformation.
Mr. Skok: I believe there are other pieces of legislation that are about that, and I can’t speak to those.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Wood, for those of us who were journalists in an earlier life, journalism has always been dependent on the kindness of others to exist, whether it was the advertising revenue that came from the newspaper, the television station or whatever. Going to direct government funding of journalism, I found it very troubling. Now, forcing these deals between “journalists,” news operations and big tech doesn’t give me any more peace. You seem to have found a model that you think could work, which is sort of back to the future: Let subscribers decide. If you have an audience to support your content, you will succeed. If you don’t, you won’t.
Mr. Wood: Thank you for that. That’s a great question.
I should start off by saying that I don’t support government subsidies for private news organizations. I’m suggesting this support to address the uneven playing field that I believe this legislation could create given that there is so much uncertainty in this legislation. We don’t know if Facebook and Google are going to pull out of news in this country. We don’t know if there will be major delays for small publishers to get deals. We don’t know if they will get good deals or bad deals, because while many news organizations from Australia spoke to you last week, they were not able to describe any of the deals that they had made. The targeted supports will de-risk this period of one or two years after this legislation comes out for small- and medium-sized players.
We actually spoke out against the Canadian journalism labour tax credit when it was first proposed — that’s on the record — but we had to take it to remain competitive. Now I feel it’s like déjà vu. I’m in this position again where this legislation is coming down, it looks as if it is coming, and this targeted support for smaller diverse voices in the media landscape could help avoid some of the increased concentration amongst some of the largest players. I wanted to get that on the record.
In terms of transparency — and I know that you share this on your website — a minority shareholder in The Logic is Postmedia, and it is a material investment. I know that you are here as part of a cross-section of the new emerging media players, but you do have that investment from Postmedia. I thought that was something to note.
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Ms. Ageson, do you share those concerns expressed by Mr. Wood that funding, whether from government or through forced negotiations with big tech, puts you in a compromised position?
Ms. Ageson: We have a different model. We don’t have a hard paywall, and we are a non-profit organization, so our entire model presupposes that journalism is worthy of public and private support. The devil is in the details with how those deals are set up and sort of independence clauses. I actually think that Bill C-18 provides more independence from the platforms. I can’t, because it is under NDA —
Senator Wallin: What do you mean? How does it make you more independent?
Ms. Ageson: Right now, the platforms can go to publications individually, and we are atomized because the deals are made under NDA. You are not allowed to talk to other organizations about what is in the deals.
Also, because there are these massive platforms and you are just one small being, you don’t have much of a negotiating position. The terms of the deals right now are “take it or leave it,” and there is not much to be done there to assert a better position. If the deals are mandated to be in place, then you actually have a stance to say, “These have to be in place, so let’s talk about what is in those deals.” Then you don’t have the ability of a platform to come to you and say, “We don’t like this critical reporting you are doing. We’re pulling funding. We don’t have to tell you why. We don’t have to give a reason. It’s just gone.” If they are mandated to be in place, it means that you are not under that threat of funding people because of that coverage.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for appearing before us today. This has been very interesting.
One of the things I worry about is local news and how that is going to be sustained. I see this bill as a step in helping to ensure that local news will continue to have a space.
I am confused about some of the things that have been said here. Mr. Skok, you listed three benefits. The second one was that licensing deals are negotiated, and that will help to avoid legal action downstream. During that, you also said that info is lifted without permission from time to time, and I assume that’s for everybody. I’m not sure if Mr. Woods’ organization has had news content lifted. It goes to the other premise that people should be paid for their work. There is that part of it.
The other part that we have talked about is the competitiveness of your business. Journalists are in different organizations. Postmedia may be in a better position to hire people from smaller folks, making it more difficult for them to find people. Then we talked about the fear of disproportionate distribution of whatever the funds are to big guys versus little guys. Yet, we talk about fair deals.
This is a question for everybody: Why would anybody want to have their commercial deal shared with others who they are competing against? I am confused, coming out of a business environment. Could each of you comment to help me have a better understanding?
Mr. Skok: Yes. On the question of transparency, as I said, right now, for us, it is about getting this legislation passed. If they are commercial deals, great. The backstop is if it goes to the CRTC. That’s when it becomes another issue.
I want to address the comments about Postmedia. We have several strategic investors, because we believe in a news ecosystem that is small and large players. Yes, Postmedia is an investor in The Logic, but so is tinyMedia, which I believe is part of the Jeanette Ageson group as well as Jessica Lessin and the information out of San Francisco.
I am the controlling shareholder of the company. As my mom likes to say, nobody tells me what to do. There is no worry about that. It is about the larger ecosystem. I do think that a loss of a small publisher in a small-town community is a loss for all of us because, from my perspective running a business, where am I going to recruit my next generation of talent from?
Senator Quinn: Would I be correct in saying that you would support my statement that this bill goes a long way in helping to ensure we have that small-town, regional presence?
Mr. Skok: Certainly from some of the testimony that we have heard, I would argue yes.
Senator Quinn: Mr. Wood, do you have any comment?
Mr. Wood: It certainly is going to inject a lot of money into Canadian journalism, at least based on the projections we are seeing. My concern is the concentration of that in some of the more powerful news voices that have scale, social-media specific staff, departments that work at that, economies of scale and are also more likely to sign deals earlier while smaller players languish for a period of time. The larger players will also probably be more insulated from revenue losses should Facebook actually pull out of the market. Many of the smaller players will certainly be hit by that.
Previously, you were talking about sharing of resources. I know that the Local Journalism Initiative was a program brought in where you could get a reporter subsidized by the federal government, but then you would have to share their coverage with other media organizations. Yes, that’s a program that we did not use because we have to make exclusive stories that are worth paying for. There was another arrangement where they proposed sharing of CBC articles or CP articles across smaller players to support them. Again, all of our stories have to be exclusive. We have to be first in order for it to have value.
