Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 26th, 2019

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

Yes, very briefly, I'd like to mention that both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the special rapporteur have been reporting on this situation from around 2002-03 to the present date. Some cases are emblematic. Perhaps early in the regime, around 15 years ago, the mechanisms were more sophisticated and they had a guise of due process.

For example, the removal of permits for television chains such as RCTV was done through allegations by the president that it had participated in an attempted coup in 2002. No evidence was furnished; however, there was a judicial process and its licence to broadcast was removed. This was done with radio stations as well and through the crimes of perjury and defamation.

[The Chair]

Okay, thank you.

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

However, the situation now has become de facto, without any type of official—

[The Chair]

Unfortunately, that is the time for that question, but perhaps you can revisit that in a future question.

We will go to Ms. Hardcastle for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want you to elaborate on what we've been already discussing and ask you to think about how we can contribute to this discussion here with our understanding of media ownership and how media ownership has evolved. We were hearing from Mr. Robatto about some of the legislative changes that were made in the last 15 years with regard to permits and broadcasting.

I'm going to give you my question and you can use up all of my time.

Can you share with us a bit of information, maybe over the last 15 years, on the media ownership landscape, media ownership being the traditional forms of media, state-sponsored and independent? The other thing to think about is, as people have left the country, how have neighbouring countries contributed to media presence and media ownership?

Let's start with Mr. Robatto, and then we can move on.

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

Yes, gladly.

The situation of media ownership that we have documented is related to two phenomena. On the one hand, there is the expansion of state-owned media managed directly by the government. Carlos may help me out here, but there are around 10 different television stations that are directly controlled by the state and that broadcast only the official discourse, so to speak. On the other hand, licences have been removed from some of the most important broadcasters in Venezuela, such as RCTV, which was doubtlessly the number one private TV channel. It was handed over to a state media outlet.

There is also a procurement and acquisition mechanism of private media outlets by front companies or entrepreneurs that are close to the government for amounts that are very high. For instance, there is a case now of Globovision, which is under investigation by the United States government, where the editorial line shifted after the outlet was purchased by an entrepreneur who was close to the government. These are some examples.

In recent years, there have been pressures, for instance, for media outlets to fire journalists who are critical or independent. Also, radio and television programs that are not to the government's liking have been closed. This has also asphyxiated freedom of expression in traditional media outlets.

Moreover, the newspaper industry, print newspapers, which remained as the most independent portion of the press, have now been forced to shut down due to the economic difficulties caused by the removal of official publicity and the lack of paper to print on.

[Dr. Carlos Correa]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

This state policy—the policy that has been promoted by the state—has led to a higher concentration of media ownership, lower pluralism and lower diversity. For example, the exit of RCTV meant that audiences had to turn to the two open-broadcast television options. One was a private channel—one of the private channels—and the others were all public channels. The majority of the viewership went to private channels, so people had now fewer options and fewer choices for watching television.

In terms of radio broadcast, Conatel, which is the regulator in charge of regulating telecommunications, also has responsibilities for its content. This means that it's now more difficult for certain topics to be addressed on radio and TV. For example, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela has not been interviewed by any radio broadcaster in Venezuela. No television station or radio station is able to interview this person. The public has not heard his arguments. They haven't been able to compare them with the very abundant official information that, in addition to state media, also uses other platforms.

In addition, in the case of Venezuela, there used to be a number of provisions that regulated the frequency bands that could be held by a private owner. For instance, no individual could own more than 10% of the radio spectrum in AM or FM, or more than 25% of the radio spectrum for regional broadcasters. Now what has happened is that after the closing of so many radio stations, the majority of radio stations, in order to survive, need to establish partnerships with either political powers or private powers that are closely linked to state powers—locally, regionally or nationally.

What we have is lower diversity, lower pluralism. We have gone from a situation where there was more pluralism and diversity to one where there is greater concentration of ownership and also fewer choices for people to be informed and to compare and contrast information they receive.

[The Chair]

We will now move on to Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony.

My first question is a very simple one. Many within the international community are anticipating a leadership transition. It could be bloody or it could be non-violent. We hope it's non-violent, but either way Venezuela looks ripe for change. One certainly hopes it's ripe for change, because I think the Maduro regime has abused its authority and usurped its power, if I can put it that way.

Leaving that aside, what would any such change in Venezuela, from one regime to a new government, mean for journalists, their safety and their ability to carry out their work? In other words, might they get caught up in possible violence if that does take place? As we're seeing with recent reports emerging in the past few days, that outcome is likely, I fear.

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

Carlos?

[Dr. Carlos Correa]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

We.... When I say “we”, I mean our organization, together with similar organizations—our professional associations as journalists, as well as academic institutions that investigate the matter. One of the matters we are studying is, in a transitional process, what agenda we could propose to those responsible for this transition. We are in the process of building that agenda.

