00:01:43.100The CBC also receives another $7 million from the Google Fund due to Bill C-18.
00:01:49.300You know, they have access to other tax credits that are available to their journalists, which go directly into the CDC's, you know, pocket as well.
00:01:59.560So there's just dollar after dollar after dollar that is due to either taxpayers directly contributing or due to legislation put in place by the current liberal government.
00:02:10.520And so, you know, I think when we look at the facts, when we look at a number of different,
00:02:18.860you know, external third party fact checkers, there is tremendous bias that exists within the
00:02:24.580CBC. We know that they lean much more toward the political left than toward the right. Now,
00:02:31.340we're not advocating that they lean toward the political right. We actually just want them to,
00:02:34.760again stay in the center tell the story relay the facts um take take no side um ultimately that is
00:02:41.800what we should hope for as a as a canadian society i think you know when we look at this what's
00:02:47.640happened then is we see how trust in the media has has plummeted over the last number of years
00:02:54.120and a lot of that has to do with people just don't know what they can trust as factual and what you
00:02:59.800know is is slanted um and again if if you take the government dollars away um it it makes it
00:03:06.920so that it's more trustworthy it it takes away that bias it's uh it at least takes away the
00:03:13.320perception of bias i guess in the sense that there's not government dollars flowing
00:03:18.280well in terms of your party stance do you believe the cbc is reformable is there some sort of
00:03:28.040structural reform uh policy you guys have looked into putting in place or is total defunding still
00:03:33.960your pathway forward um i think what we've seen over the last number of years um and there's been
00:03:43.080a command change uh just over a year ago the cbc got a new ceo and i think we were hoping that
00:03:48.760there would be some positive change that took place however you know we're seeing more of the
00:03:54.040same. In fact, maybe even worse. I mean, just as of the last couple of months, we've become,
00:04:00.360sorry, I should say as of this week, we've become aware of a game that the CBC has been playing,
00:04:05.640we would call it unethical. And that is they've, you know, they tried to put forward this show
00:04:13.640that would smear Sir John A. Macdonald, the very first Prime Minister of Canada,
00:04:18.280And they tried to lure experts, academics, and a current member of parliament to try to lure them onto this show under the false pretense that, you know, their wisdom was desired and that they would have an opportunity to talk about things, you know, from a factual standpoint.
00:04:36.580All the while, the CBC knew that they would be guiding that show toward a particular angle, and that angle was very much against the founder of our country.
00:04:45.660For the CBC to function in that capacity isn't, you know, it doesn't just call into question
00:04:54.460ethics in a big way, but again, it calls into question credibility and whether or not they're
00:05:00.380trustworthy. And so if that's the type of production that the CBC is going to engage in,
00:05:06.460if that's the type of gamesmanship, if you will, that they're going to engage in,
00:05:10.080then I think Canadians need to ask themselves, is this something worth continuing to fund?
00:05:14.520Should they be putting taxpayer dollars toward this? Do we stand by this type of conduct? That's for Canadians' answer, ultimately.
00:05:22.600so in terms of the media landscape you have of course the publicly funded cbc and you have
00:05:29.220privately funded media from big dollar corporate media to uh you know smaller local initiatives
00:05:35.220ethnic media and the like you know if it is a goal noteworthy for conservative government how
00:05:41.980would you guys protect smaller private media and specifically local media you know in rural
00:05:47.660communities uh smaller population communities uh from the kind of the unfair competitive platform
00:05:54.540of you know the 1.6 billion dollars that the cbc receives how would you you know balance out the
00:06:00.060playing field in that sense if if the cbc is still um still meant to be a publicly funded broadcaster
00:06:05.680maybe at a different tune of of an amount sure i'll answer it this way look the government came
00:06:12.600out with what's known as Bill C-18, the Online News Act, and they said that it was going to help
00:06:19.220save local and independent news broadcasters. They said it was for the small guys, for the
00:06:27.480local community folks. Great initiative, if that's in fact what it would do. However,
00:06:33.880what ended up happening was a pot of money was created, and there was a journalism collective
00:06:41.700that has been put in charge of divvying out that money, according to a list of criteria that they
00:06:47.340generated. And the vast majority of it has gone to large organizations. So $7 million to the CBC,
00:06:56.000$8 million to Bell Media. Meanwhile, little guys maybe get $30,000, maybe up to $100,000.
00:07:03.780And so they're still put at a significant disadvantage compared to these larger
00:07:09.080organizations. In fact, one would argue that they're being put at even a greater disadvantage
00:07:15.160than they were before the rollout of this funding. When we look at the number of local media outlets
00:07:22.920that exist now in comparison to five years ago, there are fewer now than there were then. And
00:07:29.560the Department of Heritage will verify this. That tells me that Bill C-18 was an absolute failure.