Senator Quinn: Has any of your content ever been uploaded, to your knowledge?
Mr. Wood: No. No tech giant has ever pulled any of our stories. A couple of journalists have tried. We have all been there, though.
Senator Quinn: I have been a subscriber for some years. The wall is always there. If you don’t pay, you don’t see.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I wanted to mention, Mr. Skok, the Sidewalk Labs story was really interesting to me as a Torontonian. I read everything I could. I really appreciate that you covered it so well.
My questions are for Ms. Ageson mainly. Back to the transparency issue, let’s assume that there will be no transparency, that we’re not going to change the way the bill is and what you see is what you get in terms of transparency. What do you think the impact of this will be? Do you think it will lead to the larger organizations getting more than they should? Do you see a downward spiral, for example, in the way the smaller organizations are going to be treated? What is the impact of the lack of transparency, assuming it’s not going to happen? Thank you.
Ms. Ageson: Here’s something that could happen: Smaller publishers band together to form a bargaining unit, which is great. We set up to negotiate with the big platforms. Say that the larger negotiating block has already achieved deals. We don’t know what is in them. We don’t know the terms. In our negotiations with the platforms, we say, as part of our negotiations, “We demand to see the terms and the payment amount for the larger publications.” They say, “That is not possible. Sorry, can’t do it.” Then we’re operating in the dark, a little bit, in terms of establishing fairness for our organizations. It would make it hard to know. Then the only person who would get to know that would be someone at the CRTC, who would then make an assessment if it is fair or not, and we just have to take their word for it.
Senator Dasko: Then do you think it’s going to lead to more arbitration? Do you think it’s going to lead to small organizations wanting to take it forward in terms of a complaint or dissatisfaction with the deal? Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Ageson: It could be.
Senator Dasko: You would be looking for information. Is that what you are saying is part of the impact?
Ms. Ageson: It could be. Our organizations are small. We don’t have big staff. I wear many different hats at The Tyee. I am running around doing many things. All of us will have to make a decision on how much time we can devote to this and whether we have the resources and time to mount a dispute or complaint. If we actually just had access to information about what the deals and terms are, we can avoid a lot of that. If the intention of this bill is to provide support for the journalism industry based on the quality of content we put out, let’s make sure we get that outcome without having to be in years of disputes and then just throw up our hands and say, “Well, we don’t know if what we’ve got is fair or not.” But, yes.
Senator Dasko: Yes. As I said, I doubt whether transparency will be forthcoming, if you know what I mean, in terms of the bill.
My other question is for Mr. Wood. To clarify, you talked about the need for targeted supports. Essentially, are you agnostic about Bill C-18?
Mr. Wood: If there were a button that I could push that would make it disappear, I would push that button.
Senator Dasko: All right. Well, that’s not agnostic. Thank you.
Senator Clement: Good morning. Thank you to all the witnesses. Your business models are so different. I find that really interesting.
I worry about the number of people who do not seek out the news and expect the news for free, like health care. We all know that nothing is free, but they expect it. They will want to come upon it without paying for it.
For those of you who have paywalls and are not necessarily using social media, how are you getting out there to attract the number of people that you need to be reading what sounds like really excellent content?
Mr. Wood: We have almost 17,000 paying subscribers across Canada now. A lot of them we phoned up and said, “Hey, we just wrote about you. Would you like to read it? Maybe you should subscribe.” It worked.
Also, word of mouth, people talking about it. We have a premium news product. We have a great team there. This is in‑depth, balanced, exclusive journalism. These are important stories you can’t find anywhere else, and people talk about it. Sometimes the people who talk about it are on the floor of the legislature. They’re holding up their iPhone and saying, “This was in allNovaScotia today, and I want to know why this happened.” That is how our part of the media ecosystem filters out into wider society.
We are informing more than just our subscribers indirectly, but we’re also supporting over 40 journalists in six cities now writing these stories. At the end of the day, it’s $13 a month to get access to all six of these news bureaus. Everyone pays the same price, from the premier down to every other subscriber. Not all of our subscribers are corporate titans. Lots of people are just really interested in how things work. They’re interested in policies. They’re interested in people primarily, people that are running business, trying new ideas. It could be someone opening a hotdog stand or a pub down the street all the way up to someone who is trying to propose a multibillion dollar hydrogen export facility. People are very interested in news.
Jesse Brown talked about this last week where the news environment has always been funded by a small group of Canadians, and it may be less than 10%, but it creates all of this news that we all get to use that informs decision makers and helps set policies and holds people and industries to account.
Mr. Skok: In my years of journalism, I’ve watched as tech platforms define the rules of engagement, whether it was first click free which demanded that if you wanted to be on the search, you had to give the first click for free. Then it was flipping your algorithm on a dime, whether you wanted to pivot to video or anything else, and media had to quickly scurry to adapt or die. When we built The Logic, we decided to completely move away from that and build a direct relationship with our readers. We did that through email and through community building.
As Mr. Wood speaks to, we just came off a road show of sorts doing events and meet-ups for our subscribers in five different cities across this country. I always try to equate it to we’re like a band on tour, maybe not at Taylor Swift’s level yet, but going from town to town and driving around and getting word of mouth, and that relationship building really does help.
The Chair: Thank you to Mr. Skok, Mr. Wood and Ms. Ageson, for your testimony and being before our committee.
Colleagues, tomorrow we’re going to have the minister and deputy minister with us, as well as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Next week we will be doing clause-by-clause. If there is nothing else to add to the agenda, we will adjourn for today.
(The committee adjourned.)