Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to stand in this place and bring the voice and perspective of my constituents from the beautiful riding of Kings—Hants, just next door to you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot help but remark on the point of order that was just made by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth about the importance of ensuring proper access to abortion services, and that women be able to make that choice themselves. I thank the minister for her work and for making sure that charities are not trying to undo or limit the ability of women to make that choice. I do think that this is going to be an important element in the days ahead. We see what is happening south of our border on these questions. When I speak to women in my constituency, they want to make sure that they have the ability to make that choice for themselves and not have other people make that choice for them.
However, we are here on a concurrence report. What does that mean? It means that the opposition has chosen to use more time in this House to bring forward a committee report that was already duly passed at the committee stage and requires a government response.
In this particular instance, I am actually pleased to have the opportunity to explain and to give some context to my Conservative colleagues about the concern I have about the direction they may want to take on public broadcasting. However, I would be remiss if I did not use at least a minute or two to explain to Canadians the concern I have about the fact that the procedural elements of this House, the ability for this House to get work done, has been completely gummed up by the Conservatives, closing on three weeks now.
There is, before this House, a question of privilege. Questions of privilege are undoubtedly important. They matter, and there have been two of them raised, according to the Speaker. Now, the Speaker has been very clear that, in relation to the question of privilege that is before this House right now, it should be referred to committee. However, what has happened is that there has not been an ability to actually have that vote called because, of course, our procedural rules allow, on questions of privilege, every single member in this House to be able to rise and speak to it. What have members of the Conservative Party done? They have continued to move amendments and subamendments to continue to restart that clock, and not on a genuine concern about the question of privilege, but to tie up the affairs and the resources of this House so that other business cannot actually happen. I think that is shameful, particularly because the House leader has been very clear that we would welcome a vote, an ability to actually litigate this matter, and be able to move it forward. At some point, I think Canadians are going to have to ask: When will the Conservative Party actually allow this House to get back to the legitimate business of government and the things that matter most crucially to Canadians?
I am not saying that the question of privilege is not important, and I am not saying that the issues surrounding it do not matter, but there is clear consensus in this House to actually move forward. Instead, the Conservatives are using procedural tactics to delay the ability for the government to perhaps introduce a fall economic statement, and the ability to discuss other things that actually matter to Canadians. We are going on three weeks, and I hope that at some point during my question time here today when I am asked, one of my Conservative colleagues will tell me when we can actually get on with it. However, it does allow me to focus on my constituents and the needs at home, and I do welcome that. I welcome the opportunity to continue to be at home and focus on the needs for my constituents, and so I thank the Conservatives in the same breath as well.
Today's aspect is a question around a report to the House that relates to executive compensation awarded to Catherine Tait, the CBC president. It is important to remind Canadians that the agency, our public broadcaster in this country, is, of course, accountable to Parliament because of the money provided on an annual basis, which is around a billion dollars, but it is independent of government. Of course, we would not know that when, at times, we hear the opposition stand up to suggest that it is a “propaganda arm” of the government, which is dangerous language, because it undermines public broadcasting in this country. Also, the leader of the official opposition has gone so far as to suggest that CTV is a “propaganda arm” for the Prime Minister. This is the kind of playbook that we are seeing by right-wing parties and leaders around the world to try to undermine the credibility of media institutions across the country and this idea that we cannot believe what journalists report. I will take a moment to give my perspective on this.
When I read the National Post, I inherently understand that it has more of a centre-right bent. I do not stand here in this place and say what I read in the National Post is untrue, or that it is out to just attack the government, or it is an attack dog for the member for Carleton. I do not say that, because I am not trying to undermine journalism integrity in this country. When I read The Globe and Mail, I would say that is right down the middle. Others may see it as right-wing or left-wing, but I do not believe what The Globe and Mail is saying in this country is factually untrue, even if it may have a journalistic bias; the same with our public broadcaster. Again, the Conservatives will voice concerns about the integrity of that institution. They call it into question.
The irony in all of this, though, is that if we actually watch the social media channels of the members of the official opposition we can see how they love to cherry-pick stories when there is an actual story that is critical of the government. Of course, it is the job of our public broadcaster to be critical and to provide information. In one breath, they will say it is the “propaganda arm” of the Prime Minister or some type of North Korean dynamic here in this country. They gaslight and fire up Canadians, but yet they will use the content from our public broadcaster when it suits their narrative. In my neck of the woods, we call that hypocrisy and it is disingenuous to the debates that we need to have in this place.
