Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 12th, 2026

[Philippe Marcoux, Information and Training Director, Quebec Press Council]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to say a few words before you today.

My name is Philippe Marcoux. I am the information and training director at the Quebec Press Council. The Press Council is the mechanism for self-regulation of news media in Quebec, which works to protect freedom of the press and to defend the public's right to high-quality information.

In fact, it's the public's right to high-quality information that I want to talk to you about today. More specifically, I would like to say a few words about the dangers of disinformation, which, as you know, has become one of the main threats to the quality of the information provided to the public.

It's important to set out a few definitions here. By “disinformation”, I mean the publication or distribution of information that is false, with the aim of manipulating, misleading or causing harm. I also include what some have referred to as “malinformation”, which involves the dissemination of information that may be true in a strict sense, but that has been altered or exaggerated, again with the aim of manipulating, misleading or causing harm.

This false information is flooding the Internet, particularly on social media, and it has an extremely negative impact on the public. People are first misinformed and then go on to make decisions based on that false information. Ultimately, the public ends up trusting no one. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that disinformation is a threat to our democratic system and democratic institutions. It goes that far. In 2025, the World Economic Forum identified disinformation as the greatest short-term threat to the world. That's what it's come to.

How do we combat this disinformation? As you may imagine, I didn't come here to propose an absolute solution or an easy answer to this problem, but there are some avenues to explore. First and foremost, it's clear that countering disinformation requires trustworthy information. We fight falsehood with facts. It may seem obvious, but I'm probably not telling you anything new when I say that quality journalism has been going through a particularly difficult period for a number of years now. In fact, that's what Michel Cormier, who appeared before you shortly before me, told you. The first front in the war on disinformation, therefore, is to encourage, promote and value, in every possible way, those who produce and defend high-quality information.

There is also another front that must be addressed in this war against disinformation, and that's public awareness. Again, it may seem obvious to say that the public needs to be aware of the dangers of disinformation. However, it's more complex and, above all, more concrete than that.

According to some studies, relatively few people are actively producing disinformation. The Media Ecosystem Observatory recently reported that just 100 online users were responsible for 68% of conspiratorial posts, generating 90% of the views and 86% of the “likes”. In other words, 100 people are producing most of the disinformation. That's quite remarkable. They do produce a great deal of it, that's true, but this malicious false information wouldn't have such an impact on our society if it didn't spread like wildfire because of algorithms and, above all, because of the many shares on social media.

It's the viral nature of this disinformation, which, incidentally, is designed to grab our attention and encourage us to share it, that is its greatest strength. Yes, that means that all of us, as social media users, are part of the problem, because we share information we read in our newsfeeds without checking its accuracy or, at the very least, its source, and without giving any thought to whether it's true.

In a world where we have all become, to some extent, purveyors of information, it is essential to find a way to raise public awareness of the role we all play in spreading information and, as a result, disinformation.

Our young people, in particular, have a very important role to play. In 2025, according to the Reuters Institute, nearly half of them, or 44% of users aged 18 to 24 around the world, identified social media as their main source of news.

The Quebec Press Council made an effort to raise awareness among young adults last week by launching a video game against disinformation called Colonie 404. We created it with financial support from the Government of Quebec through the Program for a Well-Informed Youth, which aims to develop young people’s critical thinking about the news content presented to them.

You can take a look at Colonie 404 on colonie404.com. However, the idea is simply to make players understand that they are responsible for what they share on social media, that sharing even on a small scale can have serious consequences and that there are tools to ensure that the information they share is trustworthy. They include verifying sources, analyzing the terms used and cross-checking media. To be clear, I did not come here to tell you that Colonie 404 is a panacea or that it will solve the entire problem.

I will conclude with that. This is an initiative that I obviously find worthwhile, but we're going to need a thousand other initiatives of this kind to ensure that we all work together to address a very serious societal problem. You can count on the Press Council to ensure the quality of journalism in Quebec. However, the huge challenge of combatting disinformation is a job for all of us.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We will now go to Mr. Calkins from the Conservatives for six minutes, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Geist, you've been very outspoken in the last decade or so about a lot of things dealing with the Internet, censorship and what's perceived as censorship. You've also been very vocal about the Online Streaming Act. You haven't really mentioned it a whole lot right now. Do you have any concerns about where that's at right now?

[Michael Geist]

It seems to me that much of the criticism of those two digital bills, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, was borne out. I know a couple of members who are here were on the heritage committee at the time.

