QUESTION PERIOD — Canadian Heritage
Information Media Panel
June 3, 2019
Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning Unifor’s inclusion on the panel that will help determine which news outlets will receive a portion of the media bailout fund worth half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money.
Since the government appointed Unifor to this panel, Unifor’s anti-Conservative bias has been repeatedly and publicly reinforced. For example, in an interview last week, Unifor’s president was asked if he would tone down the campaign against the Conservatives and Andrew Scheer. Jerry Dias stated:
I’m probably going to make it worse. He’s really irritating me in the last few days.
Senator Harder, Unifor should not be included in a panel this government claims is both fair and independent. Will the government consider removing Unifor from this panel?
I thank the honourable senator for the question. It’s the same question he asked last Thursday. I will bless him with the same answer: The government’s view, of course, is that the measures in the budget bill — two of which were tax measures, one was a fiscal measure with respect to charitable status — are important elements of supporting the journalists and media in this country.
Honourable senators know, because we voted on this matter and spoke about it at the time, these measures are designed to meet some of the pressures the sector is undergoing. The commitment of the government is to have an arm’s-length body review any support that is given to any one individual or organization. That body is being put together as we speak.
The specific answer to the question being asked is no.
Honourable senators, that took a long time to say. That’s the longest “no” I’ve ever received. I wore my jacket to encourage you.
Jerry Dias of Unifor also stated in an interview last week:
My organization will absolutely be open and transparent of our disdain of Andrew Scheer.
Senator Harder, as a representative of the Government in this place, do you acknowledge that is a biased statement? How can your government continue to justify the membership of an openly partisan organization on an allegedly fair and unbiased panel?
Honourable senators, again, it’s important from the perspective of the government that these decisions are made by a body that is arm’s length from the government. That is the objective that is being put in place.
I’m not surprised that the honourable senator is opposing labour representation because that is the tradition of the party he represents. That is not the view of the government.
Government Leader, I think the key is transparency and fairness.
Honourable senators, my question is regarding the media bailout panel. The Canadian Association of Journalists, which was named by the government as a member of this panel, has raised a number of concerns about the basic transparency of the process. For example, the association said most of this process has been conducted behind closed doors. It has called for the panel’s terms of reference, meeting minutes and agenda to be public. It has also called for the full list of organizations applying for funding to be posted online, noting that without a full list of who has applied, there would be no way to see who is being denied funding by this panel.
Senator, last week you told us this process would be transparent. The points raised by the Canadian Association of Journalists show that this is not the case. Why should Canadians support a biased, secretive process such as this?
I thank the honourable senator for her question. Let me reiterate it is the view of the government that an arm’s-length process is the prerequisite. That is the objective. As to the concerns the honourable senator raises, I will make sure that they are brought to the attention of the minister responsible.
Last week the Canadian Association of Journalists also said that it was told that journalists on the panel will be asked to sign confidentiality agreements. Senator, what possible reason would your government have to require journalists to sign confidentiality agreements? Doesn’t this completely undermine the government’s argument that the process is transparent?
Again, I don’t want to go behind the decisions made by an independent panel, but let me say there are good professional and commercial sensitive reasons why those undertakings might be requested.
