Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank my colleague Mr. Lawrence for his concern about what Quebeckers want to see here in committee. I can say that Quebeckers increasingly want the federal government to stop meddling in their cultural and communication affairs. The way things are being managed and the cuts at CBC/Radio‑Canada, which will also affect CBC/Radio‑Canada's French services, are, for us, an injustice that doesn't go over very well.
That said, this is a matter for the management of CBC/Radio‑Canada. As we know—and as we've been told many times—the management of CBC/Radio‑Canada is not within the government's reach, nor should it be. If the government has anything important to do with the management of CBC/Radio‑Canada, it's to retool the mandate or renew the mandate of the president of CBC/Radio‑Canada. In fact, the minister has announced that work is under way to hire a new president.
The minister will appear here by May 31 if the motion moved by my colleague Mrs. Thomas is adopted. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the minister to come and talk about spending. I think it will be an excellent opportunity to ask her about that.
However, for the time being, I would like Ms. Tait to be seated at the end of the table. I want to ask her about what she told us in December. She came to justify the cuts of 800 positions and the budget cuts due to the chronic underfunding of CBC/Radio‑Canada. She explained that one of the reasons was that the government was going to impose budget cuts of 3.3% on all government agencies, including CBC/Radio‑Canada. She also explained to us that funding was a problem because it wasn't enough and that CBC/Radio‑Canada had to use more original funding strategies than others, particularly through advertising and sponsored content. However, a few weeks later, we learned that the government is increasing CBC/Radio‑Canada's operating budget by $100 million and that the corporation will be exempt from this 3.3% restriction, which remains mandatory for the other agencies and represents tens of millions of dollars.
So, at this time, I don't see what's going to justify CBC/Radio‑Canada maintaining the elimination of 800 positions, which will have a significant and probably irreversible impact on journalistic coverage in the regions, in Quebec and Canada, and an irreversible and extremely serious impact on the dissemination of culture—particularly francophone culture—in Quebec and Canada.
I think the decisions made by Catherine Tait about the end of her mandate are an insult to Quebeckers and Canadians. I would remind you that her mandate has been extended until January 2025. She needs to come and sit down here and explain to us the reasons that will justify maintaining her cutting millions of dollars and the positions of hundreds of workers who are essential to journalism and culture—particularly francophone culture—in Quebec and Canada.
I think the part of Mrs. Thomas's proposed amendment that deals with the time frame is interesting. As I said, we'll be able to question the minister when she comes to talk to us about the estimates. I have no problem with that, but I don't think it would be appropriate to hear from her at this time. However, setting a maximum time limit for the implementation of this motion, once it's adopted, is entirely reasonable.
Where I have a problem is with the seven‑day limit. According to the current schedule, a seven‑day deadline takes us to Tuesday of next week. That leaves just one meeting because the House isn't sitting next week. Either we meet with Ms. Tait on Thursday of this week, which seems a bit short notice to me and raises the risk that the president of CBC/Radio‑Canada won't be available for one reason or another, or the committee meets during the weeks when the House isn't sitting, and I'm wondering if we're in that much of a hurry.
I'm open to hearing my colleagues' arguments. I'm not at all closed to this issue. I wonder if it couldn't be done at the first meeting back after the two‑week break. Personally, I'm quite open to this compromise. As I said, I have nothing against the second part of Mrs. Thomas's amendment, which proposes setting a deadline for the meeting.
I'll stop there, because I want to hear what my colleagues have to say about this.