House of Commons Hansard #425 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was news.

Topics

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is true that we work well together in committee. Our committee works very hard. We have talked extensively about what we should do about the media and many other issues. Various steps have been taken in the past three or four years.

The Canada Media Fund received stabilization funds several years ago, and the CBC, for local news production, also received a large investment. Therefore, there have been steps taken all along.

I apologize for switching to English, but sometimes it is easier for me. Unifor represents over 10,000 employees. How can anyone think they are all partisan? The truth is that journalists represent all points of view. Unifor is a big union that wants to do good work for employees. It would be crazy to say it is completely partisan, yet that is what we are hearing today.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this opposition motion today, because, as my colleagues know, I was a journalist for more than two decades. I spent the bulk of my time working for community newspapers across southern Alberta, so I think I can speak with a lot of insight into how journalists across the country feel, not necessarily about the media bailout but certainly about certain groups that have been added to this panel to decide who is going to be getting funding, who is going to be left out, and what the criteria will be for how these funds are going to be rolled out to various media groups.

From the beginning of my career as a journalist to near the end, I could see a stark difference in how Canadians viewed journalists across the country. There is no question, for various reasons, be it the growth of social media, cable news or other avenues, that there has been a very clear erosion of trust in journalists across this country, and certainly across North America.

Our motion today is not questioning Canadian journalists and the importance of the media in strengthening our democracy and holding government and politicians to account. That is not stated anywhere in the motion we are putting forward. What we are questioning is the inclusion of a group like Unifor on this panel. Our motion clearly states that it is important that we have a free and independent press, which is an integral pillar of our democracy. That is the first comment in our motion. However, my argument today is that including a group like Unifor, which has been outwardly partisan, has called itself the resistance and is once again going to be actively campaigning against a specific political party in the upcoming election, erodes the integrity of this entire process. We have heard this from journalists across the country, not just members of the opposition.

Andrew Potter, a CBC contributor, said, “This is actually worse than anyone could have imagined. An 'independent body' staffed entirely by unions and industry lobbyists. What a disaster.”

Andrew Coyne, a columnist with the National Post, said, “It is quite clear now, if it was not already: this is the most serious threat to the independence of the press in this country in decades.”

These are trusted journalists who are speaking out against the decision made by the Liberal government to include a partisan group association as part of this panel. That is the essence of what our motion here speaks about today. In no way are we questioning the integrity and importance of journalists.

I was very proud last week, when the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association held its annual awards ceremony, to see that I had numerous community newspapers in my riding win awards. I would like to take this opportunity to read out some of the award winners.

The Claresholm Local Press, published by Roxanne Thompson and editor Rob Vogt, won best overall in Class B. The High River Times won third-best overall in Class D. The Rocky Mountain Outlook, published by Jason Lyon, won best overall in Class E. It won the Excellence in Education Writing award, the Best Habitat Conservation Story award and the Arts and Culture Writing award.

The Okotoks Western Wheel, where I worked for 17 years, I was very proud to see, won best overall in Class F, beating our rival, the St. Albert Gazette. My colleague will owe me a beer for that one. It also won the Best Local News Story award, the Best Habitat Conservative Story award and the Sports Writing award. I congratulate Bruce Campbell, the editor, and Remy Greer, Krista Conrad and Tammy Rollie, who are some of the reporters there.

However there are two that really stand out to me, and I think this goes to the misinformation from our colleagues across the floor in saying that this funding is going to be available for any journalist across Canada. One of the newspapers, which is an historic newspaper in Alberta, is owned and operated by Frank and Emily McTighe, who are certainly one of my mentors in the newspaper and print industry in Alberta.

The Macleod Gazette is more than 100 years old. It won as the best overall newspaper in its class in Alberta. It won the Healthy Communities Journalism Award and the Best Feature Story by a Local Writer award, and editor and publisher Frank McTighe was honoured with the Gordon Scott Memorial Award for the best feature column. That is a very prestigious award in Alberta's newspaper industry. As well, Shootin' the Breeze, which is owned and operated by Shannon Robison, in Pincher Creek, won two writing awards, for environmental writing and best local editorial.

These two newspapers are among the most popular in my riding of Foothills in southwest Alberta, but neither of these newspapers will be eligible for any of the funding, because they are owner operated. These are not big conglomerates that have highly paid lobbyists who can lobby the Liberal government and this panel to ensure that they benefit from this program. These are small community newspapers, the lifeblood of these communities, that ensure that they are hyper-local and that their residents know everything that is going on in their communities.

Our Liberal colleagues across the floor are saying that the Conservatives are attacking journalism and that all media outlets across the country, which are so important to our democracy, are going to be eligible for these funds. Bloggers, online newspapers and some of these critical community newspapers are not going to be eligible for this funding. They are going to be struggling. I would argue that these newspapers are the most important ones we have. These are the ones that are tied tightly to their communities and do such important work, and I know that they do it with the most minimal of resources. I am sure that they would love to be eligible to access this media fund, but they are not going to be able to. This is going to be exclusively for the large corporations that have expensive lobbyists who will be lobbying the Liberal government to access these funds.

The Conservatives' argument on this motion today is not necessarily who is eligible and who is not. I want to take the opportunity to highlight the misinformation that is being rolled out by the Liberal government on who is going to be able to access these funds, because it is simply not the case.

