Yes, on the point of order, Madam Speaker.
House of Commons Hansard #361 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
House of Commons Hansard #361 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Canadian Heritage Members debate a report on CBC executive bonuses paid despite job cuts and declining performance. Conservatives criticize the bonuses and management, advocating to defund the CBC. Liberals acknowledge concerns but defend the public broadcaster's importance, especially for regional and French-language services, proposing a study on defunding impacts. Bloc and NDP also criticize bonuses but support the CBC, calling for accountability and investment in regional journalism. 21700 words, 3 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Sitting Resumed Members debate CBC executive bonuses amidst job cuts, calling for restored local and regional journalism and criticizing the corporation's current direction and the government's oversight, particularly concerning service in northern areas. 1300 words, 10 minutes.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate alleged Liberal government corruption and scandals, including the $400 million Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund (called a "green slush fund" by Conservatives) and $100 million in GC Strategies contracts (including ArriveCAN). Conservatives cite Auditor General findings and Speaker rulings, demanding transparency and criticizing the government's handling of these issues and others like SNC-Lavalin and WE Charity. Liberals briefly mention the economy. 3700 words, 25 minutes.
Access to Parliament Hill—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a question of privilege regarding public access to Parliament Hill. The Speaker found no member's access was impeded, ruling no breach occurred, and clarified the administrative protocol for managing demonstrations for safety. 1100 words.
Privilege Members debate the government's refusal to provide unredacted documents concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada, following Auditor General findings of 186 conflicts of interest and $390 million in mismanaged funds. Conservative MPs demand transparency and compliance with a House order, alleging corruption and cover-ups. Liberal MPs question the procedural approach, citing RCMP concerns and accusing Conservatives of delaying tactics. Bloc members express frustration with the impasse, while NDP members raise concerns about social programs like dental care. 23700 words, 3 hours.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I made it very clear, on the point of order, that I will allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to add something if he needs to. As I have indicated, the hon. member can go on with his speech, and I am sure he will ensure that he is referencing the motion that is before the House.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, on the point of order, in case I did not make it clear, this is all related to why the Conservatives are bringing in this particular concurrence report. They do not like what the CBC is saying, which is why I am conveying to the House what the CBC reported.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
As I have indicated, there is some latitude. We recognize that. I am sure the hon. member will continue to ensure that his speech is relevant to the discussion.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the report goes on. Again, these are not the views of the CBC. After reading the entire story, we see there is fair criticism across the board. It points out facts and a great deal of misinformation. That misinformation is what the Conservatives are thriving on, and that is why we are seeing an attack once again, today, on the CBC.
The report continues:
...Fadden said those threat reduction measures are meant to inform politicians when they may themselves be targeted and wouldn't be used to share classified information with the leader of a party.
Interestingly enough, it goes on here:
“You can't give classified information to people if they don't have security clearances. Can you muck around on the margins and try and get people to think differently? Yes, but that's not what we're talking about,” he said.
This is an expert.
The leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister “to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.” How many times have we heard that demand here in the form of formal speeches and through heckling? We hear them make that demand constantly. Here is what the professionals, the individuals in the know, have to say:
But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime.
Every time we hear Conservatives demand that we tell them the 11 names, number one, I do not know the 11 names, but if I did, it would be a crime to tell them. Again, I go back to the story:
“Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June.
I am very disappointed in how the Conservative Party has played a very strong, destructive role. I remind them that they also have an obligation. As they focus their attention purely on what is in the best interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party, we will remain focused on Canadians and their interests, on providing programs and supports, and supporting our economy, knowing full well that we need to build on our infrastructure, support Canada's middle class and encourage an economy that works for all Canadians. We are starting to see the signs of that when we get interest rates coming down, the inflation rate finally under control and on target, and the creation of jobs. Hope is there; 2025 is going to be a good year for Canadians.
We will continue to work for Canadians, first and foremost. That is the right thing to do, as opposed to looking at ways to filibuster. That is what today's motion on the CBC is all about. It is not about the issue. Conservatives are using it as a mechanism to prevent the House of Commons from being able to have debates, to pass legislation and to look at issues affecting Canadians on a day in, day out basis.
No matter how obstructive Conservatives are, I can assure members opposite that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on Canadians.
Having said that, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
The 8th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for further consideration, provided that it be an instruction to the committee to study the consequences of defunding the CBC and Radio-Canada, including the effects on smaller communities, as promised by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Drummond is rising on a point of order.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to make sure that the French version of the amendment will be sent out shortly.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The French version will definitely be sent shortly.
In the meantime, we will move on to questions and comments.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Before we move on to questions and comments, I would like to see the French version of the amendment.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The English version of the amendment was translated into French by the interpreters.
I would like to inform the hon. member that, when someone is reading a motion, it need not be in both French and English, because we have access to interpretation services. That said, it will be available in writing in both official languages afterwards.
