Evidence of meeting #138 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was academic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much. It's in the United States of America.
Why would a company have so much interest in a country like Canada, so much so that they would invest to a point where they can nearly monopolize the entire newspaper industry at a level of 80%? What kinds of interests would those companies have in Canada?
President, Canadian Media Guild
You would have to ask those particular companies.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Would profit maybe be one of them? Probably it would. I'd imagine profit is likely one of those things. Truth, perhaps, may not be one. Truth isn't necessarily profitable. That's the difficulty with this.
Why is it so important to have public broadcasting? Why does Canada have a tradition of public broadcasting? I'm from the Prairies. We're home to something fantastic, Access television, where you can watch polka without any ads. Your grandparents get to watch it all day long, and they love it. I love it. Why is it that public broadcasting is so important, not only for watching polka in small communities, but also for truth-telling?
President, Canadian Media Guild
It's for truth-telling and for bringing the microphone to everyone in Canada.
Here's the point: Private broadcasters can't make money in the small communities. They can't go all over Canada. If they open something in Nunavut or in Yellowknife, they're not going to make any money. However, the public broadcaster can bring the microphone to those small communities.
I come from New Brunswick and I've been in different small communities all over Canada. In order for all those small communities to have access to those microphones—and another witness spoke to this—we need to make sure that everybody has a voice, an equal presence. That means feet on the ground by the public broadcaster, diffuseur public, all over the country, in as many communities as possible.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
We'll move on to the five-minute round, and we have Mr. Kurek for the Conservative Party.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We heard one of the witnesses suggest earlier that if Canadians couldn't view their news online, they should simply go to the library. It certainly sounded a bit like a “let them eat cake” moment when it comes to Canadians' ability to access content. In this world, whether it's on the devices we carry or on the computers we use, there's been a democratization of information that I think has been quite extraordinary, probably, in the history of the world, although I think you can look back at different points in time and see other innovations.
Certainly I hear all the time from constituents who are incredibly concerned about government overreach and about its wanting to control certain aspects of what that looks like, whether it's direct or whether it's indirect.
Mr. Geist, in terms of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, one has had a massive impact on Canadians' ability to see news content. I've heard many companies suggest that they just want to be able to share their content on those platforms and be able to continue to get their content in front of the eyes of Canadians. Then you have Bill C-11, which is kind of like this backdoor censorship idea, a mechanism for control within the bureaucracy.
I'm wondering if you could comment specifically on those two pieces of legislation and on the chilling effect that they have on freedom of speech and on freedom of expression across this country.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I talked a little earlier about Bill C-11, so let me focus for a moment on Bill C-18.
It was predicted about Bill C-18—and it was predictable, quite frankly—that if the legislation was introduced as is, it would cause a number of potential concerns. There was a likelihood that we would see blocking of news links, which is what has happened. It was likely that it would undermine trust, because if there is more and more government regulation and government funding, this does run the risk of diminishing trust.
Now, with all due respect to my co-panellists here, there's the notion that we can solve all of this simply by giving more money to the CBC or by suggesting, with all due respect, that since Postmedia owns 80% of newspapers, somehow it's the problem, yet at the same time you note that now everybody has the ability to speak out. There are a lot of different sources. If we only think about individual media properties as somehow having a monopoly on the news, then we're missing what is actually taking place right now, which is that there is a wide range of different sources.
One of the real harms that occurred with respect to Bill C-18 was that it oftentimes excluded some of the more innovative players in the marketplace and, with a broad brush, had the effect of excluding all of those players from major platforms like Instagram and Facebook.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Then going to the library certainly isn't a solution.
When it comes to Bill C-11, to the added bureaucracy and the CRTC, I know you've written quite extensively about that and about how that level of control certainly is problematic in terms of Canadians being able to see that content. There's this close connection between Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and I know that quite often the government doesn't like to see that connection made.
I'm wondering if you could comment on the Bill C-11 side and on Canadians' being limited in terms of what they can see, while not being able to post content.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
To be fair, Bill C-11 hasn't stopped anybody from seeing anything online. The concern was on the algorithmic side, as to whether or not, from a user content perspective, some content would be prioritized or deprioritized.
The CRTC, just last week, launched a new consultation that will focus on the meaning of Canadian content. We will see what it does with respect to discoverability. It may prioritize some content over other content, and we may see that play out on some of these larger services.
It isn't in the game of blocking particular content, though. There's nothing in Bill C-11 that would move towards blocking particular content.
November 18th, 2024 / 1:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I certainly think that the answer to that would be yes, at least from an investment perspective. In the case of Bill C-11, the way that the CRTC has begun to implement that law, with basic mandatory contributions, has increased prices for consumers, and we've seen some players who may look at the Canadian market and feel that the regulatory costs are too high.
On Bill C-18, I think it's even more significant, though, because if you lose one of your major distributors of your content or if there are no more links to your content through some of these larger platforms, it sends a signal that this is not a marketplace to invest in. We've seen that with some of the larger independent players. Village Media, for example, stopped entering into new Canadian markets for a period of time out of concern. The message that it sends to others who might want to enter into the marketplace by providing new, innovative news services is that this is a market where some of the regulations may inhibit the ability to have success in the marketplace.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you.
We move to Ms. Gainey and the Liberal Party for five minutes.
Liberal
Anna Gainey Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Geist, if we could go back for a second to some of your opening remarks, I'm kind of curious regarding hate speech and, by extension, the conversation around bubble legislation. This is something that I hear quite a lot about in my community, and some of the things you spoke about touch on it.
There is obviously some tension there with civil liberties that is part of that discussion, and I think my colleague and maybe one of the witnesses also discussed the balance between expression and equality and safety.
