Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

However, there seems to be—at least in my short-lived experience—a very severe level of inaction by the federal government in relation to indigenous claims, particularly claims that are largely sought through the court. There are options that the government has, of course. It can negotiate these claims, these instances of great historic injustice, and also contemporary injustice, as we're seeing in the case of the child and family services litigation case. One may only look to this year's budget, which had the Liberals celebrating—literally celebrating—$58 billion that they were court-ordered to spend on first nations because of settlements like the one you fought for. It created a situation in which nations were forced to try their luck in the court because the federal government is so fundamentally committed to addressing these issues in the court. It doesn't have a perspective that involves indigenous peoples having these claims heard in any fashion other than in a court or by way of a court order or by way of reducing liability. This is what's been clear to indigenous people, particularly first nations, as they pursue their rights in court.

My question is this: Why do you think the government prefers forcing indigenous people to the courts by way of litigation rather than just respecting their rights at the onset and creating a framework that would allow for these very serious claims to be heard properly? What does your experience in the court tell you in relation to this very severe injustice?

[Kathleen Mahoney]

Well, that's a very good question, and it's very difficult to answer. Frankly, sometimes it seems that the government doesn't know what to do, so it would rather have the courts tell it what to do and then massage that decision into what it thinks it should do. In some respects, I suppose that the government wants input from the judicial sector.

However, many, many times the court has said very clearly to Canada that negotiation is the best way to resolve land claims and other legitimate claims. There's some resistance to that, or there's just an unwillingness to budge on important matters that need to be resolved, and they end up in the courts.

It's an unfortunate situation—you're absolutely correct—but it's often the bureaucracy that blocks progress, I must say. You can hear the politicians say one thing, and often the bureaucracy does another, which is a very frustrating situation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We're going to move on to the final round, which will be the Conservatives and the Liberals for five minutes each.

We'll start with Mr. Gourde for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Forest, you said you had 30 years' experience in journalism.

Have you noticed an evolution in freedom of expression? We have the impression that, some thirty years ago, we could say things in the media that we can no longer say today.

Is this an attack on freedom of expression, or is it a matter of respect on the part of society as a whole?

[Annick Forest]

I think the media discourse follows the popular discourse of Canadians overall.

I think that, today, people have more access to a variety of media and views because of the plurality of sources of information. When I was young, starting out, there were three television networks and a handful of newspapers. People felt that they could trust those news sources. Today, we have a growing number of sources, but people aren't sure they can trust them.

I think it's important to help Canadians understand what a real source of information is, a reliable source. In many cases, Canadians learn the hard way, once they realize later on that they trusted information that was completely false. That is very important for them.

People have to know which sources of information to rely on.

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

You talked about ecosystems. We have a public ecosystem and a private ecosystem. We can almost say we have a digital ecosystem too, and it is not at all regulated. In the public and private sectors alike, news anchors and others can see to it that people are careful about what they say, without necessarily controlling what they say. That is not the case in the digital ecosystem, though.

I fully trust journalists who do professional work, but if they are given a certain direction, could they be prevented from saying what they want to say or what they think? Could they be told that they would do well not to venture into certain territory if they want to keep their 10 minutes on the air? Might reporters get that kind of direction?

[Annick Forest]

The advantage of working for a public broadcaster, as I did, is that people have independence, unlike what happens in the private sector. There's a good chance that your contract will be terminated if you don't do what the boss tells you in the private sector. That is how the private sector works. Everyone knows. That is not at all the case when you work for a public broadcaster. You can say what you want to say and report on the news that needs to be covered. No one interferes in your editorial independence.

For the last 10 years of my career, I worked on the digital side, and it was the same there. The only difference between digital, radio and television is that digital is forever. Of course, TV and radio news coverage has to be accurate and reliable, but that is 10 times more important in the digital world because digital is forever. The information can be read over and over again.

Furthermore, if anything that was reported is found not to be true, there is a responsibility to correct that information. You know that a news organization is reliable when it corrects its own errors. Everyone makes mistakes. It happens everywhere. No one is perfect, but when mistakes are made, they are corrected. That is how you know a media organization is responsible, reasonable and reliable.

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

In the public sector, when a reporter is told they made a mistake, the reason might be that some people didn't necessarily like what the reporter had to say.

[Annick Forest]

No.

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

Is there no reporter who left CBC/Radio-Canada for the private sector who is happier now?

[Annick Forest]

I can't answer that question, because I would have to put it to all our members. I can tell you, though, that no one exerts influence on the reporters. The only thing producers in the public sector need to make sure of is that what is said is true and that the coverage is balanced, meaning that everyone is given a voice. The coverage can't focus on only one viewpoint. All viewpoints have to be reflected, on top of which, the coverage has to reflect the facts and the sources have to be verified.

