Broadcast |

By Davis Legree

|August 18, 2026

Mum’s the word for a panel of government advisors tasked with studying federal support for the film and television sector.

Established earlier this year, an 11-person committee designed to update “federal support to the audiovisual sector” has been asked by the government to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), The Wire Report has learned, provoking questions and criticism from observers.

The panel features a mix of industry leaders and subject matter experts, including Kyle Fostner, executive director of the Vancouver International Film Festival, National Screen Institute head Christine Kleckner, and North of North creator Alethea Arnaquq-Baril.

“We have the talent [and] we have the creativity,” said Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs, Que.) in an April statement. “We need a modernized system that keeps pace and sets us up for future success.” 

“The advisory panel will help us adapt our support to the system so it can respond to the sector’s current and future needs, while strengthening our economy and creating good jobs.”

As first reported by The Wire Report, Miller has asked the panel to look at, among other things, merging the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and the Canada Media Fund — a proposal that has faced pushback from certain parties. 

However, much of the group’s work thus far remains a mystery. Few details have been published about its operations, and five members confirmed the body was bound by confidentiality agreements.

“There should be more public info in a few months,” one committee member told The Wire Report.

The use of NDAs has caught the attention of previous advisors and parliamentarians, several of whom have characterized the tool’s deployment as uncommon.

“It’s unusual enough that it makes me wonder what specifically the group is being asked to do,” said University of Calgary professor Emily Laidlaw, who has participated on advisory panels devoted to online harms during both the governments of Justin Trudeau and Prime Minister Mark Carney (Nepean, Ont.).

“It would give me pause about being able to participate because I can’t do anything that’s going to compromise my research or my ability to conduct research.” 

In her experience, Laidlaw continued, both groups operated under Chatham House Rules, meaning members were able to freely discuss internal consultations and deliberations without attributing comments to specific individuals.  

“It was really just about not naming people when you talked about some of the conversations you were having,” she said.

“Maybe [the audiovisual panel] is privy to particular proposals that are actually well-formed ideas that they need to reflect on.”

Historically, many third-party panels haven’t been bound by strict confidentiality agreements. In addition to Laidlaw’s online harms groups, members of the government’s recent task force on artificial intelligence were able to speak with journalists while their examination took place. 

Members of the Canada-U.S. advisory committee, including former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole, ex-Quebec premier Jean Charest, and automotive industry leader Flavio Volpe have routinely appeared on television and radio programs amidst ongoing bilateral trade discussions between the two countries. 

Meanwhile, in 2018, the Liberals created the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel that submitted a report recommending amendments to various laws, including the Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act. One member of the panel told The Wire Report they were required to sign advisory contracts with the government, but they did not include a non-disclosure clause. 

Miller’s office referred The Wire Report’s questions to the Department of Canadian Heritage, which said the government is “engaging with stakeholders across the sector, seeking advice from every corner of the country.”

“These discussions called for bold, innovative thinking,” read a statement from David Larose, a spokesperson for the department.

“In keeping with common practice for ministerial advisory committees, the government wants to ensure that all members felt free to contribute at that level.”

Carney’s ‘corporatist’ leadership brings NDAs to government: McPhedran 

Former senator Marilou McPhedran, who introduced bills looking to limit the government’s use of NDAs, believes there’s a connection between Carney’s arrival in the Prime Minister’s Office and the appearance of confidentiality agreements.

“I think we’re going to see more of this,” said McPhedran, who worked as a lawyer before being appointed by Trudeau in 2016. “NDAs are a corporate law tool. That’s how they came into being.”

“And [Carney] is a leader who primarily serves corporations, and whose entire worldview is corporate.”

McPhedran left the Red Chamber this past July after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75, though she left her colleagues to discuss Bill S-232, her attempt to limit harassment or discrimination payments settled under NDAs. S-232, which completed first reading in the Senate before Parliament rose for the summer, would also require the Treasury Board to report on the government’s usage of confidentiality agreements. 

“Should there be NDAs? Yes,” said the ex-senator. “There are circumstances where you can make a legitimate corporate business argument.”

“But that’s a relatively narrow area, and the use of NDAs to suppress knowledge and to silence experts [is concerning].”

McPhedran worries NDAs could soon become commonplace in Ottawa, emphasizing that the implied culture of secrecy is antithetical to the foundations of Canadian democracy.

“It’s the principle of having a common good. It’s the principle of not having governments, in effect, divert or stop progress and knowledge,” she said. “I would argue that, [regarding] the sharing of knowledge, cultural policy should be widely discussed in Canadian society.” 

“There should be a justification. It can’t just be pro forma. They’re going to take your knowledge, but deny you, as the source of the knowledge, a voice in a critical national conversation.”

Similarly, NDP MP Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, Alta.) said it should be incumbent on the government to explain why panel members should be bound by confidentiality agreements.

“Canadians should know who is advising government, what issues the panel has been asked to consider, and, ultimately, what recommendations are being made,” said McPherson, the NDP’s heritage critic, in a statement. “Public policy should be developed in the open, with appropriate protections for genuinely confidential information, not behind a wall of secrecy.”

“At a time when the cultural sector is already facing significant challenges – including the betrayal by this government to protect Canadian creators and fund Canadian content (particularly Indigenous and Francophone content), the last thing artists and workers need is uncertainty about how decisions affecting their livelihoods are being made.”

With files from Maria Collins

dlegree@thewirereport.ca

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a statement from the Department of Canadian Heritage and NDP MP Heather McPherson.