The redistribution of the $100 million announced by Google to Canadian media should be coordinated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), not by a newly founded body chosen by the search engine giant, as was announced on June 7, according to a collective of Canadian publishers who claim to represent more than 95% of the industry.
The group is led by News Media Canada, which alone has more than 550 Canadian media outlets, from community publications to major outlets like La Presse and the Globe and Mail.
The collective asks, among other things, the CRTC to ensure that the organization chosen for the redistribution of the 100 million is not in a conflict of interest. Canada’s News Media, its CEO Paul Deegan immediately recognizes, was in the running to become the organization called upon to redistribute Google’s funds.
For months, the choice of this organization has caused a lot of ink to flow, especially in English Canada, with small media saying in particular that they fear seeing the 100 million envelope monopolized by the bigger ones.
Mr. Deegan refuses to explicitly denounce the choice of the Canadian Journalism Collective. “We made a request to Google, they chose someone else […] What we are asking the CRTC is to guarantee the integrity of the process and to ensure that the legislation and regulations are respected.”
The Online News Act, resulting from Bill C-18, was passed in June 2023 and came into force in December of that year. It forces the payment by web giants of royalties to Canadian media. While Meta responded by removing all media content from its Facebook and Instagram platforms, Google announced in November the payment of 100 million indexed annually. Part of the payment terms was defined via regulation by Ottawa last December: a maximum of 37 million, including 7 million to CBC/Radio-Canada, was imposed for television broadcasters. The remaining 63 million will be redistributed by the organization chosen by Google, among the approximately 1,500 media outlets which requested compensation.
This list, which La Presse was able to consult, is very heterogeneous, ranging from large, well-known media outlets to small specialized publications like Toronto Life or magazines like Châtelaine. However, the Online News Act defines eligible news businesses and specifically excludes media devoted “primarily [to] a given subject, such as news specific to a particular sector, sports, leisure, arts, fashion of life or entertainment”.
“The chosen collective will have to verify this eligibility themselves,” explains Mr. Deegan.
It was not possible to obtain an interview with an official from the Canadian Journalism Collective (CCJ). By email, a spokesperson, Gabrielle Brassard-Lecours, indicated that the organization would work “with stakeholders and interested parties in order to distribute funding equitably and in accordance with the Online News Act and the regulations of the CRTC.” Ms. Brassard-Lecours, an independent Quebec journalist who notably co-founded the publications Ricochet and Pivot Québec, also recalls that the CRTC announced on its website a public consultation on the issue.
“Once the Agency [sic] has completed its work, we will proceed with a formal and comprehensive stakeholder engagement process,” the email said.
According to the CCJ website, its board of directors is made up of 15 people, notably from media such as Pivot and The Resolve or from organizations such as the Fédération des Télévisions Communautés Autonomes du Québec. The “Chair of the Steering Committee” is Erin Millar, CEO of Indiegraf, which offers a series of publishing and advertising tools for small media outlets.
At the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec (FPJQ), president Éric-Pierre Champagne ensures that he “understands everyone’s concerns.” “The small media were afraid of being forgotten, they were afraid that the big media consortium would be chosen: that’s not what happened […] On the other hand, they want to make sure that it doesn’t there will be no over-representation of small media. The rules must be clear. »
He believes that it is not up to Google to define these rules. “They are allowed to choose who they will negotiate with; it is a problem. Maybe in the long run, once the funds are distributed, everyone will be happy. But the government must continue to monitor this very closely and ensure that the spirit and letter of the law are respected. »
