Bill C-18

Online News Act

An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada

This enactment regulates digital news intermediaries to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contribute to its sustainability. It establishes a framework through which digital news intermediary operators and news businesses may enter into agreements respecting news content that is made available by digital news intermediaries. The framework takes into account principles of freedom of expression and journalistic independence.
The enactment, among other things,
(a) applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to specific factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those factors;
(c) specifies that the enactment does not apply in respect of “broadcasting” by digital news intermediaries that are “broadcasting undertakings” as those terms are defined in the Broadcasting Act or in respect of telecommunications service providers as defined in the Telecommunications Act ;
(d) requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) to maintain a list of digital news intermediaries in respect of which the enactment applies;
(e) requires the Commission to exempt a digital news intermediary from the application of the enactment if its operator has entered into agreements with news businesses and the Commission is of the opinion that the agreements satisfy certain criteria;
(f) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting how the Commission is to interpret those criteria and setting out additional conditions with respect to the eligibility of a digital news intermediary for an exemption;
(g) establishes a bargaining process in respect of matters related to the making available of certain news content by digital news intermediaries;
(h) establishes eligibility criteria and a designation process for news businesses that wish to participate in the bargaining process;
(i) requires the Commission to establish a code of conduct respecting bargaining in relation to news content;
(j) prohibits digital news intermediary operators from acting, in the course of making available certain news content, in ways that discriminate unjustly, that give undue or unreasonable preference or that subject certain news businesses to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage;
(k) allows certain news businesses to make complaints to the Commission in relation to that prohibition;
(l) authorizes the Commission to require the provision of information for the purpose of exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions under the enactment;
(m) requires the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide the Commission with an annual report if the Corporation is a party to an agreement with an operator;
(n) establishes a framework respecting the provision of information to the responsible Minister, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, while permitting an individual or entity to designate certain information that they submit to the Commission as confidential;
(o) authorizes the Commission to impose, for contraventions of the enactment, administrative monetary penalties on certain individuals and entities and conditions on the participation of news businesses in the bargaining process;
(p) establishes a mechanism for the recovery, from digital news intermediary operators, of certain costs related to the administration of the enactment; and
(q) requires the Commission to have an independent auditor prepare a report annually in respect of the impact of the enactment on the Canadian digital news marketplace.
Finally, the enactment makes related amendments to other Acts.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We heard one of the witnesses suggest earlier that if Canadians couldn't view their news online, they should simply go to the library. It certainly sounded a bit like a “let them eat cake” moment when it comes to Canadians' ability to access content. In this world, whether it's on the devices we carry or on the computers we use, there's been a democratization of information that I think has been quite extraordinary, probably, in the history of the world, although I think you can look back at different points in time and see other innovations.

Certainly I hear all the time from constituents who are incredibly concerned about government overreach and about its wanting to control certain aspects of what that looks like, whether it's direct or whether it's indirect.

Mr. Geist, in terms of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, one has had a massive impact on Canadians' ability to see news content. I've heard many companies suggest that they just want to be able to share their content on those platforms and be able to continue to get their content in front of the eyes of Canadians. Then you have Bill C-11, which is kind of like this backdoor censorship idea, a mechanism for control within the bureaucracy.

I'm wondering if you could comment specifically on those two pieces of legislation and on the chilling effect that they have on freedom of speech and on freedom of expression across this country.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I suppose at the end of the day my concern here—and I mentioned it in my opening—was that I don't think we've taken the expression-related issues seriously enough as part of the digital policy.

I should be clear that this isn't just about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. The opposition parties, unlike the government, have been supporting Bill S-210, which raises real concerns about expression rights as well.

I'm not sure that anybody comes here with fully clean hands about addressing some of those kinds of issues. I wish that all parties would take some of these issues more seriously.

To your point about gaslighting, when there are voices—sometimes voices that aren't the typical people who appear before a committee—raising these kinds of concerns, those concerns are taken more seriously. I think there was a sense among many that this simply wasn't the case through the process in Bill C-11.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Geist, thanks for being with us today. I'd like to ask you some questions about digital policy and in particular about some of the legislation that many Canadians have called Justin Trudeau's censorship agenda. Some of it is the legislation you referred to, like Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, for example.

Bill C-11 gets misrepresented very often by Liberals here in Ottawa as an attempt to push back on big businesses, big corporations, social media companies and American influence, but you wisely pointed out that in a policy directive, they did make clear that included in Bill C-11 is a measure regulating user-generated content.

