Evidence of meeting #52 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 journalism.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I've long been an advocate to try to ensure that CBC content is as widely accessible and available as possible. It seems to me that intermediaries that help ensure that this takes place are exactly what we want to see happen. The public has already paid for this content, and to have the CBC effectively now compete with local media, not just for digital ad dollars but now compete as well for this pot of money, I think is harmful at the end of the day.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
Now we go to the Liberal member of Parliament, Tim Louis, for six minutes.
Tim, go ahead, please.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm going to yield my time to Ms. Hepfner.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Certainly. Let me stop the clock here. I'm going to go back.
Lisa, you can begin for six minutes. Thank you.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony today. It's much appreciated, as my colleagues have indicated.
I would like to direct my first questions to Randy Kitt of Unifor, a union I know represents many journalists across this country, including the employees of my former news employer. I would like to say that I am a big fan of the Local News Research Project, which you can find online. It was started in part by April Lindgren, whom I remember as a very excellent head of the press gallery at Queen's Park before she went to teach journalism at Ryerson. Since 2008, they've been tracking all of the news organizations across the country that have closed, and we've learned that's about 500 news organizations that have closed.
Mr. Kitt, I'm wondering if you can describe for this committee what that has meant in terms of journalism jobs and what the future of journalism in this country would look like without legislation like Bill C‑18.
Media Sector Director, Unifor
As I said in my original statement, it's almost too late. We look at the big papers like the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun. Before I got here, we looked at those numbers. The Toronto Star was I think 600 and change and is now down to 178 members. That's over 500 members who walked out the door in the last 10 years. I remember talking to the unit chairs in that publication about the day the paper died and the people walked out and all of those journalism jobs.... You look at 500 journalists walking out.
Sure, lots of new publications are starting up, maybe 200, but those are one and two people here and there popping up creating little tiny outlets. But when 500 people walk out the door in 10 years in one outlet.... And that's the same at the Globe, not 70% but 50% or 60%, and at the Toronto Sun similar numbers. Hundreds and hundreds of journalists are leaving the business. It's just devastating. So, yes, there are lots of new publications popping up, onesies and twosies over here and there, but it's not filling the void.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
What has that done to the quality and the amount of local news coverage in this country?
Media Sector Director, Unifor
Journalism is extremely expensive, and investigative journalism is expensive. What we see is just less of it. The papers are smaller, and the news online is less. I think our newspapers are doing a tremendous job pivoting to the new digital realities, but there's just less. There's less investigative news; there are fewer stories. We talk about how there are so many small towns and cities that just don't have reporters at city hall. There are so many news deserts in this country.
I was looking at the broadcasting news in New Brunswick for the Bill C‑11 hearing and going through the list of stations in New Brunswick. It turns out that most of their news comes from either Halifax or Toronto. Lethbridge has just announced that they're going to—
November 4th, 2022 / 1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Mr. Kitt. I think you made your point. It's an excellent point. I appreciate it. I don't mean to cut you off. I just have very limited time.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I'd like to move to Professor Taylor Owen.
You mentioned in your opening statement that many other countries, including G7 nations, the U.K., Indonesia, South Africa, New Zealand and the U.S.A. are looking to Canada and to our Bill C-18 when they're looking to craft their own legislation. Why do you believe there's such a growing international consensus, and why do you think Bill C-18 is becoming a model for all these other countries?
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
I think a lot of countries are looking at it because of the nature of these global platforms. A lot of countries are in the same position we are. Domestic journalism institutions in a wide range of countries are going through some of the same market challenges in their negotiations with platforms.
I think they are looking at Canada for two reasons.
One, they saw the outcome of the Australian model. We can debate the merits of that very particular articulation of this policy, but it did lead to a large amount of money flowing into publishers very quickly. It proved a really valuable stopgap to real decline in the sector in Australia.
