:
Good morning, everyone.
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting No. 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.
[English]
For many of you who have been here before, you know that in the hybrid format, if you look at the bottom of your screen you will see a globe. If you press the globe, it will give you choices for the language you can conduct your meeting in. That's one thing.
Then, public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy have removed the mandate for wearing masks indoors. We still hear from the World Health Organization that masks are excellent tools for preventing the spread of COVID.
I want to take this opportunity to remind all participants that you are not allowed to take pictures of the screen. You're not allowed to take pictures of what is going on here. You can get this on the House of Commons website.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, March 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue its study on tech giants' current and ongoing use of intimidation and subversion tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world.
We have two witnesses here.
I also want to remind you not to speak unless the chair recognizes you. Please speak through the chair whenever you're speaking.
Before I go into this, we have two witnesses here from Meta Platforms. They are Kevin Chan, global policy director, and Rachel Curran, head of public policy in Canada.
Both of you have a total of 10 minutes. You can choose how to use that 10 minutes yourselves. I'll give you a 30-second shout-out.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
Madam Chair, I too have some questions about clarifying the sequence of events.
We did in fact send a summons to appear to some Meta representatives, and afterwards, through the clerk, Meta sent a request. We agreed to send them an invitation afterwards, but the summons to appear had already been sent to Meta. Out of courtesy, and at their request, if I recall correctly, we added a letter of invitation to the summons. The clerk can correct me if necessary. Meta had agreed that the people we had invited would appear. It had been confirmed that Mr. Clegg would be among those who would attend, and we believed in Meta's good faith and assumed that Mr. Clegg was bound, not only by his agreement to appear further to the invitation, but also indirectly as a result of the summons we had sent a few days earlier.
So, what reasons were given? Could they just be toying with us? I'd also like to know whether the clerk has further details about why they said they were cancelling Mr. Clegg's appearance before the committee. All we've seen is an amendment to the meeting notice for today, which simply leaves out Mr. Clegg's name with no further information.
Were there any explanations, yes or no? I don't think it's up to the witnesses to tell us why, given that there was probably a conversation held between the committee and Meta.
Can the clerk provide us with further details?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am absolutely in agreement with the motion, although I do note, as you have said, Madam Chair, that we've already summoned Mr. Clegg and we had summoned Mr. Zuckerberg, and neither of them is here. We've summoned another Canadian employee of Meta, who is not here either. There are two people here who were not invited by the committee or summoned by the committee. I find that extraordinary.
While I would be prepared at this point to refer this to the House, as opposed to summoning Mr. Clegg again, I certainly will support summoning Mr. Clegg again. I do find it strange, given, as you said, Madam Chair, that this is all based on a motion that was adopted weeks ago. Nothing changed within the scope of the motion that invited or summoned Meta here.
I don't understand how somebody who agrees to come in a Tuesday letter to the committee pulls out on the Friday before the meeting. If the issue is indeed that Meta doesn't like the way the committee has framed the wording of the meeting, that is extraordinary too. Meta wants to dictate to us what legislation we should pass, and they also want to dictate to this committee what we call our meetings. I'm aghast.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Madam Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, it is a pleasure to once again be before you today. My name is Kevin Chan, and I'm a global policy director at Meta Platforms. I am here with my colleague Rachel Curran, our head of public policy in Canada.
Madam Chair, as you will know, your committee clerk wrote to us on Friday, April 28, to confirm an invitation to appear before this committee for its study on the “reaction of companies in the information technology industry to Bill ”.
We were delighted at the opportunity to once again make a representation to the committee of our serious concerns with the online news act and readily agreed to accept the invitation. To demonstrate how seriously we took this opportunity, our president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, confirmed his participation as our principal witness.
Unfortunately, late last Thursday, May 4, we were notified by the committee clerk that the title of the hearing was changed to a much more confrontational one, one that seemingly had nothing at all to do with the online news act. Given this development, on Friday Meta notified the committee that our president would no longer be appearing.
I think we were all looking forward to a substantive discussion about Bill today, much like the thoughtful discussion that occurred at the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications last week. That seemed like a high-water mark of legislative deliberation.
[Translation]
As you know, the clerk of your committee wrote us on Friday, April 28, to confirm that we had been invited to testify before you in connection with its study on, and I am quoting now, the reaction of companies in the information technology industry to Bill C‑18.
