Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Kathleen Mahoney]

Sure, people should have it, and that's why we have section 2(b) in the charter. Of course, it's a pillar of democracy. They must be able to express themselves.

However, they have to take into account the effects of their speech on others who have equal rights and who perhaps cannot express themselves, for any variety of reasons. That's what makes a good democracy. That's the point that's missing in a lot of these arguments that are totally focused on expression and don't take into account the people who are targeted by very political, negative, hateful expression that wants to diminish those people's right to participate in democracy.

That's the democratic, underlying—

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

It's interesting that you say that, because one of the biggest challenges today in democracy is that we have become so polarized. Everyone is on the opposite end of the debate, and we need to find ways to look at it from both perspectives.

It's really important as a foundational approach to this discussion that in order to have a good democracy and to ensure the ability of people to express themselves, you have to keep in mind concepts like equality, public safety and the public good. These are also important factors, I believe, in preserving a good democracy.

I keep hearing folks out there who say that Canada has gone in a bad direction, that people's rights are being taken away and that their freedom.... We hear this on social media all the time, but everywhere I look, Canada always fits into the top 10% of countries in the world where people have the best rights when it comes to expression.

Would you agree with that?

[Kathleen Mahoney]

I tend to agree with that, yes. I think Canada has set itself apart, being not a democracy of the loudest but a democracy that tries to take into account the views of the wide population and tries to have engagement with portions of the population who don't have the access to the megaphone, so to speak, of mass media or of social media and—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Mahoney. We're going to move on. We're past our six minutes.

Next we have Mr. Champoux for the Bloc for six minutes, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

Professor Geist, I felt a little challenged earlier when you talked about Bill C‑63. I think we'd really enjoy discussing this bill, which contains some good things, but also some atrocious elements. You talked about going back to the drawing board. I was a bit surprised. I would have expected you to say that we should rip it to shreds.

That said, from the first reading of this bill, something struck me. One section allows people to be denounced on the mere suspicion that they might intend to make hateful comments or commit hateful acts. These people would be held accountable under the law.

What do you think of the path that led to the creation of such a section in a bill? How do you think this will pass the test?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Thanks for that. I want to preface that by making it clear that when I said legislation needs to go back to the drawing board, I was actually referring to Bill S-210, which is the age verification bill that includes the blocking I referred to and a number of other issues.

Bill C-63 needs to go to committee. In some ways, it's really two bills in one. There is the element that is the larger part, about online harms, which deals specifically with the responsibility of the Internet platforms. There is a lot that can be worked with there. I have some concerns about the enforcement mechanisms that have been established, but I think there's a lot in it.

What you are referring to, though—and I apologize and I'll be quick—is the Criminal Code provisions and in particular an attempt to create what is essentially the equivalent of a peace bond for speech in this context.

We use these kinds of things in other contexts. If we're concerned about domestic violence and it's imminent, we might get an order to ensure that it doesn't happen or to try to prevent it from taking place. This would similarly be an attempt to prevent certain kinds of potential hate from taking place. As I mentioned off the top, the Jewish community has seen an unprecedented number of shootings and targeting at synagogues and at schools. If we knew they were coming, a bond might be able to try to stop some of those kinds of activities from taking place.

I think, though—and Professor Laidlaw mentioned this before—that both the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act provisions in the legislation run the risk of overreach. Frankly, the bill should be split. We should be focusing on the Internet stuff and leave this other stuff for a separate study.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We agree on that.

Thank you, Mr. Geist.

I'm sure I'll have another question for you about Bill C‑63, but I want to address Ms. Forest as well.

Ms. Forest, we're talking about journalism and the current climate in the world of information, in the world of traditional journalism, let's say. There was a time when the profession of journalist came with many rules, commitments, criteria of rigour and principles that framed the profession. We can see that journalism is changing enormously. There's a lot of commentary and militant journalism. What's more, the youngest journalists currently graduating from schools are much more committed and want to do more committed journalism too. So they're turning to platforms that are a little more in line with their values and commitment criteria.

Is this a risk for the journalism profession?

Are we capable of protecting traditional journalism?

You were talking earlier about CBC/Radio-Canada, which plays an essential role in this kind of news coverage.

Tell me what you think of the current trend among new journalists entering the market.

[Annick Forest]

It doesn't matter what kind of journalism, I think that, in all of this, the essential thing is transparency. You have to declare your allegiances. If a journalist wants to openly advocate one thing or another, as long as it's on the table and known, that's fine. However, to be a journalist and to be a real one, you also have to be responsible. You have to answer for what you do and be able to demonstrate that the content you produce and publish is true, that it's factual.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

At that point, when someone openly states a position, is that still journalism, or do we fall squarely into commentary or opinion?

What do you think about that?

It's this trend that confuses people a bit. People say that journalism is also a person's opinion. In my opinion, that's not really the case. Journalism should be objective and neutral.