Of course there are many risks. The transition process will not change the media ecosystem overnight. For instance, in the case of media under state control, what will be the policy to be implemented there? Will it become universal service? Will they respect pluralism and diversity? Will they aim to serve the entirety of Venezuelan society? Or will they be instrumentalized as they have been by this government?

We need to envision what to do with this enormous government media platform, including the armed forces channel, various channels of various types—some in the local sphere, some national channels, RCTV, which was nationalized—and what will happen with all of these—

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair]

While we work on the technical issues, Mr. Lanza, go ahead.

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

Yes. To add to the response that was under way, I believe that in a transitional scenario, we need to think of a number of strategies.

The first would be to modify the legislation that restricts freedom of expression in Venezuela. We need to repeal this anti-hate law, for instance, which leads to severe penalties for some who may express themselves in ways that are protected by freedom of expression, and also repeal, for instance, the crime of perjury and defamation in such a way that they do not harm journalistic speech.

We would need to repair...those who have lost their licences. We need to return their goods and their licences to them so they can broadcast again. There are decisions, for instance, by the inter-American human rights court in this regard, which order the Venezuelan state to reinstate, for instance, the property of RCTV and to allow them to broadcast again or to undergo due process to obtain a new licence.

We will have to establish mechanisms to protect journalism, which has been under so many attacks and measures, so that public resources are allocated in an equitable fashion vis-à-vis media outlets, for instance, without the abuse in the distribution of official advertising, and, of course, to investigate the more serious violations of freedom of expression that have occurred over the past 15 years and punish those responsible.

In my opinion, these are some initial mechanisms that can help us re-establish freedom of expression in Venezuela.

[The Chair]

It looks like we have Mr. Correa back.

Could you complete your thought in just 30 seconds? Thank you.

[Dr. Carlos Correa]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

As I was saying, I think the agenda should [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Also, a series of recommendations that are part of the Inter-American Commission reports, as well as others that are contained [Technical difficulty—Editor], all of these to once again recover freedom of the press.

[The Chair]

Now we will go to Mr. Sweet for five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Correa and Mr. Vivas, you are what we would call a whistle-blower organization, a watchdog over the present government in Venezuela. Are you putting yourselves at risk by giving us testimony today?

[Dr. Carlos Correa]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

Overall, [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

There's a long delay.

[Dr. Carlos Correa]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

We have been subject to the same risks as any human rights defender, any journalist or any activist in Venezuela, such as ongoing smear campaigns in government platforms. We have been victims of violence against our facilities and, in addition, there is an ongoing prosecution using this anti-hate law or other laws to try to restrict our work. But yes, [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

In the case of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the special rapporteur for freedom of expression, we are part of an international body, which is the Organization of American States, and, as such, we are subject to the protections afforded to international officials.

Both the Inter-American Commission and the rapporteur have requested to visit the country to observe the human rights situation and the freedom of expression situation on site, on the ground, but, regrettably, the Government of Venezuela has not accepted, has not granted us authorization to enter the country.

Therefore, we are working on observing the situation from abroad through reports that we receive from civil society, and the public hearings that we hold every three or four month to receive whistle-blowers and victims. We are also bringing forth specific cases before the inter-American human rights commission and court, so that, in these bodies, we can discuss directly with the Government of Venezuela. However, we have not been allowed to enter the country.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

There's an old technology that used to be used by Radio Free Europe called shortwave radio. It's very hard to block, unlike some of our newer, sophisticated transmission capabilities.

Is there any alternative communication capability being used by those journalists who have left the country, to try to reach their citizens with a more accurate report of what's going on, rather than being blocked out by the Internet, etc.?

[Edison Antonio Lanza Robatto]

Yes. From what we know, a number of journalists who have been deported or expelled from Venezuela have attested and provided testimony of the situation they have suffered, such as arbitrary detentions, the detainment conditions they have been subject to and also the material they were covering at the time in Venezuela.

For instance, today we just saw a video, sent by the journalist Jorge Ramos, related to Venezuelan teenagers who were feeding themselves from a garbage truck in the city of Caracas. Those images did get out, and his testimony got out. His testimony today is that he asked the president about those images and asked him what he thought about those countries that hold that his government is a dictatorship and for that reason he was expelled from the country.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

We will try to get Caracas back on the line with audio, not video, and if so, we'll have a few minutes for them.

Now we'll go to Ms. Hardcastle for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to talk a bit about the role for Canada and for the international community now. We know that Canada hasn't had an ambassador in Venezuela since 2017. We've had previous witnesses who suggested that Canada would have an important role and that embassies, for instance, should reach out and support local journalists.

I'm just wondering if you have any insights into what could be leveraged to improve information exchange, freedom of the press, and, in general, where you think Canada could be doing a better job of supporting Venezuelans.