Canadian Heritage Committee on March 10th, 2026

[Haran Shani-Narkiss]

Is that better right now? If not, maybe Amanda can take that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I'm sorry, no.

[Haran Shani-Narkiss]

Okay.

[Amanda Eskenasi, Director of Education, HR Canada Charitable Organization, HonestReporting Canada]

Maybe I can try to speak to this and offer one final thought.

My colleague Haran is a scientist, and he deals with data, numbers and objective truth. I'm also a scientist, but a different kind: I'm a social scientist. I look at behaviour and trends—human behaviour and how people react to what they see in the news and what they are presented with.

When an organization like the CBC, which is a Canadian institution, is supposed to be well respected, has a history in our country of being the place where you are supposed to get real, honest news about what's going on in the world, and is beating a very one-sided drum, a very one-sided narrative—that's what's being offered to Canadians—of course Canadians are going to be angry. They're going to be upset because what they're being told is the reality is upsetting and angering. When you only present one side of what's going on, you end up with an ideology; you don't end up with reality and with the facts.

When you are feeding Canadians.... The CBC is not telling Canadians how to think about an issue. They're showing Canadians what to think about the issue, and that should not be the role of our public broadcaster.

As you know, to return to your question, Ms. Thomas, if you have consistently one-sided narratives like this, of course you are going to have people who feel they need to do something about it. When we have one-sided narratives that demonize an entire group of people—because that's what's happening—of course you are going to have people who are angry about that and feel they need to do something about it. That, unfortunately, is what we're seeing on the streets in Canada right now, and what we saw this weekend in Toronto.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Myles, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

That's great. Thank you very much.

Thank you to everybody for being here today and getting this study started off in a very lively way.

I think we're all very interested in making sure that there's a diversity of voices in journalism. That's what makes great journalism.

One thing I'm curious about is the right balance. How can we create an ecosystem where private broadcasters and journalists thrive, as well as public broadcasters? What does the balance look like, especially in rural communities?

One thing I find, which I think speaks to what's been mentioned, is that often rural voices are not.... Particularly as more and more newspapers in small towns close and more and more radio stations in small towns close, how do we make sure that things aren't centralized in the cities of Canada and that the voices of rural Canadians are also part of all the conversations we're having?

Maybe I'll start with Paul to speak about that, if you have some thoughts.

[Paul Deegan]

Thank you so much.

One of the important programs for rural voices is the local journalism initiative. Many of our members would be couples in their mid-seventies. They own the local community newspaper. Their kids have moved to the city or are doing something else. The LJI is a way of getting a reporter into that community and invested in that community, covering cops, courts, city hall and that kind of stuff. I think the LJI is absolutely critical for rural coverage.

One thing I will say about the CBC, and this is an issue in particular in rural communities, is that the CBC has been poaching journalists from community newspapers. This is a problem. There's a terrific column written by Tim Shoults of the St. Albert Gazette, and I think you should all read it. It's in his own paper, and it's also in the National Post. Take a look at that. We're losing journalists to the CBC. They're getting more money and better benefits. We don't begrudge the CBC.

I'll give you just one example. Jeff Elgie, who's an entrepreneur who owns Village Media, trained a journalist. The journalist was hired by the CBC and went to Toronto. Jeff felt okay about that. The journalist was in Toronto for a while, and then they moved that same journalist back to the Soo to compete with him. He trained that journalist. That's a real issue. It's an issue in Franco-Manitoban communities, for example.

An issue that we're very concerned about is the poaching of talent. It's a free labour market, but to go after and pick off people from community newspapers in communities like Banff is just not fair.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Part of what I'm looking to get at, too, is about some of those places of conflict between the two sectors and how we can seek to support both in the ideal world to make sure those voices are not dismissed, particularly in rural communities. Are there others?

[Paul Deegan]

One challenge we have is with Canada Post in terms of distribution. For a lot of our members, these are a printed product—a community newspaper.