What do you think about that?

[Annick Forest]

This brings me back to transparency. Journalism is still journalism if you give everyone a microphone and everyone can give their opinion. If you give an opinion, it remains an opinion. It's as simple as that.

When I worked in newsrooms, if a reporter came into a newsroom with a story that only presented one side of the situation, I'd tell him I was sorry, but we had to write that it was an opinion. We put that in the opinion box. It's an editorial. We explain that, and there's transparency. If a journalist wants to take stock, to explain the facts, he has to give the microphone to everyone. That's part of the journalist's role.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You're surely aware that the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the FPJQ, had its convention last week. At this convention, one workshop really caught my attention. It dealt with lawsuits against investigative journalists. Generally speaking, these lawsuits are filed with the aim of discouraging them from investigating further.

Is this a new phenomenon? Is it cause for concern?

[Annick Forest]

No, I don't think it's a new phenomenon. I've been working in the field for 30 years, and there have always been lawsuits when people weren't happy with the work we were doing.

The job of investigative journalists is to take stock, expose facts and hold people to account. When people aren't happy, they sometimes try to find ways of muzzling us. This is not a new phenomenon, but it's important to do this work as an investigative journalist.

I'll go back to the idea that it's expensive and takes time for a public broadcaster to be able to do this kind of journalism. I have colleagues who do this kind of journalism. They spend months preparing a story that's going to come out and making sure it's done with rigour and depth.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Forest.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Madame Forest. I'm going to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We'll move to the New Democratic Party with Mr. Desjarlais for six minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being present with us today on this important study.

As you're aware, part of the importance of this discussion today that is related to the right to freedom of expression is largely related to the democratic project of Canada. Safeguarding our democratic traditions and our democratic processes for the next generation is I think paramount to many Canadians. It's partly why I'm at this table, and my interest is to discuss how we can ensure there's a broad depth of democratic tradition.

Particularly because I come from a younger generation, I'm concerned about this intersection between social media and our traditional media and this idea that anyone and everyone everywhere can have their own media source. If you don't like the media, you can invent your own. You can create media. You can have your own folks come to that media, and maybe you can even get a billionaire to platform you in such a way that you can have more voice.

In other words, some people have a larger ability to express themselves than others do. In particular, I find a contrast between those who have money and those who do not have money. Those who have private interests are often using that private wealth to manufacture a large perception and to create a large level of influence on Canadians, even if their facts aren't true.

This is particularly challenging for our courts. We have lawyers who are present in this committee today. You're going to be seeing the advent of that in the courts and in the challenges that are already present there. You're seeing that in our media space. It's having a real effect on our young people. It's having an effect on our seniors. It's having an effect on all Canadians.

A senior came to me yesterday when I was back home and said, “I'm scared. Every time I turn on Facebook, I see these wild, very far-right-wing ads targeting me.” She has never been someone to speak about violence or someone who is very polarizing. As a matter of fact, she's quite a good person. How is it that someone like her could be targeted by something so malicious as this, which is telling her that her fellow Canadians are out to get her? This kind of division, often brought on by corporate interests, is finding a home and is finding ways to delegitimize or attack traditional media.

Ms. Forest, my questions will be focused on you. This is a rising concern for journalists and a rising concern right now in particular when it comes to our democratic tradition. Are you at all worried or concerned that the democratic principles of western countries are at stake when we so easily create a political environment where media and its truths are not held to a higher standard?

[Annick Forest]

This goes back to the idea of what is journalism and where your information is coming from.

Media literacy is something that the government needs to start focusing on. Young people in schools need to learn where to find their information sources and how to check them to make sure these information sources are correct. When I hear that a teacher has told my son that he should get his facts on Wikipedia, I have a problem, because Wikipedia can be changed on a daily basis by whoever goes in there and puts in information. It will be corrected in due time, but not necessarily when my kid goes there.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

The damage is done.

[Annick Forest]

The damage is done.

Knowing what the sources of information are and what makes a good source of information, fact-checking, knowing.... Traditional media were known for giving you the facts.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Yes. Traditional media are known for giving the facts.

You've just mentioned something that's of critical importance to me, which is this idea of where this information is coming from, of the source. There's one company in particular in Canada that owns 80% of the newspapers in our country.

That's 80%. Can you name the company, just by knowing that fact?

[Annick Forest]

It's probably something to do with Postmedia.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It's Postmedia, exactly. Congratulations. I'd hope that my colleagues could also confirm this fact without their wonderful devices.

[Annick Forest]

Do I get a free coffee?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You get an award for sure for giving us a fact today that we can use.

Facts and the source of facts are critical to this. Eighty per cent of our newspapers in Canada are owned by Postmedia. That's an extreme level of ownership.

Where is Postmedia headquartered?

[Annick Forest]

It's in the United States.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Can you say that one more time?