Canadian Heritage Committee on March 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Maybe you could give a quick response, as we are out of time.

[Kiumars Rezvanifar]

If you followed the two weeks after that, we had, according to Toronto police, 500,000 people who were at the rally.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, as an independent producer, CEMA has not received even a dollar. I operated for 33 years, and except for emergency funding during COVID, I have not received even one penny from any level of government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is a great panel.

Many of the challenges we're facing in this sector are because we're moving from traditional broadcasting to digital platforms, and digital platforms aren't monetized in the same way. This seems to be across the board, and now we're trying to catch up to this new reality.

As we move to digital platforms, and Madam Carignan spoke of this as well, we're running into the problem that digital platforms respond differently from traditional broadcasting in terms of how they perform and how they react.

I'll start with Ms. Carignan.

One challenge lies in the fact that digital platforms prefer rather extreme perspectives, which generate more interaction. If the content is more journalistic or consistent with journalistic standards and practices, it's too boring and too balanced for the algorithm.

How will journalism survive in this world? People are now confusing opinion with journalism, as you said, because digital platforms prefer opinion. Is this true? How can we support journalistic content in today's world and on today's digital platforms?

[Marie-Eve Carignan]

The rise of opinion journalism is also due in large part to the fact that it is inexpensive to produce and it attracts attention. The whole financial aspect has also made it very popular. The major platforms say they don't need news, because people don't go to them for news. That's hard to contradict, since we don't have access to their data because it is private. However, it's clear that many people choose digital platforms for news content. A lot of people left Facebook after news media content ended. Many are saying that the content on Facebook is now superficial and unverified.

There's an appetite for news, which is sometimes hidden because it's not profitable. Social media algorithms are clearly designed to stir up emotions. They want to keep people on the platforms for longer. What people see is what generates anger and outrage, what makes them react, what makes them laugh and what hooks them in. That's another issue. Right now, in the United States, there's a whole trial about the way platforms were built to grab attention, which can have a very negative effect on young people and on the rise of radicalization and violence.

Perhaps we should take a step back and realize that people also have an appetite for news. Their appetite should not only be defined by viewership, but also by the public's desire to get relevant information in order to make informed decisions. We sometimes confuse what people need with what they want or what they're curious about. These are two completely different things. Let's not confuse the two. People also have to be offered what they need, and for that to happen, they have to be exposed to it. Therefore, we need to promote content discoverability. I think people have an appetite for that.

Various studies, including one by the Centre d'études sur les médias at Université Laval, show that people have made a marked shift to downloading the media platforms and applications that have been blocked. That proves that there is an interest and an appetite. People need to know how to access it and they need to be able to access it.

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

Thank you.

Maybe APTN can speak to this as well.

Obviously, you're trying to be where eyeballs are. We know that eyeballs are at those digital platforms. How do you maintain your journalistic standards, procedures and integrity in a world where sometimes the more extreme views are the ones that get the most views, get the most interaction and are favoured by the platform itself?

[Cheryl McKenzie]

Yes. Absolutely. I talked earlier about how we have longer-form journalism than most other media outlets. We know now, absolutely, that people are not watching those traditional newscasts as much as they used to. We definitely chop up little stories into bite-sized pieces and put them out there according to what we feel is true to that story and what we feel are viewpoints that are not being heard and go out on those mediums and share them.

The online hate that comes from those short little snippets, there's so much of it with so many of the people commenting, including bots. Research has come out saying that there's a real human effort in creating those bots that will target certain groups of the population in Canada and definitely bring everybody down. It definitely does not speak to the true form of the kind of broadcasting that has to happen with indigenous media and what we've heard from the rest of the panel today. Canadians need more of that context. They need more of that education, but you definitely can't get a lot of it on streaming video, not unless you have a really curated feed for yourself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

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

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Just to give you a bit of background, I was a journalist for 30 years. There are several around the table here. I worked in radio, TV, magazines and newspapers. Back in the glory days, we were very, very opposed to taking any government money. I worked at a tabloid for most of my life. We said, “No, we want to be independent; we don't want to be undermined by looking like we're taking government money.” Today everybody wants it.

You also see online now how people will deride mainstream media, saying that you're bought and paid for. What's the solution? Obviously, we don't want to see journalism disappear. I don't want to see that. I think we need more journalists, not fewer journalists, and I say that as a politician. What is the solution?

Maybe we could start with Mr. Rezvanifar.

[Kiumars Rezvanifar]

In terms of a solution, I can only talk about my sector. We are grassroots. Our work is not just our work; it's our passion—passion for our culture and passion for and commitment to our community. The reason I spoke as a media person, obviously, about recognizing the community is that there's a responsibility on me. All my conduct has to be questioned. I have to make sure that I am scrutinized, first by me and then by my community.