I am going to get to the debate in this place where, of course, the text of this motion deals with the compensation that the CBC has provided to executives and other members of the team. Do I think that that was ill-suited in today's context? Absolutely, I do. When the CBC CEO announced job cuts to our public broadcaster, I think there needed to be more context. That was unconscionable. I think the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells used that word. In an environment where an employer is laying off employees while choosing to compensate at the same time, usually that would be a moment when the employer would tell their executive leadership team that they are proud of their work, but right now they are in an environment where they maybe just cannot provide that because it would send the wrong message as they lay people off. It is just not the right course.
I do agree with that motion of the text. I think it was unfortunate. Here is the thing, though, as this is the dynamic as well: a government ought to be and needs to be careful. I think it was the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood who talked about the idea that the government should have intervened. If we truly want an independent broadcaster, a public broadcaster, the government ought to be careful about intervening in those cases. I heard Conservatives talking about the idea that the public broadcaster is too tied to the agenda of the government, yet they want the government to intervene directly. Rather, we actually want our independent broadcaster to be truly independent.
I think there is also a legitimate question about talent and maintaining talent in these environments. There are people who have requisite skill sets. It is a competitive environment out there in the media landscape. I do think an important question to ask is about remuneration. That matters, as it will ensure we have quality journalists and quality management that will be able to ensure our public broadcaster stays competitive in the media landscape. I want to address that. However, this opportunity has arisen where it gives me more opportunity to speak to public broadcasting across the country and why it matters.
Mr. Speaker, you and I represent rural ridings in Nova Scotia. Maybe you do not go out to make an announcement as often as you would like, but the government has done some good things in West Nova. We want to get out to talk about that or about the initiatives we want to do as MPs, but it is not easy to find an actual media outlet in West Nova or Kings—Hants because the environment we are in right now is one where we have actually seen a shrinking of local media in this country.
It is extremely challenging. Whether someone is a member of Parliament or a citizen, we are living in an environment where people are trying to find credible information about what is happening in the world. Often, we are getting our information from our cell phones. There is power in having a computer in your hand, an ability to find information all around the world, but we are also in a world of algorithms and social media.
When I went to Hants East Rural High, there used to be papers laid out at the library. When we had a free block of time we would read the news about what was going on in the world. We had flip phones; we did not have the whole Internet to access at our fingertips. When I talk to young people, when I go into high schools in my riding, I ask them where they get their news. Many will answer that they get it from TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; social media. That tells me how old I am feeling in this place. I am 33.
It has been a very interesting exercise as I talk to young people about who comes up a lot on their social media. It is Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. These are the types, even among young women. We can see the algorithm. Once one goes to see one or two things, one starts seeing it in echo chambers. Whether or not it is individuals who I think we could clearly classify as on the far right or even on the far left, it does a disservice to our society to be in a situation where we do not get a breadth of information to be able to help inform our opinion. We are in an echo chamber. We are seeing the same things. We might start to believe that everything we are seeing is absolutely true. I think it is important to have critical thought and that we have individuals and trusted journalism that can actually help us understand the context of what we are dealing with.
I want to talk about the CBC in the context of the regions. Atlantic Canada is, I think, perhaps the best example of where the public broadcaster has an important presence and a long and storied tradition. I can think of programs like the CBC's Land and Sea. I do not know how often members have watched it, but I know many of my constituents do. It is an informative documentary series that talks about our communities. Global, CTV or other private broadcasters are not going to deliver that element of Canadian content.
I think about This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Its editorial control is still in Halifax. I think about family friends, including Kendall Nowe, who do important work there. I have been in the studio. It is being driven by Canadian actors to provide a bit of comedic relief. I think we could use more of that here in Ottawa and a little more levity in this place. It is important because it is true Canadian content being developed in the regions. I think of Son of a Critch, and these Newfoundland types of shows. I think about the CBC's evening news in Prince Edward Island, which is by far the leading example of our public broadcaster having a large market share of that evening news where Islanders will tune in to watch the CBC.
However, the CBC is not above reproach; we cannot suggest there does not have to be reform. In fact, I am of the view that, although public broadcasting is absolutely crucial in this country, we need to maintain it. It scares the heck out of me that members of the opposition want to cut it in a world of algorithms and declining local media. They want to get rid of trusted journalism, and that is concerning, but let us not pretend they do not need a bit of a boot in the butt. I think that is important.