00:07:35.720it did not achieve what the government said that it would but it you know it sure is it sure is
00:07:41.720helping to prop up again those larger organizations such as bell media and the cdc um again though
00:07:48.360our local media stations that exist within our communities who we would hope would report on
00:07:52.840you know the local hockey game the accidents that happen in our community the different events that
00:07:56.360are going on um those stations are unfortunately being put out of business and so we have to ask
00:08:02.200ourselves then um you know should there be further further uh intervention um or is it actually a more
00:08:10.680level playing field if we simply allow news outlets to compete equally um and and perhaps then in that
00:08:20.840in that on that level perhaps then what we look at is instead of you know putting the incentive
00:08:27.960well really no incentive instead of you know just doling up the money to uh to the news companies
00:08:35.320directly or to the media companies directly perhaps we consider something like giving a
00:08:41.040credit toward the consumer so the consumer actually gets to decide the news outlets that
00:08:46.660here she wants to support um buys the subscription because of course the model would largely shift
00:08:53.700subscription-based. They sign up for the subscription of their choice and then there's,
00:08:58.900you know, there's a tax credit or there's a refund that the government provides to the individual.
00:09:05.060I think this type of model perhaps would solve the issue in the sense of the level of bias that
00:09:12.260we see currently with the media and the unequal playing field that we see being created between
00:09:17.860new, innovative, and local stations versus old, antiquated, large conglomerates such as Bell
00:09:26.160or the CBC. Last question I'll ask you related to the CBC directly is on the bias as well. I mean,
00:09:32.500you know, all media carries some sort of level of organic bias, be it that it is based on the
00:09:37.340demographics they're recruiting from and things that are not necessarily a top-down command
00:09:42.120structure. So in the case of the CBC, I'm aware, you know, you have Radio-Canada, you have employees
00:09:46.780that are producing and creating content in English and French, bilingualism on any federal
00:09:51.240institution, including the CBC, working on a kind of federal stage, will recruit a lot of people
00:09:56.160from bilingual speaking areas of Canada, which is still geographically a minority centered around
00:10:00.860Ottawa, Montreal, etc. So do you believe that the bias of the CBC is a natural bias or it's a bias
00:10:07.460that's more reflected from an editorial leadership standpoint? Well, what's interesting to me is that
00:10:16.280The new CEO, Ms. Bouchard, she has come to committee on a number of occasions and has
00:10:23.480bragged about the fact that she is trying to make the CBC more regional in nature,
00:10:28.040moving into smaller centres. She likes to call these centres quote-unquote news deserts. However,
00:10:34.280when we do further research, what we find out is actually the CBC is going in and displacing
00:10:38.840already existing local news broadcasters, because they simply can't compete. The CBC
00:10:44.280has more money at their disposal and therefore can pay more. Therefore, they often actually go
00:10:48.680in and steal or lure employees away from these local companies and thereby effectively shut
00:10:56.120them down. And we have testimony after testimony at committee where this has happened across the
00:11:00.760country. So while Ms. Bouchard might say that she's interested in a regional perspective and
00:11:07.080wanting to fill these quote-unquote news deserts, in fact what she's doing is actually going in and
00:11:12.760dislocating the real local voices, the people who live in these communities, who grew up in these
00:11:20.200communities, who represent these communities incredibly well. Instead, you know, CBC employees
00:11:26.200are coming in, sometimes they're only staying for a short time, or again, they're luring people away
00:11:31.560from these other broadcasters. And it's just a mess. And unfortunately, it's not delivering
00:11:37.320greater quality news, it's actually lessening the quality of news. And again, taking away
00:11:42.440from that local perspective and instead infusing it with this larger national picture or frame
00:11:48.360of reference that is coming from headquarters. So I'm very concerned about that because I think
00:11:54.040Canadians do deserve greater diversity in the voices that they hear. Further to that at committee
00:12:00.360we've heard from a number of folks who talk about the bias that exists within the CBC and the way
00:12:05.800that employees are treated. Most notably Travis Danrash who used to have his own nighttime show
00:12:12.440He tried to bring on numerous political voices who would speak from a variety of standpoints.
00:12:18.580He really did his best, I believe, to not have a bias, but rather to explore various perspectives.
00:12:25.540And unfortunately, he was shut down by the leadership at the CBC.
00:12:29.040They often refused his ability to bring on certain guests from maybe different political persuasions or different viewpoints.
00:12:35.340And as a result, eventually, Travis was actually pushed out and forced to give his resignation.
00:12:41.140And this type of thing, unfortunately, is all too common based on the individuals who have emailed my office and asked to testify at committee.
00:12:51.960And so I think this type of thing should be alarming to Canadians.
