Canadian Heritage Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

My colleague David Myles has hit just the right note and I love Mr. Frame's reading of Meta's attitude.

I worked on Bill C‑18 with several other members of this committee and I can tell you that the legislation that ensued came about as a result of that study. We are dealing with fairness in the media industry and that was the spirit of Bill C‑18. If the legislation seems inadequate to some, it is because of the behaviour of the digital companies. They are good-for-nothings; they conspire to challenge the legislation we establish in order to keep on with their activities unfettered and to suck the life out of our cultural and media industries. That's what we ought to be censuring. I really like Mr. Frame's reading of the situation.

Since we are talking about digital companies, let me turn to you, Ms. Bouchard. I am sure that you can see this question coming.

I have to tell you that I really liked Radio-Canada's reaction when people complained that ICI RDI was on a subscription platform owned by Amazon—not to mention any names, but it was Prime Video. The reaction was swift. The call to arms was not quiet. You therefore decided to pause Amazon Prime subscriptions for ICI RDI until—and correct me if I am wrong—the public broadcaster's content is available on platforms paid for by the funding Radio-Canada receives.

My question may be a little annoying, but who first had the brilliant idea to propose that at a time when the digital companies are being called to account?

That's my only question: Who said it would be a great idea to be on Amazon Prime?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

I know that you are an avid reader of our strategy. You have certainly noticed that we said we would go wherever Canadians and Quebeckers are. We will seek them out wherever they consume content. That's our objective: to serve them wherever they consume content.

Now it turns out that Amazon has a service called Prime Video. It is well established in Canada and already offers a number of Canadian channels, including all Bell's channels, French and English, and even a Quebecor channel, TVA Sports. Our data shows that the channel is used by 50% of those under 35, francophones and anglophones alike. So, if we want to reach people who no longer have cable by providing a trustworthy and semi-official streaming source of information, the idea is, as I said, for us to go where the people are.

We certainly recognized that putting ICI RDI on Prime Video, as the only way to subscribe if you don't have cable, was going to push people towards Amazon. We felt justified in taking a step backwards in order to first create conditions that would encourage people to access ICI RDI on TOU.TV, just as CBC News is accessible on CBC Gem. Then they would always have a way to move to our platforms to get our services. It's like putting on your own mask before helping others.

But I am not naive. When we offer the option to subscribe to Prime Video, there will be people who will choose to do so, because it is their platform. The Quebec government has passed legislation to allow francophone content on foreign platforms. With an agreement such as the one we have, we are helping with the discoverability of francophone content on platforms that Quebeckers use.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I am now giving the floor to another member.

Mrs. Thomas, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

My question is for Mr. Griffiths.

In your opening statement, you talked about the importance of establishing trust. You made a comment with regard to money being given by the government in order to prop up existing journalists and entities. You talked about the fact that with the way it is done with the “payroll tax subsidy”, as you called it, it's rather difficult for new players to enter the market. Instead, it boxes them out and protects the existing players.

I'm curious about your view on what this type of conduct by the government does to overall public trust in the media. Further, I'm interested in knowing your views on what this does to journalistic integrity and overall transparency. They are tied together, of course—trust with integrity and transparency.

[Rudyard Griffiths]

Thank you, MP Thomas, for the question.

To bring some hard facts into the conversation, the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford—which is well respected—has documented the decline of Canadian trust in the news. The trust that Canadians have in the media fell from 55% in 2016 to 39% in 2024.

Polling that we've conducted indicates that 76% of Canadians agree that government funding could undermine journalistic objectivity. About 67% of Canadians surveyed do not trust the government to decide which media organizations qualify for subsidy support.

We have to understand that this whole conversation, for the last hour or so. It seems to be entirely focused on the large incumbent organizations, and I get that. They have powerful lobbyists, and clearly, they've been very effective in designing a subsidy scheme that is optimized for their needs. To a large degree, it entrenches their incumbency, for the reasons I talked about.

I appreciate your raising the issue of trust, because nowhere in this conversation has anyone addressed the extent to which trust in the media is plunging, including trust in the CBC.

Will we connect? Will we have the courage, fortitude and perspicacity to understand that there may be a connection between large-scale government funding of the media, with an increasing public distrust in news and journalism and the consequences of all of that for our democracy? Instead, it seems as though we're having a conversation that's exceedingly convenient for many of the people testifying today on behalf of the organizations they represent. It's basically about how we can maximize subsidies that we receive from government to maintain and sustain our business models, which are legacy models that were built over decades. I do not deny that they produce excellent journalism and provide a public service.

Other than my voice today, who's speaking for what we'll hope will be the next generation of media organizations that will come up in this country, that will develop new ways of telling Canadian stories and writing effective journalism? Who's speaking for them? Where are the types of reforms to the subsidy model that could allow 1,000 flowers to bloom?