I'd like you to elaborate on why that's significant and why Canadians should be concerned about that being included in a Liberal policy directive.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

I'd like to start by emphasizing that freedom of expression is rightly and widely recognized as foundational to robust, accountable and inclusive democracy.

That said, there's always a balance to be struck. I'm sure we would all agree that there are limits where expression is viewed as so harmful that it should be restricted or rendered unlawful. Obvious examples include child pornography, defamation and terrorism-related offences.

The difficulty generally doesn't lie with these kinds of cases. I'd like to focus on two cases that are much tougher: digital policy and the challenge of when expression chills other expression.

First I'll address digital policy.

Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-63 and Bill S-210 all intersect with expression, either directly or indirectly. The direct examples are Bill C-63 and Bill S-210. These bills, by design, have expression implications.

Bill C-63 identifies seven harms that are defined as a kind of content, but each is a form of expression. This expression can cause harm—revenge porn, inciting terror or bullying, for example. While I have some enforcement concerns, I think the bill identifies real harms and at least in part seeks to establish a balance in addressing them.

More problematic are Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act provisions that are overbroad and that may weaponize the human rights system and have a chilling effect. Bill S-210 is even more direct in limiting expression, as it literally provides for the Federal Court to order the blocking of lawful content and envisions Canadian Internet providers as doing the blocking. This is a dangerous bill that should go back to the drawing board.

I think Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 both have indirect effects on expression.

In the case of Bill C-11, supporters were far too dismissive of the implications of regulating user content, with some going so far as to deny it was in the bill, only to later issue a policy direction that confirmed its presence.

Bill C-18 not only led to the blocking of news links but also failed to recognize that linking to content is itself expression. The net effect has been to cause harm to news-related expression in Canada. We need to do better when it comes to digital policy, as we haven't always taken the protection of expression sufficiently seriously in the digital policy debate.

Second, there is expression that chills other expression. This can occur when expression includes harassment or strikes fear in some communities, invariably leading to a chill in their ability to express themselves.

My own community, the Jewish community, is a case in point. The rise in anti-Semitism, in a manner not seen in Canada in generations, has sparked safety fears and chilled expression. No group has faced and been the target of more hate crimes than the Jewish community. On campuses, this manifests itself in students and faculty concealing their identity by hiding their religion and political beliefs, or fearing to speak out in class. I'm wearing a “bring the hostages home” pin today—a form of expression. Many would be reluctant to do so on our streets and campuses.

Encampments, graffiti, vandalism, doxing, online threats, the abandonment of institutional neutrality and the exclusion of those who believe in Zionism from classes or parts of campus have become too commonplace and have had a corrosive effect on those targeted, undermining their expression rights. Universities, workplaces and other communities have long recognized the harm of expression chilling other expression. That's why we have codes designed to ensure not just physical safety but also freedom from abusive or demeaning conduct that constitutes harassment and may limit the expression of others.

In a committee focused on protecting freedom of expression, there are many things that can be done: ensuring we have clearly defined policies, such as the IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism”; active enforcement of campus policies and codes; principled implementation of institutional neutrality; and leadership in speaking out against conduct that creates fear and chills speech.

In our broader communities, time and place restrictions—such as those included in the court ruling involving the encampment at the University of Toronto—preserve both the rights of those who want to protest and those for whom the encampment created real harms and chilled their expression. Similarly, bubble-zone legislation to safeguard schools, community centres and places of worship strikes a much-needed balance.

This past year has served as a wake-up call for many.

Taking action against hate enhances expression rather than detracts from it, and we must all do our part in this fight.

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

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the testimony offered here today.

Certainly I find it fascinating that the Liberals would try to make an issue of the fact that for, I don't know, five weeks now, they've refused to release documents, which is delaying government business from taking place in the House of Commons. Wouldn't it be simple if they would just offer a basic level of accountability?

Ms. Laidlaw, I have a question that I hope you can shed some light on. When it comes to where government is and the power the government wields, especially in terms of regulation, you mentioned in your opening statement about—I forget exactly—shadows in regard to algorithms and the lack of transparency that exists. Certainly I hear often a lack of trust from Canadians when it comes to algorithms and when it comes to government's involvement in that.

Do you share concerns that whether it's Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, there seems to be a consolidation of the ability for government to get involved in what Canadians see online? If so, could you outline a little bit what those concerns are with regard to Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 and anything else the government is proposing that would send a chill about Canadians' guaranteed rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dea, I'd like to start with you.

