Canadian Heritage Committee on April 16th, 2026

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for joining us today.

So far, much of our discussion has been focused on government supports, the democratic importance of journalism and the risks posed by media deserts. Today, my questions will be geared towards the notion of content sovereignty, newer platforms contrasting traditional journalism, the challenges facing young professionals entering the space, and the distinct challenges facing Mississauga Centre.

Mr. Champagne, in communities like Mississauga Centre, people are often navigating through a number of information sources, sometimes in different languages, on different platforms, and with very different levels of confidence. I know that this is also the case in a number of regions of Quebec.

Diverse voices and perspectives are a strength, of course. But it also means that people are dealing with information sources that vary greatly.

In your view, how does journalism maintain its standards of credibility in that kind of fragmented environment?

[Éric-Pierre Champagne]

I would say that, in order to become members, the journalists whom we represent at the FPJQ must adhere to the code of ethics.

Our code of ethics is very clear. I won't go through all its provisions, but we have provisions on independence, on conflict of interest, and on things of that nature. That ensures a certain level of quality, of rigour, if you will. There are other organizations; the FPJQ is not alone. But it is one of the guardians of journalism in Quebec. We try to make sure that our members live by the rules.

As I said, we have about 1,400 members. They are journalists, researchers, anchors, almost every role in information. I am referring to journalists, I am not referring to columnists, to people with opinion pieces. That's another matter, another area. For journalists, we try to maintain the rigour by making sure they live by our ethical standards.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

The federation traditionally emphasizes professional and ethical standards as fundamental to journalism.

In your view, in the current environment, where the public often expects journalists to take a clearer position on the major issues, are those traditional standards changing?

[Éric-Pierre Champagne]

I know that raises a lot of questions. Perhaps I am showing my age. I am 59. I am a journalist and a reporter. I have never been a columnist in my life and I do not give my opinion in my pieces. I report the facts and try to achieve a balance.

So I do not believe that the standard should change. I feel that it is important for journalists not to be activists. I feel that they should provide balanced views and be rigorous in their work. That's the way it should stay, in my opinion, even in a changing world. I actually feel that it's what people want and what people expect from journalists. They expect that essential rigour in journalistic work. However, as I told you, I am not including commentators.

Despite the changes we have gone through, I feel that our standards must not be weakened. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Champagne.

Mr. Menzies, you formerly argued that the challenges facing journalism are often misdiagnosed, that the issue is not simply revenue loss but changing audience behaviour and relevance. You've also argued that the media may overestimate the degree to which the public is engaged with its internal challenges, and you have been consistently skeptical of government intervention as a solution to the sector's challenges. What, in your view, if any, is the appropriate role of the government in ensuring the survival of local and public interest journalism?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Menzies, did you hear the question? It was directed towards you.

[Peter Menzies]

I'm sorry, but I did not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I'll give you another minute, Mr. Al Soud. Do you want to repeat your question?

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I'm happy to. You formerly argued that the challenges facing journalism are often misdiagnosed, that the issue is not simply revenue loss but changing audience behaviour and relevance. You've also argued that the media may overestimate the degree to which the public is engaged with its internal challenges, and you have been consistently skeptical of government intervention as a solution to the sector's challenges. What, in your view, if any, is the appropriate role for the government in ensuring the survival of local and public interest journalism?

[Peter Menzies]

The main role should be to develop a truly national news industry policy. Right now, the problem is that they're kind of hopscotching. There's broadcasting over here, there are independents over here and there are newspapers here. There's really no such thing anymore, in the news industry, as separate areas. Broadcasters produce text news. Newspapers produce video and audio.

Right now, every time the government tries to address one problem, it creates an imbalance elsewhere. If you give the CBC $150 million and it's a commercial competitor, you're actually tilting the playing field against non-CBC competitors. If you throw money at newspapers, you're tilting the field against broadcasters, so you counter that by doing broadcasters. This is a crazy way to do things. If you really want to get a good outcome, you have to understand, and look forward into the century, that this is a single industry—news—and then build public policies to support that.

One of my key recommendations—there are several in the paper—is to go ahead and subsidize the consumer, not the producer. There's no point in subsidizing the production of something that's not being consumed. I think it's the entirely wrong approach. Maybe it was okay on a temporary basis, but on a long-term basis, you really need to sit back, take a look at this and stop shifting from crisis to crisis, trying to solve the problem individually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

You have 10 seconds left.

Mr. Champoux, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Gunn Reid, my first question will be for you.

You describe Rebel News as a rigorous outlet. Do you do rigorous and high-quality journalism?

[Sheila Gunn Reid]

I would say that I am a rigorous journalist. I think that our journalists are committed to following the facts, wherever they lead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

This morning, we had some technical problems here at the committee. Your boss, who is following the meeting in this very room, sent out a tweet saying that we had deliberately suspended the session in order to prevent you from speaking. Do you feel that that is what happened? Do you support the statement that your boss published on X? You saw what happened. Do you agree with that statement?

[Sheila Gunn Reid]

I cannot make any assertions about what caused the technical difficulties, if there were any technical difficulties. Mine was fine.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

So do you feel that it's good journalism to state, without checking the facts, that the Bloc Québécois knowingly asked for the meeting to be suspended because we wanted to prevent you from testifying?

[Sheila Gunn Reid]

I didn't say that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, but Rebel News, through its boss, did say it on X. I am just raising the point. You yourself have spoken about the diversity of voices, the rigours of journalism and so on. So I thought it important to emphasize that what happened this morning was a technical problem. The Bloc Québécois did not try to stop the proceedings. On the contrary, we tried to fix a problem so that everyone could provide their comments correctly in both official languages. The result is that those who take an interest in the topic can follow our debates and hear what each of you has to say, as the frequently disparate voices that represent journalism today. I just wanted to make that point.

I would also like to welcome all the witnesses and to thank them for being here. We on this committee find the study to be very important.

My first question goes to my friends the independent journalists.

Ms. Villalba, Mr. Lamoureux, in today's journalistic landscape, is it difficult to be viewed as a credible journalist when you are an independent one? Given the large and growing numbers—I say that with no negative sense at all—of new, independent journalists using new platforms for their journalism, is it difficult to be viewed as credible?

[Samuel Lamoureux, Professor, Communication, Université TÉLUQ, Association des journalistes indépendants du Québec]

Good morning, Mr. Champoux.

I am a member of AJIQ's board of directors. I also conduct research into independent journalism. I feel that the issue is not whether it's hard to achieve recognition. The issue is whether it's difficult to see one's work valued in an online environment, in which the information economy is now completely in the hands of online platforms whose business model is based on profit. The economy is no longer based on employment, it's based on profit.

It is easy to produce online. It's very easy to publish content. A number of people are doing that, journalists, influencers and even a blend of the two. It's certainly very easy to publish content online, but it's extremely difficult to have it valued. It's almost impossible, especially in French. Online, if you speak French on YouTube, Meta or TikTok, it's almost impossible. You need private sponsors, but if you have them, you may have an ethical problem.

For me, the issue is not about credibility, but about the value of the work. The work has been devalued because we're now in a profit-driven economy and no longer in an employment-based economy. Of course, I am talking about the digital economy. That is the issue.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Champagne and Ms. Mac Farlane, I am going to ask you a similar question.

Mr. Champagne, this is not your first visit; I know that we have previously discussed the difficulty of maintaining or improving journalistic credibility of those working in traditional journalism. By that I mean media organizations that have been established for a long time. This very changeable universe is a challenge for career journalists, such as you at La Presse or those who work for Le Canada Français like Ms. Mac Farlane.

How can the FPJQ make sure that the values of journalism, the basic fundamentals of the craft, are upheld in a landscape full of commentary, opinion and activism? What means do you have for maintaining the credibility of your federation and your members?

[Éric-Pierre Champagne]

I would say that our first tool is when we hand out press cards to those who apply to become members of the FPJQ. As I explained earlier, we have criteria, specifically to abide by our code of ethics.

Of course, people also have to work as recognized journalists. We check that. It takes a little less time to check someone like me, because I have been there for a very long time. But for new applicants, we will check the type of work they do. Do they work as journalists? Is that their principal occupation? I understand the reality of freelancers, of course, but if a freelancer also works in, say, a marketing firm, that might become a problem.

We have criteria like that. We issue, or do not issue, press cards, which are, in a way, a seal of credibility. That's more or less how we control things.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

One sometimes hears voices suggesting—perhaps a little more loudly these days—the need for a professional body of journalists. Some voices are for, some are against, likely all with valid arguments.

Do you have an opinion on that? Do you think it would be a tool that would help to distinguish commentary or opinion-based journalism from independent and factual journalism? What do you think of the idea?

[Éric-Pierre Champagne]

We feel that it is not a good idea.

You are right that we hear a lot about a professional body, but we do not hear about the problems that there would be to establish it.

First, a professional body becomes a media licence. From the outset, that creates a problem vis-à-vis charters of rights and freedoms, because it establishes who has permission to function in the media.

A professional body also formalizes relationships between professionals and clients or patients. That's not what journalists do. There is no individual relationship with the public; the relationship is collective. That's a difficulty too.

We feel that another difficulty is deciding who gets a card, who can become a member. In this new generation, a lot of journalists have studied journalism. But there are also a lot, like myself and my colleagues, who have studied physics, chemistry, history. Including it all can become very difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

I am sorry, but we have run out of time for that question. Perhaps we'll be able to come back to it later.

I'm going to give Mrs. Thomas the floor for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

My question is for Mr. Menzies.

One of the things you said in an interview with The Hub was, “The era of a free, independent, trusted media in Canada is finished.” That's quite a bold statement, so I would like to ask you to explain why you draw this conclusion and what the implications are.