Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was journalists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
We will now turn to Mr. Van Popta for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses.
Mr. Marcoux, I'll begin with you.
You talked about the need for critical thinking. I would agree with that. I think that should be a mandatory course in high school.
I was in high school many decades ago, unlike Mr. Al Soud. It was very recent for him. This is many decades ago, long before the Internet was a thing.
I had to take a course on critical thinking, because there was misinformation and disinformation way back in those days. We called it bias. Our teacher taught us how to read something critically and understand the bias and where the writer was coming from. It was taught then. It's a skill I've taken with me my whole life.
It would seem to me that it's very important today, particularly, to teach people how to think and read critically.
There's only so much the government can do. We struggle. On the one hand, we want freedom of expression and freedom of the press. On the other hand, we want to protect people from misinformation. We, as a government, have not found that balance.
It's over to you. What do you think about individuals just taking responsibility for themselves to learn how to think critically?
Information and Training Director, Quebec Press Council
Obviously....
I'm sorry. I was going to answer you in English, but I will continue in French, on principle.
Of course, people have a responsibility, and they must be aware of it. That's what we're doing with our game. It aims to make them aware of the problem. However, you started by talking about education. I know it's not the federal government's responsibility, but education in high schools is important. In fact, I'm going to meet with teachers who teach what we in Quebec call the CCQ, which is Quebec culture and citizenship. They have a responsibility to talk to young people about critical thinking. I'm going to give them my game as a teaching tool.
More than that, we also have a responsibility to raise public awareness. I'll let you determine whether it's your responsibility, as the federal government or another level of government, but we can't simply tell people that they have to be aware of the problem and work on their critical thinking skills. That's a short-sighted approach. We have a societal problem, and we all need to work on it.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Thank you.
I want to talk about bias in the media.
I'm reading from your website. It's an excerpt from the “Quebec Press Council Guide of Journalism Ethics”. Point number 6.2 states, “The news media must under no circumstances let their commercial, political, ideological or other interests take precedence over the legitimate interest of the public in quality information, nor restrict the professional independence of journalists.”
I see you nodding your head in full agreement with that. I agree with that as well.
I read a very recent article in The Canadian Press by Catherine Morrison around former CBC anchor Travis Dhanraj. I don't know if he was fired or if he quit, but anyway, they had a falling out. He said that he was being told what to say or not to say and who to interview or not to interview. He was saying that this went against his professional journalistic ethics.
I wonder if you have a comment on that, not necessarily on this case in particular but the importance of the media being professional and bias-free. Everybody has a bias, of course.
Information and Training Director, Quebec Press Council
I'm obviously not going to comment on the specific case of my former colleague at the CBC. I spent 28 years at Radio-Canada, but I don't know this person, let alone the details of the case.
What I would like to tell you is that there is an important nuance between disinformation and what you call bias and what I would call the viewpoint of a media outlet. The news media outlets that work for the public good in Canada and Quebec are not the problem. They're not the ones spreading disinformation. You may disagree with some of their articles or columns. You can criticize them. In fact, the organization I represent does exactly that, criticize the media. People send complaints about journalism to our organization. The media is not perfect, but it does not spread misinformation to do harm or sell a particular point of view. That's not what it's doing.
It's important to make that distinction and stop confusing the issue. Saying that the traditional media is the enemy of the people is not attacking one aspect of its work, it's attacking its credibility. Doing so means leaving the door wide open to those who publish nonsense and sidelining credible media. When you don't agree with an article published by a media outlet, it's very dangerous to decide that you should no longer believe anything it says and that it's a spreader of disinformation, when that's not what's happening. This has a significant impact on the public and on the fight against disinformation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I'll have to intervene there. I apologize.
We'll turn to Madame Brière for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the three witnesses for being with us today. Frankly, this is a very interesting conversation.
Ms. Reusch, in your opening remarks, you said that you asked young people what they thought about democracy in Canada and that you understood from their answers that being heard was important to them.
I was told that on Sparks Street, until very recently, there was a speaker's corner where people could stop by and address the crowd. People used to talk to each other and ask questions. It was an actual public debate.