I want to focus on the fact that making Unifor part of this panel is explicitly inappropriate. The Liberals' attack on us and this motion has been that we are fighting journalists and that we do not believe in a free press or the independence of journalists across Canada, and that is simply not the case. Conservatives understand as well as anyone, especially those of us who come from rural constituencies and represent rural ridings, how important community newspapers are to the success and health of communities. What we are questioning is how the Liberal government, by putting Unifor on the panel, which has campaigned, advertized and been very vocal, calling itself the resistance fighting against the Conservatives in the upcoming election, can possibly believe and claim that this is a non-partisan panel that will be making choices that are free from any influence from the Liberal government.

Jerry Dias might as well be a member of Parliament representing the Liberal Party and sitting in this House. He was a key part of the Liberals' negotiating team on NAFTA. He is now on the media bailout panel. There is no question that this goes way too far. We are asking that the panel stay as it is but that Unifor be removed from that panel to ensure the integrity of this process and not further erode trust in Canadian journalism.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Mr. Speaker, I respect the previous speaker for his experience in local media, which I have some experience with myself.

This reminds me of several years ago, about seven or eight years ago, when we were the third party at that time, or maybe even the opposition. I remember that there was an argument over the Canadian firearms advisory committee. One of the big beefs the Conservatives had at the time was that there was no representation from firearms owners. A lot of people on our side were saying no because, they said, those people were mostly Conservatives against the gun registry and so on and so forth. I remember a bunch of us on the other side saying, “No, that's not right. They should be involved. They are firearms owners.” Then on the other side, they were saying that a lot of law enforcement should not be involved because they were more pro-Liberal or pro-NDP.

I find it kind of odd now that all a sudden there is this voluminous amount of self-righteousness coming from across the way. I will say this, without being too nasty or putting too fine a point on it, and perhaps it is too late: let us take Unifor out of this for just a moment.

Quite frankly, Unifor did not always agree with me. I had many fights with Unifor, especially as its predecessor, when it was known as the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. However, it did a lot of work on behalf of journalist organizations.

If we take just Unifor out, and not the others, is it still a fundamentally sound program from which local media could truly benefit?

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very long question.

To answer his first statement, I was very clear in my comments that this program will not benefit most local media. Those operations that are owner-operated or are small start-ups or are independents will not be eligible for this program.

To the Liberals who continually ask why we are fighting against the ability of local journalism to benefit from this program, the answer is that they will not benefit from this program because they are not eligible. It just goes to show that the Liberals are not reading their own legislation and that they do not understand that these groups will not benefit from this program because they do not qualify.

However, the Liberals have no problem putting a very highly partisan union association at the top of the list when it comes to who is going to qualify for this program and who is not.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's speech on this particular matter, because his riding is very similar to mine in the sense that I have no daily newspapers.

As I heard the minister in committee talking about this, going through the criteria that are already written, not one of my seven weekly papers will qualify under the criteria that the minister admitted were there. Not one of my weekly papers will qualify for the $600 million, the $75 million, the $50 million. None of them qualify.

I know the member has that experience in his background. In his riding, I know there are weekly papers.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River and I have neighbouring ridings, and they are very similar. I worked at several of the newspapers in his constituency.

The member is right: The papers or journalism or media outlets that we should be assisting are the ones that are not going to be able to access this program.

In essence, the argument today is not about this program; the argument today is that the Liberals have established a very partisan $600-million media bailout program that is going to be directed, or at least partially built, by a union association that has come out publicly against opposition parties. I do not believe that this is in any way non-partisan.

Again, I fundamentally believe what I am hearing from journalists in our communities, which is that this further erodes the trust in Canadian journalism, which is already very precarious.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Health.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 3rd, 2019 / 4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

àMr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents in Mégantic—L'Érable to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I will read out the motion so that everyone can understand why I am speaking today. The motion states:

That the House:

(a) take note of the importance of a free and independent press to a healthy democracy;

(b) express its belief that it is inappropriate for partisan political actors to pick winners and losers in the media in an election year;

(c) condemn the inclusion of Unifor, a group that has taken and continues to take partisan political positions, in the panel that will oversee the distribution of the $600-million media bailout; and

(d) call on the government to immediately cease trying to stack the deck for the election with their media bailout and replace it with a proposal that does not allow government to pick winners and losers.

There are not many days left in the 42nd Parliament, and today we are discussing one of the most important issues for our democracy. My colleagues and I have been called upon to speak on this issue since the Liberals were elected in 2015.

Let us not forget how the Liberals deceived Canadians during the election campaign. The promises they made were certainly ambitious, but they clearly had no intention of keeping them.

Here is one promise they made in the throne speech:

To make sure that every vote counts, the Government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system....the Government will promote more open debate and free votes...it will not resort to devices like...omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.

Those statements were taken from the throne speech, which was read by the Governor General when this government first took office.

Let us also not forget the Liberals' promise to balance the budget in 2019. They promised to run small deficits and to balance the budget in 2019. Instead, they ran big deficits, and they are no longer even giving us any idea of when they will balance the budget. The Liberals have completely lost control of the public purse. Today, it is clear that their promise to be an open and transparent government was an empty one. They may have meant well, but things always seem to turn out the same way with the Liberals.

When Liberals are in power, all they care about is protecting their friends, holding on to power at all costs, breaking the rules they do not like, painting pretty pictures and saying all the right things to hide what they have done or failed to do, and constantly distracting Canadians from the issues that matter most to Canadians.

Not long ago, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change revealed the Liberal government's real strategy in a bar. She said that if you stay on message and repeat it louder and louder, people will totally believe it.

Here are some examples of things the Liberals tried to keep quiet: the Prime Minister's extravagant trip to India, his vacation on the Aga Khan's private island, the Prime Minister's ethical breaches, the Minister of Finance's French villa, political interference attempts in the SNC-Lavalin affair, and, more recently, the Mark Norman case.