The concern associated with Bill C-18 was that it would very likely lead to the blocking of news links. That would be a cost of the legislation. Much of that concern was dismissed, and ultimately, of course, we have now had two and a half years of blocked news links on Meta platforms. I don't think it helps the misinformation- or disinformation-related concerns. I think there's been a real cost beyond the cost to media entities. There's also been a significant cost in terms of access to reliable information, since some of that continues to be blocked. I think it's worth asking whether it was a price worth paying.

With respect to Bill C-11, it has also played out much as we thought. Virtually no money has been provided. The legislation is before the courts. The CRTC is taking a very long time to deal with those issues. There is also the prospect of pressure from the United States to do away with that legislation altogether. In fact, just last week, the U.S. Trade Representative identified it as one of two issues that are sources of concern as part of the CUSMA negotiations. It seems to me that it has played out much as many of the critics anticipated.

In some ways, it's a good illustration of why good-faith criticism of the legislation ought to be viewed in a constructive format as opposed to wholly dismissed, as I felt was often the case with those two bills.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

I don't think you're going to get any disagreement from this side of the table on that particular issue.

You said that because of Bill C-18, many platforms are no longer participating in the sharing of what Mr. Marcoux would argue would be actual bona fide journalistic information and mainstream media information.

I'm just curious. Mr. Geist, do you think this has had an effect on civic resilience?

Mr. Marcoux, do you think this kind of legislation has had an effect on civic resilience?

I'll ask the same question of you, Ms. Reusch.

If we can't share what we consider to be bona fide information from legitimate journalistic sources, then we're going to create a vacuum. That vacuum has been filled by online information. Every one of you has basically said that this is a problem. What you're telling me, then, is that Bill C-18 is a problem. Can you elaborate? Do you agree with these sentiments?

[Michael Geist]

I do, on two levels. I'll make sure that there's time for my fellow panellists.

I'd say first it is a problem for the very reasons you just articulated. It means that the void gets filled. It isn't that people don't share information about current events and activities. It may well be that it's more opinionated and it may be less fact-based, or at least it comes out of fewer organizations that many would view as more reliable simply because they're not on those platforms. Let's face it. Those platforms, Instagram and Facebook, remain popular for many people.

I think it has also harmed many of the media outlets, at the end of the day. They were able to get some money from Google as part of the deal that was struck with Google, but in the grand scheme of things, they lost licensing agreements they had with Google in return for that money, as well as licensing agreements many had with the Meta properties, and they lost the ability to disseminate their works.

We see this ongoing value. I was struck—fairly recently, actually—that there was some promotion from CTV that said you can now customize your Google News feed to choose the sources you get, including CTV. This is the very platform of which, throughout Bill C-18, we were being told, “It's a problem, because it's not paying us.” At the same time, we have those media outlets still today looking to those platforms as a source of dissemination.

I thought it was wrong-headed legislation and there ought to have been better ways to deal with it. We continue to pay the price.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Monsieur Marcoux.

[Philippe Marcoux]

I don't want to comment on the value of that legislation or the problems associated with it, except that it's impossible to conclude that not being able to see their products on the social media in question has been a good thing for quality news media. Of course it hurt them. They needed that visibility. At the same time, the amounts paid by Google help a lot of media outlets. There have been some positive aspects to the legislation. It wasn't just to prevent the flow of information.

That said, as Mr. Geist mentioned, was it worth it? I'm not in a position to answer that. However, part of the work to combat disinformation will be to put some controls on the web giants. We can't just leave the door wide open for these private companies to become the only sources of news while not providing resources to the media that produce quality information.

Was that legislation the solution? I don't know. I can't answer that. However, we also can't ignore the important role of the web giants in distributing this quality information.

[Samantha Reusch]

I'll add that I'm also—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'm sorry. As the keeper of the time, we are well over six minutes, so I have to apologize. There will be plenty of opportunities to add your answer.

We'll turn to Mr. Al Soud for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, all, for having me. I am not a usual member of this committee, but I'm here so often I'd like to think it's honorary at this point.

To our witnesses, thank you for being with us today.

Ms. Reusch, it's a pleasure to see you again. Of course, we panelled together not long ago on a topic that I find feeds perfectly into what we're discussing today.

I am one of the younger ones in the House. I know the chair is giving me the side-eye as I say it. This means that I approach many of these conversations with a slightly different lens and a different perspective.

