Western Standard - Conservatives float consumer tax credit model to replace media subsidies

00:00:00.000 and i'm joined with alberta mp rachel thomas rachel thank you for your time today speaking

00:00:07.060 with the western standard no problem my pleasure we were hearing for a little while with pierre

00:00:12.200 paliev in the previous election and the years leading up to the election in april of last year

00:00:16.500 and we're all a little bit past now the one year anniversary of the new government um a lot of

00:00:22.720 slogans axe attacks but one of them that caught my eye was defund the cbc what's party policy on

00:00:28.640 right now? Yeah, I think we're of the opinion that media should be as independent as possible.

00:00:34.320 In fact, media should be entirely independent. Journalists work really hard, they go to school,

00:00:39.520 they learn a lot, they go into it usually wanting to tell the stories that people care about.

00:00:46.160 Not tell the stories that the government cares about, not tell the stories that the government

00:00:49.280 is trying to maybe manipulate them into telling or persuade them into telling, but rather to tell

00:00:55.120 the stories according to what matters most to Canadians. That's why most journalists go into it.

00:01:03.120 And so we as the Conservative Party of Canada believe that journalists should be set free to

00:01:06.960 do that, that they should be able to tell the stories that need to be told in a factual manner

00:01:12.960 without being persuaded to take one side or the other. Just tell the facts, tell the story the

00:01:18.000 way that it happened to the best of your ability. That's what we believe.

00:01:21.660 So just to be clear, do you believe that CBC is a mouthpiece of the government?

00:01:25.560 Do you not view the work that the CBC has at all independent or have benefited the public, generally speaking?

00:01:32.400 Well, I think we see that the CBC is funded to the tune of $1.6 billion, and that's taxpayer money.

00:01:41.560 And that's just the start.

00:01:43.100 The CBC also receives another $7 million from the Google Fund due to Bill C-18.

00:01:49.300 You 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.

00:01:59.560 So 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.

00:02:10.520 And so, you know, I think when we look at the facts, when we look at a number of different,

00:02:18.860 you know, external third party fact checkers, there is tremendous bias that exists within the

00:02:24.580 CBC. We know that they lean much more toward the political left than toward the right. Now,

00:02:31.340 we're not advocating that they lean toward the political right. We actually just want them to,

00:02:34.760 again stay in the center tell the story relay the facts um take take no side um ultimately that is

00:02:41.800 what we should hope for as a as a canadian society i think you know when we look at this what's

00:02:47.640 happened then is we see how trust in the media has has plummeted over the last number of years

00:02:54.120 and a lot of that has to do with people just don't know what they can trust as factual and what you

00:02:59.800 know is is slanted um and again if if you take the government dollars away um it it makes it

00:03:06.920 so that it's more trustworthy it it takes away that bias it's uh it at least takes away the

00:03:13.320 perception of bias i guess in the sense that there's not government dollars flowing

00:03:18.280 well in terms of your party stance do you believe the cbc is reformable is there some sort of

00:03:28.040 structural reform uh policy you guys have looked into putting in place or is total defunding still

00:03:33.960 your pathway forward um i think what we've seen over the last number of years um and there's been

00:03:43.080 a command change uh just over a year ago the cbc got a new ceo and i think we were hoping that

00:03:48.760 there would be some positive change that took place however you know we're seeing more of the

00:03:54.040 same. In fact, maybe even worse. I mean, just as of the last couple of months, we've become,

00:04:00.360 sorry, I should say as of this week, we've become aware of a game that the CBC has been playing,

00:04:05.640 we would call it unethical. And that is they've, you know, they tried to put forward this show

00:04:13.640 that would smear Sir John A. Macdonald, the very first Prime Minister of Canada,

00:04:18.280 And 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.

00:04:36.580 All 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.

