Public Safety Committee on June 19th, 2017

[Michel Cormier]

If there were questions of national security or a crackdown like the October Crisis, the protection of confidential sources seems like a small element of that. We have the Constitution. We have the Bill of Rights. What supersedes what would be quite an interesting question.

I think for the immediate purposes, it's important to pass this piece of legislation even though it's imperfect and we all have issues with it. I think we have to establish that watermark quickly and then the other issues will still be out there and can be dealt with later.

[Tom Henheffer]

Again, I agree with this. This bill is much 80% a step in the right direction. There's just 20% there of ways that it could be improved, but we should not let that 20% prevent its passage.

In regard to this, a lot of people would argue that ISIS is a crisis that the country is dealing with right now. Some other people may not feel that way, but Ben Makuch was able to get extremely important information about this terrorist group disseminated to Canadians, including the security forces, because he was able to speak to a source who believed that his communications would not be released to the police and would only be sent out to the public according to the terms of what they agreed to. If Ben gives up his notes eventually, then all of a sudden those types of sources will dry up, and Canadians will lose that information. That's just one example of how important it is that we maintain that balance and that respect for the right of journalists to do their jobs.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I just have one final question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Nicholson's time was very underutilized and generous, so you can keep on going, Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I just have one last question, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Take your time.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

The last question is just about a lot of stories that have come out in the media. One that's referenced constantly, especially for those of us from Quebec, is Patrick Lagacé. But this isn't something new, so I want hear folks on how overdue this is, in the same spirit as the question Mr. Nicholson asked.

[Michel Cormier]

I'll take that one. It's not just overdue; it's the fact that the current state now has dried up a lot of journalistic sources. We have lost sources at Enquête, who have disappeared. People will not talk to us because they're afraid of being exposed.

The last thing is that it's the records of five years of our best investigative journalists in our most prominent program that have been surveilled. So you have tens and tens of sources now who live in the fear that they will be exposed, notably in front of the Chamberland commission. They have been fighting to be sure that their names remain secret. This is the actual effect; it's not just a hypothetical effect. There would be real effect now from not passing this legislation. That's the best argument I can make.

[Jennifer McGuire]

I'll put an accent on it outside of Quebec. When we were investigating sexual harassment within the RCMP, we had more than 50 sources within the RCMP tell us that they were more afraid of the internal climate within the organization than the criminal activity they were dealing with outside the organization. The act of convincing a source to talk is an act of trust, and it's an act that's built over time. One source talking and one story can lead to more sources coming forward, which is absolutely what we saw with the upselling by the banks, which I think we had a committee hearing on last week. I think it's really important to understand that the chill affects the ecosystem overall, not just what was happening in Quebec.

[Tom Henheffer]

To bring in the international perspective on this, for decades there have been these protections in almost every other Western democracy in the world. Germany, the U.K., Australia, Holland, and 37 states in the United States all had these protections. Basically almost every country in the European Union has these protections. It is a dark spot on Canada's part that we do not have a press shield law in this country, so this will absolutely bring us in line with international norms.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I asked this question earlier of colleagues who were in front of the committee. I'm wondering if you could describe for the committee and Canadians how you see the state of journalism today in 2017. We talked a little bit about the pressures and the financial or structural changes in terms of employment contracts. Some members had conversations with stakeholders like Unifor, who are quite concerned on the financial side about the sustainability of the profession as an independent pillar of our democracy as it is currently structured. Where do you see that going in the next half decade or so? What's the current trend? I see this bill as an element of protecting the profession, but there are other components that the committee should be mindful of as we deliberate on what we should do with this particular instrument.

[Jennifer McGuire]

We are seeing clear fragmentation in the environment around journalism. We have multiple sources of information and people choosing to go only to certain sources that sometimes just reaffirm their own point of view. With the rise of digital and social channels, you have incredible reach. The ability of a story to have impact and reach more people is profound. It's like it never has been before. Is it complicated in terms of the business model? Absolutely. We are seeing that in the private sector, particularly with newspapers. In the public sector, we've had our own issues with shrinking budgets and trying to do more, because we are feeding more digital platforms all the time.

All the research I've seen.... The RTDNA just did a study that shows that trust in legacy media is actually growing slightly in this environment, which is cluttered with all kinds of disinformation as much as journalism.

I think the promise behind the brand in journalism becomes more important, but the business case is not solved. There is no solution on the horizon that we can see.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Could you elaborate briefly on that study you referred to? Is it based on survey data that basically reflects the opinion of Canadians?

[Jennifer McGuire]

The RTDNA, which is one of the journalism organizations in Canada, recently did a survey about trust in media. One of the findings is that trust in mainstream sources of media has increased in this age of fake news.

I would be happy to get it if it's of interest.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Can you comment on the state of the profession in terms of people enrolling in journalism programs and what incentives this bill might provide to support Canadians in their decision to seek a career in journalism?

[Jennifer McGuire]

I think it's probably unrelated, but we have an obligation as journalistic organizations not only to connect with schools to encourage people to consider journalism as a profession, but also to invest in critical thinking and journalism education in terms of how to consume media. We do that, and we are doing more of it moving forward.

[Michel Cormier]

In this environment of fake news, the only thing we have is our credibility. That is the most precious thing we have—and the most fragile. If we make a mistake, it has even more impact today than it had before. You can be assured and confident that we are careful when we publish information taken from confidential sources, and that it has been checked two or three times to make sure that it is in the public interest and is accurate. If not, it's a huge setback for us.

That's the commitment we have, and I think it's even more important for us now in this new environment, where so many people do whatever they want or produce fake news.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

On the subject of fake news, which I think is in the forefront of the minds of many Canadians, how are journalists protected against sources that are deliberately created to spread fake news?

[Michel Cormier]

We never rely on one source. The first rule is for a minimum of two sources, and more if it's even more sensitive. A source is not just somebody who shows up one day, and then you publish the stuff. We usually cultivate the confidential sources we use for weeks and months, sometimes years. We get to know these people, to make sure that they are trustworthy and that what they actually tell us is true and believable. We have all kinds of safeguards to make sure that we don't fall into that kind of trap.

[Jennifer McGuire]

I'll just add to that. Any piece of investigative journalism is built on a mountain of information, which includes documents and other kinds of source material in addition to people. With a touchy investigation, we do more than double-source. We have multiple people around anything that is at that level. I mentioned the RCMP investigation that we did. We had multiple sources, and we tested their credibility.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

In your view, then, coordinated disinformation campaigns placed against a Canadian journalist who is trained, not to a regulatory standard, but to the Canadian standards of what we know to be an independent, free press, would not be successful.

[Jennifer McGuire]

I can speak only for the CBC. We have a series of checks and balances, both in terms of our journalistic practices and our values around these things. There are checks and balances all the way through.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's very helpful.

What can you tell the committee about generation divides in terms of how people get their news, what their preferences are, and what their appetite is for investigative journalism?