You know, a lot of Canadians are concerned right now about some of the legislation the federal government has introduced. It's often described as censorious or seeking to organize and centralize more power with the federal bureaucracy in order to determine what Canadians can see and hear online, and consequently what they can say online. I'm thinking of legislation like Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, for example.

I'm curious to know whether you empathize with Canadians who have concerns over that centralization of power here in Ottawa, which can affect how Canadians express themselves across the country.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it will be a real joy to see all our Olympians, of whom we are so proud.

I will get back to the green slush fund scandal, which began with Navdeep Bains, who was then the minister of industry, science and economic development. He was involved in some questionable things. I want to read from one of the newspapers about the time when he stepped down:

...Bains was implicated in a questionable real estate transaction, when former Brampton mayor Linda Jeffrey's chief of staff [Mr.] Punia, shared confidential details about a land purchase with Bains and former Liberal MP Raj Grewal. When Brampton council learned about the behaviour it sent details of a third-party investigation into the matter to the RCMP, because the force was already looking into Grewal's activities involving chronic gambling in Ottawa while he served as an MP.

The City eventually paid about $1 million extra for the land it was trying to acquire, after a group of local businessmen with ties to the Liberals purchased it, then flipped it to the City, after Punia had passed on details of the original offer the City had planned to make for the property, which was owned by the Province.

There is no evidence Bains has any ties to the [business]....

Just because we could not find evidence does not mean that nothing happened. The article continues:

Grewal was charged in September by the RCMP with five counts of fraud and breach of trust for alleged misuse of his constituency office budget while he was an MP, after an extensive investigation.

This was the kind of people who started the fund and then went forward with it. It then got a bit worse, because in 2019, the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change came along. He was one of the people who approved the money for the fund in 2021. He was a member of cabinet, which approved the billion dollars going into the slush fund.

I have one other thing to say about Navdeep Bains. The article reads:

Bains was in the news again when questions were raised last year about his father's involvement with individuals implicated in a Fort Erie Gurdwara scandal. There is no evidence Bains has any ties with the plan and he denies any link.... The Sikh temple had sponsored three priests from India who were given special visas by Ottawa. It turned out the Gurdwara was not even operating and the three men disappeared after arriving in Canada.

We do not have any evidence of wrongdoing, but there is always suspicion. Here we are again with the same thing because the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was part of the cabinet that approved the billion dollars. One of the board members was a lady named Andrée-Lise Méthot. She was the founder and managing partner of Cycle Capital, a company that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is invested in.

Section 119 of the Criminal Code says that no holder of public office, for example someone like the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, can take an action, for example giving a billion dollars to a slush fund that would be of benefit for themselves, for example his investment in Cycle Capital, which tripled its value through the money given to it from the green slush fund.

I certainly think that when the RCMP finishes its investigation and is able to see the documents, it could be that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be back in his orange pajamas again. He, as we know, was a convicted felon. In 2001 he was charged and convicted. He served a year's probation plus 100 hours of community service and paid $1,000 of restitution.

This is the calibre of corruption in the Liberal government and cabinet. It is no wonder things go awry when these kinds of people are involved. The Liberals have been trying to suggest that they need to stand up for the charter rights of Canadians. I certainly wish they would, because they have not.

One is what their record says they are, and if we look at the record of the Liberal government on the matter, we see the chill the Liberals have put on freedom of speech in this country with Bill C-11, the censorship bill. With Bill C-18, the freedom of the press was compromised. Bill C-63, the online harms bill that I just talked about, once again would violate everyone's charter rights happily.

Then there is freedom of religion. I spoke about this before, but since then, things have escalated even further in our country. Have members heard about the persecution that Hindus are facing in Brampton? People were out with knives. There were violent attacks on temples. The government has done nothing about it. Liberals wring their pearls and say that it is unacceptable, but they have done nothing to ensure that the rule of law in this country is enforced.

What is the point of having rules to protect Canadians if they are not enforced, and why has the federal government, which has the highest authority to make sure that rights are protected, done nothing? A hundred or more Christian churches were burned in our country, and again, it is crickets from the Liberals on this. It goes on and on. What has happened to Jewish Canadians is heartbreaking. They have been constantly harassed, and their synagogues and their businesses are vandalized. They have been given death treats and nothing has been done. Certainly freedom of religion in this country is in serious jeopardy.