I don't think that's what the young people were referring to in terms of what kind of system would speak to them.
However, what do you think the government can do to help organizations like yours promote civic participation and get young people engaged?
Executive Director, Apathy is Boring
Thank you for the question. I will answer in English.
I love that idea of having people out on the street talking to one another. I think that when you give people the resources and the space to do innovative things, they'll often come up with things that feel local and relevant and that speak to the people who live in the space where they are.
Part of my recommendation today around increasing funding for this type of work is purely from some napkin math. I estimate that right now, those of us who work in this sort of non-partisan civil-society democracy space are probably a total of 20 million per year in terms of our general market share, if you will. Therefore, I think that increasing funding is paramount.
Going around and reaching individuals is resource-intensive. Again, there aren't really any shortcuts to this work. We need to be on the ground in spaces, and that doesn't mean we need to have the resources to reach every Canadian individually. However, one of the things we've seen over the last 20 years through our work is that activating young people in local communities who can go and do that work is paramount. The more young people you're able to engage and bring on board as local democracy advocates, let's say, and the more people you involve in that conversation, the more that culture will grow.
I will also say that these things sound sort of quaint. In terms of canvassing, I think all of you are familiar with door-knocking and the impacts of that. I think it can sound sort of fluffy, in a way, or maybe you could.... I don't know.
I know that this government is investing heavily in our security and our defence, and there's a lot of money going into protecting our institutions. I think this is actually a critical gap. I think the extent to which the public understands the gravity of the situation we're in here in Canada is far removed from what the government understands. That comes in terms of protecting our elections and our institutions, but it's also the attitudes Canadians have towards those institutions and our shared sovereignty. I think these things can sound really simple, but they're really profound and meaningful. The more we're able to do them, the more we'll be able to collectively defend our democracy.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you.
Earlier, you also talked about a recommendation you made regarding a Canadian democracy fund. Could you tell us a bit more about that recommendation?
For example, who would manage the fund, and what kind of organizations could it help?
Executive Director, Apathy is Boring
Absolutely. As I mentioned before, the funding is very limited at the moment for this type of work, and that's both on the government side and on the philanthropic side. There have been funds in the past, led or invested in by the federal government, like the Equality Fund, which distributed the funds in an arm's-length capacity. The goal isn't to create a government-led strategy towards revitalizing civic space and engaging the public in democracy. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, so I think the more arm's-length it is from government, the more credible it will be with the public.
I think some model that distributes the fund to a third party to grant out is paramount, and I think that the organizations and the recipients of those funds should be civil society organizations—non-academic and really focused on engaging the public. It's not that research is not important, but we do fund a lot of research. I think this is quite specific in the objectives it should have and that the work is very importantly non-partisan.
As I mentioned before, I think political parties have a role to play. However, in this case—as I delicately or maybe indelicately mentioned before—a lot of Canadians don't necessarily trust the agendas or the approach of partisan actors. Therefore, having trusted intermediaries to help bridge that divide, I think, is really critical. Those things can importantly address things like misinformation and disinformation and the skills people need in order to engage in that critical thinking that we were discussing before. I also think it can foster innovation in democratic participation and do a lot of other things.
I think my time is up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
Because I've inadvertently—well, it's my usual practice—given Mr. Van Popta and Madame Brière extra time, you have three and a half minutes, Madame Normandin.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marcoux, I'd like to talk to you about something that may be less under federal jurisdiction. I would like your general comments about it.
You mentioned that one of the first solutions to counter disinformation or misinformation was having quality news.
Since you have many years of experience in journalism, including 28 years at Radio-Canada, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the change in the public's understanding of journalism over the years and how it came to be. I'm thinking in particular of the grey areas that may exist in some cases, for example between journalists and influencers, which is a relatively new phenomenon. There's also the fact that “journalist” is not a protected term.
In short, I'd like to hear your comments on the environment in which we find ourselves in terms of quality or recognized news, which in itself is a tool to counter disinformation.
Information and Training Director, Quebec Press Council
As you know, that's a very big question that we grapple with every day at the Press Council, for obvious reasons. Our organization does receive complaints about journalism.