There a couple things that I would note based on the conversations I have had over the last 10 years. Increasingly, the CBC and its editorial control is centralized in Toronto. I love my good friends from Toronto, I love the members of Parliament of all sides who reside there. It is a great city, but I am sorry, that is what our big, privately held media companies are doing. They are centralizing their editorial content out of the middle of the country. I can tell members that there is a vastly different perspective in regional Canada and in rural Canada, so we need to be able to make sure that there are resources not in our biggest city of the country that may not reflect what is happening in rural Canada, which is the entire emphasis of our public broadcaster, but in the areas of the country where the private broadcasters would not go because, frankly, there was not a business case to do it. Why is it that, under the CBC's leadership, it has increasingly put its resources in the middle of the country, which is already being served quite well by private broadcasters? We need the exact opposite.
I will give one example that CBC executives were putting out to the regional headquarters in downtown cities across the country. They need to sell those locations and move a bit further out to the suburbs. We cannot afford those properties downtown. Guess what? They did not take the Kool-Aid in Toronto. It is right downtown. If we are going to say that in Halifax, we ought to be doing it in Toronto. Let us put CBC headquarters out in the suburban areas, if that is what we think is good for St. John's, Halifax, Charlottetown and other areas. I think if we are going to maintain the confidence of a public broadcaster in this country, we need to make sure that, first and foremost, it is serving the regions where there is no private broadcasting to actually meet their needs.
I can tell members that when I go to make announcements in my own riding, maybe I get lucky with a SaltWire journalist who will actually show up and put it into the paper, which matters, although there is declining readership. Certainly on television, it is a lucky day, a cold day in, and I better not say “H-E double hockey sticks”, that we will actually see CTV and Global.
I appreciate the journalists who come. They tell important stories, but they are few and far between because the private broadcasters do not want to drive an hour down to the valley. They sure as heck do not want to drive down to beautiful West Nova; it is too far from Halifax. However, reporters from CBC/Radio-Canada will show up, and that is important because they are telling the stories that matter.
We have to get back to editorial capacity and resources in the regions. We have to focus on true Canadian content. I mentioned CBC's Land and Sea, This Hour Has 22 Minutes and other documentaries that are focused on Canadian content. I am sorry, but we do not need a Canadian Family Feud. We do not need Americanized content in which we put lipstick on a pig and call it Canadian. That is where I think, at times, the public broadcaster has lost its way.
I want to take the opportunity to talk about my concern about the opposition cutting public broadcasting. We have established that, in many cases, it is our public broadcaster, on television and certainly on radio, that provides really important news and content information. There are many places where we have, essentially, media deserts where the private sector either does not have a business model to do it or has not been able to find a way. The public broadcaster matters for news and information.
There are many constituents in my riding who believe in this important work. We have the Conservatives saying that they would cut it. They would cut this in an era of social media and of algorithms. I do not understand why. I want to go back to the bigger narrative. It is not just the CBC the Conservatives want to cut. They want to denigrate media and journalism across the board. I asked this in the House a few weeks ago: Which news agencies are the Conservatives not going to try to denigrate? Which ones do they trust?
When I watch Vassy Kapelos take a hard stance on a cabinet minister in the current government, I do not think that CTV is a propaganda arm for the government. I do not think it is appropriate for the member for Carleton to stand in this place and attack CEOs with his parliamentary privilege to try to downgrade the stocks of Canadian companies that Canadians have in their retirement plans. That is irresponsible leadership. It is a symbolic element of where the Conservative Party has ended up.
Are there good, honourable members on the other side whom I believe in? There absolutely are. However, under the leadership of the member for Carleton, the Conservative Party does not have the true progressive and moderate Conservative views that I think have resonated with people in this country for a long time. What do George Nowlan, Joe Clark and Scott Brison all have in common? They represented the good people of Kings—Hants as true Progressive Conservatives, and that party does not exist anymore.
My message to my constituents is very clear when they look at the modern Conservative Party of today. I will say that I was not a huge fan of Stephen Harper. I did not agree with everything he did, but he looks like a heck of a statesman compared with the member for Carleton. My God, bring back Harper over that guy. The member for Carleton makes Stephen Harper look like an absolute statesman. That scares a heck of a lot of people in my riding.
