Q&A: Canadian minister on standing up to Google and Meta, and saving local news

Brier Dudley

Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, has advice for other countries considering policies to save local journalism.

“I would say just do it,” he said. “I think everyone understands the importance of local journalism, and I think people care.”

Rodriguez shepherded Canada’s Online News Act through its passage on June 22, overcoming intense lobbying and threats by Google and Meta.

In an interview, he explained what’s next and why such policies are necessary.

“The most important thing is there’s no democracy without a free, strong and independent press,” he said.

Like a policy Australia passed in 2021, Canada’s news act requires tech companies to negotiate fair compensation for online news content.

Rodriguez said his department estimated this may generate about $220 million (Canadian) yearly for the news industry. But specifics won’t be known until after rule-making concludes in December and negotiations are complete.

Tech companies’ furious response, including vows to block news from their platforms in Canada, wasn’t just to intimidate Canadians and their government.

“They’re not aiming only at Canada but the world in a way,” he said, explaining the companies are also trying to intimidate other nations considering similar policies.

Meta in particular “is trying to send a message to all those countries through Canada,” Rodriguez said, “but we’re not going to back down.”

Canada’s decision is a prelude to a showdown this fall in Congress. A U.S. version, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, advanced in the Senate before the summer recess.

These policies use a carrot and stick, encouraging platforms to avoid regulation by reaching deals on their own, as they have done already with a few large publishers. If they fail, regulation kicks in and negotiations are done through arbitration.

In Australia, most publishers secured deals without triggering regulation. That’s interrupting its news industry’s decline, preventing some outlets from closing and spurring newsroom hiring.

Rodriguez expects similar success in Canada after the act is implemented, a process that began last Monday when rules implementing the policy were proposed.

While he sharply criticized platforms for making threats, Rodriguez opened the door to negotiate with them on the rules.

Policymakers in the U.S. and other countries will hopefully find a similar blend of resolve to support news outlets, resistance to bullies and realism about the need to find a workable approach.

Here are edited excerpts from the rest of our conversation.

Question: What outcome do you expect for Canada’s news industry?

Rodriguez: The first thing is for those newsrooms to stop closing their doors. We had about 500 newsrooms close their doors in the last 15 years, which is bad for democracy.

This is not only about you guys but the state of our democracy. If a free and independent press disappears, then it’s the whole democratic system that disappears. That is why there is so much interest from around the world in what Canada is doing, because democracies around the globe are different in many ways but there’s one thing we have in common: we all have a strong, free and independent press.

So, the first thing we expect, this will allow them to survive, to stop closing their doors. If we can reinforce it, for them to restart hiring journalists to provide that trustable information, that would be a huge thing.

Q: Tech companies lobbied hard against the News Act and planted doubt through third parties. How do you overcome that and get it done?

A: By talking to the people. You’re right, they’ve been quite aggressive. They’re big, they’re powerful, they have big law firms, top lawyers, all of that, that’s fine. But at the end of the day no one is above the law. Tech companies, they can come and tell a government what to do. If we as a government don’t stand up for our people, who will?

Q: Have you seen the effect of Canada’s diminished media ecosystem?

A: Absolutely. There are regions with no more coverage. There are regions where you can elect a member of Parliament, send them to Ottawa, elect a provincial member and send them to the local legislature, and never know what the heck they’re doing because those local media disappeared. I’m a strong defender and believer in strong local journalism because it’s about you, it’s about your community, your day-to-day life, the people you elect. We have to stand up for them.

Q: The policy would be unworkable if every single blogger was included. But defining eligibility is tricky. How do you draw the line?

A: You’re absolutely right, there’s a set of criteria to be met to be considered to have the right to negotiate with the tech giants. As a minister, I want to be as far as possible from the process. I care about the freedom of the press, I care about the independence of the press. That’s why I looked at the Australian model where basically you put a table in the middle of the room and you’re asking tech giants to sit on one side and news organizations on the other side. We have a set of criteria that has to be met by a specific media to sit at the end of that table.

Q: Will rule-making also clarify when companies enter arbitration?

A: It’s telling companies listen, news in this country is important. You guys are making a lot of money here, good, we’re happy for you. But you have to pay your fair share — not more, not less, but what’s fair. So you have to negotiate those deals with newsrooms across the country. If you don’t, then there’s a clear process that leads to final arbitration.

Q: Is this a silver bullet or is more needed to stabilize the industry?

A: No, it’s not the silver bullet. We think it’s a very important piece, a necessary piece, but there are other programs like tax credits for newsrooms that we put in place, funds for local media in remote regions where there’s nothing. But again, arm’s length from the government.

Q: Are you hearing from constituents about Google and Meta threatening a news blockade?

A: They don’t like it. People don’t like to be told what to do by big companies. I think it’s the same thing in the United States. People of course are also wary because of the threat of the tech giants, because they care about their news. But if this bill doesn’t enter into force, those media organizations will keep disappearing and the news will disappear.

Brier Dudley on Twitter: @BrierDudley is editor of The Seattle Times Save the Free Press Initiative. Its weekly newsletter: https://st.news/FreePressNewsletter. Reach him at bdudley@seattletimes.com.