Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 5th, 2019

[The Chair]

Thank you.

That's the seven minutes.

For the next round, because we're lacking time, we'll just go to three questions—one each—of three minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

When the Internet first developed everybody had such high hopes for it for a number of reasons. There were advocates of democracy in this country and around the world who thought that it would make the world more democratic. The jury is still very much out on that. I wonder if you could speak with special reference to social media and how it's been used by journalists, by advocates for democracy as well. Is it helping or hindering democracy in those two contexts?

This is to both of you, for a Myanmar perspective, and then a Venezuelan perspective.

[Linda Lakhdhir]

Social media has had a very complicated role in Myanmar, where basically, the Internet is Facebook. That is pretty much the only Internet that most people know and use, and it has played a very complicated role. It is actively used by activists on the ground to promote democracy, to talk about protests, to raise awareness, to counter hate speech. It has played in many ways a very positive role, but it has also played a very negative one. There has been a huge amount of abusive speech on Facebook in Myanmar. It arguably helped fuel the ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity that took place in Rakhine state.

As you say, the jury is very much out on the role that Facebook and social media play and whether it's positive or negative in Myanmar overall.

[Emmanuel Colombié]

In the case of Venezuela, I would say that the result is fairly positive. We don't have time to discuss the broader issue of the Internet's role in press freedom. However, Twitter is playing a fundamental role in the current crisis in Venezuela. Twitter is one of the few tools where people can find information provided by opposition and independent media, which aren't aligned with President Maduro. Since this media can't use the regular channels, which are systematically censored by the Maduro regime, they use Twitter—more than Facebook. To find information about Venezuela quickly, I use Twitter a great deal. It's one of the few sources of information available and it therefore plays a key role.

However, we've noticed that the government is beginning to see Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and social networks in general as a threat. Last week, Internet access was strangely cut off in several parts of Venezuela, and access to platforms such as Twitter and Instagram was restricted. The government has a monopoly or at least control over the infrastructure that provides access to high-speed Internet in the country, and it sees the social networks as a threat. When too much dangerous information or [Technical difficulty—Editor] is posted on these networks, the government will censor the networks directly by cutting off access to the Internet or the platforms.

In general—

[The Chair]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it has already been more than three minutes. Thank you.

We'll move on to the next question.

Welcome to the committee today, Mr. Sorenson. You have three minutes.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

It is a real pleasure to be here. I thank both our guests for their testimony today. I know it will help our committee members as they write a report and as they look at this subject.

A number of people have asked what Canada can do. Thank you for your answers. It has caused us to think a bit more about that.

I can tell you that over the last number of decades, certain things have been added. Even when we negotiate a free trade agreement, all governments seriously have to ask: what are the human rights levels in those countries that we're trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with? What is the freedom of religion? What is the freedom of speech or freedom of association? These are things we've added into the equation as we've tried to come up with free trade agreements or any type of negotiation with other countries.

Mr. Emmanuel Colombié, you talked about the responsibility of journalists. You said there are certain things—we have to check our facts, and we have a code of conduct or a code of ethics that we try to live by. I wonder maybe if you would comment on this.

One of you mentioned satire. In the last five years, with the predominance of the Internet and social media now, there is so much satire. In the constituency I represent, I have had calls—I'm not going to say hundreds of calls, but when there is some satire, people sometimes absolutely believe it and get worked up over it. When you get worked up over it, typically a lot of governments will tend to push back on that type of thing.

I guess my question is a little more on the journalists' code of conduct. There are certain things that both sides obviously have to do, but should there be certain things that we, as a country, say to our journalists? Should we at least warn them of what they might be facing in a conflict area? Maybe you would like to comment on that.

[The Chair]

Just as a reminder, we only have 30 seconds for the response, so please be very brief.

[Emmanuel Colombié]

In short, a government isn't responsible for telling journalists what to do. It's instead responsible for educating the younger generations about what constitutes a satirical newspaper, a news agency or a right-wing or left-wing newspaper. Once the audiences and readers have all the information available to them, they can keep things in perspective and they won't attack a newspaper simply because it has published a satirical review of a given situation. I think that we must start with education to prevent readers from taking information at face value and to ensure that they understand that the press involves not only information, but also satire, political analysis and criticism. I think that the government's education role is fundamental.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much for being brief.

We will now turn to Ms. Hardcastle for the final three minutes.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

We know that there are different laws in different countries about free press. In terms of talking about and denouncing the oppression of a free press in other countries, do you think that part of what we should be doing has an international role, a United Nations role? It could be about advancing freedom of the press and educating much in the way that Emmanuel was describing, which is that journalism is a profession, not just a tool for propaganda. It is supposed to be independent.

I'm not sure where we can go with it, but I know that even in Myanmar they have a telecommunications law that anyone can use. In Venezuela, they can “netblock” opposition, and it's well within their law and constitution.

Can you talk about how we might advance that as an international community, perhaps, within the UN?

I'm sure I have limited time, and Emmanuel, I know your wheels are turning.

[Emmanuel Colombié]

This issue is too broad to be addressed in a few seconds. The more the United Nations exerts pressure—and Canada's voice is very important—the more the cause can make progress. For a number of years, we've been asking the United Nations to create the position of special adviser on the protection of journalists. The adviser would report to the secretary-general of the organization and could speak regularly about issues concerning press freedom. If Canada were prepared to support this request, we would be very grateful.

[The Chair]

Thanks to both of you for your very informative testimony, and thank you to the committee members for helping us to keep to the time even though we lost a few minutes.

With that, we will adjourn our meeting. Thank you.