00:12:57.480It's certainly very concerning to me because, again, Canadians deserve news coverage that is diverse in nature and as reflective of the population as possible,
00:13:10.980which, of course, we're a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation with people from all sorts of backgrounds and ways of life.
00:13:17.020And we should see that reflected in our news.
00:13:19.660So independent media has benefited largely from social media and expansion of social media access to more and more people,
00:13:26.800and X or formerly Twitter, Instagram, which is under the Meta leadership.
00:13:31.600I want to ask you about the Online News Act and specifically the Meta News Blackout.
00:13:36.420Is there any policy positions you can stand on in terms of repealing, replacing that act specifically?
00:13:43.600Yeah, absolutely. A conservative government would repeal Bill C-18.
00:13:48.620Look, at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is Bill C-18 actually never even came into effect.
00:13:53.860The government passed Bill C-18, which was to mandate large social media companies such as
00:14:01.460or large media companies, I should say, such as Google or Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.
00:14:08.260And so basically it would mandate these folks to pay for news on their platforms. Meta said,
00:14:15.940we just will stop carrying news then. And so they have. And that's been really unfortunate,
00:14:20.180both for Canadians who want to access a variety of news sources and find those social media channels
00:14:25.540to be the best way to do so. So they've been denied access. But then also those independent
00:14:32.180and smaller outlets that relied on social media to carry their news and to be able to reach an
00:14:39.460audience, they're also put at a significant disadvantage. All that to say, Bill C-18 then,
00:14:47.220essentially what happened was the minister went into a back room with Google and they entered
00:14:51.940into a deal. And Google said, look, if you make it so that Bill C-18 doesn't apply to us for
00:14:57.620five years, we'll give you a hundred million dollars year over year to be put towards local
00:15:01.700media. The government said, okay. And so they signed the back room deal. So now Google is
00:15:07.940putting aside a hundred million dollars per year for five years and is exempt from Bill C-18.
00:15:14.260um that hundred million dollars as i said earlier is actually not going towards larger or sorry
00:15:21.840towards smaller uh news companies um in many cases it is going towards the large conglomerates as
00:15:28.140well such as the cbc and bell and uh and again it's putting canadians at significant disadvantage
00:15:33.980so why we would continue with that is beyond me can you share your thoughts on the online harms
00:15:40.580Act? And specifically, I mean, perhaps the more popular one, every time I, you know, I see Evan
00:15:45.560Solomon and his team, you know, engaging with children and concerned parents, you know, I've
00:15:52.700heard of some, you know, young voices as well. There's plenty of online harms that there are
00:15:58.100out there, be it AI and social media. What's your stance? Yeah, so I mean, the liberal government
00:16:06.720has put forward multiple versions of online harms legislation. Unfortunately, none of it
00:16:15.380has really been successful because they haven't consulted nearly to the extent that they really
00:16:21.200should have or taken into account a variety of viewpoints. And so as a result, their last version,
00:16:28.480Bill C-63, the online harms act, when they put it out, when they published it for people to read
00:16:36.600through the bill, a ton of criticism came back from very stakeholders that they expected to
00:16:43.000praise them. Not only, you know, did it miss the mark in terms of keeping people safe from harm
00:16:52.480online, but it also went too far in the direction of quelling free speech. And people were very
00:17:02.640concerned about the level of censorship that was built within the bill. And so as a result,
00:17:08.400you know, I think the government just kind of didn't do anything with it for a while and then
00:17:12.640eventually, you know, triggered an election and it died. The bill didn't get passed in time before
00:17:18.000the election. So now the government is, the liberals are saying that they're going to come
00:17:23.680forward with new legislation with regards to online harms and that we can expect that fairly
00:17:29.160soon. They've been saying that for a year since they were elected in spring of 2025, and so we
00:17:37.640continue to watch for that. But in the meantime, my colleague Michelle Rumpel-Garner has put forward
00:17:43.480a private members bill outlining what we think would serve Canadians well, and the Liberals are
00:17:49.480free to pick it up. It's an excellent bill. It truly would keep Canadians safe online, and it
00:17:56.120it would protect free speech. So it strikes a reasonable balance. And I think would serve
00:18:03.340Canada very, very well. And again, we would encourage the government, pick it up, run with
00:18:06.620it, own it. Well, last question for you. You said on the committee, committees have been
00:18:12.900restructured already now. Liberals said in the majority, what's on the horizon on the Heritage
00:18:17.820Committee? Do you expect that there will be much pushback anymore? And will you guys still be
00:18:22.020effective in slowing down or changing the legislation that's presented by the government?