We were delighted to have another opportunity to speak to your committee about our major concerns with respect to the , and willingly accepted the invitation. To demonstrate how seriously we were taking this opportunity, our president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, confirmed that he would be attending as the principal witness.
On Thursday, May 4, we were informed by the committee clerk that the title of the study had been amended and replaced by another much more worrisome version that apparently had nothing to do with the Online News Act. In view of this change in direction, Meta advised the committee on Friday that our president would no longer be attending.
I believe that we were all keen to take part today in a serious discussion about Bill , like the thoughtful discussions held at the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which seems to have been the high point of the legislative proceedings.
[English]
With that in mind, I am pleased to now share with you the opening statement that our president of global affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, had written and was prepared to make for your original study on the reactions of companies in the information technology industry to Bill .
This is what he said:
"Madam Chair, my name is Nick Clegg and I'm President, Global Affairs at Meta. I'm grateful for the opportunity to address this committee.
"Madam Chair, the Online News Act is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. Meta does not benefit unfairly from publishers sharing links to news content on our platform. The reverse is true.
“Publishers choose to share their content because it benefits them to do so, whereas it isn't particularly valuable to us at all. As such, we've taken the difficult decision that if this flawed legislation is passed, we will have to end the availability of news content on Facebook and Instagram in Canada.
“The truth is, our users don't come to us for news. They come to share the ups and downs of life, the things that make them happy and sad, that interest them and entertain them. Links to news stories are a tiny proportion of that—less than three percent of the content they see in their Facebook Feed.
“But news publishers do find our services valuable. We estimate that Facebook Feed sent registered news publishers in Canada more than 1.9 billion clicks in the 13 months to April 2022. This amounts to free marketing we estimate is worth more than $230 million. Publishers choose to share their content because it drives traffic to their websites. It helps them sell more subscriptions, grow their audience and display their ads to more people than they might have otherwise.
“The traditional news industry faces profound challenges. New technology has emerged, consumer behavior has changed, and old business models don’t work anymore. Of course, everyone wants quality journalism to thrive. But it makes no more sense to claim social media companies are taking money from publishers than to say car companies stole from the horse and cart industry.
“It seems we’re having a debate as if the internet was frozen in time about 10 years ago. The way our users engage with content has changed dramatically. Just in the last year or two we’ve seen an enormous shift in people consuming creator content and short form video. Watching video is now more than half of time spent on Facebook and Instagram. People reshare Reels—our short form video format—more than two billion times every day on Facebook and Instagram, which has doubled in just the last six months.
“The world is constantly changing and publishers, like everyone else, have to adapt. Asking a social media company in 2023 to subsidize news publishers for content that isn’t that important to our users is like asking email providers to pay the postal service because people don't send letters any more.
“And not all internet companies are the same. We’re not Google. They are an amazingly successful company that does extraordinarily useful things for people, but they operate a search engine that functions by using links to news web pages. Meta, by contrast, doesn’t solicit, need or collect content from news websites to put on our services. Our users—and in this case, news publishers—choose to share it themselves. Globally, more than 90% of organic views on article links from news publishers are on links posted by the publishers themselves.
“I’ve heard a lot in this debate about how this legislation is replicating what Australia has done. In fact, the laws are different in important respects—and C18 will go further than the Australian legislation. First, the Australian code doesn’t apply to Meta because we haven’t been designated by the Treasurer there. If we do end up being designated and forced to pay publishers, we will be faced with the same difficult choice we are making in Canada. But perhaps more significantly, this legislation would make Canada the first democracy to put a price on free links to web pages, which flies in the face of global norms on copyright principles and puts at risk the free flow of information online. Canada—and Canadian liberals—have a long-standing reputation for believing in multilateralism, and for defending the free and open internet—C-18 would be a direct contradiction of that long held and honorable tradition.
“I spent 20 years of my life as a legislator, so I understand how difficult it is to craft good policy and sensible legislation. In this instance, I believe C-18 is flawed legislation which would deliver bad economic policy too. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that most of the funds generated by the Act will go to broadcasters, not the local and regional publishers it was supposed to support. It’s Robin Hood in reverse. The Act would subsidize big broadcasters at the expense of independent publishers and digital news sites, skewing the playing field so it’s even harder for smaller players.
“Ultimately, this legislation puts Meta in an invidious position. In order to comply, we have to either operate in a flawed...regulatory environment, or we have to end the availability of news content in Canada. With a heavy heart we choose the latter. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage has said, this is a business decision. It’s not something we want to do, but it is what we will have to do.