It is also worth mentioning repeated attempts by the Leader of the Government in the House to change the rules governing members of Parliament. Whose interests would that serve? The Liberal government's, of course. Doing so would rob the opposition of the tools it uses to stand up to the government and fully engage in its essential role: holding the government to account for its actions.

This brings me to the first paragraph of today's motion:

That the House:

(a) take note of the importance of a free and independent press to a healthy democracy;

All the examples I just gave probably would not have come to our attention if not for the importance of a free and independent press. Trust between the public and the media is a direct result of the people's belief that the media is independent of their government. However, the Liberal Prime Minister has introduced a plan worth $600 million that will be distributed to the Canadian media right before the upcoming election. The Prime Minister himself chose the members of the panel that will decide how to distribute the money. He will not commit to following their recommendations. He will not allow the panel's deliberations to be public. He is asking the panel members to sign non-disclosure agreements. The Canadian Association of Journalists is now wondering whether to take part in the process, and it is calling for greater transparency.

I would like to quote a press release issued by the Canadian Association of Journalists, not the Conservative Party.

The Canadian Association of Journalists, or CAJ, said that its paramount concern is transparency and that its ability to participate will hinge on having measures in place that ensure an open and transparent public process. The CAJ noted that, so far, much of the process appears to have taken place out of the public eye through closed-door meetings between governments, newspaper owners and lobby groups. It believes that, for journalists, whose legitimacy depends on public confidence and trust, the process must be open and debate must be rigorous, thorough and in view of the public.

Furthermore, the CAJ said that combining this with the requested confidentiality agreements could create a situation where a media outlet that is critical of a minister or his or her government is denied funding and the CAJ is barred from discussing this publicly. It said that, to ensure the panel has no appearance of partisanship, regardless of whether or not it does, the panel’s full independence must be the rule.

We cannot be accused of attacking journalists when the journalists themselves are saying that the Liberals' scheme is jeopardizing their own independence. Why does the Prime Minister want to make a decision behind closed doors about which media outlets he will help? Is he hiding that he is trying to rig the election? Does he understand the harm he could do to Canadian journalists if he does not show them greater respect?

Now let us move on to paragraph (c) of this motion, which calls on the House to condemn the inclusion of Unifor, a group that has taken and continues to take partisan political positions, in this panel. Unifor is a big union, by far the union that represents the largest number of journalists in Canada. I am saying this for the benefit of people in Quebec who may not have heard of Unifor. The Prime Minister invited Unifor to sit on the panel that will oversee the media bailout. Many journalists and Canadians were shocked by this appointment. Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor and the Prime Minister's close friend, made it clear that his union will be the Conservatives' worst nightmare for the 2019 election. He had no qualms about posing for a picture with his cronies, billing them as the resistance working to stop a Conservative government from getting elected. When is the Prime Minister going to put an end to this anti-democratic charade?

That is not all. For people who want to know more about Mr. Dias and what he thinks about the Conservative Party, I will translate what he said in his tweets, which were reported by two media outlets. First, he said that he was indeed speaking out against the Conservative leader. Then Mr. Dias said he was not going to tone down his anti-Conservative campaign and that he would probably ramp it up, because the Conservative leader had irritated him over the past few days. Such is the attitude of the president of Unifor. He is the one being appointed to an independent panel to select which media will be entitled to receive funding from the Liberal government.

This is a union whose president is committed to openly campaigning against the Conservatives with money from its members. I could cite many journalists who are furious with this decision, who do not accept that their union is making such statements and who are against the government interfering in the granting process. This process has to be non-partisan, open and transparent. It has to be the opposite of what the Prime Minister has done so far.

The government is going down this dangerous path with Unifor and letting the fox guard the henhouse. It is in the fox's nature to want to eat the chickens, and Jerry Dias has clearly expressed his intention to eat Conservative in the next election. How can we trust Mr. Dias? We can still maintain the independence of our media. To start, the government must remove Unifor from this panel.

I was a journalist for many years. I worked at a local radio station. There is always a thin line between the influence of business partners and the influence one can have as a journalist. Fortunately, journalists have always maintained their independence. However, the government's actions are not going to protect journalists' jobs.

Unifor's president must be removed from the panel and the government must go about this in the right way, in an open and transparent manner, to protect the independence of journalists and Canada's democracy.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, what comes to my mind is the fact that when Stephen Harper was prime minister, tens of millions of dollars were given out to newsmagazines every year, and it was the government that decided which magazines and news reporters would receive the money.

What is happening here is far more arm's-length than the principles Stephen Harper used, so I wonder if the very same principles that the member opposite was using would have applied for Stephen Harper.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, advertising is open and transparent. Anyone can see where the government places ads. With this process, people will not know how decisions were made, nor will they be able to find out who did not get a media fund contribution. That gives the government way more power to influence the media than it should have. That is the problem.

If there is no list, if we have no way of knowing who applied and who was turned down, it will be very easy for the government to favour the most accommodating media organizations. Who will pay the price? Journalists, unfortunately. Because of this government's bad decisions, journalists will be under pressure. Public trust in journalists will be shaken. People behind closed doors will have made decisions that affect them, decisions they have absolutely no say in.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech. I support part (a) of his motion, with which I fully agree. Unfortunately, when we get to part (b) things start to sour. I would like to draw attention to some of the terms used in the wording of the motion, which make it totally impossible for me to understand the purpose and to support it. It states:

...express its belief that...partisan political actors.