00:18:28.820Unfortunately, we saw an immediate change. As soon as the government gained their majority,
00:18:35.460things at committee went from being, I would say, fairly collegial and, you know, us wanting to work
00:18:40.900together and hold studies that were mutually beneficial. And it changed from that to now,
00:18:48.740I would say there's a fair bit of hostility in the room, in particular from the Liberals.
00:18:53.140And so any proposals that have been brought forward by the Conservatives
00:18:56.260have been shut down very quickly. And if we insist on wanting to debate at various committees
00:19:03.300across Parliament, the Liberals insist that we go in camera. And so they've shut down,
00:19:08.820I believe, at least five committees in this way by forcing things in camera and out of the public
00:19:13.380view. And when they do that, of course, it's incredibly disingenuous with regards to
00:19:20.100transparency and allowing the sun to shine in as they say they like. Because Canadians don't know
00:19:26.420what's going on behind that closed doors, what type of conversation is transpiring,
00:19:31.220what type of information is being put forward, maybe what unethical conduct has light shed on it.
00:19:38.340Canadians are not privy to that information because of course it takes place in camera.
00:19:42.260So with regards to heritage, I think we're very concerned that it's going to go in that same direction, that, you know, that if we put forward, you know, opportunities to study things that that would bring about accountability, that that the levels will just simply either vote it down and get rid of it altogether or move us in camera in order to keep it in the dark.
00:20:06.300So that said, we're going to do our absolute best to, you know, to work with the government and to get meaningful things done.
00:20:14.640But so far, I would say all indicators would suggest that it's going to be a tough go for the next while.
00:20:23.040So I want to package a follow up quickly.
00:20:24.800So in terms of the committees, obviously, as journalists on the Hill and here in Ottawa, I'm very much aware that journalists are sent out even in person, you know, when the media is moving in camera as well.
00:20:35.160Is there any rationale that you think, you know, for Heritage Committee specifically, where that would be appropriate or defendable by the government? Why, if so, or why not? And specifically on the minister, Mark Miller, I mean, he's a Trudeau-era minister who re-entered cabinet unexpectedly towards the end of the formation of this cabinet that we have today. What do you make of him and his understanding and conduct on this portfolio specifically?
00:20:58.780Sure. There are times when it is appropriate to go on camera. I'll give you a couple of
00:21:09.020examples. Perhaps there's a witness that's coming forward that for the sake of their identity,
00:21:14.380maybe it's a sensitive topic, where we would keep that meeting in camera in order to
00:21:22.540um in order to protect them in order to accommodate their need for for safety for for um
00:21:33.580anonymity i guess um that would be an appropriate time when we're discussing you know the topics
00:21:41.180that are going to go into a report um in giving drafting instructions to the analysts usually
00:21:47.420those types of meetings are done in camera as well again it's because we're hashing things out
00:21:52.700in you know in a in a manner that um it really is up to us as parliamentarians to determine what
00:21:58.780goes into that report based on the testimony that we heard um and and so it's it's appropriate for
00:22:04.860that to be in camera of course the report itself will be made public so people will know exactly
00:22:10.220where we landed in terms of those instructions um but they don't necessarily need to see the process
00:22:14.700of us hashing that out is not necessarily beneficial. So there are some appropriate
00:22:19.020times for us to be in camera. That said, when it comes to studying things like government spending
00:22:28.540or how an acquisition was made, those types of meetings don't need to be in camera. Those types
00:22:34.540of meetings absolutely can be made public. And those are the types of things that the
00:22:38.860current government is trying to shut down. And so I think, again, I think we have a lot of work
00:22:48.060ahead of us and I think it's going to be difficult given the nature of how things are going so far.
00:22:54.940With regards to Mark Miller as the Minister for Heritage, you know, he is definitely,
00:23:03.100he was, he came in under Trudeau. He was a minister under Trudeau. They also have a personal
00:23:09.260friendship. That, you know, I would say my observation of Mark Miller is he very much
00:23:17.100carries many of the same values and ways of being as Prime Minister Trudeau did. And I would say
00:23:24.300that Mr. Miller, my observation of him, both in his conversations with me, his appearance at
00:23:33.500committee, and my observations with him with stakeholders, he seems to be quite close-minded
00:23:38.400and unwilling to hear a variety of vantage points and unwilling to budge. He seems to have
00:23:44.920a certain way of thinking and his way is right. And so I find that concerning because I believe
00:23:55.780that the job of a minister is first and foremost to listen. I believe that's the job of all of us
00:24:00.420as members of parliament is to listen first and to receive information from those that we represent
00:24:05.660and then to go to work on their behalf. And if we don't take time to listen, then there's no way
00:24:12.300that we can possibly be accurately representing Canada.
00:24:16.580And so when you have a minister who takes that posture
00:24:19.660of being unwilling to listen and learn from others,