Debates of Oct. 29th, 2024

Canadian Heritage

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, with the support and help of the NDP, we were able to eliminate those oil subsidies the member made reference to, and I think that is a good thing. We can accomplish some great things when NDP and Liberal members work together in a progressive nature.

From day one of my being a parliamentarian, I have seen that Liberals consistently support the CBC. At best, the Conservatives flip-flop depending on the leader of the Conservative Party. Sometimes they are quiet, and sometimes they are vocal. Under this far-right Conservative leader, they want to get rid of the CBC. Let there be no doubt, if the Conservative leader were to become prime minister, the CBC would be gone.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues are perhaps aware, I have done interviews with CBC/Radio-Canada from one end of the country to the other.

What we see pretty much throughout the country is that the English-language and French-language services of this corporation are connected. If the CBC is abolished, as proposed by the Conservative Party of Canada, what will that mean for the French-language service, not just in Quebec but especially outside Quebec?

The Conservatives would have us believe that there would be no consequences and that Radio-Canada would be able to continue operating without any problems, even if the CBC were to be abolished. I would like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North talk to us about consequences.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the minister raises an excellent point. Part of our Canadian heritage is our languages. We have the French language and English language. The impact the Conservatives would have on the French language, not only in the province of Quebec but also, and especially, in other regions of Canada, would be profoundly negative under the current leader of the Conservative Party.

In Winnipeg, I think of St. Boniface, Manitoba. We can also talk about St-Pierre-Jolys. So many communities across Canada benefit because of the way the CBC is integrated and has what I would classify as a bilingual factor. It is a part of our identity and our heritage. That is why it is so important that Canadians understand that, under the Conservative Party, the CBC would be gone. The best way to protect the CBC is to ensure that the Conservatives do not form government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in raising a point because there is a certain irony here.

I should put it on the record that the Green Party supports the CBC and wants to see commercial-free news and a public affairs function for CBC Television.

We would like to see that for Radio-Canada as well, for programs broadcast on radio and television.

I am puzzled by the Conservative stance, which appears to be that they want to have an election platform to get rid of CBC, but the party is currently one of the biggest advertisers on CBC. Maybe in this debate we can find out how much money the Conservative Party is spending. I certainly enjoy seeing the Leader of the Opposition and his wife doing what most Canadians do on weekends, which is to stride across a field in hope of finding an empty flagpole so they can pull a Canadian flag out and hoist it. It is a wonderful family moment that we always enjoy.

I am wondering how much money the Conservative Party is now spending on advertising outside the writ period.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a suggestion that I might want to amend the motion, but maybe this would be a good discussion point once it gets to committee. I like to think that progressive parties, whether it is the Greens, the NDP or the Bloc, understand and appreciate the true value of the CBC.

It is somewhat ironic that we have the Conservative Party saying, on one hand, that it is going to get rid of the CBC if it is elected in government while, on the other hand, it is advertising on the CBC. The reason why it is advertising on the CBC is that the Conservative Party knows that a lot of people follow and have a lot of respect for the CBC.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, but the reality is that the Conservative Party has been highly critical of not only the CBC but also CTV. Conservatives tend to shy away from any sort of mainstream, strong, healthy media outlet in favour of social media and the far right in its spreading of misinformation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of working with that member on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We worked very hard on increasing the amount of Canadian content available, in order to hear more Quebec and Canadian voices. He already talked a bit about that. I would like to ask him how we can make sure that these Canadian and Quebec stories are told. Why does it seem like the Conservatives do not want to hear them?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, we did some great work on Bill C‑10, the first version of Bill C‑11, which would later become the Broadcasting Act.

The reason is that the Conservatives do not want anything that could possibly improve CBC/Radio-Canada. They are constantly looking for the little irritant, the little blip, something they can blow out of proportion to ensure that people do not to see the positive aspects, do not think about the positive aspects and only focus on what appears scandalous or reprehensible.

At the end of the day, we cannot move forward unless everyone is willing to move forward.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that when CBC made its cuts last year, it started in Quebec. CBC/Radio-Canada had 25% listenership in the province of Quebec, and yet CBC executives decided to hit CBC/Radio-Canada first, with 800 employees losing their jobs. Some $18 million was presented in bonuses, with $3.3 million going to executives. I know my friend from Drummond has been on the heritage committee for a long time, but when Google came out with $100 million to help the industry, guess who was at the trough first? It was CBC, who he complained about being at the trough with Google.

I would like the hon. member for Drummond to talk about Google and CBC again putting their hands in the public broadcaster trying to get more money out of the public.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that my colleague and I work well together on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We disagree on a lot of things, but we agree on many others. We both have fondness for the media industry and for quality journalism. That I know.

