Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Jolly.

Now I will go to the Liberals for five minutes. Mr. Coteau, you have the floor.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you so much to all the witnesses here today. I appreciate all of your perspectives and views.

At the last meeting we had, there was a discussion around different types of models that could emerge out of this new age of journalism and news in general. We heard about not-for-profit models. We heard about changes with more localized approaches.

Maybe I'll start with Mr. Jolly.

Have you heard, through the many journalists you represent, about new models people are talking about and exploring? If so, can you share those with us?

[Brent Jolly]

Absolutely.

I think there are people who aren't just exploring them; there are people who are actually doing them, and there are several examples.

There was a great piece in the Globe and Mail a couple of days ago about journalists going about it in their own different ways. They talked about CHEK News on Vancouver Island, which is a co-op owned by the people who work there. There's The Narwhal and others that have RJO status, so they are registered charities in accordance with changes to the Income Tax Act and things like that, which the government has implemented over the last little while. They can issue tax receipts, and I think that is huge.

I am also the chair of something called the Investigative Journalism Foundation, which is a new outlet. We are a not-for-profit newsroom, and we are growing. We are hiring more and more people all the time, because we are doing public service work and focusing on data. We're looking into how we can use SSHRC grants and different opportunities that have historically not been taken up to build out datasets and things like that.

I think what I would say broadly is that for this forum, everybody is in a bit of a different position. If we are talking about what the future looks like, I think we have to account for that, because I don't think there is going to be a one-size-fits-all solution to these problems.

Look at, for example, what La Presse is doing. You heard about that a couple of weeks ago in the last round of testimony. They are making $13 million. I believe that was their bottom line, in the black. This can happen. I think what we need to figure out is what the common denominators are and how we incentivize different kinds of—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I'm going to jump back in, because I have limited time, but I appreciate that response.

It was my colleague who moved the motion to do this study, and I think there's value in looking into the future of journalism—the future of news and the future of a very important piece of our democracy.

Mr. Gormley, I don't want to misrepresent you, so correct me if I'm wrong. The impression I got from you is that government should stay away from news in general. However, we have heard from many witnesses that there is a role for government. It could be through providing incentives or through advertising dollars. When it comes to local news especially, we know the models out there today are taking away from the local response and the ability of local news to get out there, because there's no investment through advertising. We're hearing about these different models: co-operatives, not-for-profits and tax changes. These include government being part of the process. I believe government can be used as a tool for the greater good. We collectively, as a society, come together, form governments and look for ways to better the world around us. There are many examples of that.

I would assume that your perspective is a bit different from Mr. Jolly's. Would you reflect on the fact that government can play a role? We've heard some examples. Would you respond with your perspective on that? I find it interesting that there are some contradicting perspectives from some of our witnesses.

Thank you.

[John Gormley]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

I won't speak for Mr. Jolly, but I'm not saying there's no room for government anywhere. You identified tax policy, which can be a much finer, more surgical approach, particularly for modelling what we want delivery to look like. Is it philanthropic? Is it non-profit? Is it a pay-as-you-go micro-subscription? Is it a subscription like we have now for Substack?

My experience—and this is interesting—is that when we tend to look locally, we think of cities of often 50,000, 60,000, 80,000 or 100,000. In small, rural, local communities, there are, through radio stations and local weeklies, very much integrated online products deriving advertising revenue. They are doing a multimedia approach—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Gormley. Perhaps we can continue that thought in another question.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I have to move now to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux.

You have two and a half minutes, please, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would really like these meetings to last two hours longer so that we can hear more of the witnesses' opinions and responses, which are often very relevant and interesting.

Ms. Andrews, I have just two and a half minutes and I'm going to address you, because you are perhaps the most neutral of all the witnesses who are here today.

There are many voices saying that the public must be consulted. Earlier, Ms. Henley said that the public should be asked what they think about the future of the media. On this subject, however, I'm reminded of a famous statement by Henry Ford, who said that if he had done what the public expected of him, he would have invented a faster horse.

I think we should indeed listen to what the public has to say. However, in your opinion, where should the public's opinion rank in this study that aims to refocus the news media?

[Sarah Andrews]

That's a very good question. Perhaps a happy medium would be to solicit people's opinions up to a point, consult them a little.

