Evidence of meeting #93 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Chair, I'm hearing you say that you have seen in the past that committees here on Parliament Hill have subpoenaed witnesses.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, I have. I've seen them subpoena prime ministers and specific people who have some kind of legal authority. I've seen that happen, yes.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If you're finished, Ms. Thomas, can I move on to the next person on the list?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'll just make this point.... No, I'll let it stay there.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a pleasure to speak on this.
I am surprised that Mr. Julian continues to defend the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when in fact Canadians have lost trust in the CBC.
I looked at last Thursday's article, which was from a contributor, Ms. Catherine Tait herself, the CEO of CBC/Radio Canada. Her first words were,“Do you trust the news?” Obviously she feels trust in news has waned, including for her organization, because she held a summit in Toronto last Thursday in conjunction with the Toronto Star.
I'll go on. When I read her contribution in the paper, “we have a problem”, yes, you have a big problem. Canadians are putting forth $1.4 billion in a public news agency, and quite frankly, over the last two weeks we've lost faith in the CBC. If that faith has been lost with not calling Hamas a terrorist organization, we've now seen the BBC in Britain officially backtracking on that, and we still haven't heard from the CBC whether or not they're going to call Hamas what they are, a terrorist organization.
It's especially troubling, Madam Chair, when I look at the Toronto Star. Some may ask, “Why would you look at that?” I get a general perspective from all media. I read a lot of newspapers. I read a lot of blogs, even Rosie DiManno, who did a Toronto Star opinion piece, published on the 23rd of this month, that said we should call Hamas what it is. That is coming from the same newspaper that joined with the CBC last Thursday night to talk about whether people have trust in media. Rosie DiManno is one of the Toronto Star's own columnists, and even she is calling out the news media on how we should call Hamas what it is.
Hamas clearly is a terrorist organization, which wasn't called out when the CBC first started, and they have not called Hamas what it is. It's a terrorist organization, so we do have a problem.
I certainly would like to hear from the head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who feels that almost 60% of Canadians feel that the Canadian news sources are trustworthy, but that 40% are either unsure or don't agree that they are trustworthy.
I would like to hear her conversation on what she is doing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and how to gain back viewers and listeners on the lack of trust. She had admitted that there is a lack of trust in this country with news organizations.
I was a journalist for over 40 years. I can tell you that the scope has really changed, and it has not changed for the better, as Canadians are starting to question where they get their news and whether it is is trustworthy.
On the furious response from many who believe CBC-Radio/Canada has let them down, yes, you have let us down, and we look forward, Ms. Tait, to your coming to committee, because we have a lot of questions.
Madam Chair, I also agree with The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which last week sent a memo to many MPs. I don't know if it hit all 337 of us, but it referred to the ample evidence that has now been shared by Israeli authorities demonstrating that a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket was actually responsible for striking the Gaza hospital last Tuesday.
They go on. It's a fairly in-depth letter that most of us received from CIJA. The letter said that all those who rushed to condemn Israel, without any evidence, have a responsibility to correct the record and apologize and that they also have a responsibility to condemn.
I go back to CNN when it first started and to the Gulf War. CNN was established, Madam Chair, on the back of the war from the Gulf War era where they went 24-7, 365 days a year. That was the world's first real look at war.
I'm upset when news agencies come out first and, in this case, describe how the hospital got hit and many were injured. War doesn't have to be about being first in line with breaking news. All news agencies in the world must step back, and instead of being the first to report it, get it right. How can they be trustworthy when we know, later, that the information was false? There is no rush in war to get it right first. Get it right, then get it out to the media, whether it's social media, as many have picked up on.
If you don't mind, Madam Chair, the CBC is very good on digital, but they made a major mistake that day: It did not hit the hospital. It hit the parking lot, and it took them a while to correct it.
On one hand, we have the president of the CBC, Catherine Tait, saying that Canadians have lost faith in media. On the other hand, we see the two examples I just brought out. She needs to answer for this. I feel for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. I feel for them because, as they said, spreading unverified information has real-life consequences, including here in Canada.
After politicians and Canadian media promoted the Hamas narrative that Israel targeted the hospital, several emergency rallies were organized across the country, including one, Madam Chair, that we had right outside the Shaw Centre last week, where all the leaders were involved in anti-Semitism. We had a lot of organized rallies. We can speak from first-hand experience: All such rallies that claim to be protests against Israel in fact target Canadian Jews. According to the organizers, more than 1,000 individuals gathered outside their anti-Semitism conference, where calls for violence against Jews were made that night.