00:04:45.660 For the CBC to function in that capacity isn't, you know, it doesn't just call into question

00:04:54.460 ethics in a big way, but again, it calls into question credibility and whether or not they're

00:05:00.380 trustworthy. And so if that's the type of production that the CBC is going to engage in,

00:05:06.460 if that's the type of gamesmanship, if you will, that they're going to engage in,

00:05:10.080 then I think Canadians need to ask themselves, is this something worth continuing to fund?

00:05:14.520 Should they be putting taxpayer dollars toward this? Do we stand by this type of conduct? That's for Canadians' answer, ultimately.

00:05:22.600 so in terms of the media landscape you have of course the publicly funded cbc and you have

00:05:29.220 privately funded media from big dollar corporate media to uh you know smaller local initiatives

00:05:35.220 ethnic media and the like you know if it is a goal noteworthy for conservative government how

00:05:41.980 would you guys protect smaller private media and specifically local media you know in rural

00:05:47.660 communities uh smaller population communities uh from the kind of the unfair competitive platform

00:05:54.540 of you know the 1.6 billion dollars that the cbc receives how would you you know balance out the

00:06:00.060 playing field in that sense if if the cbc is still um still meant to be a publicly funded broadcaster

00:06:05.680 maybe at a different tune of of an amount sure i'll answer it this way look the government came

00:06:12.600 out with what's known as Bill C-18, the Online News Act, and they said that it was going to help

00:06:19.220 save local and independent news broadcasters. They said it was for the small guys, for the

00:06:27.480 local community folks. Great initiative, if that's in fact what it would do. However,

00:06:33.880 what ended up happening was a pot of money was created, and there was a journalism collective

00:06:41.700 that has been put in charge of divvying out that money, according to a list of criteria that they

00:06:47.340 generated. 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.

00:07:03.780 And so they're still put at a significant disadvantage compared to these larger

00:07:09.080 organizations. In fact, one would argue that they're being put at even a greater disadvantage

00:07:15.160 than they were before the rollout of this funding. When we look at the number of local media outlets

00:07:22.920 that exist now in comparison to five years ago, there are fewer now than there were then. And

00:07:29.560 the Department of Heritage will verify this. That tells me that Bill C-18 was an absolute failure.

00:07:35.720 it did not achieve what the government said that it would but it you know it sure is it sure is

00:07:41.720 helping to prop up again those larger organizations such as bell media and the cdc um again though

00:07:48.360 our local media stations that exist within our communities who we would hope would report on

00:07:52.840 you know the local hockey game the accidents that happen in our community the different events that

00:07:56.360 are going on um those stations are unfortunately being put out of business and so we have to ask

00:08:02.200 ourselves then um you know should there be further further uh intervention um or is it actually a more

00:08:10.680 level playing field if we simply allow news outlets to compete equally um and and perhaps then in that

00:08:20.840 in that on that level perhaps then what we look at is instead of you know putting the incentive

00:08:27.960 well really no incentive instead of you know just doling up the money to uh to the news companies

00:08:35.320 directly or to the media companies directly perhaps we consider something like giving a

00:08:41.040 credit toward the consumer so the consumer actually gets to decide the news outlets that

00:08:46.660 here she wants to support um buys the subscription because of course the model would largely shift

00:08:53.700 subscription-based. They sign up for the subscription of their choice and then there's,

00:08:58.900 you know, there's a tax credit or there's a refund that the government provides to the individual.

00:09:05.060 I think this type of model perhaps would solve the issue in the sense of the level of bias that

00:09:12.260 we see currently with the media and the unequal playing field that we see being created between

00:09:17.860 new, innovative, and local stations versus old, antiquated, large conglomerates such as Bell

00:09:26.160 or the CBC. Last question I'll ask you related to the CBC directly is on the bias as well. I mean,

00:09:32.500 you know, all media carries some sort of level of organic bias, be it that it is based on the

00:09:37.340 demographics they're recruiting from and things that are not necessarily a top-down command

00:09:42.120 structure. So in the case of the CBC, I'm aware, you know, you have Radio-Canada, you have employees

00:09:46.780 that are producing and creating content in English and French, bilingualism on any federal

00:09:51.240 institution, including the CBC, working on a kind of federal stage, will recruit a lot of people