I would like to say that, for us, to come to this level, we don't want to get money from the government, but in terms of advertising, the world has changed drastically. It has happened very quickly. COVID made it faster. You might have asked where, for the past 33 years, we got the money. We were making it just like any other operation. We are extremely small. In fact, we're a one-man show, with maybe a couple of freelancers. I'm a producer. I'm a director. I'm a content producer. I'm a marketing executive. I have to do all this stuff by myself. Why? I could have gone and found a job with CBC, but that's not the one I'm looking for. I want to commit. I want to basically have a job that I can vouch for.

For that matter, I would like to say that now it's become a matter of survival to come and look at an authentic and legitimate source of funding, which is the government.

[Madeline Ziniak]

If I may, the independent ethnic producer segment is the only segment that does not have accessibility in a world where so many media entities are getting some kind of support. We do not fit into the system because of the definition of independent ethnic producer. We cannot access any of the media funds. We've met with all of them. We've been lobbying for years and years. The Google fund we cannot access because of the very nature of the independent ethnic producer. They don't have a staff of paid journalists. We've met with the Canada Media Fund several times. We also do not fit those categories and others.

I think it's important for us, because we are a distinct category, to be able to have accessibility somewhere in the structure. It's a critical time now for expression and for journalism, and it's a critical time to educate audiences who are not comfortable in either French or English.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Let's open it up to others.

How do we strike that balance? Again, we want media to survive, but we don't want people to think that you're bought and paid for. Would anybody care to figure out the best way to do that?

[Joel Fortune]

I don't know about the best way, but as for a way, there are probably several ways and one way is the Canadian journalism tax credit, which goes to print publications and digital publications, but broadcasters are excluded from accessing that tax credit. That is a neutral—strictly neutral—CRA-administered tool. You spend the money. You get a tax credit. That's about as neutral as you can get. There's no decision-making involved in that. You either spend the money and qualify or you don't. That's an example of a mechanism that is as clean from interference as you could imagine.

Beyond that, something like the fund for services of exceptional importance, which we've talked about, would be a CRTC tool. The way that functions is it's a step removed from government, or at least probably two steps removed from government. It's a fund that's contributed to by streamers, in this case. The monies would be allocated independently of government to certain designated entities because of the public mandate they fulfill. That's another example of a double arm's-length funding mechanism.

There are probably many more that could be designed in that kind of model. I'm sitting beside the professor here, who probably has some ideas of her own.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Yes. We have Madam Carignan.

[Marie-Eve Carignan]

If you allow me, I will answer in French.

I think we need to think about a number of funding sources.

We are in a moment where we don't have the choice to have that kind of public money to help the media.

I think it's important to maintain public funding. We are at a point where we no longer have a choice. If the media is a public asset, it needs to be funded. We need to fund media outlets at all levels, serving different populations.

You were talking about the distrust that people will have if they know there is public funding. That raises questions of how to introduce media literacy programs that explain how journalistic practices and journalistic ethics work. Perhaps we also need to strengthen the bodies that promote journalistic independence and ethics. The Conseil de presse du Québec, for example, is having major financial problems right now. A number of media outlets are no longer members. What image does it send when the media no longer responds to the body that is supposed to defend journalistic ethics?

In Canada, there used to be press councils in every province. Now, there is the National Media Council of Canada, which is greatly weakened. I think we need to strengthen these mechanisms to show the independence of the media, while giving it the financial means to move forward.

Funding must come from programs that do not operate on a project-by-project basis, but that also help the media operate. I think other media outlets here could attest to this, but, for example, in our research on indigenous media in Quebec, the media told us that they couldn't operate on a project-by-project basis because they didn't have the time or energy to apply for each project. They said they needed a recurring operating budget.

At the same time, we could fund constructive initiatives for the media. For example, platforms could be created where all community or local media outlets could put their content together. That way, we might attract more people to these platforms, because there would be more content available and more visibility. In addition, it might be a better media lever to get advertising funding.

These are structural initiatives that could be funded by the government and that would enable media outlets to work together, to collaborate, to strengthen their structure and to have better discoverability and therefore greater bargaining power for advertising.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Myles, you have five minutes.

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

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

That's a great question, MP Diotte. I was thinking the same thing. I mean, we're talking about mistrust. I would argue that it goes as far as also involving people's relationship to private advertising money. I would say that the distrust across the board has been not just if people get public money, but if they get money from advertising as well, or from big business or whatever.

