Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 21st, 2024

[Catherine Tait]

I think most of the recommendations, as far as CBC/Radio-Canada governance is concerned, are part of the federal government's obligations and responsibilities.

It's not our place to comment on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The report emphasizes the importance of Société Radio-Canada, the SRC, for French-language services throughout Canada, but essentially in Quebec, for the survival of the French language and Quebec culture. As we know, the SRC is very much appreciated in Quebec. The original content created by the SRC's craftspeople for Quebec viewers is made up of programs and other content that are extremely popular in general.

Do you agree with the report's recommendation that the Quebec government ask for certain security measures for the future to be built into the new mandate? For example, it is recommended that the Broadcasting Act be amended to ensure that there is systematically a vice-president of French services and a vice-president of English services. This is not in the law. It's a practice, but it's not necessarily in the law.

Do you also agree, for example, with the bilingualism requirement for both the person occupying the position of president, as you do, and that of chair of the board? It's a practice, but it's not yet in the law. Do you think these measures would be easy to implement and would be effective?

[Catherine Tait]

I think the safeguards we already have for the French language in the Broadcasting Act, but also in the Official Languages Act, are adequate for this kind of protection. Still—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I apologize for cutting you off, I have very little time.

I'd like to express the fear we have, for example, of seeing another government literally scuttle services and ensure that the French-language services of the SRC are cut and pared down.

[Catherine Tait]

I understand that fear, but I think the Official Languages Act, which was recently revised, adds protection for the CBC.

I think it's adequate for now. I leave it to the federal government to review the act, if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Tait.

Now we go to Niki Ashton for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Tait, in your conversations with the Liberal heritage minister or other representatives from this government, was there ever a discussion in which they suggested that you, the CBC, not hand out millions of dollars in executive bonuses while eliminating jobs?

[Catherine Tait]

No. We do not discuss internal administration issues with the government.

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

I want to move on to another issue. A 2021 open letter made clear the problem faced by Canadian journalists when covering Palestine:

Anyone who has worked in a Canadian newsroom has encountered the reluctance or resistance to covering Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Canadian style guides still ban the use of the word “Palestine” in coverage; this has led to many corrections over the years. Racialized journalists have reported feeling overly scrutinized, or even censored, after every story pitch on this region.

I will also indicate that I recently worked with groups like Independent Jewish Voices to call on the Canada Revenue Agency to end the practice of Canadian charities illegally funding settlements or facilitating war crimes in Palestine. The CBC and other outlets did not cover this.

Following the release of the letter I quoted from, two CBC journalists were told they could no longer report on Palestine. This has been repeated time and time again.

In fact, last week journalist Arfa Rana wrote about her experience of being the only Muslim in her newsroom trying to provide context to the CBC's coverage of Palestine and Israel. After raising the concerns she had, she was punished by her editors by being dismissed from daily pitch meetings for a few weeks. A senior producer told her that Palestine was an outdated term, like Persia.

The journalist makes no mention of that senior producer receiving any sort of punishment. Who knows? Maybe he even received a bonus. She wrote, “when crimes against humanity are being committed, there is no such thing as both sides to a story. There is only the truth.” Her treatment by CBC executives led to her resigning her position. The CBC is worse off as a result.

I want to indicate that when we're talking about a crisis of reputation, we're also talking about the CBC's coverage of what's happening in Palestine right now, something that we've heard a number of people be critical of. I know that the editorial line needs to be separate from your side of things, but what can the next president of the CBC do to ensure that journalists aren't being silenced or stifled, or that both-siding a genocide isn't happening from our public broadcaster?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. We have run out of time, but I will allow Ms. Tait 30 seconds to answer, please.

[Catherine Tait]

Well, I'm afraid it's not a 30-second answer.

This is one of the most difficult and emotional subjects we have faced in our newsrooms, at both Radio-Canada and the CBC, since October 7 and those tragic events of the Middle East.

All I can say is that we work very, very hard to support all our journalists, irrespective of their backgrounds. Most importantly, we have journalistic standards and practices that are transparent and that we respect. We have two ombudsmen to ensure that they are respected in all our news coverage.

All I can say on that point is that I have great confidence that my successor will do as I have done and leave the business of news reporting in the hands of the experts and professionals who are of the highest standard in this country and who are, quite frankly, some of the best from around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I will go to the final part of this round.

For the Conservatives, Mr. Kurek, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You talked a lot about trust and relying on the facts. It is a fact that there were significant job cuts at CBC. In fact, there were cuts made just before Christmas. It is a fact that performance pay bonuses were awarded very generously to the tune of more than $18 million. To reconcile that with your testimony here today is quite something.

We did do some digging into these KPIs, or key performance indicators, and some of the targets. In your previous testimony before this committee, you talked a lot about a process, but what I find very interesting is that the reports that come out of the CBC fawn over how great you're doing, to the point that maybe the only place you'd be more popular than that would be at a Liberal cabinet meeting. Even today you suggested, after one of Mr. Coteau's questions, that you needed to be realistic in that.

To go back to the KPIs from this past fiscal year, you said that by your own metrics, you met 13 of the 14 performance targets. That was a massive increase from meeting only three of the 14 targets the previous year. Something doesn't smell right with that. When it comes to the actual meeting of tangible targets, we started going through some of that information, and we saw that you lowered the KPIs for this past year, some of them quite significantly.

Ms. Tait, compared to the previous year—three of 14 versus 13 of 14—does that affect bonuses?

[Catherine Tait]

I'm sorry. What are the years you are referring to? They are 2022-23 and 2023-24, not 2014. Is that correct?

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

Yes. I'm sorry.

[Catherine Tait]

What was the question?

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

In 2022-23, you met three of 14 KPIs. This last year, you met 13 of 14. Did that affect the bonuses paid out?

[Catherine Tait]

Of course it did.

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

By your own information, you lowered those KPIs in order to see that they were met. In other words, what you have stated is that by lowering the KPIs, your organization and those within management are receiving more information.

Mr. Goldbloom, I'd like—

[Catherine Tait]

Could I respond to that?

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

—to ask....

I'm just stating the facts, Ms. Tait.

Mr. Goldbloom, I'm wondering if you could share with this committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me. Excuse me, please.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a point of order.

I really do think that if you're making such a grand statement, the witness should be able to respond to it. That's just fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

I was about to say that one cannot make a statement without allowing the witness a chance to respond.

Ms. Tait, please go ahead.

[Catherine Tait]

We have a very rigorous process in place for establishing KPIs on an annual basis. We look at previous performance, but most importantly, we look at what's happening in the industry.

When you see a trend of a 5% decline in television subscription, you don't ignore it. You adjust your KPIs accordingly, and we build in some stretch. What that means is that every single KPI is looked at, and by the way, they are not all lowered. In the case of kids and in the case of diversity and representation, there are numbers that are higher than the previous year. Just to be clear, I'll say that we're not making up KPIs; they are based on what is going on in the industry.

I think you've heard from others on a number of occasions that this industry is in decline. It is an extremely challenging time. How do you manage that, and how do you keep your people motivated to go forward? You build in stretch.