00:09:56.160 from bilingual speaking areas of Canada, which is still geographically a minority centered around

00:10:00.860 Ottawa, Montreal, etc. So do you believe that the bias of the CBC is a natural bias or it's a bias

00:10:07.460 that's more reflected from an editorial leadership standpoint? Well, what's interesting to me is that

00:10:16.280 The new CEO, Ms. Bouchard, she has come to committee on a number of occasions and has

00:10:23.480 bragged about the fact that she is trying to make the CBC more regional in nature,

00:10:28.040 moving into smaller centres. She likes to call these centres quote-unquote news deserts. However,

00:10:34.280 when we do further research, what we find out is actually the CBC is going in and displacing

00:10:38.840 already existing local news broadcasters, because they simply can't compete. The CBC

00:10:44.280 has more money at their disposal and therefore can pay more. Therefore, they often actually go

00:10:48.680 in and steal or lure employees away from these local companies and thereby effectively shut

00:10:56.120 them down. And we have testimony after testimony at committee where this has happened across the

00:11:00.760 country. So while Ms. Bouchard might say that she's interested in a regional perspective and

00:11:07.080 wanting to fill these quote-unquote news deserts, in fact what she's doing is actually going in and

00:11:12.760 dislocating the real local voices, the people who live in these communities, who grew up in these

00:11:20.200 communities, who represent these communities incredibly well. Instead, you know, CBC employees

00:11:26.200 are coming in, sometimes they're only staying for a short time, or again, they're luring people away

00:11:31.560 from these other broadcasters. And it's just a mess. And unfortunately, it's not delivering

00:11:37.320 greater quality news, it's actually lessening the quality of news. And again, taking away

00:11:42.440 from that local perspective and instead infusing it with this larger national picture or frame

00:11:48.360 of reference that is coming from headquarters. So I'm very concerned about that because I think

00:11:54.040 Canadians do deserve greater diversity in the voices that they hear. Further to that at committee

00:12:00.360 we've heard from a number of folks who talk about the bias that exists within the CBC and the way

00:12:05.800 that employees are treated. Most notably Travis Danrash who used to have his own nighttime show

00:12:12.440 He tried to bring on numerous political voices who would speak from a variety of standpoints.

00:12:18.580 He really did his best, I believe, to not have a bias, but rather to explore various perspectives.

00:12:25.540 And unfortunately, he was shut down by the leadership at the CBC.

00:12:29.040 They often refused his ability to bring on certain guests from maybe different political persuasions or different viewpoints.

00:12:35.340 And as a result, eventually, Travis was actually pushed out and forced to give his resignation.

00:12:41.140 And this type of thing, unfortunately, is all too common based on the individuals who have emailed my office and asked to testify at committee.

00:12:51.960 And so I think this type of thing should be alarming to Canadians.

00:12:56.060 I think it is alarming to Canadians.

00:12:57.480 It'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,

00:13:10.980 which, of course, we're a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation with people from all sorts of backgrounds and ways of life.

00:13:17.020 And we should see that reflected in our news.

00:13:19.660 So independent media has benefited largely from social media and expansion of social media access to more and more people,

00:13:26.800 and X or formerly Twitter, Instagram, which is under the Meta leadership.

00:13:31.600 I want to ask you about the Online News Act and specifically the Meta News Blackout.

00:13:36.420 Is there any policy positions you can stand on in terms of repealing, replacing that act specifically?

00:13:43.600 Yeah, absolutely. A conservative government would repeal Bill C-18.

00:13:48.620 Look, at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is Bill C-18 actually never even came into effect.

00:13:53.860 The government passed Bill C-18, which was to mandate large social media companies such as

00:14:01.460 or large media companies, I should say, such as Google or Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.