Canada Post has made a decision that if you have a Canadian Tire flyer in your newspaper, it falls under something called the consumers' choice program. If a community says, for example, that they don't want junk mail, essentially you're not able to deliver that newspaper to the community with a Canadian Tire flyer. The Canadian Tire flyer might be, for that particular publisher, $75,000 a year in revenue. That's two reporters.

There's a lot the federal government can do to ensure that rural community news outlets thrive. The CBC is one avenue. Canada Post is another.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Are you encouraged at all by the idea of CBC moving into rural communities and broadening the base of some of their stations?

[Paul Deegan]

Our view is that CBC should be complementary, not competitive. If they move into communities that are already well served, that's an issue. They should move to areas that aren't served.

When you look at the list the CBC put forward in the “Editor's Blog”—they've done it twice in the last year or so—many of these communities are already well served by community newspapers and community radio stations. I think that's something we have to look at. They shouldn't be predatory in the marketplace, if you will.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Very good.

I have one quick question on ads. Do I have a bit of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Yes, you have a bit.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Speaking about the ad thing, I'm curious to know what you meant when you said that private enterprises bought into local advertising even more than the government. What motivated that?

[Paul Deegan]

We're a great way of reaching Canadians. About 86% of Canadians read newspaper content each week.

When you advertise in a community newspaper, it's in a brand-safe environment. In terms of some of the digital ads, you have no idea where they are going to wind up—perhaps on some porn site or something or other. We're a great way of reaching Canadians. We're cost-effective.

If we're getting ads from banks, airlines, telcos, etc., how come we're not getting ads from our own government? All of the federally regulated industries and grocery stores advertise with newspapers, yet we don't really see a dime from the federal government. That's a problem.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

In the private sector—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Your time is up, Mr. Myles.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I gave you a bit of leeway there, but there's a limit.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fegelman, you startled me a little earlier when you talked about the radical voices colouring media coverage—that's a loose translation.

As I understand it, HonestReporting is an organization that ensures accurate reporting, particularly around the conflict in Israel against Hamas and, now, around the conflict in Iran.

Personally, I think it's entirely appropriate for organizations or groups to ensure the quality of news coverage. In a conflict situation, it's even more delicate, but I think that's okay. It's important.

However, your methods, Mr. Fegelman, are despicable. It's unacceptable. You have a website on which you directly attack journalists who provide coverage or do work that you don't like. I don't understand how you can define yourself as someone who ensures the quality of coverage when you use methods similar to harassment.

Laura‑Julie Perrault, from La Presse, and Magdaline Boutros are targeted on your website. Instead of denouncing the coverage, which you consider to be inadequate, you directly attack the work of journalists and encourage your supporters to write to them directly by even providing them with the framework so that they can write directly to their media outlets. Thousands of emails were sent to those journalists, and perhaps others.

Do you think this method of harassing journalists is a constructive way to ensure fair coverage of these extremely important and highly sensitive issues? Do you think this method of harassing journalists is the right thing to do? Do you defend it?

[Mike Fegelman]

If I may answer your question with a question, when your constituents contact you with concerns and complaints, would you characterize that as harassment?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Not at all. The people I represent expect me to do a job. They elected me and they have the right to contact me directly. You could contact the media that hires those people. You could connect with the Radio-Canada ombud. That's how things work in the media, not by communicating with journalists. Then it becomes personal. It becomes an attack on their work and, often, on people's integrity. You're attacking someone who isn't there to receive hundreds and thousands of stupid emails, and in tones that are often….

In short, we, as elected officials, expect that. That's part of our job; journalists don't have to endure that. Go after elected officials, media executives, the CBC/Radio-Canada, La Presse and Le Devoir, but please let journalists do their work and get feedback from their bosses.

Don't you think that would be the right way to go?

[Mike Fegelman]

We regard ourselves as an added layer of editorial oversight. In a world where we're hearing of massive cutbacks in the Canadian journalism landscape and there's less verification, we've found that most journalists actually value the work we do. That may surprise you. We are pointing out the unfairness and the lack of balance.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In that case, since I have very little time left, could you—

[Mike Fegelman]

When there's a back-and-forth, I can't hear.