I wonder if you could expand a little on that piece of your opening remarks in terms of this discussion, and the role of the federal government specifically, in protecting freedom of expression and freedom of protest in a balance with safety and equality.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you for raising that. At the end of this—we're scheduled to end around two o'clock—and over the course of the weekend, there were plans to launch a protest at what for a long time was my kids' school, Sir Robert Borden, here in Ottawa. That was called off. They're instead going to apparently protest an MPP, but the notion of potentially protesting while kids are in school, as young as 12 years old, raises significant concerns.
We've seen it at community centres. We have seen it in cities on a number of issues, not just with respect to anti-Semitism, which has, as I note, been by far the largest target in terms of hate crime in Canada over the last couple of years, especially since October 7. I know that Mississauga is also considering this, and they're considering it not out of that issue but out of other community members where we have seen tensions and some of this protest.
I think that this, alongside the decision that we saw coming out of the encampments at the University of Toronto, seeks to have a balance in the same way the professor mentioned earlier. We have to find a way to allow people to protest, but when that endangers others, when it creates genuine fear that limits their own expression rights and even limits their own safety, it is, I think, inappropriate.
We heard earlier that there is often a need to strike a balance. How do we ensure that people enjoy those protest rights but that at the same time others feel safe in their communities, in their places of worship and in their schools? Bubble zone legislation allows for those protests to continue but ensures the safety of many others. That's been sorely lacking in many communities for the last number of months across the country.
Liberal
Anna Gainey Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
There's certainly a sense of insecurity and lack of safety in particular around those places of worship and schools, as you mentioned, which has been very troubling to see over the last year.
If we could go back a second to the conversation around censorship, which has come up a few times here, I'm wondering if you could perhaps clarify. In the spirit of the freedom of expression, I think that part of how we get to these tense situations is a misunderstanding, a misalignment, or a lack of truth or common understanding of what things mean and what is true. I think we have that behind some of the misunderstandings around some of the protests, the content and the hate speech or the language that's being used there.
If we're free to say what we want and create these environments where people just don't understand each other and don't have the same starting point, how do we clarify that, in my view, the online news act is not censorship and that we shouldn't be fuelling the notion that this is what it is? How do we clarify that maybe that doesn't contribute to the real conversations that we should be having about how to legislate, how to improve people's safety, how to protect kids online and how to keep people safe?
How do we find common ground to have these conversations if we can't agree on what things like censorship are?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Well, it's a significant challenge, quite clearly.
I've tended not to use the word “censorship” when it comes to this legislation, even though I do think some of the bills that we've been talking about do raise real concerns.
In terms of a common understanding, and I think you heard it earlier, there is a difference between misinformation and disinformation.
On the misinformation side, I think there is a lot of misinformation, but a lot of that does go part and parcel with freedom of expression. It isn't an intent to deceive; it's merely that some people aren't accurate or are misinformed.
That is distinct from disinformation, through which someone has at times the intent to misinform and potentially create some real harm through that disinformation.
On that front, whether or not we need the government to step in, it's more likely in some instances—because I think there are risks and there are charter limitations on what government can do—that there is a role for some of the large platforms to play. We've seen over the last week or two this mass move toward Bluesky for a lot of former Twitter or X users. I think part of that reflects the fact a lot of people are frustrated with an environment where everything goes and there is this misinformation and disinformation. They're looking for a place that they feel is a bit more trustworthy.
In some ways, the market actually addresses at least some of those issues, as long as there are some of those alternatives available.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
We'll move to Mr. Champoux for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Geist, as I said earlier, I have another question for you.
Following a demonstration during which the preacher Adil Charkaoui uttered words of extreme violence—he called for hatred and the elimination of Canada, the United States, but also Israel—my party, the Bloc Québécois, tabled a bill.
It proposed amending the Criminal Code to remove what is known as the “religious exception”. This exception, I remind you, allows a person who speaks or expresses himself under the guise of his religious convictions to utter remarks that go beyond what might be deemed reasonable.
Do you think this bill violates freedom of expression, and more specifically freedom of religion, depending on how you interpret it in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Criminal Code?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thanks for that.
I think the answer is yes, it would, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a non-starter.
As we've heard, there is a balancing act to be had when it comes to all of the rights. In a sense, that's built into our charter. We heard earlier that this is a hallmark of the Canadian approach, which is that these rights aren't absolute and there is a need to balance.
Balancing freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association and some of those other rights is always going to be a challenge. When people use some of these rights to engage in conduct that quite clearly is not just harmful in terms of what's being said, but has real-world impact in terms of the safety of kids going to school or people going to their synagogues, there is a need to act.
We've seen some of that. We saw that, for example, with Samidoun fairly recently, which also had some of its people involved in some of these kinds of protests.
After more than a year of these experiences and this massive increase in targeting communities, in my case particularly the Jewish community, there is a need to act.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Do you think that this section of the Criminal Code, this exception, had its place in a context where there were fewer discrepancies of this nature?
Doesn't the fact that there are somewhat more of them today, precisely because people feel freer to express this kind of opinion, force our hand?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know the history of the inclusion of that particular provision, but I suspect it was based on a vision of a robust protection for freedom of religion and a recognition that there were potential risks of a chill in that ability to practice if we were seen to criminalize certain kinds of speech.
However, at the same time, if that is used as a safeguard or as a mechanism to engage in hateful conduct, then surely we have to consider how to address that kind of conduct so that religion doesn't provide a sort of a blank to allow people to say anything, especially when it creates some of these kinds of harms.
Conservative
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll now turn to Madam Mahoney, who is just joining us online.
Thank you so much for all your work. I know that you've been familiar with a great scope of work over your time. In particular, you were appointed as the chief negotiator for the Assembly of First Nations to negotiate the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Is that correct?