Furthermore, there is discrimination that happens. We are supposed to be free from discrimination in this country, but it happens even in the Liberal benches. The Liberals are discriminating based on age. They decided to give seniors who are older than 75 more money than the seniors who are between 65 and 75. Similarly, there are violations in the minority language rights; the government has been proven several times in court to not have done what it should have done to protect the minority language rights of Canadians.

Let me sidebar for a moment and say how proud I am to announce that Sarnia—Lambton has the official francophone designation of Ontario.

I am very happy. I worked hard with the francophones of Sarnia—Lambton and I am very proud of our work.

The other argument we will hear from the Liberal benches is that the RCMP does not want the documents. Is it really the case that the RCMP does not want to see evidence of potential crime? The whistle-blower was clear that there was criminality going on, and it is possible that it was with more than one minister. I talked about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, but actually there is also the current minister who was overseeing the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund.

There is an agreement that says the board members had to disclose any conflicts of interest to ISED, so the minister would have known about them and not acted. Perhaps that is what would be uncovered when the documents are released. Certainly there is an issue there.

I think that what happened in the slush fund is just another example, and we keep racking up dollars. I think about the number of scandals that have happened in the government since I came here in 2015. This one is $400 million. There was the $372 million the Liberals gave to Frank Baylis to make ventilators when he had never made ventilators before, and they never ended up using any of them. It goes on and on with the different scandals. There was the WE Charity scandal and the huge waste of money there.

Canadians are finding the current scandal particularly obscene, at a time when the number of people going to food banks is the highest it has ever been. There are also 1,400 tent encampments in Ontario alone, and they are spread across the country. At a time when people are struggling, cannot afford food and cannot afford to feed their family and heat their house, there is an incredible waste of money and people lining the pockets of insiders. It is just unacceptable.

When I look at some of the previous things that have happened, I ask myself what we need to do to put in place some accountability so that this sort of thing does not happen. What kind of protection can we provide to whistle-blowers? If it is going on in one department, what is going on in all the other funds?

It is said that the fish rots from the head. The Prime Minister has already been violating ethics laws in the billionaire island fiasco, and he is also under suspicion in the SNC-Lavalin scandal for pressuring a criminal prosecution, which the RCMP is investigating. In the WE Charity scandal, the Prime Minister took an action, by awarding money to the organization, that benefited himself and his family: his brother, his mother and his wife. As I said before, under subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code, that is illegal. It is not just a mistake.

Therefore we really have to clean up the government, and it does not look to me like we can change the spots on the leopards. Over here on the Conservative benches, we believe in the rule of law. We believe in transparency. We believe in accountability and we believe in trying to be prudent with the use of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of all Canadians.

I think that Canadians are looking for a change. They cannot take the continual rise in taxes that they have seen under the current government, such as the carbon tax, which it is going to increase to 61¢ a litre at a time when people are already struggling. The Liberals want to quadruple it and quadruple the misery.

EI premiums, CPP premiums and all of these things are going in the wrong direction at a time when there is going to be increasing competitiveness from the U.S.; President-elect Trump has clearly put America as a priority, and we are not on competitive ground. We have taxes and a regulatory burden that are going to drive millions of dollars and millions of jobs to the U.S.

The Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund is the tip of the iceberg. We have to get to the bottom of it. As much as everybody would like to move on from this, until the documents are produced unredacted and we can give them to the RCMP so we can get to the bottom of what happened, the Conservatives are going to continue to do what is our job. We are His Majesty's loyal opposition, and our job is to hold the government to account, which means not just saying, “Oh, there's nothing to see here.” It means asking for the documents, doing the hard work to get to the bottom of it and going to committees.

I understand that once the documents are produced, the PROC committee is supposed to look at them. However, I have a little bit of skepticism about that, because with every other scandal that has gone to any committee, NDP members, partners of the Liberals, work together with them. They are still doing it, even though the leader of the NDP made a big deal of ripping up the agreement, effectively saying, “Oh, the Liberals are too weak and they can't be trusted. We're not going work with them anymore.”

The New Democrats are still supporting the Liberals today at committee. What they do is shut down the committee. They filibuster so they do not have to produce the documents, and that is exactly what would happen if this thing went to committee, which is why we have to hold on and wait until the Liberals deliver the documents.

Why will they not deliver the documents? The Auditor General has seen them, although she was not auditing criminality. The documents exist and need to be produced, but what are they hiding? Are people going to go to jail? That is what it is starting to look like. However, we will not know until we see the documents, so the Liberals need to produce them, the sooner the better.

Canadian Heritage

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today on behalf of the Conservative members on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage. We submit this dissenting report on the tech giants' use of intimidation tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world. The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada, as well as the roles played by tech giants and the current federal government. This dissenting report is required.

I should say that the committee got to hear from 18 witnesses over the course of the study. Many of those testimonies expressed the censorship of Canadians by the government and tech giants in terms of what they can see, hear and say online, with specific nods to the hindrances being caused by both Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

We have Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and I know you mentioned Bill C-63 as well—direct threats to Canadians and the freedoms that Canadians are guaranteed through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That certainly seems like a censorship agenda to me that needs to be fought against.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming today.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Did you find it problematic that, as a result of Bill C-18, news content on some of the most used social media apps in the country was eliminated, restricting Canadians' ability to see what was happening in the world?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you for that.

I'm curious about Bill C-18. Again, do you see Bill C-18 as being in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedoms guaranteed for Canadians in it?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Rainville.

Bills C‑11, C‑18 and C‑63, among others, attempt to establish a framework for freedom of expression in Canada. The line between what is possible and acceptable and what is not is nonetheless very thin.

Where do you draw the line?

[Christine Van Geyn]

I would add to that list Bill C-63, which has the potential to be one of the most censorious pieces of legislation that I have seen in a really long time. Bill C-63, the online harms act, would increase penalties for criminalized speech and for hate-motivated crimes to life in prison. Part of the concern around that is using these heightened penalties to overcharge criminal defendants and to create pressure for plea deals for lower-level offences when there is an argument that the Crown might make that there is a hate element. Even if it's not present, it can be charged, and this overcharging leads to pressure to plead out.

Another concern we have about Bill C-63 is that it would allow for someone who fears a future hate crime speech to request a judge to put conditions on the would-be speaker. Those could be things like an ankle monitor or even imprisonment, and this is for future speech that has not yet taken place. This is incredibly chilling.

Bill C-63 would also create a civil mechanism for people to complain to the Human Rights Commission about speech. It's a return of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was rightly repealed for dragging before the commission journalists and members of the clergy. There is no cost to bringing a complaint, but there's great cost to the person complained about. We have seen human rights tribunals bring before them comedians—that's in a Quebec context, though.

Giving this power to these commissions will chill expression. I did not have time in my five minutes to mention Bill C-63. I understand that there is a separate committee hearing that will address that, but I wanted to put on the record our serious concern about that.

With respect to the Online News Act and the Online Streaming Act, while perhaps not censorship in the most classic form, I do share the concerns of millions of Canadians who have lost access to news as a result of the Online News Act. I share the concerns of a lot of academics and of Canadian content creators about the regulation of user-generated content on social media platforms like YouTube. I'm a YouTube creator myself. I have one of the largest...or I think probably the largest YouTube channel about Canadian constitutional law, perhaps—

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, this is a very important topic, and I appreciate the witnesses for being here.

I have some questions for Ms. Van Geyn, who I think gave an excellent set of opening remarks.

Ms. Van Geyn, I'd like to speak with you in particular about Justin Trudeau's censorship agenda, which has been implemented by the Liberal Party with help, certainly, from the NDP. When we talk about the censorship agenda, we're talking primarily about two pieces of legislation: Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

I'm sure you're familiar with them, but just for the sake of being on the same page, Bill C-11 refers to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the federal bureaucracy gaining more control over what Canadians can access on streaming platforms online. Bill C-18 refers to Justin Trudeau and the federal bureaucracy having more control over the news that Canadians can see, which has limited access to news on platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

I'd like to start by asking you, Ms. Van Geyn, if you share the concerns of many Canadians, who are worried about Justin Trudeau's censorship agenda and Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, be concurred in.

It will be interesting to talk today about the concurrence motion coming out of the heritage committee. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I have been on the heritage committee for years now, but last month I asked my constituents of Saskatoon—Grasswood for their views on the public broadcaster, the CBC. It was in response to the CBC paying out bonuses that added up to over $18 million, which were approved by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Privy Council. Of that sum, $3.3 million went directly to CBC executives. Forty-five executives had their hands in the pocket of that $3.3 million, and it averaged out to $73,000 each for one year in bonuses. I could not believe the number. I see that even some Liberals are shaking their heads. They cannot believe that number either just for the executives.

I asked in a mail-out what we should do going forward with the CBC. Should we do nothing or keep it as is? Should we keep the CBC but make some changes, or simply defund it? Defunding the CBC has been the narrative of this party for months, if not a year and a half now, and for very good reason. I had literally hundreds of responses. It was probably the best response I have had in the nine years I have been a member of Parliament. Some 86.5% were in support of overhauling or even defunding the entire operation of the CBC.