They would have us believe that being politically engaged is wrong. In my 25 years of teaching, I used every platform I had to tell the young people I talked to about the need for political engagement. Of course, political engagement means taking a stand on an ideology. “Enlightenment comes when ideas collide”, as the saying goes. If we have all political stripes in committee then we can settle on a course of action. To me that is definition of engaging in politics. Worse yet, the motion says:

...it is inappropriate...to pick winners and losers in the media in an election year;

Does that mean that if this were not an election year, then it would be appropriate to get the friends of the party, either Conservative or Liberal, to pick and choose?

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, with the election quickly approaching, I understand that my colleague is somewhat concerned about what the outcome will be. I understand that.

We also understand that the Liberals chose the timing of this contribution very carefully. It allows them to try to influence the media until the very last minute. Why did they not announce which media outlets would be getting funding sooner, making many others unhappy? The Liberals were probably concerned that the outlets that did not get any funding would be a bit miffed. That is the problem when the government tries to interfere in an independent process.

The Liberals are claiming that the panel will be independent when one of the stakeholders is openly against the Conservative Party and has indicated that it will officially oppose the Conservatives in the 2019 election.

The Liberals claimed that the panel was completely independent even though they appointed that stakeholder. That is not transparency. That is a complete lack of transparency and a sneaky way of rigging the upcoming election in their favour.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, on this particular day, I would like to pay a bit of respect to the commission on missing and murdered indigenous women and the important work it did in reporting out today, particularly in the area of housing and the way in which we move people in Canada and public transportation. This issue is one that I am sure all members of the House are seized with. In my role working on the housing file, I understand the importance of making sure that this part of the recommendations gets fulfilled.

In terms of the missing and murdered indigenous women commission, it is also important to note that one of the reasons we know so much about this issue is the indigenous journalists in this country. If it were not for the voices of independent indigenous journalists screaming at us to pay attention, the voices of victims may never have reached Parliament Hill. For those brave journalists who stood by their sisters, mothers, aunties and cousins, I want to thank them for the role they played. That underscores why supporting independent journalism, community-based journalism, is so profoundly important.

We all live in a media environment where some of the loudest voices in Canada, and the names have been quoted today endlessly, are often heard in debate on the floor of the House of Commons. However, some of the most important journalism in the country is done by some of the smallest and most independent of journalistic voices. In fact, those are the ones most at risk in the current media environment. They are the ones who have come to us and asked for us to deliver the work we are now speaking about.

I emerged from that community of journalists. My first job as a journalist was at the community-based radio station CKLN in Toronto. If it had not been for the ability of that station to give someone who had no training a break, I would not have made my way from there to Citytv, from there to CBC and then back again to Citytv and CP24 as a journalist. I would never have worked for The Star and the Globe. I would never have made it into some of the other broadcast organizations that I have.

The survival of community-based journalism is at the heart of what I am speaking to today. My riding is home to CBC headquarters, CTV News in Toronto, Corus Entertainment and The Toronto Star. The city of Toronto has a GDP of $330 million. To put that in context, Alberta has a GDP of $331 million. In Toronto, digital media is the second-largest employer. In the cultural sector, that is a critical sector of workers who live in my riding, find work in my riding and are attached to those news organizations. I have a responsibility to those workers, not just as former colleagues or members of my own family. My sister is a journalist, and many other members of my family, including my father, were also journalists.

I grew up in the industry and watched it change over the last 30 years. Quite frankly, it scares me. The camera guys I used to work with, their shoulders are breaking down, and their backs as well. When I walk out into a scrum, I can see four or five former colleagues working for different stations on short-term contracts. Those are people whom I shared the birth of their first child with or went through the death of parents with. They are not just the writers whose names are being quoted here.

Journalists and media corporations in this country hire people through the entire workplace, from the receptionist to the people who clean up the coffee cups when the newsroom has gone to bed. It is the editors, and it is the writers. Yes, it is the people whose names get put on the by-lines, but there are hundreds, thousands, in fact tens of thousands of people in this country whose jobs depend on having a strong and independent media. It is not just the large organizations in the large cities.

When a small newspaper is pulled out of a small town, so much disappears when that newspaper goes quiet. So much disappears when a radio station stops producing independent news or putting the voice of new journalists on the air. We have to be smart about this and sensitive to it, because this is not about the profession and the ethics of journalism; it is about the health of media in this country. The health of media in this country has never been more fragile and threatened by more forces, and we have never seen so many journals, radio stations and small TV stations disappear.

The other side referred to them as “fossils” and said to get with it and that technology is changing. So many of these independent newspapers are small family-run businesses. If we replaced media with the family farm, and if we were to establish an advisory panel in the federal government to decide which family farm sectors were to survive or not, and if we did not appoint family farmers to it, the Conservatives would be the first to scream at us, as they should. If we were to make oil policy in this country and not put oil workers on the panel, the Conservatives would be the first ones screaming at us.

Unifor represents 12,000 people, and most of them have ordinary jobs, doing good work for good pay with good benefits because of the union. That is whom Unifor represents, as much as any of the opinion leaders who have been quoted in the debate. Those people deserve a voice in this process, and I will stand here and defend those people, because my career would have disappeared without them.

From the day I started working in the media, my father took me aside and told me that I have to respect every single part of the production chain, because otherwise it will fail. I took that to heart, and I still take it to heart. When I walk through some of those newsrooms, I see faces of fear there, as the layoffs cascade through year after year, month after month.

We have a responsibility to all Canadian workers. A receptionist in a newsroom is no different from a receptionist at an oil company or a feedlot. Every single person deserves the support of the Canadian government to make sure livelihoods and communities are protected.

What have we done? I am listening to this debate as someone who has spent most of his life as a working journalist, and from what I hear, one would think the government is paying for content. That is just nonsense. Canadians need to know that no part of the measures we introduced would mean paying for content.