00:14:08.260 And so basically it would mandate these folks to pay for news on their platforms. Meta said,

00:14:15.940 we just will stop carrying news then. And so they have. And that's been really unfortunate,

00:14:20.180 both for Canadians who want to access a variety of news sources and find those social media channels

00:14:25.540 to be the best way to do so. So they've been denied access. But then also those independent

00:14:32.180 and smaller outlets that relied on social media to carry their news and to be able to reach an

00:14:39.460 audience, they're also put at a significant disadvantage. All that to say, Bill C-18 then,

00:14:47.220 essentially what happened was the minister went into a back room with Google and they entered

00:14:51.940 into a deal. And Google said, look, if you make it so that Bill C-18 doesn't apply to us for

00:14:57.620 five years, we'll give you a hundred million dollars year over year to be put towards local

00:15:01.700 media. The government said, okay. And so they signed the back room deal. So now Google is

00:15:07.940 putting aside a hundred million dollars per year for five years and is exempt from Bill C-18.

00:15:14.260 um that hundred million dollars as i said earlier is actually not going towards larger or sorry

00:15:21.840 towards smaller uh news companies um in many cases it is going towards the large conglomerates as

00:15:28.140 well such as the cbc and bell and uh and again it's putting canadians at significant disadvantage

00:15:33.980 so why we would continue with that is beyond me can you share your thoughts on the online harms

00:15:40.580 Act? And specifically, I mean, perhaps the more popular one, every time I, you know, I see Evan

00:15:45.560 Solomon and his team, you know, engaging with children and concerned parents, you know, I've

00:15:52.700 heard of some, you know, young voices as well. There's plenty of online harms that there are

00:15:58.100 out there, be it AI and social media. What's your stance? Yeah, so I mean, the liberal government

00:16:06.720 has put forward multiple versions of online harms legislation. Unfortunately, none of it

00:16:15.380 has really been successful because they haven't consulted nearly to the extent that they really

00:16:21.200 should have or taken into account a variety of viewpoints. And so as a result, their last version,

00:16:28.480 Bill C-63, the online harms act, when they put it out, when they published it for people to read

00:16:36.600 through the bill, a ton of criticism came back from very stakeholders that they expected to

00:16:43.000 praise them. Not only, you know, did it miss the mark in terms of keeping people safe from harm

00:16:52.480 online, but it also went too far in the direction of quelling free speech. And people were very

00:17:02.640 concerned about the level of censorship that was built within the bill. And so as a result,

00:17:08.400 you know, I think the government just kind of didn't do anything with it for a while and then

00:17:12.640 eventually, you know, triggered an election and it died. The bill didn't get passed in time before

00:17:18.000 the election. So now the government is, the liberals are saying that they're going to come

00:17:23.680 forward with new legislation with regards to online harms and that we can expect that fairly

00:17:29.160 soon. They've been saying that for a year since they were elected in spring of 2025, and so we

00:17:37.640 continue to watch for that. But in the meantime, my colleague Michelle Rumpel-Garner has put forward

00:17:43.480 a private members bill outlining what we think would serve Canadians well, and the Liberals are

00:17:49.480 free to pick it up. It's an excellent bill. It truly would keep Canadians safe online, and it

00:17:56.120 it would protect free speech. So it strikes a reasonable balance. And I think would serve

00:18:03.340 Canada very, very well. And again, we would encourage the government, pick it up, run with

00:18:06.620 it, own it. Well, last question for you. You said on the committee, committees have been

00:18:12.900 restructured already now. Liberals said in the majority, what's on the horizon on the Heritage

00:18:17.820 Committee? Do you expect that there will be much pushback anymore? And will you guys still be

00:18:22.020 effective in slowing down or changing the legislation that's presented by the government?

00:18:28.820 Unfortunately, we saw an immediate change. As soon as the government gained their majority,

00:18:35.460 things at committee went from being, I would say, fairly collegial and, you know, us wanting to work

00:18:40.900 together and hold studies that were mutually beneficial. And it changed from that to now,

00:18:48.740 I would say there's a fair bit of hostility in the room, in particular from the Liberals.

