Public Safety Committee on June 19th, 2017

[Jennifer McGuire]

I'm going to surprise the committee and tell you that millennials are actually interested in journalism. CBC News reaches 52% of millennials in this country via digital media.

They consume it in a different way. They don't consume it on television or radio, but maybe via podcasting and, certainly, on their smart phones. We see different generations going to different places to consume news. That piece is real, but we see the younger generation still having an appetite for information and news, and that's heartening.

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

Here's my last question, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence.

Is there a gender component in investigative journalism? We can look at specific areas, such as, for example, work in the area of women in the sciences, technology, engineering, and math. If somebody were to write an investigative article on that state of affairs in Canada, are there particular aspects women journalists would face that require greater levels of protection, or would the bill as it's currently framed be satisfactory in terms of the protection of sources from a gender perspective?

[Jennifer McGuire]

As the woman on the panel, I will take that.

We have fantastic female investigative journalists and see no gender imbalance in who does this work, but we were concerned with the framing of this in Quebec, which I referenced in my opening remarks, around Marie-Maude Denis and the implication that a relationship was part of the tools she used in her journalistic trade.

In terms of people practising journalism, we have quite a good gender balance in investigative work.

[Michel Cormier]

I'll just add that they may feel more vulnerable to sexism and to innuendo. At the same time, Marie-Maude Denis and Isabelle Richer, the two women journalists who were caught in this fishing expedition, want very strong protection for every journalist, regardless of sex.

[Tom Henheffer]

If I could, I'll add a little bit of extra context on the state of journalism in this country. First of all, as the panel's resident millennial, I suppose—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Henheffer]

—I'd like to say that my generation does consume news ravenously. There's more of an appetite out there for news than there ever has been. The problem is that in our country the news industry has literally been decimated, if not more than that. I mean that in the literal sense. A tenth has been destroyed, and probably quite a bit more than that.

I cut my teeth at Macleans magazine. When I was there, I believe there were 50 people working in the editorial side of the newsroom. Now there are approximately 15. That's in a matter of 10 years. That's a frightening decline, and it's one that we've seen across the country.

I like to look at the journalism industry in this country as being like a forest or a jungle and that large parts of it, unfortunately, have been completely burned to the ground. But that has left us some fertile soil, and there are some new things sprouting up. There are a lot of organizations that are doing really wonderful things despite these challenges. I think CBC is an excellent example of what we've had, but it's the same thing with The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, the legacy media.

The thing is, there is still a massive hole in this country. While people are ravenously devouring content, there aren't as many people providing good, quality content. There's more noise and less signal out there now. Also, because sources are drying up, we need legislation like this to give journalists as much of a fighting chance as we can and to make this pillar of democracy as strong as possible. Taking away those sources by not having a shield law is a serious issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have one minute.

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

Very briefly, given your most recent comments, would you consider our being at a stage where we now have a structural concern with the health of Canadian democracy?

[Tom Henheffer]

Yes, I would certainly say so. We funded the news poverty project at Ryerson University. I would encourage everyone to take a look at it if you want to see a stark example of how many dozens of newspapers, broadcasters, and online outlets have closed, and how few have opened across Canada in the last five or so years.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

That has really come to the end of our time for debate, but if you have questions, Mr. Brassard, I'm happy to give you five minutes.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you. I'll only take a couple, Mr. Chair.

I find it ironic as we sit in this room and look straight ahead to see the mural The Printed Word. If you look over your shoulder, you see another mural. Clearly, journalism and freedom of the press are important with respect to our democracy and really build on that openness and transparency.

As I sat through this debate, I heard that Canada would go from laggard to leader with this shield law. Based on your experiences with news organizations in the United States, for example, and in other western democracies, how important is this to Canada in terms of the experiences of these other countries?

[Michel Cormier]

As a former foreign correspondent, I'll take that question. I was a correspondent in China and Russia, which are not paragons of the free press, and you realize at that point how lucky we are to operate as journalists in a country like Canada, despite some shortcomings.

So this is essential, I think, to the image of Canada in the world. The press now is attacked in places where it hasn't been attacked before, like Turkey. Egypt is still a very big problem, and the whole Middle East. So if on something so fundamental as the protection of confidential sources we can't adopt the protections that are given to journalists in most western liberal countries, then I think it's a real shortcoming.

[Jennifer McGuire]

And I would say that at the end of the day it comes down to the public we're trying to serve, and if sources don't come forward and the stories don't get told, we're ultimately doing a disservice to them.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

Tom, just so you know, Porter called. You've been bumped off your flight, based on your opening comments.

[Tom Henheffer]

Something tells me that I will probably not be able to get on my flight back to Toronto this evening.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're welcome.

Ms. Damoff, do you have a question?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much. I have two very quick questions actually.

I think it was you, Mr. Cormier, who said that it was important to pass this bill in order to protect the identity of the sources in the commission that's going on in Quebec? Did I understand that correctly?

[Michel Cormier]

No, what I meant is that this whole exercise is not contradictory. Somebody said that maybe we should wait until the commission finishes. We have journalists across Canada, not just in Quebec, so we need the same protections across the board.

Whatever they come up with in recommendations, they'll be more than about a law to protect journalists. They will deal with police work and ways to better regulate the way they operate, and also the whole relationship between ministers and the police and sources, and how that works.

It's a broader view because the problem was bigger than just the sources or the journalists.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I don't know if I thanked all of you for being here, but thank you for being here.

My second question has to do with the definition of journalist. Our previous panel spoke about how there was quite a lengthy conversation at the Senate, involving both the police and journalists, where they came up with the definition that is currently in the bill.

Ms. McGuire, did I understand that you can live with this definition?

[Jennifer McGuire]

Yes, we're supporting this definition.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. I think all of us recognize that perhaps the bill isn't perfect, but it's a gigantic step from where we are right now, and perhaps as we move forward, we can fine-tune that as we look at it. I just wanted to confirm that you are okay with the definition in the bill.

[Jennifer McGuire]

Yes, the coalition is supporting the definition.