There are three major parts. First, we would allow small community foundations and news organizations to set themselves up as charities so that Canadians can choose for themselves whom to donate to. These charities could then protect and create a foundation to protect independent journalism. We do not choose which charities get donations. That is for Canadians to decide. All we decide is which news organizations should qualify as charities.

That is important, because now there are fake news organizations parading as if they were news organizations, even though they have not come close to following the ethics of journalism once in their entire lifetime. This would allow the industry to enrol industry members that want to partake in this. If they want to sustain their independence and not partake in the program, that is their business. However, it is good to have a group of independent journalists look at an organization to see whether it is hiring journalists from the profession and has a footprint in the community it claims to represent.

Second, there would be a tax break for hiring. As with any industry that is in trouble, it is normal to provide tax breaks to organizations that are hiring working journalists. It is to ensure that we do not put money in the front door while some hedge fund in New York takes money out the back door. We saw this with the National Post. It came to the Hill and cried poor, laying off a bunch of people, and then all of its senior executives got massive bonuses while Canadians went unemployed.

We need to make sure that if we put money into this industry, we build employment and hard-working Canadians do not lose their jobs as money from the federal government simply gets filtered through to a hedge fund in New York. I think that is critically important.

The final piece is a tax break for subscriptions. Canadians would choose where to put their money, not us. They would be able to write off their subscriptions, especially e-subscriptions, so that the flow of money into the bank accounts of independent journalists is sustained. Again, Canadians would choose which newspapers get their donations and which newspapers they subscribe to. The federal government is simply setting up a mechanism to incentivize that process so that we can provide some stability to the industry.

As for Unifor, there is this notion that a Toronto Sun writer who will be representing Unifor is somehow going to be beholden to this government because that person gets to choose someone who chooses someone who chooses someone. It is so arm's length that it is perhaps an arm and a leg's length. The idea that a Toronto Sun writer could be bought is a joke.

Every journalist I have ever worked with would say that this is a joke. The mere fact that the Conservatives have quoted journalist after journalist saying, “We will not be bought” tells us exactly how protected that principle in the journalistic field is. No one is going to be bought because someone has made a donation to a charitable foundation. That is just ridiculous. In many ways, it casts a view or a perspective on journalists that would only come from a party that thinks, despite getting three-quarters of the recommendations from editorial boards last year, that there is still a Liberal bias in the media. It is absurd.

The reality is that professional journalists are just that: professional journalists. I can assure members that they are skeptical of everybody, equally.

This is about workers and we need to keep that central in everything we talk about here. This is a sector of the economy, a very large sector in my riding and in different communities, that needs to be protected and needs support.

As I said, members should look at their speech, cross out media and put in the family farm and tell me if they would say anything like that about the family farms in their communities. They would not. They have no hesitation with the family farm and agricultural boards. They have no hesitation understanding there needs to be tax credits for the family farm. They have no worry about ensuring the family farm is represented inside trade agreements. We do not tell the family farm whether to raise chickens, or to ranch cattle or to produce eggs. Those choices will be made by the family farms in the same way the media will make its decisions about journalistic integrity. Journalists have integrity. It is bred into the profession.

I will end by telling a story of exactly how I came to experience the true face of the Conservative Party as it relates to journalistic independence.

I covered city hall mostly. I covered Queen's Park quite a bit. I was also sent to Ottawa quite often in the last six years of my being a political journalist, when Mr. Harper was just starting out as the prime minister. I used to cover the issues from the Toronto perspective, the same way I speak from the Toronto perspective as an MP.

I remember covering a nomination announcement in the riding of St. Paul's, at Timothy Eaton Memorial Church. I made reference to the member for Thornhill earlier today when I thanked him for the donation he made to my campaign when I first started to run. He claimed that I went off the rails. I would say I ended up just where I needed to be, but will beg to differ on the outcome of his donation. My residents thank him for his support and clearly have sent me to Ottawa a couple of times now as a result of it.

I was at the nomination battle when that member first entered politics. He decided he would run for the Conservative Party in the riding of St. Paul's. The prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper, showed up to celebrate the acquisition of a star candidate for the Conservative Party. I was not happy that Stephen Harper refused to talk about housing every time he came to Toronto, despite the fact we were in the midst of a housing crisis then. Even then I was demanding the national government have a federal housing policy and even then that issue needed to be pressed much more forcefully in the House of Commons.

I interrupted the scrum that he was holding and asked the question. I was told that was a local matter and not to ask those sorts of questions. Then I tried to scrum him on his way out of the hall and to ask him why the federal Conservative Party did not have a national housing strategy. At that point, somebody grabbed me from behind, by the scruff of my neck, and literally yanked me out of the scrum almost to the floor. I almost turned around and clocked the individual with my microphone, but I did not. Who was it? It was Harper's press secretary. This was quite an event. The cameraman had to hold me back. I was furious. I had never been dealt with physically in a scrum in my life, and I had been in scrums with everybody.

The most interesting thing was what happened the next day. Unbeknownst to the Conservatives, I was sent to Ottawa to cover a minority Parliament that was having trouble staying alive. I walked into the news bureau where I worked and lo and behold there was Harper's press secretary standing in the office in which I had a desk. I was the senior political correspondent with CHUM CityNews at the time. He was barking at my two colleagues, threatening they would never get another question again if a certain reporter in Toronto showed up and asked the leader of the Conservative Party a question. He was screaming that if they did not get rid of that reporter, they would never get a question, City TV would never get a question and they would be ignored. He said that the party would do everything it could until it got rid of that reporter.

