Stand Google News Initiative by Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo (CC BY 2.0)

Stand Google News Initiative by Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo (CC BY 2.0)


The Bill C-18 Reality: Everyone Loses When the Government Mandates Payments for Links

The report that Google is conducting a national test that removes links to Canadian news sites for a small percentage of users sparked a predictable reaction as politicians who were warned that Bill C-18 could lead to this, now want to know how it could happen. None of this week’s developments should come as a surprise. Bill C-18 presents Google and Facebook with a choice: pay hundreds of millions of dollars primarily to Canadian broadcasters for links to news articles or stop linking. Both companies are doing precisely what they said they would do, namely considering stopping linking (Google conducted the same tests in Australia several years ago). Indeed, strip away the hyperbole and the bottom line is this: the costs of Bill C-18 are enormous (the government’s Senate representative suggesting the bill could result in revenues to cover 35% of news expenditures of every news outlet in Canada) and the revenues from news for the platforms are not (Facebook says news only constitutes 3 percent of posts and Google does not even run ads on its Google News product). As some have noted, the government says the companies are stealing content if they link and blocking content if they don’t. 

Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has blithely ignored the risks associated with Bill C-18 for months. By mandating payments for links, the bill creates a real threat to the free flow of information online. It also raises press independence concerns, may violate Canada’s international copyright obligations, harm the competitiveness of independent media, and open the door to trade retaliation by the United States. But as the Google test demonstrates, everyone loses with the current bill. Trust in Google is undermined when it secretly degrades its own service, news organizations won’t see new revenues if the companies stop linking and they will also lose the benefits of the links, and Canadians will find that the bill is an own-goal by the government that undermines the foundation of the Internet.

No one likes to get called on their assertions that Google and Facebook were bluffing when they warned that the prospect of removing news sharing or search results was real, but it is telling that Rodriguez and the bill’s supporters continue to rely on misleading claims about the bill instead of making the case for its actual impact. For example, consider yesterday’s Rodriguez’s tweet:

Leaving aside the fact that Google is blocking links to news sites, not the news sites themselves, Rodriguez continues to falsely claim that the premise of the bill is for the tech companies to “compensate journalists when they use their work.” This just isn’t what the bill does. First, it now includes hundreds of broadcasters that do not even produce news, yet still qualify for compensation. That isn’t compensating for use, it is payment based on holding a CRTC licence. Second, the bill does not require compensation based on use. The standard in Bill C-18 is making news content available, which is defined as:

For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if

(a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or

(b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.

Google and Facebook don’t typically reproduce the news. Rather, they link to it and thereby send the user to the publisher’s own platform where the publisher benefits from increased traffic and potential ad revenue. Therefore, the key provision is (b), which covers facilitating access to the news, better known as linking to it. That is not how most Canadians would conceive of use and why officials typically avoid acknowledging that the bill is about payment for links.

Rodriguez isn’t alone in relying on misleading claims. Kevin Desjardins of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, whose members are the primary beneficiaries of Bill C-18, tweeted:

Rather than owning up to payments for links with millions for Bell, Rogers and the CBC, the CAB now maintains this is really about who profits from our personal data? There is no reference to this issue in the bill. But even if there was, the idea that the government and broadcasters are looking to profit from weak Canadian privacy laws isn’t something to brag about. 

I’ll conclude this post by again reiterating that opposition to Bill C-18 does not mean opposing tech regulation or support for journalism. When it comes to tech companies, Canada needs better privacy laws, competition rules, greater transparency requirements, and more accountability. There is also room for support for journalism, ideally through a fund model with mandated contributions that would support actual journalism without getting into issues such link payments or copyright law. But the government has instead chosen payments for links in Bill C-18. This week confirmed what has been evident for months: that choice raises a host of serious concerns that result in no winners and a great many losers. 


  1. Haha. The driving of the final nail into the Canadian news media coffin has begun. Once the referrals to news sites from social media and web searches stops, so will the traffic to those sites stop and so will the advertising revenue they enjoy from that traffic. The last revenue stream for those news organizations will dry up faster than a puddle of water in the Sahara desert.

    It’s actually an amazing feat to watch somebody drive the last nail into their own coffin while inside of it.

  2. Google et al. would not be “blocking” access to Canadian news sites but merely de-listing them as they do with sites accused of copyright infringement in certain countries, see

    They brought it upon themselves. They thought they could get the gravy train going by sitting back, doing absolutely nothing but holding up their hand while at the same time double-dipping by also collecting ad revenue when the link piqued someone’s curiosity and actually visited their site to read the article/see the video (plus limiting the ‘free’ articles and requiring a subscription to read more).

    If I were Google I’d demand ‘referral’ links and actually get paid a couple of cents per click for sending traffic to their sites. That’s what the whole online ad-business is based on.

    Disclosure: I have a paid digital-only subscription to my local newspaper

  3. Pingback: Google Tests Removing News Results in Canada in Response to Bill C–18 — Pixel Envy

  4. At the end of the day, Canadians will pay for it, not Google nor Facebook. It is a new type of tax. Thanks a lot!!!

  5. Pingback: Google og Meta blokkerer tilgang til nyheter i Canada • Teknokratiet

  6. I don’t think that it will ever do something good to your websites.

  7. JamesOneil says:

    Line is that we should not have navigate me to the nearest
    to waste our lives watching the content we want to watch and the news we want to read without the government interfering with those choices.

  8. Pingback: Bill C-18: Heritage ve Google toplantısı teknik sorunlar nedeniyle ertelendi - cowiron

  9. Pingback: Bill C-18: Heritage Committee möte och Google ajournerade på grund av tekniska svårigheter - rabzub

  10. Pingback: Projet de loi C-18 : réunion du Comité du patrimoine et de Google retardée en raison de problèmes techniques - - Le Derniere Heure

  11. Alannah Falleni says:

    cursory and all look is firm for the intensity for the goals. The method of the property sales Private are partly followed for the shows. The scene is firm for the approval of the terms for the theories in the faithful element for the chunks.

  12. I’ve also been following this news for a few days now.

  13. Pingback: Canada imitates Australia’s news-bargaining law, but to what end? – IPS News

  14. It goes to show that decisions in Canada are not made by representative constituency. Policy is shoehorned by oligopolistic corporations.

  15. Canada has a monopoly problem.

  16. I hope the current government is skewered by this own goal of spectacular idiocy. Not to single out Liberals, because Conservatives would have done exactly the same thing.

  17. Pingback: Bill C-18: Heritage Committee-Google Meeting Delayed Due To Technical Issues - Cheapest Gadget

  18. Lila Kerr says:

    I was assigned a research paper and needed help fast and turned to online paper writing services. I’m very pleased with the results I got and the quality of the paper I received.

  19. Pingback: The future of local news is “civic information” – Librarian of Things

  20. Pingback: Remuneração do jornalismo: a ilusão de ótica que pode prejudicar o PL 2630 - Lead Jurídico

  21. Pingback: Remuneração do jornalismo: a ilusão de ótica que pode prejudicar o PL 2630 – Jornal Floripa