“I welcome your questions.”
With that, Madam Chair, Rachel and I welcome your questions as well.
About three weeks ago, Bill was rammed through the Senate. There were amendments suggested originally, but they weren't taken by this government. Then it was sent over to the Senate. Yet again, the Senate did not give it the sober second thought it deserved, so it got pushed through. It now gives this government unprecedented power to control what people can see, say or hear online.
Then at the Liberals' convention this weekend, they put through another intention—a proposal—which is that they would actually regulate news sources. Basically, the state would have to approve a journalist's news source. If the government gives that news source a stamp of approval, then that article can be published. If the government—through the CRTC, I would imagine—doesn't give that stamp of approval, then of course that article would not be publishable. It's form of censorship.
What's interesting is that a journalist, Paul Wells, who traditionally is very liberal and very much inside the pockets of the Liberals, wrote an article on Friday outlining what's happening here.
He said, “It is impossible for any government to subsidize journalism without deciding, at some early point, to exercise its prerogatives as an owner.”
What's interesting is that this government has funded the media to the tune of about $600 million. As the owner of much of the media here in Canada.... Of course, there are many fantastic independent sources and alternative sources of media, but the mainstream tends to be largely owned by the government, because they're the ones that are keeping them afloat or propping them up with this massive amount of grant money.
Now it would appear, based on their convention, that the Liberals are looking to cash in on this. They're looking to exert their power. Some might call it bullying. In fact, I believe that is how many members of this committee have referred to it when power is misused. It's called bullying.
:
I believe that was debate.
Policy passed at the convention often makes it to the floor of the House of Commons, and then, of course, it impacts Canadians. That is concerning. It's concerning to Paul Wells and to other journalists because it would be an infringement on their ability to function as journalists.
Ms. Hepfner often talks about the fact that they're so incredibly well trained and should be trusted to tell the stories they research, so I'm confused as to why this government wouldn't trust them to tell those stories without first needing to give a state stamp of approval as to their sources.
Nevertheless, this government has managed to turn into a bully, because they own part of the media. In the same way, Facebook, or Meta, is being put in a position where it will have to enter into monetary contracts with news sources, which then gives Facebook, or Meta, an incredible amount of power as well. It would appear, then, that they are also using that power to make decisions that have a detrimental impact on Canadians.
I actually see two peas in a pod. I see two sources of tremendous power dictating to Canadians what's going to happen in terms of access to news.
I'm curious as to what you would make of that.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate all of the witnesses being here. No matter what the context, I think that what we found the last time, when we finally had.... I appreciate your coming, but the people we were looking to come should understand the frustration that we had when the appropriate people did not come. It makes it very difficult for us to have good clarity in the questions, because those people can answer them.
When you see our frustration, our concern that we are not getting to where we were....
With the resources that you have, to suggest that you did not know what that original motion was and that you found out late last week what that motion originally was, whether I agree or disagree with it, I find that it's just highly unlikely to have happened, and you would have known what that motion was a long time ago when it was passed.
You have incredible resources, so for somebody to take that and say, “I'm not coming because of that one” really taints the conversation in the room. It really does, no matter what your position or mine might be. The experts in the room that we need to have here make those conversations much more useful.
Having said that, I'm going to go specifically to—and this has been already alluded to—the contracts that you've already signed.
It's been reported that you have 14 of those contracts signed in Canada now. Is that true?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Meta representatives are telling us that they want to respect the committee, except that Mr. Clegg refused to come here today. They spoke about transparency, but they refused to disclose the figures for revenue generated in Canada. They are here to talk about Bill , and even though they admit that the bill has changed considerably, they continue to speak about the initial version rather than the current one.
I'm therefore somewhat skeptical about Meta's sincerity. Moreover, there have been some extremely serious allegations made against Meta.
[English]
I'm speaking of course, Madam Chair, of the horrific allegations contained in reports recently about Facebook amplifying hate. The Amnesty International report found that Facebook amplified hate ahead of the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has talked about Facebook letting activists incite ethnic massacres with hate and misinformation in Ethiopia. We have reports that Facebook's ethical failures are not accidental; they are part of the business model.
How do you respond to these serious, egregious allegations that amplifying the most horrific human rights violations and ethical failures are part of Facebook's and Meta's business model? How do you respond to those allegations, and why should we believe you now when you come to this committee and say that you want to respect laws and respect Canadian values?
Again, this is disappointing. This whole exercise has once again shown Facebook's contempt for not only our democracy but for democracies around the world.