That is the Conservatives' attitude toward independent media. When they do not get an article they like or when they get asked a question they do not like, they do not just sit there and take it like adults. They go after people with everything they have. They threaten lawsuits, and I could talk to the House about Julian Fantino. They threaten one's job, and I could talk to the House about Paul Godfrey and Mel Lastman.

However, what the Conservatives really do not like is an independent journalist sticking up for the local community, asking the questions that members of that community need to have answered by a federal government. When journalists do that, the Conservatives do not just threaten them, they threaten their entire news organization.

That is the attitude of the Conservative Party when the lights are down and in the backrooms of the press gallery in Parliament. The Conservatives will go out of their way to silence the voice of independent journalists time and time again.

The Conservatives pretend to stand here on the Unifor file. What has them worried is that Unifor does not like them. What they do not understand is that Unifor has no more sway with journalists they represent in the editorial rooms and the papers, the television stations and the radio stations. Unifor never walks into those newsrooms or those story rooms and dictates what is going to happen anymore than the teacher's pension fund, which used to own the Toronto Sun, would tell Paul Godfrey, or Sue-Ann Levy, or David Aiken when he worked there, or Brian Lilley when he worked there, or Ezra Levant when he worked there or Faith Goldy when she worked there. None of them was ever dictated to by the teachers' pension fund and they certainly have not been endorsed by Unifor.

Nonetheless, Unifor in participating in this process to ensure that all workers inside the media, not just journalists but everybody employed at all news organizations right across the country from coast to coast to coast, have a fair shake and a fair go of it. The bill is about that. Defending journalism is about that. It is about more than just talking about the writers. It is talking about every person who draws a paycheque, who supports a family and who spends dollars at the corner store, just like we do when we go to our home communities.

The bill is attempting to do that. That is why the bill is so critical. I am very proud to stand with a government that understands journalists cannot be bought, but media can be supported. We will support the media organizations across the country even when they criticize us. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are not afraid of them.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of things in my colleague's intervention before asking a question. I guess the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that when journalists do not support the Liberals, they either hire them or get stakeholders to phone them and threaten to sue them. I do not think there is a lot of integrity on that side on how they have treated journalists with whom they do not necessarily agree.

My colleague's presentation was all about protecting journalism and the integrity of journalists. Every journalist I have spoken with since this media bailout program was announced has said that having Unifor as a member of that panel and having a media bailout hurts the integrity of his or her profession. It further erodes the trust in journalists. This is not an attack from the Conservative side on journalists. This is voicing the concerns raised by journalists.

My colleague talked many times about the work of independent journalists, but independent newspapers, media, radio stations will not get funding from this because they will not qualify. Why is the Liberal Party not listening to the journalists who have raised concerns about this program. They do not believe it is fair and it will further erode trust in Canadian journalism?

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, first, if the member does not think the Conservatives hired journalists to be media managers, he quite clearly has never been a journalist working in the political field. Journalists of all stripes are hired by parties of all stripes to do the work that spokespeople do. This happens in Ottawa, trust me. Where did the Conservatives find Mike Duffy?

The issue is that this is not about content and has never been about content. There is no reason to worry about the independent professionalism of journalists. They are professionals and have all the integrity they need to ensure they make the right call on news stories.

This is about an industry that employs tens of thousands of people across the country. They are not all writers or journalists. Some of them sweep the floor. Some of them greet people at the door, such as receptionists. Some of them are people who work in the libraries or do research for us. It is about supporting an industry and an economy in local communities to ensure it survives and is there for the next generations, especially as technological change overwhelms that industry.

With respect to independence, as I said, we are not funding journalists. We are funding an industry in a time of transition. I would hope that as technological change washes over the industry, as new digital platforms emerge and as people become more comfortable with providing good information, we can get an industry back that can speak truth to power, that has integrity and that is unafraid to criticize a government. Clearly we are not afraid to be criticized. We can take it. We are grown-ups.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind hon. members that in the rule book it says that disrupting a member while he or she is answering or asking a question is not right. I want to remind both sides that those are the rules. While someone is talking, whether members like what he or she is saying, it is up to the person to wait and then ask the question or make comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Conservatives condemn Unifor, which I find absolutely disappointing and absurd. Unifor is a union. I have heard personal attacks against Mr. Dias. There is some confusion that he will be sitting on this panel.

The Conservatives make personal attacks on Unifor or Mr. Dias and they are used to that. There are other unions, such as the United Steelworkers, CUPE, the machinists, a whole bunch of them. None of them like the Conservatives, they will always vote against them and they will say that publicly.

Does the member believe there is confusion about Mr. Dias being at the panel? An independent, retired reporter, who was a Unifor member, is sitting on the panel.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member in question worked with me when I was at city hall. In fact, he was part of the Toronto Sun news bureau that saw its chief correspondent fired by Paul Godfrey for criticizing Mel Lastman during a municipal campaign. This is the kind of behaviour that one would expect from really bad journalistic leadership.

However, it is interesting to note that Paul Godfrey came here and asked for these funds, these dollars. In fact, I remember the member, who is now the minister in charge of indigenous services, saying that his editorial policy and corporate ask did not match. Paul Godfrey replied that no one had to worry about that because they never would. He needed the money. I told him that he would be the first to criticize us if we gave it to him and he said that I probably had that right, which is exactly what is happening right here.

I want to pay respect to The Hamilton Spectator print workers who were laid off this week. Those are the people whose jobs we are trying to save. Those are the very people who we should be talking about today. We can quote all the columnists we would like. The columnists are well paid and will probably survive with their book deals. However, those who work the printing press at The Hamilton Spectator are real people with real jobs in a town that was already struggling with the steel tariffs up until a couple of weeks ago. We do not hear the Conservatives talking about the printing presses and the loss of those good quality jobs, the loss of the benefits as they face retirement and the loss of the money as they try to send their kids to school.

