Canadian Heritage Committee on March 10th, 2026

[Mike Fegelman]

If you could, speak a little louder in the translation booth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

If I keep speaking in French, can you hear me? Oh, I was on mute. Now, is it working better?

[Mike Fegelman]

I can hear. If you don't mind, just repeat the question. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Yes, we'll give you time.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

It wasn't really a question, Mr. Fegelman. I would like you to respond to what I said earlier. We were interrupted and we ran out of time, so I would ask you respond to my comments for a minute, instead of continuing this conversation later on. I'm simply giving you the opportunity to respond to what I said earlier.

[Mike Fegelman]

I'll give you an example of some of the dialogue we've had in recent days. We filed the complaint with The Globe and Mail to their standards editor because they published a column that said Israel takes Palestinians hostage, which it does not do and is a violation of international law. We filed the complaint. They received it. They appreciated it and took corrective measures to issue a correction. That's the kind of what we consider to be constructive dialogue that is important.

I would also say, to your comment about alleged harassment, that if any of our subscribers.... We have about 80,000 subscribers from coast to coast. If anyone engaged with a member of the media in a way that we felt was unprofessional, strident, knee-jerk and reactionary, we would be the very first to try to sensitize them to our concerns. If they weren't listening and were uncooperative, we would take them off our list.

We don't think that is helpful. We think it's actually quite counterproductive. I would also say—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Sorry, but I have to interrupt because I'll be out of time.

If journalists contacted you to say that they didn't agree with your way of doing things and that they would prefer that comments, criticisms or discussions of this nature be directed to publishers, desk managers or newsroom bosses rather than directly to journalists, would you listen? Would you be open to that dialogue?

[Mike Fegelman]

We're certainly open to any kind of dialogue with any different leverage point in the Canadian media landscape.

Our challenge, though, is that what we oftentimes encounter is window dressing of accountability and evasive efforts in the implementation of journalistic standards, meaning that we could bring a grievance to a journalist's editor and they may not reply and are totally evasive. We think that's quite problematic.

There is a necessity for an oversight mechanism. Broadly speaking, our goal should be a very Canadian response with civic engagement, because I think that's fundamentally constructive.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's where we disagree. I think that, at some point, we have to accept that there are processes in place and that it's not up to journalists, workers or people who haven't asked to have that relationship to be subject to that harassment. I think you have to draw a line somewhere, and the way you do it with your appeal to contact journalists directly by email pushes you over that line. That's my opinion.

I think we're going to have to leave it at that so we can discuss the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Exactly.

Mr. Champoux, if you want to start….

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No, it's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

So I think we can continue. It will take five minutes.

Witnesses, you are free to go if you'd like. We're going to discuss the motion that Mr. Champoux raised earlier today. You don't have to leave. You can stay to the end, but we have finished with our questioning of you. I hope it was not too onerous. We truly appreciate all your participation.

Keep in mind that you are welcome to send in any further information or documentation. I know that Mr. Dhanraj has been asked to supply certain documents to this committee. We can take all of that. If there's something you forgot to say, for example, don't hesitate to reach out to the committee. We can include all of that in our consideration of our report.

Thank you again.

Monsieur Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I read the motion into the record earlier. Let me provide some background quickly.

In Quebec, last week, we learned that Radio-Canada had chosen to make ICI RDI available on Prime Video, which is owned by Amazon, an American giant that, as we know, is having trouble complying with our laws and the legislative measures we are putting in place to regulate the digital giants. That really came as a shock, because ICI RDI will now be available in a bundle on Prime Video, when the channel isn't even available on TOU.TV, the Radio-Canada platform that should include all the platforms and channels offered by the public broadcaster.

So this is a problem for Quebeckers. We've seen it in the media, and not just in Quebecor media. I know that some will say that Quebecor's commentators have really focused on that, and that's true. However, La Presse and other media outlets also talked about it. It is really very surprising.

That said, I fully understand the desire to reach as many people as possible and the desire to be available. We are fully in favour of the discoverability of content, whether journalistic or cultural. In our opinion though, regardless of the strategic rationale for this decision, it's very hard to justify streaming that channel on Prime Video, an American platform, before offering it as a priority on a Canadian platform.

The purpose of this motion is therefore to invite Ms. Bouchard to explain this decision and answer questions from parliamentarians so we can understand the decision and understand why Quebeckers and francophones across Canada cannot access ICI RDI on one of the Canadian-owned platforms, particularly on TOU.TV, the platform that Canadians already pay for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

We agree with the motion.

However, I would like to give Mr. Champoux the opportunity to tell me whether, as I think, it would be appropriate to hear from people who have criticized Radio-Canada's decision, and by that I mean journalists, former employees or former program directors of ICI RDI. They all have a lot to say in Quebec right now.

This decision has left everyone literally speechless because it makes no sense, especially since Amazon doesn't distribute news through its platforms. All the news distributed in Quebec and Canada, particularly news in French, has been reduced. In addition, this company is challenging a Government of Canada decision and is refusing to pay its 5% contribution from its Canadian revenues, something that certain witnesses will speak to at committee in the coming weeks. It makes absolutely no sense.

I think we should give other people the opportunity to speak, and not just Radio-Canada. I don't know if Mr. Champoux is open to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Myles, you have the floor.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Personally, I think it would be worthwhile to hear from the CEO alone so she can talk about these decisions. We could still ask her to talk about Radio-Canada's strategic plan. Talking about these decisions is important, and it would give us an opportunity to ask questions about the strategic plan.

I would add that through an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Myles proposed an amendment, but Mr. Généreux also proposed one. I don't know how you would like us to proceed in order of priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Indeed.

Mr. Généreux, you proposed an amendment, didn't you?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

I proposed adding a meeting. So we would have two two-hour meetings to give us the opportunity to invite other witnesses to appear, who could be invited by all parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Is everyone in agreement?

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

We agree that there should be a second meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Myles, were you proposing another amendment?

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

I move an amendment to the motion so that, during the first meeting with the CEO of Radio-Canada, she also talks to us about the strategic plan.