CBC CEO Catherine Tait admitted recently, about two weeks ago, that Canadians want to defund the CBC entirely. She was caught off guard that Canadians were talking about defunding her operation. She said that maybe she should have responded sooner to the public's outcry on how the corporation is compensated by the federal government.

In its corporate plan summary, tabled in the House of Commons, the CBC said viewers are leaving television, especially young people. They are going to streaming devices and have been doing so for many years. That is certainly not a surprise. However, a big surprise to me was the ad revenue. It has dropped another 9.6% in the last 12 months, which is a concern. I think trust in the CBC News organization, as we have seen across this country, has also dropped.

Here we have trust, viewership and revenue dropping, but what did not drop? The bonuses did not drop, surprise, surprise. In the last year, $18 million was handed out, and when Ms. Tait came before the heritage committee for the third time, she talked about the key performance indicators, better known as KPIs. She said that those determine the bonus structure. Amazingly, despite viewership, revenue and trust dropping, the bonuses remained. Why? Well, the CBC honchos, in their wisdom, decided to lower the key standards from a year ago so they could justify the rich bonuses. Only CBC executives would huddle up and determine that despite everything going down, they needed to protect their bonuses. They agreed to this and the Liberals bought in, agreeing to $18 million for the top-up.

Since 2018, CBC viewership has collapsed nearly 50% and the CBC has failed to meet 79% of its key performance targets. Did I mention that the executives who got these bonuses were the same ones responsible a little over a year ago for cutting 800 jobs? These cuts amounted to about 10% of the entire workforce of CBC/Radio-Canada. The federal government, as we know, compensates the CBC. It gives the CBC about $1.3 billion a year, so the public broadcaster, to me, already has a head start over the private broadcasters in this country.

It does not stop there. It is even worse, believe it or not. The CBC was given millions in last year's fall economic statement. It was 21 million gift dollars last year, and another $21 million this year. On top of that, it generates about $400 million in ads, even though, as I just talked about, ad revenue is going down. Canadians need to understand that their government is choosing to give more than $1.3 billion to a company that already makes $400 million in advertising. Canadians are tired of their money being spent on bonuses for absolutely dismal performance.

I questioned CBC/Radio-Canada's CEO at the Canadian heritage committee. Hundreds wrote in to us and others and took to social media to express their dismay about the arrogance and entitlement at a time when so many are hurting in this country. It is astonishing. One person said, “These elites live in their own bubble, protected from us by their entitlements and their social status. They simply do not care what we think, and are shocked that we would speak up against them. It is time to clean out the corrupt federal bureaucracy the Liberals have built.”

Broadcasters need to have accountability and fairness for people to have trust in them. How can Canadians possibly have any faith in an institution that rewards its executives after cutting hundreds of jobs in the last year? Canadians are tired of seeing their taxpayer funds mismanaged by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. It is no wonder nobody trusts the government anymore with their money.

The Liberals fail to see that Canadians are struggling in every aspect of their lives. Their response is that they will give $18 million to the CBC, to their corporate buddies, at a time when a record number of Canadians are heading to food banks. In my city of Saskatoon, there was an outcry yesterday by the Saskatoon Food Bank, which is asking the public for help, as it is running out of the most essential items it gives out.

The Saskatoon Food Bank has seen a 40% increase since 2019, in five short years, yet the CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada believes it is appropriate to ask for millions of dollars in bonuses for executives after letting hundreds go. It is arrogance and is absolute tone-deafness. The CBC was failing to deliver all along on its key performance indicators, so it just changed the indicators. It lowered them from the year before and thought nobody would notice. Well, we noticed, and obviously Canadians have noticed.

The government has no remorse about giving out massive amounts of money, simply handing it out no questions asked. It is handing money over to the public broadcaster rather than supporting small and medium-sized newspapers. That was the issue with Bill C-18, some may recall. It was a bill designed to help the newspaper industry, but telcos and the CBC, the public broadcaster, took it over. They thought they were going to get millions of dollars. It ended up that Google said it would give them under $100 million and they could disburse it, but there we go again. It was the CBC with its hands out; it was right there. The Liberal government is absolutely out of touch and the CBC is out of touch

That leads me to its CEO, Catherine Tait, who was appointed by the government in 2018. Since taking over, viewership, as I mentioned, has been cut in half. What worries me now is that Catherine Tait has not had a bonus in 2022-23—