One of the things I hear recurrently is this idea that young people aren't interested in the world of politics, and that is unequivocally untrue. I find, as you said in your opening remarks, that young people are some of the most politically interested people. They have some of the strongest opinions that one could ever find, yet there are still challenges in terms of their engagement, and you highlighted those. I'm wondering what you find are the primary barriers to their engagement.

[Samantha Reusch]

I agree with everything you've shared. I often say I've never met a young person—I've been doing this for 10 years—who doesn't care about something. I think the idea that young people are disinterested in the issues is false. I think the gap that exists between the things they care about and the way the government discusses...the processes or their sense of their access to those processes to create change within institutions is where the gap tends to lie.

Our canvassers were going out to canvass to try to design interventions to address the barriers their peers were feeling in their community. It was a really interesting introduction to the type of work we do for them. These are the types of things they were hearing: “I care about this thing, but I don't really know how to change it.”

You end up in a place with analysis paralysis, or completely disengaging. The tenor and tone of politics are something a lot of young people don't find very appealing.

I liken it to being a sports fan. If you're really into the Habs versus the Bruins, you can get really into that rivalry and the dynamic between the two, but if you're a casual watcher, sometimes you don't really know what's going on. You don't know why there's the back-and-forth, and it's easier to just sit back.

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

That's fantastic. Thank you.

I'm quite keen on something you said in your opening remarks about this idea of meeting Canadians where they are. I constantly say this, and I know that many in the House do: It's finding people where they are. That is the priority. It's a two-way street. We engage with them, and they engage back, and that is how it's supposed to be, but if we're not finding them in the places they navigate, then we're not going to have those conversations.

I suppose my question here is, where do you find young people are least engaged currently? How do we meaningfully engage them so that they don't feel like, well, the world of politics or the world of government is just not for them and there's no way they can influence change?

[Samantha Reusch]

The tricky thing, given the room I'm sitting in right now, is to say that I actually don't think politicians are the best people to be bringing young people into politics. I say that with a tremendous amount of respect.

For a lot of young people, I think we've seen this sort of decline. The level of trust young people have in elected officials has declined. Very few are members of political parties, though I think political parties have a role to play in engaging potential supporters and that kind of thing.

Often, though, the people whom young people trust the most are their friends and family. We often see that young people who are really engaged, like you, have come from families that instill this in them young. Not everyone has that, and we believe that shouldn't be a barrier. Our education system doesn't do a great job of onboarding people into our democracy. It often focuses on really technical elements, as opposed to the softer ones. A lot of young people don't know that you can come to testify in front of a committee and share your point of view on things or send a letter and someone has to read it.

Once they do these things, they realize that it's super easy, and they get a bit of a buzz from the fact that they get that response, but often, it's getting them to take that first step or making them aware of the ways in which they can get involved that is one of the biggest hurdles.

The most obvious place for people to engage, I think, the most in your face, is obviously during an election, but a lot of young people, for lots of different reasons, don't feel that their vote will translate into meaningful change.

That's a lot of the work we do during elections. I hope that answers your question.

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

Absolutely, and I also want to latch on to something you said there. We had a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old testify in one of my sessions at the heritage committee. I can honestly say—and I think there was consensus among us as members—that it was some of the most moving testimony we'd heard on the topic at hand.

I wholeheartedly agree. If young people knew that those spaces existed, that they could be involved in those kinds of environments, I think it would be one way of bringing them in.

I also hear you on the idea that politicians perhaps are not best suited to bringing them into these spaces, and I imagine that media literacy plays into that aspect. What kinds of media literacy do you find would most effectively draw them in? You highlighted shortcomings, perhaps, in terms of the education being a little too material-focused, rather than what it ultimately could mean for them. How do we effectively convey that there's potential in the world of government?

[Samantha Reusch]

If I may, this speaks to the question from the other member as well. I was going to share that there's information going around currently that young people spend an average of five hours a day on social media. Despite that, I actually don't think that social media is a great...we do it, everyone does it and you have to do it, but it's a really challenging environment to break through in. There's a lot of noise. We've met young people in organizations that do work similar to ours during elections who don't even know an election is happening, because their algorithm is very specifically giving them a different type of content.

