Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[The Clerk]

Yes, thank you.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay. I don't know how much of that they caught. I don't know if they need me to repeat anything or if everything worked out okay. I'm happy to repeat what I was saying, but I think everyone heard what I had to say. If they did, then I will end my comments, but if you need me to repeat anything, if it was not heard properly, I'm happy to repeat it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We'll go to Ms. Ashton next on the amendment and then Mr. Waugh.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

In the spirit of expediency, I think what's most important here is to hear directly from the CEO of the CBC, Ms. Tait. I think we can ask questions of the minister when she comes on the estimates, but I would like to see a meeting focused on the CEO.

We won't be supporting the first part of the amendment, and, like Mr. Champoux, we are open to the second part in terms of timing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Go ahead, Mr. Waugh.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Tait made statements in December while knowing that the performance bonuses had already been handed out in October. It's frustrating, because if you listen to the meeting from December, you hear that Ms. Tait claims that there were no performance bonuses at all. The bonuses were handed out in 2023. They normally do that in the early part of 2024.

Right away, we have found, Madam Chair, that Ms. Tait lied to the committee when she came here in December, and she is head of a major $1.4-billion corporation. She came to committee and misinformed everybody around the table, and that is a real concern.

I like the motion by Ms. Thomas for a couple of reasons. We need to reconvene next Tuesday, March 26, seven days from now, to hear from Catherine Tait. She has misled Canadians. She came here saying that she needed to drop 10% of the CBC staff, over 800 people, and then the Treasury Board, along with the heritage minister, agreed to a $96.1-million gift to the CBC, which brought them from $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion in the budget.

What's interesting is that Ms. Tait has not talked about any more cuts, despite getting $96 million. She hasn't even really talked about whether we are going to reinstate those who were on the chopping block.

It's an interesting dilemma that we have in the heritage committee here, because I definitely think we need to hear, Madam Chair, from the head of the CBC, Catherine Tait, and also because the Liberals at one time talked about a 3.3% decrease to the funding of CBC, and then all of a sudden turned around and gifted the CBC $96.1 million.

That's why I like the updated amendment from Ms. Thomas. Where did this money come from? When CBC went crying that they were going to cut 800 staff and that their bonuses were not coming, we find out that the first 10 months were paid out, so we still don't know about November and December Christmas performance bonuses, which I think we're going to find out about very shortly, either at the end of March or certainly April. It's astounding to me that CBC can cut 800 employees and still give out nearly $15 million in performance bonuses.

I'm here for next Tuesday, March 26. I like the amendment and I will support it wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Kevin.

Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this amendment?

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Sure. I have a couple of things here.

With regard to the timeline of “within seven days”, there's nothing precluding this committee from doing work during a break week. If we deem it important, we are welcome to do that. Of course, I understand that individuals are returning to their ridings. It's no problem. They can of course log in and be a part of that meeting virtually, so that has been accommodated.

Second, with regard to the Minister of Heritage, I recognize the arguments that have been brought forward by Mr. Noormohamed. I will just highlight a couple of things—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. The camera seems to be on you and not on Mrs. Thomas for some reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. I don't control cameras, Kevin, but it's duly noted.

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

I know, but you're sitting there relaxing, listening to Mrs. Thomas, and I think the viewers out there would like to hear what Mrs. Thomas has said and what she has to say, and also see the video.

We have a number of cameras here. Perhaps we could employ those who got released from CBC to run these cameras if they're not properly run.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Okay. Now go ahead, Mrs. Thomas. You have the floor and the camera.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. Awesome. Thank you.

Well, thank you to my colleague Kevin for bringing attention to that.

Once again, those words did come from me. I would just highlight for this committee that we have every ability to work during a break week. I realize that many of us are returning to our constituencies and will be working there, but there's no problem. We can always log on and do this meeting by Zoom. Those seven days shouldn't be a problem.

The second thing I would say to the committee is with regard to having the Minister of Heritage appear. Look, there are a couple of things that need to be noted here. Mr. Noormohamed mentioned that the minister is not responsible for answering for the CBC; in fact, actually, the minister is responsible for giving a contract to Ms. Tait and for having renewed that contract to Ms. Tait. Further, the minister is responsible for now doing the search and finding the next CEO or president of the CBC, and so the minister is actually directly involved.