More importantly, I think they are looking to Canada because we have iterated, and I would argue in substantive ways, on the Australian model. I really do think it's a different model. We're not going through a competition bureau. The Australian model is quite crude. It provides one tool and one desired outcome. The regulatory model that's being proposed here is a substantive iteration of that, and one that I think other countries are taking seriously. I would not be at all surprised in the next year to see more countries implement the same.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I would like you to follow up on your comment about exemption criteria. You said these are the real levers that could really change the journalism market and the kind of journalism we have here. Can you explain that a little bit further?
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
In the Australian model—
Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communication, Associate Professor, and Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, As an Individual
I can come back to this.
The exemption process in the Australian model was very crude and blunt and did not allow for targeted direction and oversight over how those monies were used. The exemption criteria provide for those in the Canadian model.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
Now we go to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux for six minutes.
Go ahead, please.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd also like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
My first question is for Mr. LaRose.
I'd like to start by saying hello to you, Mr. LaRose. You're from Odanak, which is in the constituency next to my riding, Drummond. I'm pleased to meet you. Earlier this year, we also had the opportunity to speak with Monika Ille about issues related to APTN in the context of the broadcasting bill. It's a pleasure to have you with us today.
Mr. LaRose, I'm not saying that you're making an inappropriate request, but I'd like to know your reasons for asking that Bill C‑18 specifically mention first nations news outlets. How would that change the purpose of Bill C‑18? What would you get out of it that's not already in there?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Dadan Sivunivut
Several Indigenous organizations across the country, including APTN, fully support my remarks today. Oftentimes, Native communities are more recent players in the news business, among others. Before the 1980s, no media outlets, except for one or two, reported any news about Indigenous communities. That didn't start happening until the mid-1980s. While these organizations have grown since then, they had no models to show them how to grow and expand, like the models that have been there to guide other organizations. There's—
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Bill C‑18 only aims to establish a framework for negotiations. Aren't you saying that we should have more flexible rules to allow Indigenous media outlets to negotiate, otherwise they would not be eligible?
Shouldn't we instead be making all the existing rules and criteria more flexible in general? I'm thinking, for example, of the at least two journalists rule. If we broaden the rules generally to make room for more media outlets in a new generation of news models, don't you think that would help organizations in the same way, without having to specify systems particular groups, although I'm not against that idea?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Dadan Sivunivut
The organizations you're talking about, which have only one journalist, should absolutely be eligible, yes. Many of our small Indigenous publications are in that situation.
What we're trying to create here is an environment in which Indigenous news organizations are specifically recognized—it's really not the case right now. If you look at the content of the bill, you will notice that we're often placed in the background, lower in the hierarchy, in our opinion, just like some ethnic minority publications. We feel that's unfair.
When we talk about local news and media, that should include newspapers from various ethnic communities and Indigenous newspapers, so that we have the same bargaining power in arbitration and negotiation sessions with businesses like Meta and Google.
That's why we specifically emphasized that the needs of Indigenous communities and Indigenous journalists must be clearly defined.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I hear you loud and clear, Mr. LaRose. I don't know if this is going to be exactly the language you're looking for, but I feel we need to make sure that all groups are represented, including those who embody these new models of journalism. I totally agree with you.
I would still like to speak to Mr. Kitt from Unifor.
Mr. Kitt, in your opening remarks earlier, you stated, that no eligible news outlet should be left behind. Later, you came back to the issue and spoke of eligible news outlets.
In your view, based on what Mr. LaRose just said and what other groups have said as well, should more consideration be given to new models of journalism, where there aren't necessarily two or more journalists in the newsroom, for example, rather than automatically dismissing them because they don't fit the traditional journalism model? Should those businesses be left behind? What do you mean when you say eligible news outlets? Do you also think we should broaden the criteria and be a little more open to new ways of delivering the news?
Media Sector Director, Unifor
Thank you for the question.
We do say “eligible news outlets”, and the QCJO is a known quantity of what makes an eligible news outlet.
This bill also gives the CRTC the ability to expand on that and include those who aren't eligible under the QCJO terms. That includes broadcasters and podcasters. I think he also just said recently that he is open to allowing smaller news outlets to join in. That means reducing the two-journalist criteria and looking at that.
We would be open to that.