Our information ecosystem is so fractured that one of the things I think we have to do is acknowledge that we're operating in an environment where everyone is experiencing the world a bit differently. What might work for one person.... You might be able to reach someone online because their algorithm will share it with them, but then others will never see that outreach. I think there has to be a varied strategy.

Social media can be one way, but at the end of the day, the platforms are designed to be addictive. One of the biggest difficulties we face is that there's an opportunity cost to the amount of time young people spend online, and to get them out in communities door-knocking in your cases, or participating in programs.... Once they're there, we hear so many young people talking about how lonely their peers are and how much they're looking for meaningful connection, but I think that in this new generation, it has become increasingly a challenge even to get them in a physical space and connecting with one another, never mind with politics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much. It was, though, I have to say, a bit hurtful, even though I know we're not cool—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

To hear it in testimony is a little too hurtful, but I do respect the analysis.

I will turn to Madame Normandin.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Marcoux. I imagine that Colonie 404 was created based on findings that were made or that it was designed to meet particular needs.

Basically, would you say that your first finding about disinformation is that people aren't even aware that they are potential vectors of disinformation?

If not, would you say instead that they are aware of it, but that they don't necessarily have the tools required to distinguish between good and bad information?

[Philippe Marcoux]

You've hit the nail on the head. Of course, I wouldn't say that people are not at all aware, but I think they're clearly not aware enough of the role they play in spreading disinformation.

I'm not here to blame the public for not doing their job. It's all moving very quickly and we don't think it matters much. You read a news story, you find it funny or interesting, it confirms something you think and you share it with your friends. Things are moving very quickly. However, we're going to have to be aware of the fact that, if we don't do the necessary checks, we're part of the problem.

Second, when it comes to tools, this is true for the majority of people. In my world, obviously, we are awash in information and we know all these ideas, but there are ways to verify information. That's the story we're trying to tell with Colonie 404. It can be done, and it can be done quickly. Yes, we are trying to give them tools that they will always have.

The problem with artificial intelligence, among other things, is that at one point people were told that if they saw a photo showing a character with six fingers, they could conclude that it was disinformation. However, artificial intelligence is constantly improving, and eventually it will be no longer possible to verify it. The tools we are offering with Colonie 404 help people verify information in an ongoing way. We hope that people will learn something from our small effort. However, once again, it's going to take a lot more effort and initiatives for them to understand that they shouldn't be part of the problem.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Speaking of which, I'd like your opinion on a couple of aspects.

You mentioned the fact that a lot of wrong information easily went viral, but that there were relatively few sources of disinformation and actors spreading it.

Without necessarily legislating to abolish these sources, for example, could a first step be naming them and raising red flags?

For example, when content becomes extremely viral on social media, could there be an indication that it is viral content or that it comes from a less than credible source before someone shares it? It wouldn't be a matter of telling them not to share the content, but simply drawing their attention to it.

Would that already be a potential solution?

[Philippe Marcoux]

If it were possible, it might begin to address the problem. I'm not sure. Honestly, I would have liked to have invested the small resources we had for Colonie 404 in the development of a tool like the one you describe. I'm not sure it's technologically possible. We can make an effort and perhaps work on the fringes to name sources, but things are moving so quickly. These people are so well organized that, if you cut off one channel, they'll find another. They will change their name. These people are not necessarily in Canada either. Therefore, what control can be exercised over these channels?

Furthermore, we're getting into grey areas. When there is no doubt that it is a source of disinformation, it's easy, but there are news sources that are not great and others that may be acceptable. How will you find the dividing line in your efforts to block or name them?

Technologically, it's extremely complicated. It's like the race to detect fake news and fact-check. A lie goes around the world twice before the truth has time to put its shoes on. This is a real problem. I would like us to work on it, but I have doubts about the possibility of finding a satisfactory result.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm going to ask you a question along the same lines.

Artificial intelligence is a source of problems, but do you think it will eventually be possible to use it more to neutralize the sources of problems and inform people better? For example, it might be possible to use artificial intelligence to cross-check information.

Should we give people more tools to fight fire with fire?

[Philippe Marcoux]

Yes, that's definitely part of the solution. However, we are in an arms race between the good guys and the bad guys, and they have no principles, unfortunately, so they are moving faster. They will use new technologies to produce their disinformation faster than we can develop tools to identify that disinformation.

However, it's a race we have to engage in, even though, without saying it's a losing battle, we're always going to be a little behind. Yes, we have to use technological tools to fight pretty much the same technological tools.