For example, I'm going to tell you about a campaign we're going to launch ourselves about CBC/Radio-Canada. We're going to survey our members to ask them how they see the future of this corporation, and then we'll present the information gathered to the committee that's being struck, to give it the perspective of Canadians. It won't necessarily be direct participation, but it will give Canadians a chance to make their voices heard through newsletters or written comments that would then be incorporated into a report. It would be an interesting way to hear about the challenges they see regarding the media. Then we'd take the information with a grain of salt and incorporate it into a study.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you. I do think it's very interesting, even essential, for the public to be part of the thinking around this.

Do you feel that in this review we need to question absolutely everything about the journalism model we currently know? Do you think we even need to question the fundamental criteria that define true journalism, or whether, on the contrary, these criteria should be at the core of our thinking?

I could have put my question to any witness, but I'll continue with you, Ms. Andrews, because I have very little time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'll give you 30 seconds, Ms. Andrews.

Thank you.

[Sarah Andrews]

I'm going to offer a very personal opinion.

What worries me about asking a wide range of Canadians their opinion of journalism is that people don't necessarily have a good idea of what the profession is. So I would take public opinion on journalism with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I think it's very important for the journalistic community to participate in the review of journalism criteria.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, as this is our last meeting today, I would ask for a few more seconds to allow the witnesses who did not have time to answer my question to do so if they feel like it—if need be, in writing later—as I am very curious to hear their opinion on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If I don't hear any objections, I think we could allow you that privilege, Mr. Champoux, since it's your motion. You did give up one two-hour slot already. Perhaps we can hear a very quick answer from everybody else. I'll go to Mr. Jolly for a quick answer.

[Brent Jolly]

I think what the government can do—or parliamentarians, I should say, not government—is focus on news literacy education. That's different from media literacy. That's not about how to use your iPhone and what platforms to go to. It's about the mechanics and the study of what journalism is, what a lead is, why you have both sides or why you don't have both sides. It's about the mechanics of it. I think that is foundational and is something that we need more of in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Andrews, you spoke earlier.

Go ahead, Ms. Henley.

[Tara Henley]

Yes, I think Ms. Andrews has made many really thoughtful and important points already at the committee today.

On the point of taking what the public has to say with a grain of salt, I would strongly disagree with that. I think it's actually an anti-democratic impulse to say that. I think the foundation of democracy rests on the idea that we trust the public to take in information, to make up its own mind about that information and then to decide what action needs to be taken, if any. I do have faith in the Canadian public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Henley.

Go ahead, Mr. Gormley.

[John Gormley]

To amplify only on that point, I had made a note: The public supports, patronizes and is loyal to media that are relevant to them, that are aligned with their view, not of issues, but of the way we order our society, and that gives them value. Once the media get back to that, we don't need meetings on the crisis in the media, but we have to create an environment where that happens and the public matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's great.

Now I'm going to move to Niki Ashton. Niki, go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

My question is to Mr. Jolly.

I represent a part of Manitoba that has 41 first nations, three large urban centres and numerous rural communities. In terms of the media landscape, it's an absolute desert. We have four newspapers, and most of them are hanging on by a thread.

As I mentioned earlier, the CBC has abandoned us. We have a very active radio station in our three urban centres that goes above and beyond— I'm talking about the CHTM and the CFAR network—but the reality is grim here. Our newspapers rely, big time, on the work of reporters supported by the local journalism initiative. It is the way our communities hear news that comes from other communities, from our province, from Winnipeg and, dare I say, from Ottawa, the faraway place. The reality is that our newspapers rely on sharing the work of these reporters.

We know that more than 400 local journalism reporters are serving more than some 1,400 local communities. How important is it for this kind of support to continue?

[Brent Jolly]

I worry about what news deserts would look like without the LJI. There are so many small news organizations right now that are hoping, praying and waiting for some acknowledgement and understanding about what's going to happen with this program.

There are hundreds of journalists who have moved to places like Churchill, Manitoba, or to The Pas because they had a job there. If they don't know if they have a job in April, then what are they going to do? Are they going to work at Home Hardware? I don't think that is really befitting of treating people with professionalism.

I think it's about time we decided if this program is going to continue. I hope it does. I hope we hear something from officials pretty shortly about where it's going to go. If we don't have it, then the information deserts are going to be cataclysmic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

You have four seconds left, Niki. Do you have any last great words?