I'll end on this point. We're celebrating our fifth anniversary at The Hub, after five years of building this organization from nothing to something. When I look around, I'm distressed to see that no one has followed us. There are very few new media start-ups of any size, since these subsidies came into effect in 2019.

We have to acknowledge that the subsidy regime is doing something. It is squashing innovation. It is impeding new models, methods and types of organizations to renew our journalistic capacity in Canada.

I appreciate the question about trust, because it's something we need to discuss. We need to connect it to subsidies. We need to connect it to how the subsidy regime has largely frozen Canadian media, from the CBC to my old friends at The Toronto Star and others.

We're not seeing a renewal in the industry. We're not seeing dynamism in the industry. I would challenge anyone to argue otherwise.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You said there were consequences for democracy. Quickly, what are those consequences?

[Rudyard Griffiths]

Arguably, the whole purpose of the subsidies was to support a vibrant media. In turn, it could provide Canadians with accurate information, so they could make informed choices as citizens in the democratic dialogue that we are all part of.

I quote those numbers to you. Trust in news fell from 55% in 2016 to 39% in 2024. Much of that period was covered by the current subsidy regime. The subsidy regime doesn't seem to be having any positive effect on trust.

In fact, as our polling showed, 76% of Canadians, three out of four, agree that government funding undermines journalistic objectivity. That may be true or not. In many cases, it's probably not true. It's the perception of what large-scale government funding is doing to the media. This is a Faustian bargain that the media has entered into.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

[Rudyard Griffiths]

In order to save itself, it is ingesting these subsidies, but it is bleeding trust at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Myles, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

This is super interesting. I find one thing very interesting, which is that, you know, perception is one thing, but reality.... It might not be reality. Part of the job of good journalism is to define the difference between perception and reality and to lean into the things that are real.

We've heard a lot of talk in this committee about giving weight to organizations that don't have very much journalistic integrity, that lean very much into pushing the perception of interference where there is no interference. There's also a responsibility from a journalistic perspective to make sure that there is a line between perception and reality. Ideally, good journalism leans into reality. I think that's what we're all talking about.

I also find it interesting, when we talk about the difference between 2016 and 2025, that it corresponds to a huge breadth of news organizations and fake news online. It happens to correspond to some of this subsidization. We've talked about the subsidization and why it's important. So many organizations come in every day. It's because the market is failing, and large companies are taking advantage of the content. I find it interesting that the idea.... There was also skepticism when large businesses were paying for advertising in newspapers. I was in university in the early 2000s, and there was a lot of skepticism around the corporate influence of large media organizations. Journalism is a practice.

It's interesting, because the corresponding distrust also comes with the growth of fake news online. Part of our job is to make sure that we are drawing a line between what is true and what is not true. The line has been vague at points in terms of what is considered real journalism.

I think we all agree that we want a strong ecosystem with multiple players, including innovative online companies as well. We want that, particularly if their interest is in having true journalism, being accountable to readers and having journalistic standards and practices. When we're talking about the public broadcaster, I'm curious to know.... When we're talking about rural areas and about building out a bigger ecosystem, one question that comes to mind for me—and, I think, for many people here—is advertising. When you're competing with private companies for advertising—I'm looking at other public broadcasters around the world, some of which rely on advertising and some of which don't—how does that play into, particularly, the relationship between private media and public media? How do you perceive this in the international context?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

There are many models of public broadcasters. Hybrid models of funding are prevalent. Sometimes there are restrictions on advertising in certain time slots or on certain types of revenue. Some are allowed to generate revenue abroad, not necessarily commercial revenue in their territory. There are many models.

The one that CBC/Radio-Canada was founded on has always been a hybrid model, in which advertising on television and, later, digital platforms was part of the whole financial basis for the delivery of services. Of course, we don't generate shareholder interests or anything like that. All the revenue we generate through advertising is reinvested to support what we do in the service of Canadians.

The advertising market has been declining for everybody on linear platforms. We don't have advertising on radio, and we haven't had it for a long time. Radio is a local market for advertising, so I'm glad we don't have an issue with local advertising at that level.

In most of the small markets we are re-entering, we are re-entering with bureaus, not with stations, so we don't have inventory to sell that is specifically for linear television in terms of the work we do there. It's unlikely that we would have any kind of impact on that market from an advertising point of view. In larger markets, yes—Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver—we have a mix of national advertisers and more local advertising.

What we do, though—I want to point this out—is work with other publishers and other media to try to regain a little more sovereignty in our own advertising market. The advertising market in Canada is composed of about $25 billion. The bulk of that is owned by American giants. Only a small portion is exploited by Canadian publishers and operators in broadcast, print and digital. We form a very small part of that $25 billion. Our advertising revenue is $250 million a year—just 1%.

Can we work together to grow the part that Canadian media owns and benefit from it together, instead of fighting among ourselves? That's the proposal we have on the table. That's why we are participating in a collective that is trying to—particularly with digital advertising, which has been completely taken over by those foreign platforms—work together to create value for all of us in Canada, and to regain some access for the Canadian businesses wanting to reach Canadian audiences. Remaining in the advertising market sometimes allows us to take the lead in those conversations and to offer to pilot stuff with our funds to benefit the whole community.

That's what we're doing.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Your time is up.

The Conservatives are still deciding who's going next.

Let me throw this out there: We've heard a lot from the CBC about competition in different markets. I worked at the Edmonton Journal in 1998. I think there were four radio stations. There were three or four newspapers. There were several TV stations. We all competed against each other, and we had more and better news for it. Sometimes competition is good in communities.

Are you ready?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

It'll be Mr. Diotte.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Diotte, you have the floor.

I'll leave my comment there as is.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Mr. Griffiths, last week, this committee heard from Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair and former publisher of the Calgary Herald. He shared his belief that objectivity in newsrooms, right now, is “an enormous challenge”.

Do you agree? How can we expect journalists to be objective, for instance, when their newsroom relies on funding from the Liberal government?

[Rudyard Griffiths]

Peter is a contributor and a columnist at The Hub. We really appreciate his analysis.

I'm possibly less concerned about objectivity than I am about a diversity of media, especially media by type and size. As I've discussed, there's an inherent tension that seems to exist now between incumbent legacy media and start-up independent media, let's call it, on the extent to which the subsidy regime has entirely worked to the benefit of the former and not the latter. I think objectivity will solve itself—largely, I hope, in the eye of the beholder—and we will have more media outlets like The Hub that follow rigorous journalistic standards.

The Hub is a QCJO, registered with Revenue Canada. We employ professional journalists. In fact, one professional journalist was reached out to in the last week to 10 days by the CBC to see if they were interested in leaving The Hub to go work for the CBC, so I'm a little confused about our friend at the CBC's comments that they don't actively seek out talent amongst competitor organizations like The Hub.

I hope that answers your question. I really hope that the committee in its work on this study will focus on the key words of “fairness and competition” in your motion. That's where this discussion needs to go. In that discussion, yes, we can talk about big tech. We can talk about legacy media's concerns about competition vis-à-vis big tech. However, let's not forget independent media, start-up media and our concerns about competition vis-à-vis legacy media in Canada. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You mentioned that three of four Canadians surveyed feel that government funding hurts trust. What's the solution to that?

[Rudyard Griffiths]

Sunlight is the ultimate antiseptic. It's jaw-dropping that we're putting tens of millions of dollars a year of public taxpayer funds into media organizations and we are requiring no disclosure on their part that they are recipients of the labour tax credit. If media argues again and again that government should be transparent and that transparency leads to accountability—it is the sine qua non of their own journalism—then why do large legacy media outlets not disclose that they are beneficiaries of the labour tax credit and communicate to their readers, listeners and viewers the millions of dollars they receive?

The National Post, to their credit, does this, because they have to file as part of their publicly traded status as a corporation, but many other media, including The Globe and Mail.... I don't know if Angus can talk about the Toronto Star and whether it's been open about whether it has, in fact, availed itself of the labour tax credit. I assume it has. I don't see that anywhere in the Toronto Star. I don't see it on its masthead. I don't see it on Toronto Star's website.

I mean, come on; let's bring some transparency to this conversation. This would be one important first step toward restoring public trust.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You also mentioned that we need to do subsidies differently. Could you expand on your ideal model for that?

[Rudyard Griffiths]

I'm increasingly reconciled to the fact that these subsidies are not going away. Let's remember, everybody, that we said in 2019, when we created this program, that it was going to be for five years and then it was going away. A lot of very respected voices in media signed on to that. They said it was vital that this had a sunset clause. Well, we're now on the other side of that sunset clause and we're talking about millions of dollars more going into various types of subsidy programs. We've created new types of subsidy programs over the last five years.

There are two ideas that I want to reiterate. Stop subsidizing head count. Why not switch the subsidy metrics from measuring the advantages that are inherent to incumbent legacy organizations and start allocating subsidies on the basis of audience reach, engagement and subscriber growth? This is far more equitable. It would allow smaller organizations in the start-up phase to benefit from subsidies. Right now they can't. It's a cart-and-horse problem that this subsidy regime, especially the labour tax credit, has created. I think it was created purposely that way by lobbyists for legacy incumbent media.

Finally, let's ensure that the payroll subsidies go to journalism. Right now a lot of these large legacy organizations are private media. Those subsidies are going directly to owners and bondholders. They are not going to journalism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.