Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

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

I mean—

if we wanted to defund CBC/Radio-Canada, would that not lead to enormous job losses in the thousands?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

CBC/Radio-Canada's current funding model is largely based on parliamentary appropriations. It is also based on a legislative mandate and the conditions of the licences that the CRTC gives to public broadcasters. So this three-part set-up has to work. Funding has to be proportional to the mandate, as well as the CRTC's conditions. If you uncouple one part of the set-up, there is a functional breakdown. The mandate will not be met, or the CRTC's conditions of licence will not be met.

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

So, if there is no money, there are no jobs.

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

Obviously, a broadcaster—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

—has employees that it has to pay. That is one of its obligations enabling it to provide the service. If there are cuts—which a lot of broadcasters are experiencing right now—and if there is a decline in revenue, regardless of the source of that revenue, there will potentially be an impact on jobs, obviously.

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

Thank you, Mrs. Bouchard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lattanzio.

We'll go to Mr. Champoux from the Bloc for six minutes, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Bouchard, welcome to your first visit to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I have a feeling that this won't be the last time we'll see you.

Mrs. Bouchard, finding a person to replace Ms. Tait as CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada was a tall order. According to a number of observers, it seemed that finding a qualified person to fill this position would be a major challenge for the minister or for the government. The world of rebroadcasting is already going through a complicated time, not only because of enormous changes such as the shift to digital and the challenges in terms of advertising revenue, but also because of the threat of a Conservative government that would like to significantly slash the funding of a public broadcaster, i.e., the CBC.

Mrs. Bouchard, after your appointment, certain stakeholders indicated that the trust between employees and management was broken, and that the incoming CEO would hopefully be able to restore that trust. Ms. Brin, from the Centre d'études sur les médias at Université Laval, whom you no doubt know, said that the job was somewhat of a poisoned chalice and that hopes were high.

Mrs. Bouchard, congratulations on your appointment.

How do you see this challenge, with all the apprehension and concern that have been expressed?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

I'll let you in on something: I received a lot of messages after my appointment was announced. It's funny, because the selection committee asked me how I thought people would react if I was appointed. I answered that those who crossed paths with me when I worked at Radio-Canada and those who have known me for nine years would probably be reassured, as would the francophone communities, with whom I have a fairly close relationship, because I have a habit of making clear proposals and following through on what I say. I also said that my loved ones would be worried, and they are, because the challenges are daunting.

I am excited about the potential for transformation before us, because we are in an era of transformation, but I am also worried for the entire country, for the employees of CBC/Radio-Canada and for future generations, because I firmly believe that public broadcasting has contributed an enormous amount of wealth to this country, to its people and to many communities that would not otherwise enjoy that benefit today.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mrs. Bouchard, I'm going to give you a compliment, but I promise I'll be critical when the opportunity arises. I must admit that I was quite impressed when I looked at your CV. In sports terms, we could say that you are a franchise player. So I hope that once you're out on the ice, you'll rise to the occasion. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I liked the image.

That said, the purpose of this study is to discuss the effects of defunding the CBC. This is a concern for many people around this table and is of great concern to the cultural sector in Quebec, the media sector in general, the news sector and people who are interested in quality news.

What do you think would be the consequences of defunding the CBC? How should we react to that?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

Of course, budget cuts have a direct impact on services. The question you're asking is more about the CBC. I don't know how you would stop funding the CBC, based on what I know about the structure of the CBC.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Let me reassure you, Ms. Bouchard: Those who advocate defunding the CBC don't understand at all how it works either, but carry on.

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

Having spent 29 years at the CBC, I can tell you that, unfortunately, there were periods of budget cuts, for all kinds of reasons cited by elected officials at the time. This necessarily had an impact on jobs and services. Today, we see that regional services, in particular, have suffered budget cuts over the years. I know that they've tried to increase resources somewhat, but local service, regional service, is still at risk. If the Crown corporation winds up with fewer resources, I'm afraid it won't be able to meet citizens' expectations when it comes to local news.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You were part of the advisory committee set up by the minister to look at renewing CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'll be quick.

During those consultations, did you make any recommendations? If so, could you share them with us?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

I can't speak to that, because those consultations were confidential. It will be up to the minister to make a decision. The advice given by members of that committee and the opinions they expressed remain confidential.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I still had to ask you the question.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Bouchard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to the NDP and Niki Ashton.

You have six minutes, please, Niki.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Bouchard, it's a pleasure to finally have you at our committee. If your stewardship of CBC/Radio-Canada is anything like Ms. Tait's, I imagine we'll be seeing a lot of each other over the next period of time.

I urge you to do better than what's been done before. With a Conservative Party that is ideologically committed to destroying the CBC and a Liberal Party that may say the right things but whose threat of cuts cost so many people at the CBC their jobs in the first place, Canadians are depending on you to do better.