That is who this party is defending, that is who Unifor defends and that is what this bill is all about. It is about ensuring that hard-working Canadians are not afraid to go home at night, thinking it is the last day they have worked on their jobs. If the Conservatives cannot get behind that, they should go to the Hamilton printing press and tell the workers that. I can guarantee you will never get another vote in Hamilton ever again.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to remind hon. members to direct their questions through the Speaker, not at the Speaker.

Questions and comment, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Marco Mendicino LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

Mr. Speaker, very few other members in the House can speak with the amount of experience and credibility on the subject of the importance of having an independent media and an independent source of journalism, which is a pillar of our democracy, than the member for Spadina—Fort York. I also want to commend him for being a pretty hard-hitting reporter, but at the same time, for showing some restraint when he was nearly tackled by a former staffer of the last Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper.

I wonder if the member could explain why, in his view, the Conservatives of the day seem to have such a hard time recognizing the importance of having Unifor and, generally speaking, labour at the table when it comes to protecting the interests of having an independent media. As he has already explained, this is about saving jobs and about ensuring we have a healthy democracy. That is advanced by having an independent media.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, when I look at who is complaining about the bill, it is largely editors. From my experience, editors never liked having staff make decisions in the newsroom. They thought the journalistic independence was protected by the editorial board, not by hard-working journalists. I disagreed with them every day I worked. That is probably why I ended up in politics and not in journalism to this very day.

However, when we deal with this industry, we should stop thinking about the folks we meet in the hallway and the conversations we have with the pundits. We should go to our home towns, knock on the door of a radio station at seven o'clock on a Friday night or go to a television show that is being put to air at four o'clock in the afternoon and take a look at the people on the floor of the newsroom: folks who are watching technology change faster than their paycheques are, folks who are watching editing technologies that are replacing editors, folks who are watching camera operators being replaced by reporters with videographers. The industry is shrinking as fast as the platform and the financial base on which they are standing. It is a very scary time in those places.

Those who have spent their entire lives in a newsroom the way I have, having spent close to 25 years largely in one news organization, have seen people come in as fresh-faced interns, become new hires, go on to become managers of the department and then watched the entire thing disappear overnight. They have mortgages to pay, kids' educations to take care of, needs in their families and aging parents to look after. When we watch that decimation roll through newsroom after newsroom, we need to give our heads a shake.

These measures, a charitable foundation, are to prevent the disappearance of some of these family-run businesses, to ensure they survive into the next decade; to ensure the subscriptions to these organizations are tax deductible so people making choices to support them get a bit of an incentive to do a little more a little more often and not run around the firewall; to ensure that when people are hired, they are hiring journalists, building the profession and ensuring young kids in school right now are not being trained for an industry that will not exist. We should think about them and what this bill would do for those people. Then they should get back to work protecting journalism independence by not going into newsrooms across the country and threatening journalists every day. I can tell everyone that I have experienced it from that party more than any other party in this place.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been enjoying some of the conversation I have heard this afternoon. Some of it, I am not quite so sure about.

My father owned a weekly newspaper. I remember many times, when he would write specific things in the newspapers, people would come in and say, “I disagree with what you wrote as the owner-editor of that paper.” He would say, “ It is my paper. I will print what I want, and I will say what I want. If you want to buy the paper, you can buy it. I will sell it to you, and you can say what you want.” Now, that is an independent weekly newspaper.

In my riding. I have seven editor-owned newspapers. I have spoken to many of them in my community in the last few weeks.

I am going to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, who will be very intelligent as he follows me. I am the set-up guy here.

On this particular issue, I heard a colleague on the other side saying that they do not want to support the news on social media because it is fake news. Then it was suggested that that is where the Liberals are putting their advertising dollars. They are supporting social media with fake news while they want to support print news with real news. They blamed the Conservatives for doing that. Where are the Liberal advertising dollars going?

If Liberals really believed that the print media was the real news, why did they not shift their dollars from social media to it? They are saying that social media is fake news. I found that really interesting.

The member said to talk to my constituents, and I did. I spoke to the editor-owners of these newspapers. They are not happy with this piece of legislation. It talks about a piece for subscriptions, but for rural, independently owned newspapers, their subscription base is small. They deliver widely to all the constituents who follow their newspapers; it is not by a subscription base. They tell me that the amount they would get out of that subscription piece would be negligible.

Again, my constituents have looked at all the pieces of this one. Liberals have said that I should talk to my constituents, and I have talked to the editor-owners of these papers.

I have talked to my constituents. What has happened recently has been the Liberal government compromising on SNC-Lavalin and Mark Norman, as just a couple of examples. My constituents say that they do not trust that the government will be any different; it is not trustworthy to give money to media.

When I have talked to a lot of constituents in the past, they, as well as many from Alberta, ask, “Where is the support for the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs in the oil and resource sector?” They are saying that the government wants to give hundreds of millions to the news media, which does not support any of my constituents, but where is the support for the oil and gas guys? I met a number of them on the weekend, and they do not have a job.

Where is the support from the Prime Minister who wants to get rid of the oil sector? He wants to support media, and my constituents do not believe he is anything but untrustworthy. The Prime Minister continues to build mistrust with constituents because of this program.

Long before Confederation, the free press was used to distribute government-friendly propaganda. Some people might remember the history of newsprint as it started. The industry was started in order to do that.

