Madam Speaker, I have to admit, I would have liked to keep listening to the answers of the member for Winnipeg North, because he is one of the public broadcaster's defenders.
I also support a healthy, neutral, and reliable public broadcaster, but one that can take criticism, because I think that the broadcaster we have right now has shown us that it deserves a healthy dose of criticism.
Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to digress for a moment and remind everyone that we have reached that time of year when we honour those who served in the armed forces down through the years and decades and who fought in global conflicts in which Canada took part. Many of the people whose memory we honour lost their lives. Most parliamentarians and employees on Parliament Hill wear the poppy, and I think that is wonderful. I also think it is important to take a moment every year to remember those who, in some cases, laid down their lives for the freedom that we enjoy today.
I would like to raise a small matter that is nonetheless important from a protocol standpoint. I would like to remind my colleagues that the poppy should be worn above all other distinctions, decorations or pins. This message may prompt my colleagues to rearrange their clothing a bit in the lobby before they enter the House later.
I mentioned earlier that our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, is not exempt from criticism, and certainly not under Catherine Tait, whose term is drawing to a close. I cannot say that I was a great fan of many of her decisions. I also cannot say that I applauded all of her decisions or actions during her term, which, in my opinion, was unduly extended by the then minister of Canadian heritage. I think she missed a few good opportunities. She had the opportunity to make certain decisions, but she missed the boat, as we say.
For example, her decision to have an English podcast translated in Paris rather than hiring Quebec dubbers, who are among the best in the world, was extremely questionable. In fact, you could say flat out that the dubbing industry in Quebec is the best in the world. Tait's decision showed a lack of familiarity with the francophone market, which she should have represented with the same effectiveness and knowledge as she did the anglophone market.
In my opinion, some of her decisions were based more on irrational ideology than on what we could call common sense, although the term “common sense” is debatable these days. Thus, the scandal surrounding the use of the N-word by columnist Simon Jodoin to refer to a book title reached extremely uncomfortable proportions. We could also consider the resignation of Michel Bissonnette, a prominent figure in Quebec television with unimpeachable credibility. The fact that he decided to leave Radio-Canada because it no longer aligned with his convictions was a sign that something was wrong.
Then we have the decision to announce major cuts just a few weeks from Christmas. Last year, on December 4, 2023, Tait announced that 250 jobs were to be cut at Radio-Canada and another 250 at CBC, and that 200 already vacant positions would be abolished. In all, 700 to 800 jobs would officially disappear. The decision to make equal cuts in French-language Radio-Canada services and English-language CBC services was never implemented, for a number of reasons.
First, we absolutely have to protect the public broadcaster's French-language services. We absolutely have to protect Radio-Canada, which is doing well, is surpassing its targets, is profitable, if we can use that term, and makes quality productions that appeal to television audiences. It also offers content that appeals to users on different platforms, whether on television, radio or online.
Also, Radio-Canada must make do with fewer resources than its anglophone counterpart, CBC, so when it was announced that the 500 job cuts would be distributed equally between Radio-Canada and CBC, my goodness, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. This is just unbelievable, not to mention that this hamfisted announcement came right before Christmas.
It had the following effect. In the months that followed, staff unsure about whether their job would be cut had to work with this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. This strikes me as extremely poor judgment on the part of someone holding such an important position.
Having said that, despite being critical of Ms. Tait, I will distance myself from the Conservatives in that we cannot make the facts say what we want them to say strictly in service of an ideology, a conviction, an idea or a populist plan like the one to slash CBC funding. As we know, theLeader of the Opposition and Conservative Party leader wants to cut the CBC's funding. I always figured that it was because the Conservative Party leader was allergic to quality journalism. In fact, a good journalist will call him out when he talks rubbish. A serious journalist takes in the information communicated to them, analyzes it and makes sure that the public is not fed falsehoods, misinformation or even disinformation.