We've heard from you, Mr. Chan, multiple times on other committees as well. It really is your willingness to only answer questions if they're softballs from the Conservative Party.
You even started this by saying, “Oh, we didn't know.” The motion passed by this committee was that “the committee undertake a study on tech giants' current and ongoing use of intimidation and subversion tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world”. You pretend you didn't know that? I doubt that you didn't do your homework, Mr. Chan. It's disappointing that you would come here and mislead the committee on that.
You misled the committee on other items. You say news outlets get hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising, but you leave out the part that your company is engaged in monopolistic practices that take the vast majority of ad revenue, so the free advertising is worthless.
I'd like to ask you about a 2018 meeting between the British culture secretary and Mark Zuckerberg, your CEO. He threatened to pull investment out of the U.K. if the government did not look to soften its stance on tech regulation.
Can you explain why your company would go to these lengths against legislation that seeks to protect children online?
:
No, Mr. Chan, we're going to move on.
Mr. Kevin Chan: I see.
Mr. Chris Bittle: We're going to move on, Mr. Chan, because clearly, it's again nothing but contempt and evasiveness.
I can ask softball questions like members of the Conservative Party, and I know you'll answer those directly, quickly and succinctly, but it's weird to me, and I think it's weird to Canadians, to say on one hand that news isn't important to your platform, that it's only 3% and it's not important, even though you want to be a trusted source of information, while on the other hand you're entering into deals with 18 publishers, and we have no idea who they are.
You are picking the favourites. We're trying to balance the playing field.
Is news important? On the other hand, you're saying you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on news and enter into deals and you're good players even though you're a small tech start-up that struggles to get by day to day.
Which one is it, Mr. Chan?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to come back to the issue of Australia. Again, I'm concerned about the overreach in the content blocking that happened in Australia and making sure that this does not happen here.
Whistle-blower documents state that Facebook violated its own company policies during the gradual rollout of the takedown on February 17, 2021. Facebook ignored error signals at the 10% mark, 25% mark, 50% mark, as senior executives ordered the full rollout to take effect within hours. Errors would normally have paused the rollout.
One example of a weird thing that happened is that Facebook policies, which you both know very well, require prior content review and cross-checking of lists of sensitive accounts, including accounts of critical online infrastructure, to avoid harmful over-blocking of content. Whistle-blowers reported that “before the Australia takedown, apparently for the first time in its history, Facebook did not develop or utilize lists of sensitive accounts before activating the Australia takedown”, which threatened COVID vaccine rollouts, response to wildfires and more.
In response to other Facebook employees who were trying to fix the over-blocking, an Australian response team member posted acknowledgement that guidance from the policy and legal teams had been found to be overinclusive in blocking.
Ms. Curran, you were very nicely answering my questions earlier. Can you confirm that you will not be over-inclusive in blocking and that you will develop a list of sensitive accounts to avoid over-blocking?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to go back to the significance of the news content that can be found on platforms like Meta.
In terms of circulation, 3% of content searched for by users is news. You said that there were 1.9 billion clicks on news content over the past year, and added that the free marketing was worth a total $230 million. So you're admitting that there is a value attached to this content.
My question is more about Meta's interests further to the adoption of Bill . You mentioned earlier that contracts had been signed with 18 news organizations and I find that positive. Moreover, I think it's interesting to note that although you're not really interested in news, you are nevertheless signing commercial agreements with news companies. This nevertheless raised some questions that need to be asked.
If Bill C‑18 is adopted, will initiatives to support local journalism continue? Will these contracts continue? Is Meta going to remain interested in quality journalism content, particularly local?
Unfortunately, you only have a few seconds to answer, because I don't have much speaking time.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to come back to Ms. Curran, who said just a few weeks ago,
I would say that we're still looking at all of the options based on our evaluation of the legislation.
That was in response to a question about whether Meta is going to act the same way it did in Australia.
From what I understand from your response to Mr. Housefather, you are saying under oath that Meta will not be impacting health emergency information and will not be restraining or suspending information people need, as they're seeing now in Alberta around wildfires and around emergency services as well.
All of those things took place in Australia in the most reprehensible way, with people being denied access to information that was actually critical for them, perhaps, to save their property and often to save their loved ones. Meta denied the access to that information.
Are you saying under oath now that this will not happen and that Meta in no way will impede Canadians' access to information that is fundamental for their health and safety and the health and safety of their community and that Meta will not do that again?