Now we have a free press that holds the government to account without patronage, but this gives them more patronage. It took a lot of determination and bravery to cultivate the truly free press that we have compared to what we had before Confederation. The legacy of these pioneering individuals who took great personal risk to develop a free media must not be squandered, and yet that is exactly what the government seems to be doing.

Like with SNC-Lavalin, the Prime Minister is operating in an ill-advised way, without regard for the integrity of our institutions. Again, simply put, it should not be up to the government to decide which media outlets receive money and which do not. It is an obvious conflict of interest that strikes at the very principle of free press, picking winners and losers in the media. It is almost unbelievable that the government would proceed down this path. We have seen what the consequences will be. They are going to choose, picking winners and losers, with this unbiased panel.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage said that his independent panel will be free from any direct political influence. He told me in committee, “I'm not going to name the panel and I'm not going to tell them what to do.” Canadians can be forgiven for wondering if the current government can really be trusted to avoid political interference. Even if it did, the events of the past week have proven that this whole scheme is inherently flawed.

Unifor is a panel member. Jerry Dias of Unifor referred to himself and his colleagues as the resistance against Conservative politicians. Unifor, which is poised to actively campaign against our party, will be involved in deciding who receives grant money in the media. Jerry Dias will be able to weigh in on who is a real journalist and who is not. He will be positioned to decide if the content that a journalist has been publishing merits government support. Do they see why people are a little concerned that this is not another trustworthy activity? We do not need to wonder what kind of content Unifor will prefer; we already know what Mr. Dias would prefer.

This scheme fell apart almost as soon as it was launched. The government, at a very minimum, must go back to the drawing board. This whole mess needs to be undone, and not just because it creates massive conflict of interest between the government and the free press that is supposed to be covering it. The large chains need to adapt their business model to a changing industry landscape.

We all know that a decline in traditional newspapers has been going on for a long time. It has been coming. It may not have any easy solutions. I remember talking to the editor of the Edmonton Journal 15 years ago and saying it was changing. The editor said it was not going to change, that social media will not have a place. Ten years ago, I talked to the editor, who said that it was not going to change. I wonder where that editor of the Edmonton Journal is now, as it has changed drastically.

We all know that the decline in traditional papers is coming, but one solution that certainly will not work is subsidizing the same old business model that has been failing for decades. The government is looking at something that obviously did not work and has decided to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on sustaining it. It defies logic. In my riding, it is another example of an untrustworthy use of taxpayer money.

As I mentioned to the minister in committee, the way that the criteria are designed is going to ruin local weekly papers. This is not going to support the independent editor-owned papers. There is no money to support them. What the independent editors asked for was the advertising dollars that the federal government has.

They will be bought up by the chains, and this will ruin them. They will become chain newspapers that will not be covering local events. We have seen what chain weekly papers do in rural areas. The editors fill them with all sorts of standardized stories from across the country. There is no more coverage of the municipal government; it is gone. There is no more coverage of the high-school basketball team winning games. There is no more coverage of the independent non-profit charities working for things in the community. Those things will go. This is what happens when we have independent weekly newspapers. They are at risk.

As has been said a number of times by the other side, it is the independent newspapers that are at risk. I have met with the editors in my community. These are editor-owned papers, and they do not qualify under these criteria. They know they are the most at risk of losing their papers, and the communities will be the ones that lose the most. They are the lifeblood of the communities. They do not necessarily cover national news. They do not necessarily cover what the federal government is doing. However, they cover what is happening in their communities. This bailout will not help them.

I understand that a second panel has been named that will follow a similar process and attribute $50 million to regional outlets. These are not regional papers; they are local papers. That is what the major chains do. This will not stop the major chains from flexing their muscles with their shiny new government subsidies. This bailout is not designed to foster an independent press. Plain and simple, it is meant to prop up big failing chains. Local media were an afterthought. There is no local news, no innovation, no common sense.

In conclusion, this is not right. It is a flawed process. It should be eliminated. If the government wants to look at subsidizing, this is not the way to do it. The local weekly papers in this country that are independent and editor-owned do not qualify for the subsidies. They will not get anything out of this. This is a flawed process. It needs to go.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention and for providing the history of his family, because I think it is very pertinent to this particular debate.

The only thing I have a question about is a fundamental difference in philosophy. I would say to put aside for a moment the Unifor debate, as he and I will disagree about that. However, when he talks about picking winners and losers in this process, the process is similar to what has been going on for years. It is similar even to what his government supported in the last Parliament, such as the Canada Media Fund.

Looking back at the golden days of cable television, the CRTC picked channels on basic cable to reap in funds because of subscriptions. We could say that, too, was about winners and losers. There were fundamental choices that we made to support those particular channels. The CBC is the ultimate example; the government provides a billion dollars a year to help fund it, although not fully. It has a newsroom. It is not a state broadcaster. It is a public broadcaster, similar to what is around the globe.

Is it this particular scheme, as my colleague calls it, that bothers him, or is it the fundamental practice of picking winners and losers? I think that is probably the wrong path to go down.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, basically, when the government gets involved in free enterprise, it never ends well. As a person and taxpayer, like others in my riding, I do not trust the government. To add a little more about my history, my professional career was in a union. I was part of the union leadership. I negotiated contracts for unions. I have a long history in unions. I understand it well. If anyone wants to go there, they can ask me about that.

However, on this particular issue, in my riding, with taxpayers' money, I am very leery of the government making decisions. Leave the money in the taxpayer's pocket. You get involved in free enterprise and you are not supporting your oil and gas sector. That is tough on my constituency. Do not do it.

Opposition Motion—News Media IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to remind the hon. members to place their questions through the Speaker, not directly at each other.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.