I'm not sure if Mr. Noormohamed is implying that she is politically interfering in the CBC by making these hiring decisions or if Mr. Noormohamed is simply looking to mislead the members of this committee by saying that the mandate is different from what it actually is. Nevertheless, it is true that the minister has a lot to do with the CBC and the decisions that are made at the head of the organization.

The third thing I would raise is that it is the minister, in fact, who also made the decision with regard to the additional money that is going to the CBC. It is the minister who has determined that almost another $100 million will be given to the public broadcaster for this upcoming year, and we can expect to see that solidified in the budget. That is my understanding.

For these reasons, it does seem that, based on the motion Mr. Champoux has brought forward, which has to do with both of these things that I just stated, it would be appropriate for us to hear from the minister in addition to Ms. Tait.

You'll note that I am not taking away from the time that Ms. Tait is to be given. She will have two hours, and the Minister of Heritage will also have two hours. It's simply an addition. There's nothing being deleted or taken away from the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Ms. Lattanzio is next.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At this point, I think it would be worth reading the motion out loud to have a better understanding of the spirit of this motion.

It says,

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee invite the CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, Catherine Tait,

—and now the amendment says—

and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to appear for a period of two hours each within seven days of the adoption of this motion

—that's also part of the amendment—

to answer the following questions concerning:

1. The increase in funding to the public broadcaster of nearly one hundred million dollars per year;

2. The exemption granted by the government to CBC/Radio-Canada to reduce its operating costs by 3.3%;

3. The payment of performance bonuses totalling nearly fifteen million dollars to CBC/Radio-Canada executives;

And that she explain

—“she” referring to Ms. Tait—

the impact of these announcements on the announced elimination of eight hundred (800) positions, as well as on the continuation of high-quality journalism in the regions of Quebec and Canada.

Clearly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Lattanzio, we are dealing with the amendment only. Thank you.

Go ahead.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Yes, I understand. That's why I've highlighted the amendment part.

Clearly, Madam Chair, the original motion dealt with the economic or managerial decisions that the CBC takes, and I don't see the role of the Minister of Heritage in the managerial or financial decisions being taken.

Clearly, the spirit of the original motion is with regard to the expenses and the spending of sums of money, which really have nothing to do with the mandate or the role of the Minister of Heritage. Therefore, I won't be voting in favour of including the Minister of Heritage.

With regard to the delay that my colleague has included in the motion, I agree with Monsieur Champoux. We can certainly come back from the constituency week and deal with this motion, unless there seems to be an urgency that it absolutely needs to be dealt with in the next two weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Based on what we've just heard in the last few minutes, I have the impression that my Conservative colleagues won't agree to withdraw the invitation to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from their amendment. The part of the motion that I agree with is the part that seeks to specify a deadline for the appearance. If there is an opening, I would be tempted to suggest that we split the difference by inviting the CEO of CBC/Radio‑Canada to appear at the first meeting scheduled after we return from our constituency weeks.

I have nothing against the committee sitting during those weeks, Madam Chair. It's not a problem for me at all, but I think it should be reserved for situations of a certain urgency. However, I don't believe that there is any danger at stake in the coming weeks. This is something that could very well be discussed when we come back in three weeks, it will still be topical, and it will be the same answers or non‑answers that we're going to get from Ms. Tait. I think we can set a deadline so that it can be done quickly, but I don't see a national emergency requiring us to convene this parliamentary committee for weeks when we're in our ridings, especially since I would bet my last shirt that Ms. Tait will find a reason to tell us that she's not available for a while.

So we could start by setting the date of April 11, which is the first meeting scheduled after we return from the constituency weeks. If everyone agrees, we could move a subamendment or reject the amendment on the table and move another one to add that to the motion. Then we'd be on the right track.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Niki, go ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I was just going to say that I support Mr. Champoux's proposal that we set aside the first scheduled meeting after we return from the constituency weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I see no other hands up. I'm going to entertain a vote on the amendment of Mrs. Thomas.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Did I hear you say you wanted to propose a subamendment, Martin?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I don't think I can move a subamendment or an amendment to my own motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You cannot move a subamendment to your own motion, no.

All right. Now let's deal with the main motion as it stands, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux, minus the amendments by Mrs. Thomas.

Is there any debate on the main motion as unamended?