Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to the question-and-answer component of the meeting, and we will begin with a six-minute round. Those six minutes, everyone should know, include questions and answers, so please be as concise as you possibly can with your questions and, similarly, with your answers.

We'll begin with the Conservatives for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time to be with us today. Some of you, I know, came on quite short notice, so we very much appreciate the efforts you've put into arriving.

My first question has to do with some of the things we've observed of late—just in the last few days. We know that Bell made the determination to lay off about 4,800 employees and that they purported to make this decision based on government regulations. Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 were detrimental to them, but so was the requirement to share spectrum they had built infrastructure for. The policies that came from the federal government were actually incredibly harmful, not only to Bell but also to the news industry. We know that 600 of those employees were journalists.

That being the case, here today we're discussing the federal government extending its hand again by being involved in a forum—or at least the terms of a forum—and whether or not it would be appropriate for news outlets to host such a thing. It seems like a bizarre question to me that the government would somehow determine whether or not it is even appropriate for news businesses to meet, as if it's the government's decision. Why can't news businesses meet all on their own accord, have a fruitful discussion and, should they wish to, invite government stakeholders to the table to listen to what they have to say?

Nevertheless, I would also highlight the detrimental effect Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 have had. Bill C-11, of course, built walls around digital first creators. To the point raised by Ms. Gardner and Ms. Gerson—and I believe one other witness raised this point as well—really, so many people are obtaining their news from digital first creators and digital platforms. Through Bill C-11, walls have been built around them, therefore stifling their reach. Furthermore, Bill C-18 has prevented Canadians from being able to access news. It has not generated more for the public good. Rather, it has taken away from the public good.

Further to that, what was supposed to be about $300 million to $350 million given to the news industry to help prop them up, and in particular was touted as something that would support newspapers.... In fact, Facebook said no to being regulated. Then Google went behind a closed door with the government, entered into a shady backroom deal, actually got an exemption from Bill C-18 and instead created some other contractual deal in which they're giving $100 million to the news media of, really, their choice. Further to that, the $100 million isn't actually a full $100 million because supposedly $25 million of that was already granted, so it's really only a new $75 million. All of that is to say there's been a lot of over-promising and under-delivering when the government gets involved.

My question will be for Ms. Gerson first. If the government is not to be involved—I believe I've laid out a few points as to why that would be a bad idea—then what are the alternatives so the news industry in Canada has longevity?

[Jen Gerson]

There are two points I would make in response to that question.

The first is that if we're sitting here at the heritage committee deciding who's going to cover the drink tab of the national forum, I'm all for it. If you're going to have a collection of journalists, we would expect an open bar.

Second, if I'm the federal government and I'm concerned about the democratic deficit this country is facing as a result of a decline in media or the collapse of the business model in media, I already have two extremely big sticks that I can use to start to bring things into a more proper balance without talking about Bill C-18, without talking about Bill C-11, without talking about new legislation and without necessarily talking about new funding from taxpayers.

The first stick is the CBC, and I believe Ms. Lindgren already made this point. If we are concerned about local news and we're concerned about news deserts, it seems to me that the place where the federal government already has an enormous impact on this industry is through public media.

I had some very interesting conversations with Conservatives, who are very angry with the CBC and perceive the CBC to be very biased, which is—rightly or wrongly—where I think a lot of Canadians are positioned across the political spectrum. I think the CBC in its current formation can't serve the function it needs to serve to try to fix a lot of the democratic deficits we're facing.

I think you need to look at a fundamental reimagining of what the CBC is, and also to reimagine it as a much more locally focused news outlet, potentially one that is not competing with private outlets and potentially one that has, for example, mandated reporters in every town of about 100,000 people. It's potentially a CBC that sees itself less as a private broadcast competitor and more as a public library of journalism. It may be a CBC that sees itself as providing news, video and audiovisual content to all Canadians to do with as they wish so they can use that to create their own local journalism practices, podcasts and so on. I think there is an obvious place for the federal government to focus its energy here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 11 seconds.

[Jen Gerson]

The second one is, obviously, regulatory. We have an oligopoly in telecommunications, and this comes with extreme regulatory pressure on existing highly profitable major telecommunications companies. Force them to spend their money on journalism as part of their broadcasting licences, and enforce those heavily and appropriately.

These are the two big sticks you have right in front of you that I don't see the federal government stepping up to use.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Gerson.

I'll now go to the next question, which is for the Liberals, with Anna Gainey for six minutes.

Before I turn the clock on for Ms. Gainey, I would like to clarify something. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is not a government committee. It's a committee made up of all political parties—the NDP, the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals.

The committee made up of all those parties voted for this particular study. We are not a government body deciding what government should do. This is a study brought about by one of our members, and everybody thought it was a good idea.

I just wanted to clarify what's going on here. Thank you very much.