00:18:53.140 And so any proposals that have been brought forward by the Conservatives

00:18:56.260 have been shut down very quickly. And if we insist on wanting to debate at various committees

00:19:03.300 across Parliament, the Liberals insist that we go in camera. And so they've shut down,

00:19:08.820 I believe, at least five committees in this way by forcing things in camera and out of the public

00:19:13.380 view. And when they do that, of course, it's incredibly disingenuous with regards to

00:19:20.100 transparency and allowing the sun to shine in as they say they like. Because Canadians don't know

00:19:26.420 what's going on behind that closed doors, what type of conversation is transpiring,

00:19:31.220 what type of information is being put forward, maybe what unethical conduct has light shed on it.

00:19:38.340 Canadians are not privy to that information because of course it takes place in camera.

00:19:42.260 So 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.

00:20:06.300 So that said, we're going to do our absolute best to, you know, to work with the government and to get meaningful things done.

00:20:14.640 But so far, I would say all indicators would suggest that it's going to be a tough go for the next while.

00:20:23.040 So I want to package a follow up quickly.

00:20:24.800 So 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.

00:20:35.160 Is 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?

00:20:58.780 Sure. There are times when it is appropriate to go on camera. I'll give you a couple of

00:21:09.020 examples. Perhaps there's a witness that's coming forward that for the sake of their identity,

00:21:14.380 maybe it's a sensitive topic, where we would keep that meeting in camera in order to

00:21:22.540 um in order to protect them in order to accommodate their need for for safety for for um

00:21:33.580 anonymity i guess um that would be an appropriate time when we're discussing you know the topics

00:21:41.180 that are going to go into a report um in giving drafting instructions to the analysts usually

00:21:47.420 those types of meetings are done in camera as well again it's because we're hashing things out

00:21:52.700 in you know in a in a manner that um it really is up to us as parliamentarians to determine what

00:21:58.780 goes into that report based on the testimony that we heard um and and so it's it's appropriate for

00:22:04.860 that to be in camera of course the report itself will be made public so people will know exactly

00:22:10.220 where we landed in terms of those instructions um but they don't necessarily need to see the process

00:22:14.700 of us hashing that out is not necessarily beneficial. So there are some appropriate

00:22:19.020 times for us to be in camera. That said, when it comes to studying things like government spending

00:22:28.540 or how an acquisition was made, those types of meetings don't need to be in camera. Those types

00:22:34.540 of meetings absolutely can be made public. And those are the types of things that the

00:22:38.860 current government is trying to shut down. And so I think, again, I think we have a lot of work

00:22:48.060 ahead of us and I think it's going to be difficult given the nature of how things are going so far.

00:22:54.940 With regards to Mark Miller as the Minister for Heritage, you know, he is definitely,

00:23:03.100 he was, he came in under Trudeau. He was a minister under Trudeau. They also have a personal

00:23:09.260 friendship. That, you know, I would say my observation of Mark Miller is he very much

00:23:17.100 carries many of the same values and ways of being as Prime Minister Trudeau did. And I would say

00:23:24.300 that Mr. Miller, my observation of him, both in his conversations with me, his appearance at

00:23:33.500 committee, and my observations with him with stakeholders, he seems to be quite close-minded

00:23:38.400 and unwilling to hear a variety of vantage points and unwilling to budge. He seems to have

00:23:44.920 a certain way of thinking and his way is right. And so I find that concerning because I believe

00:23:55.780 that the job of a minister is first and foremost to listen. I believe that's the job of all of us

00:24:00.420 as members of parliament is to listen first and to receive information from those that we represent

00:24:05.660 and then to go to work on their behalf. And if we don't take time to listen, then there's no way

00:24:12.300 that we can possibly be accurately representing Canada.

00:24:16.580 And so when you have a minister who takes that posture

00:24:19.660 of being unwilling to listen and learn from others,

00:24:22.440 that's very concerning.

00:24:25.040 Rachel, thank you for your time today.

00:24:26.840 Thank you for having me.

Western Standard - May 20, 2026

Conservatives float consumer tax credit model to replace media subsidies

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript