Canadian Heritage Committee on April 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines written on the updated cards on the table in front of you. They are measures in place to prevent feedback incidents and protect the health and safety of all participants, especially our interpreters. You'll notice that there's a QR code on the card. It links to a short awareness video.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Finally, the clerk distributed two operational budgets. One is to cover extra meals for our study on the state of journalism and media sectors, and one is for the meeting with the minister on the main estimates.

Will you move to adopt them?

Moved by Ms. Royer.

(Motion agreed to)

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 22, 2025, the committee is meeting to study the state of the journalism and media sectors.

We have two new members joining us today, Ms. Tatiana Auguste and Ms. Alana Hirtle. Welcome to the heritage committee. It's good to have you.

I think everybody is in the room today and all of our witnesses have appeared at this committee before.

Christa Dickenson, from CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, is with us in the room. We also have Kevin Desjardins, president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters—welcome, sir—and Jeff Thiessen from the Miracle Channel Association. We have Barry Rooke, executive director of the National Campus and Community Radio Association—it's good to see you again—and Amir Epstein, chief executive officer from Tafsik Organization.

Welcome to everyone. You will each have five minutes for opening statements before I turn it over to committee members for questioning.

We'll start with CPAC.

Christa Dickenson, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Christa Dickenson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC)]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. My name is Christa Dickenson. I am the president and chief executive officer of CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel.

Thank you, first of all, for inviting CPAC to speak to this important study.

The issues before this committee are immediate and deeply consequential. As the members know, last week CPAC made the difficult decision to eliminate our two flagship programs and to proceed with layoffs, affecting 15% of our staff. This incredibly difficult step was necessary for CPAC.

CPAC is an independent, not-for-profit, commercial-free, bilingual media organization, focused on Canadian politics and public affairs.

CPAC is a non-profit service. It's not a commercial operation. We don't produce opinion programs. Our mission is simple: to provide full, comprehensive, unfiltered and impartial access to Canada's democratic institutions in both official languages.

As viewing habits changed, we evolved. Today, CPAC provides up to 14 simultaneous livestreams online, including coverage of media availabilities, scrums, caucus activity and major announcements, in addition to the televised parliamentary programming. Further, CPAC hosts an archive of over 70,000 hours of political and public affairs programming dating back to 1977.

Canadians know they can rely on us for the complete story, as do Canada's journalists. Veteran parliamentary reporter Bob Fife wrote to us recently, right after we announced our cuts. He said that CPAC is an indispensable service for everyone and that, without access to the media events that CPAC covers, it would be a real challenge for reporters to do their jobs properly.

However, CPAC is operating under significant and growing financial strain. We do not receive ongoing government funding. Further, our CRTC conditions of service dictate that we are not permitted to sell advertising, which is key to ensuring that we maintain our neutrality.

CPAC's main source of ongoing revenue by far is the CRTC-mandated wholesale fee we receive from cable and satellite customers, but this funding model is eroding faster than anticipated. As Canadians cut the cord, revenues decline even as demand for online access grows.

Recognizing the strain CPAC is under, the CRTC recently approved a three-cent rate increase for CPAC, which will come into effect this September. This increase is critical for CPAC in the short term, but it is not, nor is it intended to be, a long-term solution.

Your study examines the transformation of Canada's media landscape. Traditional revenues are eroding; digital platforms are rising, and the fiscal and regulatory framework is struggling to keep pace.

CPAC and others have advocated to the CRTC to establish a services of exceptional importance fund. The fund would see streaming services contribute to certain public interest services like CPAC, in a way that is similar to what cable and satellite providers do today.

This approach acknowledges the growing importance of online access to reliable and comprehensive news content for Canadians. It also recognizes that online services must contribute to the broadcasting system and to the important public services, like CPAC, that are made possible by that system.

Without a stable and sustainable fiscal and funding framework, services like CPAC and news content and other broadcast media will continue to contract, if not disappear. When they do, our democracy will feel the impact. There will be fewer cameras, less coverage and less visibility in how decisions are made.

Your study is an opportunity to address that, to preserve Canadian media and journalism, its independence and impartiality, and its role in supporting our democratic and cultural sovereignty.

There is no substitute for what CPAC does; it is a public good. Like many public goods, it requires thoughtful, timely policy support to endure.

With that, I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

It was very upsetting to hear about the layoffs at CPAC. Thank you for describing for us the landscape behind them.

We'll move now to Kevin Desjardins from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. You have the floor, sir, for five minutes.

[Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Kevin Desjardins and I'm president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB. We represent commercial broadcasters nationwide, including radio, television and specialty services. We have 77 owner groups, with a total of 797 stations and services across the country.

You've had the opportunity to hear from several CAB members during your study, and two of them are here today. In those presentations, you heard them say several times that journalism is a critical part of the work they do to serve their communities. However, they also need support so they can continue to provide this fundamental democratic service.

Commercial radio and television broadcasters remain a cornerstone of Canada's news ecosystem. Our members provide trusted professional journalism to millions of Canadians on radio and television stations across the country, as well as through their online services and news portals. Broadcasters are relied upon by Canadians as their primary and most-trusted source for news in communities of all sizes and in all regions.

Private broadcasters also spend more than $680 million in news programming, the vast majority of which is invested in journalists in newsrooms and reporting in their communities. That's significantly more than any other players across the news sector, including the CBC.

The challenge for Canada's broadcast newsrooms is not one of reach, relevance, trust or value. The largest challenge in supporting newsrooms in Canada is the fact that two of the most important market-based supports for journalism have been undermined by foreign online giants. On the advertising side, we see that 75% of Canadian ad dollars are now flowing to foreign digital platforms. That's $11.2 billion Canadian leaving our economy every year.

On the subscription side, cord cutting of Canadian cable and satellite services in favour of foreign online streaming giants means that a further $5 billion Canadian is leaving our domestic media sector. The foreign streamers themselves estimate that this figure will hit $10 billion in the near future.

What we effectively have is a trade deficit in our media industry, and the first places to feel the squeeze are Canada's newsrooms. All news producers face declining advertising revenues, disruption from global media behemoths and rising production costs. Moreover, while the challenges faced by news producers—whether print, digital-first or broadcast media—are the same, existing direct funding mechanisms largely exclude commercial broadcasters.

This is why the CAB recommends the three following measures be undertaken to help keep journalists in newsrooms across Canada: First, provide emergency support to local independent television stations; second, extend the Canadian journalism labour tax credit to broadcasters; and third, devote 70% of the government's ad budget to Canadian media companies.

On the first item, you have heard from several recipients of the independent local news fund on the immediate issue they face, as an appeal by global streamers has delayed the flow of new money into this important fund. It should be underlined that the core of the streamers' argument to the Federal Court of Appeal is that they don't do news, so they shouldn't have to support it. While this shortfall in funds may be a temporary issue, the consequences of delays could be permanent, with newsroom cuts and more stations closing.

Second, we think it is a matter of basic fairness that the Government of Canada rethink the journalism labour tax credit. Its current application exclusively to print media fails to recognize the reality of news media in Canada. Whatever their origins as an outlet, many print media typically also provide audio and video content now, and broadcasters create text-based news content through their websites and portals.

Third, it is vital that policies with respect to government advertising be addressed. The Government of Canada continues to disproportionately place the bulk of its advertising on digital platforms—two-thirds of the government's ad spend—with the majority of that going to foreign-owned platforms.

Dedicating 70% of the Government of Canada's advertising revenues to our domestic radio, TV, print and Canadian-owned digital media will not only help to reverse this trend but will also benefit the government by positioning its messages alongside trusted sources of national and local news.

Finally, Canada must reject any attempt to treat our media sovereignty as a bargaining chip in the ongoing review of CUSMA. The Online Streaming Act does not fit any good-faith definition of a non-tariff trade barrier. As I've already mentioned, foreign platforms have abundant access to the Canadian market. In fact, foreign-owned digital media platforms continue to enjoy an easier path to accessing the Canadian market than regulated Canadian broadcasters.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Jeff Thiessen, from the Miracle Channel Association.

You have the floor for five minutes, sir.

[Jeff Thiessen, Vice-President, Miracle Channel Association]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Miracle Channel Association, now using MCA Media Group to identify ourselves as we've grown. We are an independent local broadcaster based in Lethbridge, Alberta, and a proud member of the local independent television stations group, the LITS group. MCA Media produces and broadcasts high-quality, locally relevant news and programming that serves southern Alberta, including positive-content television through the Miracle Channel and our expanding digital platforms. Our remarks align with those of our LITS colleagues who have already appeared before this committee.

LITS stations like ours serve around four million Canadians, over 10% of the population, in some of the country's smallest and most underserved television markets, yet we are operating under extreme financial pressure. This is why emergency bridge funding for the independent local news fund, the ILNF, is our immediate priority. MCA Media has been hit particularly hard by recent CRTC decisions. We were executing on a plan that included funding from streamer contributions to the ILNF, obligations the commission imposed under the Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11. Over the last four years, we invested heavily, in good faith, increasing our local news and exceeding our conditions of licence. We expected that additional funding to arrive in August 2025. Instead, our allocation was cut by 43%, when the commission prematurely added Corus. Overall, MCA Media's funding from the ILNF has fallen 72% since 2017, the opposite of what was supposed to happen.

In the meantime, larger ILNF stations have generously allowed smaller operators like us to borrow funds to manage cash flow. If the appeals court does not uphold the CRTC decision to support local news for small markets, it will be devastating. Not only will small stations lose the additional funding everyone planned for; we'll also have to repay those loans. This uncertainty has left us in dire circumstances. Employees have left and we have not replaced them. We have job openings, and we want to hire more journalists, but we simply do not have the money. It's hard to remain entrepreneurial and maximize every opportunity to serve our communities when public policy works in theory but fails in practice. If a key goal of the ILNF is to support local news in underserved markets, the current situation is having the opposite effect.

We also note the ongoing failure of the Online News Act to deliver anticipated compensation from dominant platforms. LITS has formally applied to the CRTC to commence bargaining with Meta, providing unequivocal evidence that Meta's supposed news ban is a charade. This underscores the act's critical importance for independent local broadcasters.

We note the heritage minister's recent comments expressing disappointment that the CRTC is not moving faster to implement the Online Streaming Act. The reality is that we are two decades late, not just a year. This continued delay directly harms local broadcasters, which are required to meet strict Canadian content quotas, while foreign streamers capture audience and revenue with minimal obligations.

On government advertising, my colleague Rod Schween was bang on. Broadcasters are required to meet rigorous Canadian content requirements. Shouldn't the government that imposes those requirements on us match it with their own advertising spend? We also call for closing the advertising loophole that allows foreign digital platforms to siphon revenue without equivalent regulatory or content obligations.

Regarding innovation, independent local broadcasters such as MCA have invested heavily in digital transformation, new platforms and audience engagement. We meet and have long exceeded online distribution requirements while maintaining local roots and public service mandates in smaller communities.

In closing, we support greater transparency in funding programs. Broadcast programs like the ILNF already include robust reporting requirements. The survival of independent local television is not just an industry issue; it is a democratic imperative. Canadians in every region, especially in smaller markets served by stations like MCA Media, deserve reliable, locally produced news and information. We stand ready to work with this committee and the government to deliver the urgent measures needed.

Thank you. I look forward to the questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you. It's good to see more Lethbridge in the room.

We'll turn now to Barry Rooke from the National Campus and Community Radio Association.

You have five minutes.

[Barry Rooke, Executive Director, National Campus and Community Radio Association]

Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear.

My name is Barry Rooke. I've been the executive director of the National Campus and Community Radio Association since 2015. I started my broadcasting career at the age of 15, volunteering at one of our member stations located in Guelph. Working in the community radio sector has had a profound impact on how I see the world and how I act within it.

The NCRA represents over 120 English campus, community and indigenous not-for-profit radio stations serving more than 100 communities across Canada, broadcasting in over 55 languages. Our entire sector is powered by approximately 900 staff, with more than 23,000 volunteers contributing the equivalent of over $40 million annually in volunteer labour—and much more through advertising and music.

We are a national system of local media deeply embedded in the communities we serve. Our member stations are often the only source of local information, whether in a rural town, on a campus or on an indigenous reserve.

Community radio is not a legacy system in decline. It's a system that has adapted. Our stations have expanded into digital streaming, podcasting and social platforms while maintaining accessible over-the-air broadcasting that provides local journalism, cultural programming and emergency broadcasting—often in areas in which commercial broadcasters have reduced service or exited entirely. In fact, I receive inquiries to start a station at least once a month, and we currently have a dozen or so stations that intend to apply for CRTC licences this year.

Despite this, the policy and funding environment has not kept pace with the role we now play. There is a structural gap in support for local journalism delivered through community broadcasters. Programs designed to support journalism under Bill C-18, the Online News Act, from 2022, have not been built with our model in mind. As a result, many of our stations, despite producing news and spoken word content under CRTC requirements, have been excluded from funding and had their social media platforms blocked—not just their ability to share news.

While the CRTC has recognized the need for sector support through the Online Streaming Act, implementation of those efforts has faced ongoing legal and structural challenges and has not resulted in any funding becoming available.

At the same time, we're seeing a continued contraction of commercial broadcasters and local journalism, as well as the closures of broadcasting and journalism schools across the country.

Finally, the economics of media have shifted dramatically. Advertising revenues have moved away from local markets. Community broadcasters who reinvest directly in local services are left out, without sustainable funding models to match the public service role. By not advertising on our stations, governments are missing out on reaching millions of people who don't have access to other local media.

Our proposed solution follows the model in Australia, which uses a small amount of core stable funding that allows the sector to do what it does best: serve the community. In Australia, the government has allocated $20 million to community broadcasters and $20 million to aboriginal broadcasters over the past 15 years. This means that a country with two-thirds of our population has close to double the number of non-profit stations and has a thriving local media sector.

Our solution is the community radio initiative. We are seeking an annual investment of $30 million—which would result in about $95,000 per station—and additional top-up funding for special projects, as well as an annual sector survey and report to ensure that the money invested is providing the expected value to the Canadian public. In practical terms, the level of funding proposed by this initiative is modest. It would support a mix of staffing and operations that would keep stations on the air and maintain their ability to provide consistent local news, emergency information and essential connections to community services, local business and public programs.

We respectfully ask that this committee include a clear recommendation in its report to fund the community radio initiative and to transmit that recommendation to the Minister of Finance and the Standing Committee on Finance as part of the upcoming budget process.

I can say for certain that many of your colleagues in this room and within your parties have found their paths to becoming an MP through one of our stations. I'm asking you for your support to ensure that the media sector remains stable so that it can do its part in Canada's democratic processes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Last, but not least, we'll turn to Amir Epstein from the Tafsik Organization.

Welcome, sir. You have five minutes.

[Amir Epstein, Chief Executive Officer, Tafsik Organization]

Thank you.

My name is Amir Epstein. I am the chief executive officer of Tafsik Organization, one of the fastest-growing Jewish organizations in Canada.

The explosion of anti-Semitism we are witnessing across Canada today is not an accident. It is not spontaneous and it is not happening in isolation. It is being fed, shaped and normalized by the information Canadians consume every single day. This includes our schools and our universities, and it absolutely includes the CBC, our main national public broadcaster.

The CBC is not a fringe outlet; it is not a blog. It is a taxpayer-funded national institution to the tune of over $1 billion, which Canadians are told they can trust. When that power is exercised carelessly, when unverified claims are amplified, when biased sources are relied upon and when narratives are presented without proper scrutiny, the consequences are not theoretical; they are societal and they are measurable.

When the CBC amplifies claims from terrorist sources without any verification or context, it is not simply reporting; it is acting as a conduit for narratives that are designed to promote hate and violence against my Jewish community. The most glaring example of this was the reporting on the al Ahli hospital explosion in Gaza in 2023. Within minutes, claims originating from Hamas—a designated terrorist organization that murdered my people—were spread across Canada by the CBC, alleging that Israel had bombed the hospital and killed hundreds of civilians. Well, it was all a lie: The explosion was caused by a misfired rocket launched from Gaza. However, the damage was already done. Millions of Canadians will forever believe the lie that Israel had bombed that hospital.

When those narratives portray the only Jewish state—and by extension Jews in Canada—as uniquely immoral or violent, they reinforce deep-rooted and dangerous patterns of hate. This is how modern anti-Semitism operates—in the form of anti-Zionism—and it is repackaged through the language of politics and activism. However, the structure remains the same: the singling out, the demonization and the application of double standards.

Classic anti-Semitism has largely been associated with the far right, including the neo-Nazis and the white supremacists, relying on blood libels and tropes that Jews control governments and manipulate society to justify hatred of the Jewish community. Today, anti-Zionism has become a modern vehicle for the same hatred. It emerges from segments of the far left and Islamist movements, using similar falsehoods reframed to claim that Israel and Zionists control global affairs or commit genocide and apartheid, which are lies that some politicians, such as Olivia Chow, have accepted to justify hostility toward Jews.

We have seen narratives from Hamas and its proxy UNRWA, the United Nations, Al Jazeera, the Government of Qatar and the Islamic regime in Iran amplified without the level of scrutiny expected from a publicly funded broadcaster. This is not journalism at the highest standard, nor is it journalism at the most basic level. The CBC is acting is a mouthpiece for narratives by terrorist entities, something that would have been unfathomable 20 years ago.

Media does not just inform; it conditions Canadian attitudes. The CBC tells audiences who deserves sympathy, who deserves skepticism and who deserves blame. If Hindus are attacked by Khalistanis, who cares? If over 100 churches are burned to the ground, who cares? The media choose what is newsworthy and what isn't based on their own biases. We are now seeing those attitudes manifest here in Canada. Jewish students are facing hostility on campuses, while synagogues, Jewish schools and Jewish-owned restaurants are being shot at repeatedly.

The CBC elevates fringe anti-Zionist Jewish voices to represent the broader Canadian Jewish community, when they actually represent only themselves. This creates a distorted picture for Canadians. The vast majority of Jews in Canada and worldwide believe in the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland, just as every culture in the world should. Anyone claiming to speak as a Jew while denying that right is detached from Jewish history and reality. When the CBC platforms those voices, it reinforces false narratives about Israel and the Jewish people, contributing to a climate of hostility, rising anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

A publicly funded broadcaster must reflect reality, not shape it selectively. This is not about silencing criticism of Israel, as its government can and should be scrutinized. However, scrutiny must be grounded in facts and applied consistently to every nation. The CBC helps shape how millions of Canadians understand the world, and in this case, it is contributing to an environment in which anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are increasingly normalized.

This is about whether Jewish Canadians can live openly and safely, whether students can walk on campuses without fear, whether families can attend synagogue without security or whether children feel safe wearing a Star of David without being suspended for anti-Palestinian racism—the latest fabricated tool to extinguish Jewish identity. When trusted institutions fuel narratives that lead to suspicion and dehumanization, they are no longer observers but have become part of the environment in which that hatred grows. The cost of getting this wrong is measured in the safety, dignity and future of Canadian Jews.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

We'll now turn the floor over to questions from members, starting with Mrs. Thomas for six minutes.

You have the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you so much, and thank you to each and every one of you for being here.

My first question is for Mrs. Dickenson. CPAC went to the Board of Internal Economy, and during its time there, the following statement was made:

At a time when legacy media companies continue to cut back their news operations and increasingly substitute opinion-driven journalism for in-depth reporting, CPAC is alone among Canadian broadcasters in providing live, uncut, neutral and unfiltered coverage.

You made a distinction between opinion-driven journalism and in-depth reporting. I'm wondering if you would care to expand on that or describe what you mean by those two things today.

[Christa Dickenson]

Sure.

The media and journalistic landscape includes private broadcasters, the public broadcaster and not-for-profit organizations, and they all have different mandates. What's absolutely unique about CPAC is that instead of having a sound bite that goes into a story, you get the full coverage of the event at which the sound bite took place. That is what we mean.

For instance, above and beyond parliamentary proceedings, press conferences and sound bites, we go to events such as all political party conventions, and we will be there to cover them. Anything that's public-facing, we will cover it in its entirety.

I always think about, for instance, an example such as the Assembly of First Nations' annual general assembly. We're there for its entirety. Even APTN, which is there to provide community-based information for indigenous people and about indigenous people, will only do a news story.

This is what I mean by it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

For further clarification, what do you mean by opinion-based journalism?

[Christa Dickenson]

Opinion-based journalism is when one continues to ask very rooted questions through one lens and with one focus versus looking at a wide array of opinions.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Can you give an example of what that would look like?

[Christa Dickenson]

We see it every single day in the news that's coming to us—specifically, foreign news and the American news that is overtaking our broadcast airwaves. That's what I would look at.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's looking south of the border, but you're talking within a Canadian context and saying that there seems to be opinion-based journalism here. Would you give an example of that?

[Christa Dickenson]

I don't have a specific example that's coming to mind. I think a lot of the other broadcasters go down that road.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

I can see your hesitancy to give an example. It was a phrase that was used in front of the Board of Internal Economy. Obviously, there is a distinction being drawn between what CPAC offers and what other media outlets offer. Do you not care to expand on that?

[Christa Dickenson]

At the end of the day, be it political parties or other journalists looking for the whole, unedited clip, they come to CPAC versus choosing a piece of the story. This is really and truly what I mean by that statement.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

All right. That's fair enough.

My next question is for Mr. Thiessen.

I'm curious about whether you could expand on the unique challenges that are faced by a local, small and independent media outlet, in particular when it comes to providing coverage that would pertain specifically to a community and making sure the diversity or voice in that area is represented.

[Jeff Thiessen]

One of the challenges is funding. To get every side of the story, it's really important that we have enough resources to get to the story. That's one of the challenges small markets have; there is always a limited pool of resources that way. Diversity is one thing that we really pride ourselves on in our organization; we try to get at all sides of the story. I appreciate some of the things that have been talked about already this morning.

Southern Alberta is unique. We talked about Lethbridge, which is a great city because it has so many diverse opinions. It's a pleasure to allow our organization and our news team to dig into a city that has a very strong university presence, as well as strong agriculture, and some from very different parts of the political spectrum. It's a great opportunity and a great ecosystem to develop journalism and make sure that the standards are well maintained.

It's a fun city to be covering.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

To tap further into my question, I'm curious as to why that is important. Why do you need boots on the ground in local communities?

[Jeff Thiessen]

In my speech, I talked about democracy. You have to explain what the real story is and what the heart of the story is, and this comes only from digging in and finding out what's really going on.

I'm sorry; I don't know if I'm answering your question, but I can tell you that the concern we have as a local station is that without the resources, we're just not able to cover stories the way we would like to, whether it's in the courthouse appearances or other things the community really wants to hear about, while making sure that everyone's voice can be heard.