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saskatoon West.
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was here during previous speeches. Some of my Conservative colleagues talked about the KPIs of the CBC and the way CBC executives reduced the KPIs so they could achieve their goals and, therefore, get these incredible bonuses we have been talking about today. My colleagues did a great job of explaining how that is a level of incompetence at the CBC that Canadians are very concerned about.
How could the Liberal government stand by and watch this happen? How could it watch the management of this organization lower its standards to achieve the bonuses and not say something? I would like to understand how the government operates with such incompetence and disregard for the obvious management principles of an organization.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, first of all, the discussion we are having today is only occurring because the Conservatives want to continue to play games in a filibuster of their original motion.
With regard to the specific question, it is important to note the amendment that I moved. If the Conservatives are genuinely concerned—
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is rising on a point of order.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, I am new to the House. I would like to know whether parliamentary practice allows members to impute motives during speeches.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether it is possible and permissible for members to impute motives when we rise in the House. The official opposition's motive was imputed, and I would just like to know whether we have the right to do that in the House.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
A motive was imputed? Can the hon. member clarify what he means by that?
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, imputing someone's motive is when we assume we know the intentions of people we do not know. I just wanted to know if that is allowed here in the House, because it was prohibited in other assemblies I have been part of as an activist.
I would like to know whether we have the right to impute motives. Imputing motives is a fallacy in which one presumes to know the intentions of others without knowing them.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
It goes without saying that different arguments are made during debate. Yes, we ask members not to impute motives to other members, but this is the sort of thing that we often hear in the House, whether it is when one person approaches another or when a person is sitting next to someone.
I hope that I correctly understood what the hon. member was saying, but, yes, from time to time, there are messages passed in the House to clarify certain things or to give advice during debate. We see that regularly.
I will give the floor back to the hon. member, but this is beginning to be a point of debate. After he stands, I would ask the member to wait for the light to come on before he begins speaking. If his microphone is not on, then I cannot hear him when he starts to speak.
The hon. member for LaSalle–Émard–Verdun.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, thank you for that clarification, and I apologize for not standing while you were speaking.
I would also like to apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North for interrupting his very interesting speech.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The parliamentary secretary is in the process of answering the question from the hon. member for Saskatoon West.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the interruption is okay. There is no worry.
I believe the Conservatives should feel a bit of hope because of the amendment we have proposed. We are saying that this should be given to the committee, where we could talk about what the Conservative agenda is on the issue of the CBC. I see that as a positive thing. I trust members of the Conservative Party, along with other members, will support this well-thought-out amendment.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are prone to vilify the CBC. It is the story of their life. Ever since I arrived here in 2019, that is all we have heard them do. If that is their position, they are welcome to it.
That said, not everything is necessarily false in our Conservative friends' sea of disinformation about CBC/Radio-Canada. There are some things that actually deserve consideration. Unfortunately, the Liberals' defensiveness makes it difficult to navigate between these two extreme positions when it comes to subjects we should be debating and discussing.
I am very uncomfortable about the bonuses Ms. Tait awarded to CBC executives, especially given the context in which this was done. I would like us to be able to discuss this context, as well as the compensation system in effect at CBC/Radio-Canada. A new mandate will soon be proposed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I would like us to discuss our expectations concerning this mandate.
Does my colleague from Winnipeg North agree that there are concerns about the current compensation system at CBC/Radio-Canada? Does his government agree that we should look into this to ensure that the manner in which the CBC/Radio-Canada personnel and executives are compensated is acceptable to Quebeckers and Canadians?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I do look for ways in which we can improve the system. CBC/Radio-Canada is such a critical part of our identity. As an example, it highlights the uniqueness of the province of Quebec.
I am open to having a dialogue about how we can make CBC Television or CBC Radio more efficient to better answer needs into the future. That is why I think this is a good amendment. Hopefully, we will be able to get members from the Bloc to also support it.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives put forward this motion, and the NDP supports ending bonuses to CEOs. We opposed bonuses when the Harper government was doing the same thing at the CBC. At a time when workers were losing their jobs, the Conservatives had an opportunity to put forward a motion to return those bonuses to workers instead. However, we know that their goal is not to defund the CBC, but to eliminate the CBC.
Susan MacVittie wrote on my Facebook page the other day. She wrote, “CBC radio is desperately needed in rural Canada. It gives a voice to local news, our community events and issues, our musicians, call in talk shows, etc.—the very fabric that binds us together as Canadians. Publicly owned not for profit and proudly Canadian owned by Canadians for Canada. Maybe more people could start questioning government oil and gas subsidies, etc. instead of supporting the erasing of Canadian content.”
We know the Conservatives are never going to go after the subsidies for oil and gas, and neither will the Liberals. Will the government make sure that it is also going after oil and gas subsidies, and make sure that it continues to provide stable, long-term funding to the CBC?