“Canadian elected officials”—that's all of us around the table and many more, but the second part I like even more—“the media, and other influencers have a responsibility to verify facts before commenting, particularly during times of war.” By promoting that Hamas lie, the lives of Canadian Jews were put at risk.
That sums it up from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. I think Ms. Tait, in her editorial in the Toronto Star last Thursday, hit it the nail right on the head, but I would say to her, “What are you doing as an organization to regain at least 40% of Canadians across the country who have lost faith in your newsrooms?”
I will say this and then I'll wrap up: I am disturbed by the fact that.... When I was a newsperson, we had a line in the newsroom you couldn't cross. We often had salesmen coming in to ask us to promote this or that. I'm sorry, but there's an editorial line in a newsroom. I fear, at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that this line has been removed. I am concerned about the journalistic standards set by George Achi and his crew, and I would like to have him invited—I'm getting there in a second—plus the ombudsman Jack Nagler, who received hundreds of responses on the false narrative CBC has done twice: one, not calling Hamas a terrorist organization, and two, the bombing of the hospital that never took place. The ombudsman needs to come to committee to explain what he is hearing and what he is going to do to correct the narrative in Canadian news.
I know Mr. Julian, from time to time, has his picks on this newspaper and that newspaper, but I want the national broadcaster here. They are being subsidized by at least $1.4 billion by the Canadian taxpayers, and I am disturbed by what I have seen and heard from the national broadcaster of this country in the last two weeks. Yes, they're over there in Israel dealing with delicate situations, but they have not handled this the way the professional standards of broadcasting say they should be handled. First is not always best. We have seen two massive errors by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
If I can, Madam Chair, I would like to move a subamendment to Mr. Julian's amendment.
It reads:
Given that,
Hamas has been a declared terrorist organization by the Government of Canada since 2002, and
The horrific Hamas terrorist attack against Israel left thousands of innocent people dead and injured, and
That both the European Union and us lawmakers have raised concerns about false and misleading content about the Israel-Hamas conflict being spread
Now, here we go with the changes. If you have Mr. Julian's amendment in front of you, the fourth point would read, “The CBC receives $1.4 million in public funding and—”
11:35 a.m.
An hon. member
Billion.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I thought I said “billion”, not “million”. It's with a “b”.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
It's a request for clarification, Madam Chair.
My colleague Mr. Waugh says that his subamendment begins at the fourth point. However, when I read the third point, which talks about the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Mr. Julian's amendment referred to Meta platforms. I'm wondering if Mr. Waugh is keeping the words “on Meta platforms” in his subamendment.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the honourable member from the Bloc. He is correct. On the third bullet, I eliminated, on purpose, “on Meta platforms.” However, in the fourth bullet, I have what I think can bring everyone together, if you don't mind.
It reads, “The CBC receives $1.4 billion in public funding and that Meta, Google and other media platforms receive over $1 billion in indirect subsidies annually through taxpayer dollars, and that this committee has a mandate to review Government expenditures.
“a) That the committee invite”—
I know I've struck the word “subpoena”, and we've talked about it, but I just want to “invite”.
“—Rachel Curran, head of public policy, Meta Canada, to come before the committee, and summon the president of CBC, Catherine Tait, to appear for two hours”—
That's not for one hour, but two hours.
“—by herself, within the next seven days of the motion being adopted”.
I'm hearing rumours that in fact Ms. Tait is coming next Thursday, November 2. I would like it to be for two hours.
It then reads, “b) invite the CBC Director of Journalistic Standards, George Achi, and the CBC ombudsman, Jack Nagler, to appear separately for a minimum of an hour and a half each to address the CBC’s position on journalistic standards and practices.”
Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Chair, we need it translated. It needs to be in both.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We will have to suspend while that subamendment is written and translated.
I suspend the meeting.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
In this subamendment from Mr. Waugh, for whom I have a lot of respect, I see that what he's actually doing is trying to reverse the subamendment I had put on the table.
I'm not convinced that it is in order. What Mr. Waugh should be doing, simply, is voting against my amendment to ensure we come back to the main motion, although, as I mentioned earlier, Madam Chair, I'm beginning to think we should withdraw all of this and start again with a fresh study.
That said, what he's trying to do is reverse an amendment. That's not something that would normally be in order, given the very clear intent of my amendment.