We still have to define what journalism is. We have our definition, and the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, or FPJQ, has its own. It makes sense for us not to have the same definition, because we're not addressing the same issue.
To answer your question in a likely unsatisfying way, we are constantly wading through grey areas. That's the case because now there are new information providers, so to speak, that don't fit the so-called original definition of journalism.
Naturally, back when journalists could only work at a newspaper, on the radio or on television, it was easier. We knew who these people were. Now, there are many, many platforms and communication channels that feature journalism. People can do excellent journalism work there, even if they don't work for a radio station, a television station or a newspaper. Therefore, it becomes very difficult, especially for the public, to sort things out. We have our definitions, our criteria and all that, but the general public has trouble determining which sources are credible.
I would like to say that if someone, at the outset, commits to following basic ethical principles at the very least, we know that that person is acting in good faith and working for the public interest. These principles are set out in the Press Council's ethics guide. I think that's the first criterion. If you can tell that someone is not an activist and is working for the public interest, that's a good way to establish that you can trust them.
That said, it is actually a problem. Once again, I would like to have an ultimate solution, such as a quality seal. It is now possible to become an associate member of the Quebec Press Council at very little cost, and then to use our logo, which simply states that you are committed to following the journalistic ethics guide. It's certainly not the ultimate solution, but if you see the logo, at least you know that the information is produced in good faith. There should be more of these initiatives.
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to direct my questions to Professor Geist.
Since October 7, there has been a massive increase in anti-Semitic hate and violence in Canada. Just yesterday, you wrote a column on this topic, entitled “Words Are Not Enough”.
You note:
[Since October 7], Canadian Jewish communities...have faced relentless antisemitic incidents: schools hit with gunfire, synagogues firebombed, community centres and old-age homes vandalized, hospitals protested, summer camps threatened, Jewish students and campus groups vilified, and Jewish-owned businesses boycotted.
You go on to say:
These repeated incidents have become as much a part...of being Jewish in Canada in 2026 as the police presence outside synagogues and the enhanced security for community events. The unmistakable message, echoing that dark era in Europe in the 1930s, is that Jews are not welcome here.
That's a pretty chilling indictment of the climate Canadian Jews face today, is it not?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It is, but I must admit—with enormous regret—that I think it's accurate and reflects how many in the community feel. I was speaking just yesterday with someone who was talking about attending synagogue services wearing a flak jacket. When you take your kids to school, there are multiple security measures that exist. It's akin to going to an embassy or trying to get through an airport, at times. This is Canada in 2026.
Listen, I think these issues stem from a number of factors. My view—and it's expressed in the piece—is that we desperately need leadership to stand up and make clear that this is wrong and won't be tolerated, and that action is going to accompany it. I certainly welcome what we saw yesterday, but it needs to be seen as a start, not as a wholesome solution.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
In another piece that you wrote, right after the Bondi Beach massacre, you stated that “too often leaders avoid references to antisemitism or couch it with an 'all hate matters' message”.
Can you elaborate on why it is so important for leaders to call out anti-Semitism, full stop, without conflating anti-Semitism with other forms of hate, as condemnable as those other forms of hate may be?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
To be clear, of course all hate does matter, but in this instance, when you look at the data, the amount of anti-Semitism and the violence that's accompanied it far outstrips the targeting of any other groups. It is a very small group in Canada.
Too often, we see people who are not willing to call it out or, frankly, are not stepping up at all.
I give enormous respect to the ministers and MPs who appeared yesterday in terms of trying to provide additional funding, but candidly, it's the same faces. It's largely MPs of Jewish background or those who come from constituencies where there is a larger Jewish presence.
This is a Canadian issue. This is an issue where we have a group in Canada that has trouble sending their kids to school or going to their place of worship or to a community centre without all sorts of security. We'll know that we're dealing with this more effectively when the MPs who don't have large Jewish constituencies are standing up and speaking out on these issues, and when it's the various other business leaders, community leaders and religious leaders, who may not for the moment be directly affected by this but should recognize that this affects us all. We really need all the various communities speaking out.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Canadian taxpayers spend $1.4 billion annually to fund the state broadcaster, the CBC. Earlier this year, B'nai Brith released a report in which it did an analysis on CBC coverage. What B'nai Brith found was a vast gap in terms of bias targeted toward Israel. References to things such as Israeli civilians were being virtually airbrushed from CBC's coverage since October 7. The conclusion of the report is that, in fact, CBC has contributed to fuelling anti-Semitic hate in Canada.