I do not think that all is perfect with CBC/Radio‑Canada's news coverage. However, I do believe that the organization adheres to the news sector's most exigent and stringent standards in Canada, North America and elsewhere in the world. I know that CBC/Radio‑Canada models itself after other public broadcasters. In fact, they all draw inspiration from and are associated with one another, to some extent. I know that we here draw inspiration from what is done elsewhere, and those elsewhere draw inspiration from what is being done here.
We can be critical. We do not always have to agree. Indeed, there are complaint mechanisms in place. If the leader of the Conservatives wants to complain about how a news item was covered, he has the right to do so. He can do that. Anyone can do that; every citizen has that right. There is a mechanism in place. Sometimes corrections are made if a piece of information was poorly communicated or if false or biased information was communicated.
However, the Conservatives have a tendency to want to manipulate the facts, to play with the truth and to be a little creative so that the information the general public receives is easier to digest and, in some cases, more objectionable. For example, they might try to get people to believe that the government is incompetent or that the House cannot do its job while the Liberals are in power. A rigorous public broadcaster does not fit into that scenario. I think that is probably the main reason why the Leader of the Opposition wants to cut CBC funding. CBC journalists spend their time explaining to the public that what the Leader of the Opposition says makes no sense. That is not bad journalism, it is rigorous journalism.
Now, should CBC/Radio-Canada continue on as is? I do not think so. On the contrary, I think that a lot of things need to be looked at. I will not get into details, because I am not familiar with the details. The minister is about to move a motion for a new mandate for the public broadcaster, and we are waiting with impatience, since it will establish what kind of public broadcaster we will have in the coming years.
A lot of things need to be looked at, and first to allow CBC/Radio-Canada to face the challenges the entire industry is currently facing. I am thinking about the arrival of the digital giants and the opening up of digital media in general, the access we have to information in general through the digital media.
Yes, regulation is important, but the fact remains that news is abundantly available and that people these days generally seek out a variety of news sources. These are the challenges that must be faced.
We are also faced with a fragmented advertising market. So many players are being added and advertisers have so many options that some consideration must be given to how a public broadcaster will be funded. Is it a good idea to have advertising on CBC/Radio‑Canada? I think we must give this some very serious consideration. I think that if we also want to grant total independence to a public broadcaster and we want it to be rigorous and neutral in delivering the news, we can certainly revisit the idea of having it air advertising in all circumstances.
That said, doing away with advertising as a means of funding CBC/Radio‑Canada opens the door to another form of funding, namely public funding. Are Quebeckers and Canadians open to the idea of increasing public funding for CBC/Radio‑Canada so that advertising can be eliminated? These are the questions we have to ponder, and this is not the kind of thought process we can undertake when people are being bombarded with idiotic slogans about defunding the CBC because it is the government's propaganda arm or whatever. Can we not just behave as adults and deal with the actual challenges facing us?
The first question to ask is whether we want a public broadcaster and whether we want CBC/Radio‑Canada. If nobody wants it, we can scrap it, toss it in the trash and switch to something else. However, when Canadians were asked whether they wanted a public broadcaster and liked their public broadcaster, 83% answered yes. That is a lot of people, 83%, saying they do not want to lose CBC/Radio‑Canada. When Quebeckers are asked whether they want to keep Radio‑Canada's French-language service, the percentage is even higher, because Radio-Canada is part of Quebec's cultural and television landscape. It is an indispensable vehicle for the transmission of Quebec and francophone culture. An impressive number of top-notch Quebec productions have been broadcast on Radio-Canada or created by Radio-Canada itself, and some have been translated and exported to other countries. Radio-Canada is something we cannot do without.
The question we need to ask is whether we even want a public broadcaster. The answer to that, if we ask the main stakeholders, Quebeckers and Canadians, is yes. Consequently, if we want to work according to people's wishes, if we want to be effective and to avoid disinformation and populism, we can do something. If the Conservatives really wanted to be productive and do good work, they would ask themselves the right questions.