Let's be honest here. Mistrust goes across the board. As soon as people feel that there's any financing coming from outside, they feel like it's affecting journalism, whether it be from advertising or from public money.

It makes me wonder how much we need to take a step back and talk about the profession of journalism. I know that we talked about education and media, but I would like to hear your perspective again on how many people understand what journalistic standards and procedures are. What does that look like? What does it look like to have an ombudsman at a paper, at a radio station or at a media organization? What does accountability to an audience look like?

Now, it looks like it is accountable only if there's no private financing, if there's no government.... That creates a world in which organizations can't build or grow and actually deliver reputable journalistic news sources to people.

Perhaps we'll start with David and Kevin. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on how we can educate the population to understand the new media landscape and what it looks like, and what journalism looks like as a profession.

[David Errington]

AMI is a little bit different from APTN and the different organizations. We're not a news organization. We're a niche service that wants to put a positive portrayal of persons with disabilities and create content that is reflective of their stories and puts them in the media.

That being said, I'll keep it short, but from our perspective, I think it's really important that all Canadian perspectives are represented within journalism. We have a show on our audio service where David Lepofsky is one of our hosts. He's talking about news and information from the journalistic perspective and that of a person with a disability, who's blind or partially sighted.

Like the stories that Cheryl was talking about from APTN's perspective, it's important that voices in indigenous programming are heard with respect to news.

I will leave it at that, because that's kind of what we're about. I'll let the organizations that actually have news teams, news services and whatnot speak to the authenticity of journalism.

I'll throw it to you. It's not my role to do that, but....

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

Go ahead, Ms. McKenzie.

[Cheryl McKenzie]

With the demands of daily journalism and going to air, like we were talking about, we broadcast our newscasts twice a day, whether we're ready or not. That TV screen is going to go black unless we're on the air. There are lots of demands on our time.

In the smaller indigenous news outlets, they talk about going out to communities to consult with them and talk about what kinds of stories they want to have. They ask them for their pitches and what they think of their coverage.

We have done some of that in focus groups, but it's very hard to find the time and resources to do that when we're struggling to go to air every day to keep that screen from going black.

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

Ms. Carignan, my question is for you.

Do you think the Canadian public understands what journalism is as a profession?

[Marie-Eve Carignan]

Canadians have a great deal of misunderstanding about the journalistic profession.

As I mentioned earlier, even journalists have trouble understanding whether they are journalists. I've heard columnists say that they weren't journalists because they were columnists. However, they are opinion journalists. Imagine how hard it is for the general public to understand the definition, especially at a time when influencers claim to be journalists. Other people comment on the news and say that they are not journalists, but rather commentators and interpretive writers. In Quebec, we have many influencers, like Alexplique and Farnell Morisset, who don't claim to be journalists, but people don't always keep things in perspective. It's very complicated, and the media also has responsibilities in that regard.

Last year, I attended the Semaines de la presse et des médias. At the event, journalists wondered how to regain public trust. I told them that they too had to explain their journalistic approach. In reports and articles, journalists would do well to provide a little more detail explaining how they got their information and who they spoke to. It's a matter of educating the public through information so that people understand. I also think that the proximity of journalists and the media to the public is really important to maintain that connection and that trust. That means that we should be present in communities and hold meet-and-greet events. It's not always easy, but it's important.

You were talking earlier about ombuds and self-regulating organizations. When I teach, I notice that I have communications students who are interested in journalism. In the first class, I ask them what an ombud or the Conseil de presse du Québec is, and they have no idea. However, if they don't know that the organization exists, they can't file a complaint with it. Also, not knowing or understanding the mechanisms doesn't help build trust. That leads me to say that these mechanisms are really misunderstood, so we need to promote them. The media, which doesn't have a code of ethics or equivalent, would at least benefit from showing that it is adopting good practices.

In short, there is certainly a lack of understanding at the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Carignan, in your opening remarks and afterwards, you referred to a report on indigenous media that you contributed to and prepared along with Quebec's department of culture and communications.

Is that report available anywhere? Would you be able to provide that to the committee so that we can see it? I think it's very relevant to what we're discussing today.

[Marie-Eve Carignan]

It's relevant, yes. The report was not made public. It was submitted to Quebec's department of culture and communications, but the department gave me permission to pass it along if I was asked. I believe there will be no objection at all to my sending it to the committee, so I will be pleased to do so.

This report paints a picture of the representation of these media outlets, their challenges and their experiences. It is somewhat limited because, during the pandemic, it was very hard to get all the information on the ground. However, the report reveals challenges that I think are being handled very well by my colleagues today.