Do you share B'nai Brith's conclusion and the concerns it has raised?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think the Jewish community has a lot of concerns with the kind of coverage that's out there, whether it's the CBC or otherwise. I think that the effect is a combination of all sorts of things. It's not just on the leadership side. I think media unquestionably has a difference. It has the lack of accountability. The issues that arise on campus have an impact. We are seeing all of this come together.
What we are also seeing is this escalation of violence, which has risen to the level of literally shooting at synagogues this past weekend. My enormous fear, and what prompted me to write the piece you mentioned, is that it doesn't end there. With Bondi Beach and the murders we saw in the United States in Colorado and Washington, it feels like that is the next step here if we don't step up and say that this simply can't continue in Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
We're well over time.
We'll turn to Mr. Louis for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
I'll start with Ms. Reusch.
You mentioned at the top that youth have strong ideas. They're not apathetic, but they do feel distanced from the system. That's what the study is trying to do. It's to see how we can reach them, and I appreciate all the work you're doing.
You said that people who are more disconnected from civil institutions end up being more vulnerable to being manipulated. I appreciate it when you say they're not disengaged, but that they're looking for an on-ramp. I think that was very telling.
I also appreciate the work you're doing with the longer conversations in the canvassing that you're doing. You referred to them as longer, local and relevant conversations. Do you have success stories about someone who might have been approached and now is doing the work?
Maybe in that vein, can you tell us how you got involved?
Executive Director, Apathy is Boring
That's a good question. I can definitely speak to that.
Our Rise program, which has been part of the Canada Service Corps since 2018, has worked with youth with little to no experience. We've had over 700 youth come through the program.
As I mentioned, when it comes to taking that first step, we've had lots of youth join the program for really interesting reasons. For some, it's because a loved one in their life has said, “You need to make friends,” while others are a bit more engaged and care a lot about policy but don't know how to get things moving on the ground. There are lots of different stories.
One of the big wins in that program and across the work we do is that usually they come back for more. I think once people take that first step, they create a ripple effect. They're willing to go and engage their friends.
We've been running another initiative called Table Topics since about the 2019 election. That focuses on giving people a little bit of money for some food and giving them a bit of training on how to start a conversation with their own friends and their own network so they can sit down together and break the taboo of no politics at the dinner table. We've had thousands of young people host these dinners. The cool thing is that often we get people who come and want to host their own dinner after they've attended one, so I think that's successful.
On an anecdotal and individual level, the stories that I hear of people who go down those pathways from not knowing how to get involved to showing up at a city council meeting and talking about local policy are numerous and diverse. The idea is giving people the confidence, the skills, the knowledge and the tools to take the issues they care about, create their own theory of change, and move forward and feel like they're having an impact.
The work can be quite specific, and there's no silver bullet, but once you get people started, they'll go from there on their own.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Fantastic. I can certainly sense the passion that you have.
Given this opportunity to appear before us, what is your direct message to someone who might see this appearance and be on the fence about considering getting involved and engaging? What would your message be?
Executive Director, Apathy is Boring
The world has changed a lot since I started doing this work. I think we all bear some personal responsibility, as was discussed before, to participate and uphold our democratic institutions. I don't think they're a given, and I don't think we should take them for granted.
More and more, I'm seeing people want to show up and have conversations with people who might see things differently from how they do. I think young people especially are more aware that the things they're seeing online are not the full picture. I see this interest in reaching out, particularly to people with different perspectives and points of view. I want to encourage that. The more rigid and the more siloed we become, the more difficult it is to bridge across differences.
Often, taking that first step, for the most part, is a positive experience. Even just volunteering can be a great first step.
Getting off-line is the main goal. I mentioned before we do a lot of social media content and we reach out to young people where they are online, but our goal is almost always to get them off-line and doing things together.