Okay, we do not want any more bonuses. Let us review CBC/Radio-Canada's compensation model so that everyone is comfortable with it. Let us see what is done elsewhere. Let us look at other countries, like Australia, that have public broadcasters. The CEO of ABC, which is the Australian equivalent of CBC/Radio-Canada, earns $1.2 million a year. Ms. Tait earns $500,000 or $600,000 with her bonuses. Is that comparable? Can we tell people who think she is earning too much at $500,000 that the CEO of Bell is earning $13 million? The private sector pays 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 times what she earns.
At some point, can we talk responsibly, knowledgeably and reasonably and figure out what we want? Do we want a quality public broadcaster, knowing that it will cost x amount? Some people think that CBC/Radio-Canada costs a fortune, that it is terrible and that it is impoverishing Canadians. I cannot get over that one. To hear the Conservatives speak, people are about to start lining up at food banks because Radio-Canada costs too much. I sense that that is where we are going, yet I would like to remind members that it costs about $31 a year per Canadian for CBC/Radio-Canada and all it has to offer: television, radio, online content and international coverage that we would certainly not be able to afford if we had only private broadcasters. I said earlier that there appears to be a consensus that we should keep CBC/Radio-Canada.
If we want a public broadcaster, we need to compare ourselves with other countries that have one. I said earlier that Canadians pay $31 per capita per year. Switzerland has a public broadcaster that costs $191 per capita per year. We can also look at Sweden. We love comparing ourselves with Sweden. We like comparing ourselves with the Scandinavian countries. It looks like everything is perfect over there. Sweden is a small country of 9 million people. It has a public broadcaster, and it costs $106 a year per capita. No one there complains that it costs too much or that the CEO is earning a fortune. If we want to compare ourselves with the most prestigious public broadcaster in the world, the BBC, it costs $96 Canadian a year per capita for the BBC's services.
We all pay $31 out of our pockets every year. I do not think that is outrageous for what we get in return. Does that mean we cannot question it? Absolutely not. Does that mean that everything is well done and well managed? Again, absolutely not. Does that mean we should not be looking at how these people are being paid? No, quite the opposite. However, we have to go about this responsibly and productively, as adults, not with slogans like “defund CBC/Radio-Canada” because Catherine Tait gave her executives $18 million in bonuses this year.
Returning to the question of bonuses and compensation, there is nothing easier than to make a lot of noise. Telling a lie or using coarse language, that takes five seconds. Once that has been said and it is out there, it takes energy, resources and determination to take it apart and explain to people that this is rude and not at all true, and to lay out the facts. This is by no means self-evident. Along the way, we lose at least half the people, who will continue swallowing the lies and the crudeness. Taking the bonuses paid to executives and turning that into a mismanagement scandal involving CBC/Radio-Canada, well, that is quite a stretch. Let us break this down, or at least put it into perspective.
I will come back to the fact that paying $18 million in bonuses to executives and personnel while at the same time announcing that there will be job and budget cuts and that the government must advance a few million more dollars to end the fiscal year can indeed be seen as somewhat indecent and can breed a certain cynicism. I will admit that.
We have to tell it like it is. I said it right from the start: I am by no means Ms. Tait's biggest fan, but in her defence, she came to committee several times and explained how the system works, a system she did not put in place. This is how things work at CBC/Radio-Canada. She explained how the compensation model works. It struck me as questionable and it should perhaps be reviewed, but it certainly was not the scandal the Conservatives have described today.
Yes, the compensation model for senior executives, and even for the entire staff of CBC/Radio-Canada, needs to be reviewed. We say yes to this. Yes, we need to discuss how to put people at ease when an employee's salary is announced, so that people will say they are aware, that they know how things work, that they are comfortable with that, and that this is part of the overall picture. We say yes to this, but we say no to the type of disinformation only intended to vilify a public broadcaster that has the potential to deliver excellent quality and that remains, in my opinion, among the most credible news sources we could have here in Quebec and Canada.