Regarding the announced cuts, I said in my speech that we found it unacceptable that the cuts were divided equally between CBC and Radio-Canada. The cuts announced in December did not happen that way. That being said, it is no less scandalous, because it means that 600 people throughout the CBC/Radio-Canada network lived for months under the sword of Damocles, not knowing whether their position would be eliminated and they would lose their job. In all, 346 jobs, not 800, were cut. One hundred and forty-one people were let go, and 205 positions were eliminated. That is still way too much. When you announce cuts like that at the same time as you award bonuses, you need to explain yourself to the public.

I repeat that we need to review CBC/Radio-Canada's compensation model. That would be a very useful discussion to have.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising very important points about how a public broadcaster like CBC/Radio-Canada is essential in Canada. I would also like to point out the importance of Radio-Canada, especially for our minority francophone communities here in western Canada.

That being said, it is clear that CBC/Radio-Canada needs to be reformed. We want to protect it as a public broadcaster, we want to support it, but the bonuses awarded to managers are totally unacceptable right now.

Does the Bloc Québécois agree with the elimination of bonuses for managers at our public broadcaster CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking about regional coverage. I did not really address this in my remarks, but I think that Radio-Canada has a difficult mission to fulfill these days. That mission is to provide news coverage in all the regions of Quebec and Canada. Here again, improvements are in order.

As for the bonuses, I have said time and again that a review of CBC/Radio‑Canada's compensation structure must be part of the discussions about renewing our public broadcaster's mandate. Regardless of what is decided and what ends up happening, it is essential that the public broadcaster remain free from any political interference. I think it would be extremely inappropriate to come here and prohibit CBC/Radio‑Canada from paying out bonuses, or to ban bonuses or performance bonuses or whatever they call them.

That said, should we revisit this compensation model? I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that we should.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his excellent presentation. He is a peerless communicator and a big fan of Quebec culture. I thank him for the work he has done these past five years.

As part of the current debate, an amendment that was just introduced by the government has me asking a lot of questions. I think it is interesting. As a regional MP, I can say that the impact of Radio-Canada is huge. However, by focusing solely on this, is the government truly showing an interest in the regional media ecosystem as a whole?

What has it done to ensure that local, independent media outlets have the means and resources on the ground to report on our lives and our realities as residents of a remote region? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, what my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is proposing is very interesting.

As part of the discussions we could have about our public broadcaster, we could indeed consider getting CBC/Radio-Canada to establish collaborations, for example, between the public broadcaster and small regional media outlets that are essential for regional coverage, which is often an afterthought but is no less vital to democracy.

Using the tools and means at our disposal, with a public broadcaster that is virtually ubiquitous but that does not necessarily have the means right now to take full advantage of its resources, and creating collaborations to help support regional newspapers or media outlets could be an extremely useful solution to explore.

I agree completely with my colleague. We really need to do a lot more for our regional media, especially in remote regions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member highlighted how our communities have benefited greatly by the presence of CBC/Radio-Canada or CBC in general. Looking at what other progressive nations around the world have, these are jewels that we need to preserve. It does not mean that there is no sense of accountability. We have standing committees in good part to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. Is the member inclined to support the motion that we put forward?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have here the amendment proposed by my colleague.

Personally, I have nothing against conducting an inquiry into the consequences of defunding CBC/Radio-Canada. I think that could be a very interesting and relevant study in committee. As to whether I will support the amendment, right now I can only say that I will think about it. If we are going to go back to committee to study that, I would like us to also think about the impacts of news coverage in media deserts. We know that there are a number of regions that have no news coverage at all.

I would also like to address another component of my colleague's question, which was more of a comment on the benefits of a quality public broadcaster. We are all glued to our screens for major international sports competitions. We all watch the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. We are all very happy to watch these things. However, the costs, including the cost of sending teams to Paris, for example, to cover this summer's Olympic Games, are exorbitant. If we did not have a public broadcaster to offer quality coverage, I do not know who we would turn to; probably a foreign giant. That is one of the benefits of having a quality public broadcaster.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the following main motion, “That, given the job cuts announced at CBC/Radio-Canada for the year 2024, it would be inappropriate for the CBC to grant bonuses to executive members.”

The NDP supports the motion, but what I find fascinating is that it is coming from the Conservatives, the same Conservatives who have finally met an executive bonus they oppose. That is how ideologically committed they are, that their love of billionaires and millionaires trying to join them can be overcome to the point that they will oppose excessive executive bonuses, but only as long as those bonuses are going to CBC executives. If it were anyone else, they would be fine with it.

This is why it really is a misnomer when the Liberals say that the Conservatives hate the CBC. I am not sure they do. In fact, I would argue that the Conservatives love the CBC and love, in particular, that someone like Catherine Tait has so poorly run the CBC that they found the one group of executives they can rail against. They love that they comfortably attack these executives and hope that no one notices they cater to every other wealthy executive. As we have heard here today, it is the same Conservatives who are spending significant resources to advertise on the CBC as well.