Ms. Gainey, you have six minutes.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses who are here with us today. We very much appreciate their comments.

Ms. Forest, what interest do you think there is in ensuring that the discussion on this important issue before us is held by the sector itself? What perspectives or contributions can the sector bring to framing the debate?

[Annick Forest]

I think it is important not to limit this to the sector. In fact, we need to call on everyone to participate. I agree with many of today's witnesses that we need to think of the public first. Journalists do not work in a vacuum. They work to bring news to Canadians. They are not there to make money because no one gets rich doing this job. People do this job because they want to inform their fellow citizens because they want to share the news with everyone.

It is important to know what Canadians want and what they are looking for and what we, as members of the media, can give them. We can talk about funding and all of that, but at the end of the day, Canada absolutely needs top-quality journalism by and for Canadians. The important thing is not to be subject to news from elsewhere.

It is also crucial to have journalists in the regions, close to the public; people need to see themselves and recognize themselves. I am not just talking about francophones in minority communities or outside Quebec and anglophones in minority communities in Quebec, but also First Nations throughout Canada. In fact, CBC/Radio-Canada, where I worked for 30 years, has just started to increase its presence in the North. However, it is important that this presence be made up of members of the northern communities, who can talk to their colleagues and to the people of their community.

On top of that are many other facets, such as the level of education, in other words the journalists' education, and the sharing of information in the communities. How do we ensure that the media landscape in the country has several facets? We cannot have just one, two or three news media. As someone else mentioned, we need to have multiple sources of information. No journalist will publish news based on just one source; they will seek out two or three sources. The same goes for the media. The public needs to have access to many sources to have better information and to make informed decisions in a democratic country.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I cede the remainder of my time to my colleague. Mr. Noormohamed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Noormohamed, you have two minutes and 55 seconds.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for you, Professor Lindgren. We talk about the importance of this sector, the importance of journalism and the importance of being able to have conversations about independent media and journalism in this country. Yesterday, Canadians witnessed an attack by the Leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, in which he discredited a journalist. He attacked the journalist. He used all manner of tactics to evade and avoid answering a simple question by attacking the integrity of a journalist.

As somebody who teaches journalism, what message do you think that sends to young people who want to enter the sector of journalism? What message does it send to those who believe in a free press in this country?

[Prof. April Lindgren]

I think those sorts of responses to legitimate questions seeking information on the public's behalf—because that's what journalists are doing—harm journalism as a whole and erode the notion of trust we have, and we've seen it eroding over time.

Journalists aren't perfect. We make mistakes, and we shouldn't get away with them, but I think pushing back and questioning the integrity of a journalist when the journalist is basically doing their job is really problematic. It erodes the whole process.

Journalists are out there doing the job that people can't do as part of their regular life because they're working; they're raising their kids. Journalists are playing the role of being present to ask those questions on behalf of the public.

The message I give to my students is not to be cowed by this. We can't give up. We have to stick with it, even though at times it seems like it's a really difficult battle, as we're seeing from these types of responses. Also, the attacks, verbal and otherwise, on journalists as they go about doing their jobs—like TV reporters who are harassed in the field—are all part of an erosion of the democratic process, which makes it difficult for people to get the information they need to participate in local democracy.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much.

I simply want to say that I know many Canadians across this country value the work that journalists do, especially when they are trying to get difficult questions answered and holding government and the opposition to account. Their job is to ask questions.

On behalf of this side, and many other members I know in this room, I just want to say thank you to journalists, who do the work they do in the face of nonsense like we saw yesterday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I'll now go to the Bloc Québécois, with Martin Champoux.

You have six minutes, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will start by correcting the record. I heard many comments, questions and concerns about the participation by this government and this committee in summits on news media.

The purpose of the study we are conducting is to determine who is best placed to do this type of study and what are the best ways to do so. It is certainly not up to the government to get involved, to dive right in, but I think that our committee can, as it is doing today, convene people and ask questions that will lead to summits that will be held in an objective, constructive, non-partisan manner. That is the purpose of today's meeting.

To respond to Ms. Gardner's concern from earlier, I do not think that the media should be the only ones to take charge of this study. A whole host of players from different horizons in the news community need to come together and take charge of this study. That is why I am pleased to have Mr. Fortin with us today.

Mr. Fortin, École supérieure en art et technologie des médias at Cégep de Jonquière published an insightful letter in November, with 67 signatures, including from teachers at the École, wishing to express their concern over the future of media. This letter led to the summit on regional media that you are organizing for February 29 and March 1.

Who do you think should be at the table to discuss the future of media? Is the media or experts? Who do you see around this table and who have you invited to this event?

[Jaky Fortin]

In fact, everyone is concerned and I do not think the right solution will necessarily come from a single person. The media must be present, because they are the ones who are going to have to make the decisions and choose the direction of their work. Journalists, who are employees, also have to participate. The unions and people in the communities have a place at the table too. This meeting is as much for the political actors as for the community actors.

