Could a deal to ease the U.S.-Canada trade war let Big Tech off the hook for funding news? Canada’s Online News Act has secured millions for journalism, but publishers fear that support could become a bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington. For newsrooms receiving the money, the stakes are immediate; for publishers elsewhere, the outcome could shape their own fight for compensation. Four industry and policy leaders joined E&P Reports to examine the threat, challenge the trade arguments and explain why this Canadian battle matters far beyond its borders.
Real funding meets trade uncertainty
Paul Deegan, president and CEO of News Media Canada, emphasized that speculation about the law’s future should not obscure its operation. “First of all, it's important to remember that $100 million is flowing annually from Google to news businesses,” he said. Of that amount, approximately $63 million goes to publishers.
Deegan acknowledged reports suggesting the law could disappear but stressed that it remains in force. “Money continues to flow from Google to publishers, and that's critically important,” he said.
For Neil Quinter, senior vice president of the News/Media Alliance, the implications extend into American policymaking. He said Canada followed Australia’s example and helped provide a model for legislative efforts in California, Oregon, Illinois and New York. “So it's very important to uphold the precedent and the leadership that Canada established for us here in the United States,” Quinter said.
Who decides whether journalism is negotiable?
Hugh Stephens, a distinguished fellow with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and executive fellow at the University of Calgary, drew a distinction between a trade grievance and a trade violation.
Discussing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known in Canada as CUSMA, Stephens explained that American lists of trade irritants contain a broad assortment of industry objections. Inclusion does not establish that a policy breaches the agreement. “Well, it hasn't been challenged by the US,” he said of the news law. “I don't think it is a violation.”
Stig Ørskov, CEO of WAN-IFRA, framed the issue around democratic decision-making. “We consider journalism a part of every nation's democratic and, I might say, cultural infrastructure,” he said.
Ørskov argued that media laws adopted democratically should not become bargaining chips in trade conflicts. His position underscored the international stakes: whether countries can sustain policies supporting journalism when those policies face pressure from powerful trading partners.
A broken market, with AI raising the stakes
The guests also challenged the argument that struggling publishers should simply accept market outcomes. Quinter described platform dominance as a fundamental obstacle to fair competition. “This is a fundamentally broken marketplace,” he said.
That dispute is expanding as AI companies collect and use journalism. Asked where Canada stands on AI compensation, Deegan answered, “Not anywhere,” before outlining steps he believes government should take.
His proposals included rejecting a text and data mining exception, setting expectations for AI companies seeking government contracts and separating Google’s search and AI crawling functions. Deegan argued that AI companies pay for energy and computing capacity while failing to compensate adequately for another essential input. “They need to be paying for the content as well,” he said.
Quinter described bad bot legislation targeting concealed identities in automated scraping. Publishers need that information to seek licensing agreements or pursue litigation. “But we can't do any of these things if we don't know who's sending the traffic to us,” he said.
The fight will require more than willing platforms
The panel’s five-year outlook ranged from caution to optimism. Deegan doubted technology companies would voluntarily deliver the compensation publishers seek. “I think we need more pressure from the public on our politicians to legislate and regulate these companies,” he said.
Quinter emphasized unity among publishers rather than divisions over size, status or viewpoint. He pointed to progress while acknowledging the difficulty: “We're making progress,” he said.
Stephens anticipated an accommodation involving licensing, compensation and conditions governing how journalism is collected and used. He nevertheless expected governments and courts to help bring the parties together.
Ørskov warned that blocking AI access could also reduce the availability of trusted journalism, making a workable exchange valuable to both sides. Looking ahead, he expected public demand to push policymakers toward stronger oversight. “It will take regulation, and I'm pretty sure it will come,” he said.
For publishers watching Canada, the question is whether those protections can withstand the next round of bargaining.
|
|
|
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here