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

If CBC has poor ratings right now—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde. We're over five minutes. Thank you very much.

We have the final round.

Stick around. We have a budget item that we'll deal with after we release our guests. We sent it out to you last Friday. It will only take 10 seconds, but I'll remind you to check your emails from last Friday.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes, you wouldn't have got that.

Mr. Noormohamed, you have the final five minutes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here.

Professor Geist, let me start with you.

You talked about Bill S-210 and the concerns around it. I share your concerns. I think it is a deeply flawed piece of legislation with some good intentions. I think that is clear. I think that the execution of it, if it is rolled out in the way the bill proposes, could actually be quite problematic.

Very briefly, could you summarize your concern around the enforcement, particularly as it relates to the private sector being in a position to hold data and in particular to determine age verification? What are some of your concerns around that?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

There are several major concerns with Bill S‑210. I mentioned some in the opening with respect to mandated blocking of content and getting Internet providers to block that as well. I think that raises serious issues. For the use of age verification technologies, we've seen privacy commissioners around the world raise real concerns about this issue. I must admit that I find it both problematic and deeply puzzling that we would rush ahead with a piece of legislation when our own Privacy Commissioner is still studying the implications of using age verification technologies.

What we know is that the technology right now either requires the provision of highly sensitive personal information—uploading government-issued identification documents to services outside the country, by and large, which raises issues around identity theft—or is based on technology that tries to guesstimate your age, which simply doesn't work in legislation that is designed to distinguish between someone who is 17 and 18. Just go into any high school or first-year university class and try to determine who's 17, who's 18 and who's 19. If we can't do it as individuals, are we really going to trust some sort of algorithm to make that determination?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On that point, just very quickly, to speak to those who may support this bill, there are those who have supported this bill and think it's a very good piece of legislation. Many of our Conservative colleagues have said they support it, but at the same time they also decry the idea of digital ID.

How do you reconcile those two thoughts? If you're against digital ID but you support digital identification and age verification by the private sector, what would you say to them to kind of clear up that misunderstanding?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

It's drawing a line between saying the government is going to issue an ID and I'm going to provide my actual ID to some third party that I may have even less trust in as part of this system. I think the risks from a security and privacy perspective are very real.

Especially if we're having a discussion around freedom of expression and the overbroad use of site blocking, this would apply not just to pornography sites. This would apply to search sites and to streaming sites. It's hard to reconcile saying there's deep concern about acts of censorship and freedom of expression when we're considering legislation that would actually, in an overbroad way, require some sort of pre-approval to be able to conduct a Google search or watch some streaming services on something like Crave or Netflix.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Would your advice to members of the Conservative Party and others who support this legislation be that they should not?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

My understanding is that it's been all the opposition parties that at least previously voted for it. I think it's a mistake and that it needs to go back to the drawing board.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

I want to take a bit of a different line of questioning now with the two minutes I have left.

My colleague Mr. Desjarlais started asking questions about foreign ownership of the media and some of the challenges and concerns there.

When Postmedia was taken over by a U.S. hedge fund, it was told to be more “reliably conservative”.

Madame Forest, what do you think the concerns are in terms of freedom of expression of journalists when they are told that the editorial direction of a publication has to be a certain way?

[Annick Forest]

If they're told that the direction has to be a certain way,

they can't really do their jobs.

With some transparency, it is pretty clear that this or that newspaper leans a certain way. That's the private sector. When people read a particular paper, they know the kind of information it contains.

What matters to us, as media workers, is having multiple sources. That means media organizations cannot be concentrated in the hands of a single group. That is the problem.

If measures are in place to prevent media ownership from being concentrated in the hands of a single group, the information will come from all sides. There will be multiple sources, and Canadians will be more likely to have a balanced view.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Professor Geist, building on what Madame Forest just said, you talked earlier about other voices that need to be amplified. Are you concerned at all that foreign ownership and foreign direction of Canadian journalism or media and where it should go have the same chilling impact when there isn't an ability for a counterbalance, for other voices to emerge within the ecosystem?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I think there's reason for concern about foreign interference, I must admit, especially in some of the regulated sectors.

I've never totally understood some of the objections to foreign ownership. On broadcasters, for example, it doesn't really matter who owns them; what matters are the rules that are associated with it.

In an Internet environment, I recognize clearly that when you have large foreign players, there's more risk. Candidly, that fact means we would want to bring some of those players in, which makes the recent TikTok decision a bit puzzling. I don't understand why we would kick out a company when that makes it more difficult to enforce measures against it when we have some of those kinds of issues.

We need to seek to ensure that there is a role for regulation of these large players. Part of it is ensuring that they do operate here and that we have appropriate rules in place.