Ian Profiri is JURIST’s chief correspondent for Canada. He files this dispatch from Calgary. Bill C-18, “An Act Respecting Online Communications Platforms That Make News Content Available to People in Canada” (Online News Act), passed an introductory first reading in the Canadian House of Commons last Tuesday amid initial controversy. The stated purpose of the Act “is to regulate digital news intermediaries with a view to improving fairness in the Canadian digital news market and contributing to its sustainability,” but it is feared that the Act will do the opposite. Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) the authority to track and charge digital Media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, for providing access to news content. To be exact, the Law would apply a charge for “access to news content, or any part thereof” [2(2)(b)], including any action that facilitates access, such as indexing or linking to the home page of the news site. Practical enforcement concerns aside, there are real fears that the Act will reduce access to independent journalism that thrives primarily on social media platforms, impose higher costs on consumers and introduce an incentive not to report news, hampering the maintenance of a healthy news ecosystem in Canada. Some 450 media outlets have closed in Canada since 2008, with nearly 80% of revenue generated from online advertising going to two social media companies. How the Act affects this relationship is a point of great controversy and concern among commentators. The Online News Act establishes safeguards respecting journalistic integrity and fundraising. Section 3(2) makes it explicit that the Act must be interpreted in a way that “supports . . . journalistic independence”, while 3(3) protects against “undue manipulation or interference” by the source platform it hosts. The Act also allows media outlets to enter into a personal or collective bargaining agreement with a platform for the right to host their product. Platforms may also be exempt from the Act if they meet a set of explicit criteria. Aside from trading agreements, the criteria would allow the substitution of payments to the CRTC for providing compensation directly to news sources hosted on the platform. [11(1)(a)(i)]as well as requiring the platform to financially support local and community news in Canadian markets. [11(1)(a)(ii), (iv), (v) and (vi)]. Interestingly, the exemption criteria also require that a social media platform not allow “corporate influence to undermine the freedom of expression and journalistic independence enjoyed by the news media.” [11(1)(a)(iii)]. It remains to be defined how this provision would be interpreted in line with the other safeguards, especially in the current media climate, where the majority of news media revenues come from advertising revenue associated with market appeal and generated by “clicks”. The law does not directly address the well-known practice of platforms using algorithms to funnel news confirming bias to the viewer (an issue hinted at by Heritage Canada in a press release, and possibly a bigger issue than revenue sharing). . While the law is intended to force platforms to engage in collective bargaining over access and compensation for hosting content, requiring platforms to pay media outlets for the right to provide this access raises concerns that the cost would be passed on to consumers. That is, if they are linked. Journalists certainly deserve to be paid for their work, but the increased use of paywalls and declining incentives to host reduce the public’s ability to stay informed. This is a concern, whether the social media platform has to pay the CRTC directly or the hosted news sites themselves. The practical effects of the result could be increased frustration with receiving credible news from local sources quickly and efficiently, as well as increased frustration with establishing viable news businesses within Canada, regardless of how the Act allocates funds. Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodríguez is correct in saying that “the health and future of the news industry, especially local news, is at risk” without decisive action being taken, but it is unclear whether the methods proposed by the Online News Act would address these concerns.