That means investing in local journalism outside the major cities in our country to end media deserts. People in communities like mine, here in Thompson, have had a CBC station that's been shuttered for years, with the exception of blips of short-term contracts. Our regions deserve our stories to be told by people who are living in regions like ours.

That means that if there's a choice between saving jobs or doling out bonuses to the top of the CBC, which are almost twice as big as the salaries of the lowest-paid workers at the CBC, CBC leadership decides to save the jobs.

That means fighting for investments for our national broadcasters so that francophone communities and indigenous peoples can learn what's happening in their communities, in their regions and in their own languages.

Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, I truly believe that Canadians support the CBC. What they need from you is a CBC that supports them.

Do you think Ms. Tait was wrong to give out $18 million in executive bonuses while cutting CBC workers' jobs?

[Marie-Philippe Bouchard]

Thank you for your question.

It's not my job to pass judgment on past leadership. I wouldn't presume to do so, because being a CEO is a difficult job. I was a CEO for nine years. I expect that my successor will have to review some decisions that I made in the past, and they may have different opinions, but I would expect them to pay me the respect to say that I tried my best.

I'm sure Catherine Tait tried her best through a very difficult tenure. Don't forget that we went through COVID. This was unprecedented in terms of having to run a public broadcaster with reporters and field crews in a health crisis situation, with people asking for and demanding so much vital information.

I'm not going to pass judgment. I think we should thank her for her service.

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

I think what Canadians want to hear is that their public broadcaster is not interested in doling out executive bonuses while it cuts workers' jobs and Canadians are suffering.

Let me move on. I'd like to now present a motion that I have submitted to the committee. It's a motion that I believe is particularly timely.

In recent months, we've heard disturbing information about the unacceptable culture at Canada Soccer. In the summer, our country was rocked by the findings that Canada Soccer officials were using drones to spy on other teams at the Paris Olympics. Since that time, we've had news reports from The Globe and Mail, TSN and Radio-Canada that there is an unacceptable culture at Canada Soccer.

This is an issue for us as MPs. This is about public funding. This is about public money going to national sporting organizations like Canada Soccer. This is about Canada's reputation on the world stage and here at home when it comes to exactly what our national team and our national sporting organization, in the case of Canada Soccer, are doing. This is also about the lack of sport policy.

It is absolutely shameful that we've seen nothing from the federal government, with the exception of a couple of statements early in the summer during the Olympics, when it comes to the scandalous information that's coming out about Canada Soccer. We as MPs have a responsibility to get to the bottom of what's happening at Canada Soccer. Canadians deserve the truth.

In that vein, I am putting forward the motion that I submitted on Monday. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of no less than 10 hours to study the role of officials associated to the Canadian women’s soccer team and Canada Soccer in the creation of an unacceptable culture, including troubling workplace allegations and the use of spying, which has damaged Canada’s reputation including in the lead-up to Canada co-hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and that the committee summon, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a) Bev Priestman and John Herdman to appear before committee for no less than two hours, in addition to the chief executive officer and representatives of Soccer Canada and representatives of FIFA, and past or present Team Canada soccer players, and also representatives from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport; representatives of Own the Podium and the Minister of Sport, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

I look forward to all MPs, on behalf of Canadians, bringing to light what exactly is happening at Canada Soccer. Canadians deserve the truth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Ashton, a similar motion to this was brought forward and was voted down by the committee on October 17. Once a decision is made by the committee, it cannot be questioned but must stand as the judgment of the committee.

Although this motion is very similar in intent, why is this motion different from the one voted down by the committee the last time you brought it forward? I'd like to know if you have a reason for making this one different, because I have a tendency to think that I should rule this motion inadmissible.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton. I'm giving you an opportunity to speak to the difference in this motion.

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

I can, absolutely. It is different.

In the case of referring to broader allegations, it moves beyond the spying that we know took place at the Olympics. Recent news stories, as I said, from Radio-Canada, TSN and The Globe and Mail have pointed to the fact that we are talking about much more than spying now, and this motion refers to “an unacceptable culture, including troubling workplace allegations”.

Anyone who has read the media has heard about the allegations of bullying and harassment. This study is far more than what I brought up earlier, and it is much more timely, I would say, because it reflects the media stories that have come out in recent weeks that have pointed to the fact that there are some real problems at Canada Soccer.

I will also add that this motion has some different witnesses, including Own the Podium, which is a funder of Canada Soccer. Again, where is public money going? Is public money going towards spying? Is public money going towards building a culture of harassment and intimidation?

More notably, this motion also refers to inviting the Minister of Sport , which the previous motion did not. I think that Canadians deserve to hear from the Minister of Sport, from the federal government, what exactly they know and what they're doing to fix the problems at Canada Soccer.

It is substantively different and much wider in scope than the previous motion, which focused on the one issue.