Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, MP Gladu.

The question boils down to whether a news business is eligible or able to bargain under the framework. I would draw your attention to the criteria, which include that the news business has to produce content “that is primarily focused on matters of general interest and reports of current events, including coverage of democratic institutions”.

We then have the question of two journalists. In part, that's a proxy for having an editorial function in place. The question came up about a single individual. In part, the two journalists piece recognizes that part of a news business is having that editorial function in place.

Nothing in the bill allows the government to censor or look at questions of misinformation or disinformation or make that determination. The mechanism is whether a news business is in the business of covering matters of general interest and democratic institutions.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, on the speaking list we still have Mr. Bittle and Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just be very brief on this.

I understand Mr. Nater's intention with this amendment. He's a very thoughtful individual, but it is redundant, given that the legislation doesn't allow for political interference, as Mr. Ripley has really gone through in detail with all of the questions asked by the opposition.

There is no political interference permitted at any stage of this. It's redundant.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, after Mr. Bittle, we have Mr. Julian and Mr. Waugh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to read out the clause and ask you a very direct question, because I think there has been some attempt to be a bit disingenuous around this. Under “Freedom of expression”, it states, “For greater certainty, this Act is to be interpreted and applied in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.” That's subclause 3(1).

Subclause 3(2) is under “Journalistic independence”:

This Act is to be interpreted and applied in a manner that supports the journalistic independence enjoyed by news outlets in relation to news content produced primarily for the Canadian news marketplace, including local, regional and national news content.

Is there anything in those two clauses that minimizes or diminishes freedom of expression or journalistic independence? They strike me as crystal clear.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Chair, perhaps I may comment.

No. As you've outlined, Mr. Julian, those clauses have been included to provide clarity on how the act should be applied in a way that's consistent with Canadian values and to respect the independence of the news sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I just have a brief comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, go ahead, Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

There is a wacky far right infrastructure—I won't even call them media—that leads to deliberate disinformation and hate, and we've seen this played out in so many ways. They trigger themselves on things like compliments to the CBC for actually producing outstanding broadcasting. In fact, now that I'm saying this, Madam Chair, I know that the far right wacko infrastructure will start sending social media messages. The reality is that we have very strong media sector journalists who have a great deal of integrity. They have been attacked by the far right, but the reality is that there is nothing in this bill that diminishes that strong journalistic independence that we see in our country and that is one of the hallmarks of democracy.

If a member of this committee suggests that Canadians have lost confidence in the media, when we know that Canadians support the kind of integrity that our journalists show, I would have to completely disagree. There has been an attempt by the far right to make disinformation and hate...news sources. It is simply not true, and our journalists perform with integrity and independence at all times. We may not agree with what they write or say, but that's the hallmark of a democracy.

I'm going to be voting against this amendment and any suggestion that our journalists act with anything less than the complete integrity that we see from them in our press gallery and right across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Are there any other hands up?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Waugh had his hand up, Dr. Fry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Kevin, go ahead.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have just an observation here, if you don't mind. Whether it's the wacky right or even the wacky left, I would say, as a former journalist for four decades, I have seen...and it's advertising and editorials. I'll give you some examples of this. Where newspapers never took a position, now they are selling the front page of the newspaper on election day, where it will come out with “We support X.” It's actually a party that buys the front page of the newspaper coast to coast, where it never used to be. It was in editorials and advertising where that line was. The line no longer exists. When I was there, advertising could never come into the newsroom. They're in the newsroom every single day now, as we've witnessed in newspapers and editorials.

I want to state my position because I have seen a drastic change, not only in newspapers but in digital and radio and TV, where the editorial now may support one particular party on that day, on the election day, when they're trying to get votes out. Is that where they should go? Well, one paper, let's say the Toronto Star, will support the current government; another paper, the Toronto Sun, will support the opposition.

I just wanted to say that, because we have seen, since 2015, that you can buy the front page of a newspaper, and parties have done that. I can show you examples from 2015 on where the two front pages of the paper are bought by a party.

All I'm saying is that journalistic independence has been eroded, and around this table you should realize it has been eroded, only because, I think, the advertising is now into the editorial departments.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Kevin.

[The Clerk]

I have Ms. Gladu and Ms. Hepfner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Gladu, go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just felt I needed to correct the record for my NDP colleague. There is a CBC article from March 2021 saying, “Canadian trust in journalism is wavering.... Recent survey found 49% of Canadians think journalists are purposely trying to mislead”.

We have all seen examples where things have been skewed either to the far right or to the far left. Neither is good for our democracy, and because we don't have a definition of “journalist independence”, I think that is what this amendment is trying to address, to make sure we're not getting those voices that Canadians, frankly, don't want to hear, and that erode the trust that people have in the news.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Go ahead, Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to chime in and say that I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of how news works. I think if there is any lack of trust in news today, it's because there are not enough journalists. There are no journalists left.

Back in the day, we always had editorials. We always had opinions in the newspaper, but we'd also have a couple of hundred journalists who were in the courtrooms. They were in city halls. They were out on the streets. They were at the crime scenes. We don't have that anymore, and that's what this bill is trying to address. It's trying to get more journalists into news organizations, so that we have more news and we have more good news, so that there's more variety, more opinions and more different people reporting.

When we see that hundreds of news outlets have closed in this country since 2008, we see the argument that “Well, a couple of hundred other online news organizations have popped up in that time”, but what we don't see is that they're not news. They're not gathering news. They're publishing only opinions. We have a proliferation of opinion organizations out there, publishing their opinions without people going out and reporting the news.

I will not be supporting this amendment. I don't think it's necessary. Journalism organizations have codes of conduct that they follow. They have laws that they have to follow. They have to understand what they can do in a courtroom. They have to go before the CRTC if they don't follow all of the proper journalism standards. These are things that are taught in journalism schools and in newsrooms across the country.

I think that's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Lisa.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, we have Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Champoux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.