I am going to reiterate what was said earlier about local journalism outside urban centres. Quite often, people in the community sector are the ones most affected by the crisis in the media. When they need to inform the public about something, but they have no local media because local media have disappeared or been moved to the major centres, these people are no longer able to get their messages to the public.

Everybody has to work together. Everybody has to pull in the same direction, and this is somewhat why we chose this approach. We believe it is important to support media education and to pull in that direction. Essentially, we are training young people who are going to be working in this field. We really want to get everyone's support for this idea.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I find that interesting, Mr. Fortin, and you and I have had the chance to talk about it before.

Ms. Brin, I would like to ask you the same question, since you also work with students. How do the students see the future of the media? I think they too have something to say about this study, because they are the ones who are going to be doing this job later. What do they foresee for the future? Are they worried? Is their vision different from the vision generally held today? Do you hear your students talking about this?

[Colette Brin]

Yes, certainly. I see my students every week and we discuss these issues. They are of their generation, they are looking to the future, and they have all sorts of reasons to be optimistic and interested in the transformations of the digital media environment.

Obviously, they are worried about job prospects, because, as I was saying earlier, even paid internships are getting harder to find, particularly outside urban centres. We know that a lot of media need young workers, they are looking for people, but they are not able to pay them.

Students are passionate. I think Mr. Fortin and Ms. Lindgren would agree with me that students give us a lot of hope for the future, because they are in that universe. They have all sorts of creative solutions for doing journalism on the new platforms, for example, and working with these young people gives us a lot of energy. We have to listen to them; we have to give them a role. They may not know how important their role is. We have to listen to them, certainly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Fortin, in the reflection and discussion that has to take place about the future of the information media, there are certainly observations that are hard, and sometimes painful, to make.

Do you think it is possible for the traditional media, the ones that are most vulnerable at present, to be optimistic about the future; do you think they are prepared to take it if the conclusions stated by the experts consulted in the course of these discussions are not at all what they hoped for?

Are we able, are we prepared, in your opinion, to write a report that would call for the entire media industry to completely redefine and reinvent itself in order to face the future?

[Jaky Fortin]

My answer will undoubtedly be disappointing, but I do not believe that is the case. Essentially, any change, in any sphere of society, involves adaptation problems. There really has to be a desire to move forward and change things.

My opinion is the same as the opinion that Ms. Brin stated on the subject just now. Young people do have the desire to change things and do things differently. The reason we are having problems in the media today may be that our young people are not consuming those media. So we may also have to look to young people who are not yet at the college or university level. I am thinking of young people in elementary and secondary school, whom we need to get to look critically at news and information. These are the young people who will make up the society of tomorrow. We have to trust them and push them in that direction.

Certainly, the change is going to be difficult. However, I think that if we do not deal with the situation and do not consult young people, to have them propose new ideas and new solutions to the industry, the industry is not going to change by itself overnight.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Do you think we are starting too late at getting young people curious and encouraging them to seek out other sources of information, rather than swallowing everything sent at them? Should we be starting in elementary school?

[Jaky Fortin]

I think there is work to be done, that this is part of the education to be done if we want a society that is able to take a critical approach to the information and images presented to it.

The presence of artificial intelligence will also do nothing to help solve the problem of disinformation. We must therefore persuade young people to be critical and become good citizens.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Martin.

Now I'll go to the New Democrats, with Ms. Ashton.

Go ahead, Niki.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses who are joining us here today.

In recent years, it's become clear that Canada has continued to have some of the greatest media consolidation in the world. We know that in recent years this has only become worse. At this point, Postmedia owns more than 80% of the newspapers that operate in Canada—I believe around 110 newspapers.

We know that the merger between Rogers and Shaw has led to the closure of media stations across the country. The most recent devastating announcement by Bell Media has led to the cancellation of local and regional newscasts in all mediums.

I've often said that Canada is made up of three media conglomerates in a trench coat. The reality is that Canada has a role and the federal government has a role not just to keep tabs on what's going on, but to put a stop to the entrenchment of this oligopoly, which has clearly only led to the shutting down of local news media, the laying off of thousands of reporters, journalists and people who get us the news and a limitation in the perspectives that we all expect to hear when we are accessing media. There's a need for diverse perspectives.

My question is for a few of the witnesses. Because I want to make sure we hear from a number of you, please keep your comments brief, if you can.

Is media consolidation in Canada a problem? Is there a role for the federal government to rein in the kinds of mergers we've seen recently, the buyouts we've seen recently and the kind of corporate expansion of media conglomerates that has led to the cuts we've seen in local media and beyond and has led us to the crisis we're facing right now?

First I'll go to Ms. Gerson. I think you mentioned the word “oligopoly”. I'd love to hear your thoughts.