Would the Conservatives argue against bonuses for oil executives who are ravaging the planet? A report released by the Bedford Consulting Group looked at executive compensation at 68 oil and gas companies. While Canadians struggle to fill up their cars, executive bonuses increased over 20%. The average compensation for executives at companies with assets over $30 billion was over $16.6 million. Did the Conservatives speak up when it came to those executive bonuses? Of course not. They really love these ones.

Galen Weston's bonuses increased by over 50% in a single year, while at the same time his board argued that he was underpaid. I am sure that my Liberal and Conservative friends agree. If they did not, they would have supported an NDP effort to tie executive pay to workers, but they did not. Once again, they love these bonuses.

Speaking of telecommunications, Bell Media's Mirko Bibic received over $30 million in bonuses in a single year, while laying off thousands of workers, and yet the Conservatives and Liberals approved millions of dollars in taxpayer money, sent directly to Bell Media.

It is clear why the Conservatives are so beholden to corporate interests, especially when the Conservative Party has at least five billionaire donors, two in real estate, which is also probably why the Conservative leader refuses to take on corporate landlords, making buying a house unattainable for young Canadians. Two donors are in finance, which is why the Conservative leader joined the Liberals in voting against closing tax loopholes that allow billionaires to hide their money in offshore tax havens. One billionaire donor sells food and other basic needs, which is probably why the Conservatives joined the Liberals to block an excess profits tax for grocery stores.

However, the Conservatives still complain when the NDP forces the Liberals to deliver for Canadians, fighting for billions in housing for first nations, for pharmacare and dental care, so Canadians do not have to make impossible choices; to increase the fight for increased union power by banning scab labour. It is because the idea of standing up for anything is so anathema to the Conservatives.

While the Conservatives like to go on and on about a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, they hide the real coalition in the country, one of corporate greed enabled by two political parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, who prefer to do nothing while Canadians struggle. The reality is that 56 of the richest Canadians donate to the Liberal Party while 61 have donated to the Conservative Party. The wealthiest people in our country do not see a difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Therefore, excuse me if I ask to be spared the Conservative crocodile tears about CBC bonuses.

CBC bonuses are wrong, and the NDP is clear that they are wrong. A public broadcaster, a Crown corporation, should not be doling out executive bonuses, especially at a time when it is making cuts and it is failing to fulfill its regional broadcasting mandates. However, I would argue that the Conservatives do not actually care about executive bonuses. What they really care about is hurting the CBC.

That is why the leader of the Conservatives will appear on True North, a conspiracy theory website that platforms banned far-right hate groups like the Proud Boys, to proclaim that he cannot wait to defund the CBC. This plays right into Liberal hands. The Liberals can demonize the Conservative leader for wanting to destroy the CBC, and ignore their own record of doing exactly that. It was after their threat of a 3% cut across the board that Catherine Tait and her board decided to lay off 800 workers.

It is under the current government that the CBC's workforce has shrunk to the point that it is smaller than it was under the Stephen Harper government, those dark days when it came to cuts to the CBC. We are once again seeing the Liberal special, and that is to criticize the Conservatives for doing what the Liberals do by stealth.

The end result is that Canadians are losing out. While the CBC is cutting jobs across the country, it is really Canadians who are paying the price. It is Canadians, especially in northern, rural, indigenous communities, living in media deserts who do not have their stories told.

When the CBC relies on offices in Winnipeg and elsewhere to tell the stories of people like here in northern Manitoba and in other northern and rural regions of the country, it is all Canadians who lose out. We lose out on our stories, our voices and our reality that matters to all of us.

As media becomes more concentrated, we hear less about how the 20 richest Canadians have $214 billion in wealth, equivalent to over 10% of Canada's GDP. That is 20 people, 10% of the country, in terms of GDP. This reality is unsustainable, and we need to do something about it.

We hear less about how 123 corporations get out of paying $30 billion in taxes in a single year, relying on loopholes that the NDP has called on the government to close. However, the Liberals and Conservatives, once again, do everything they can to keep those loopholes open.

I want to go back to the Liberal subamendment to this debate. The Liberals are, once again, coming across that they want to do something when it comes to saving the CBC, but the reality is that we know that the threats made by the Liberals to cut the CBC contributed to an environment where the CBC went ahead and cut 800 positions not too long ago. The Liberals talk a good talk when it comes to the CBC, but the reality is that they are doing little to strengthen a public broadcaster and pursue the kind of accountability Canadians deserve.

A couple of months ago, when the story first broke that executive bonuses had been doled out at the CBC, we released the following statement, “It is...time to ban the CBC from paying bonuses.” The Liberals have failed to act. When CBC president Catherine Tait came to committee, I made it clear the CBC was acting more and more like a private broadcaster, including on bonuses. Canadians deserve better. I also called on President Tait to commit to cancelling executive bonuses to save CBC jobs. Now we hear that not only did they take the bonuses, but they add up to more than $18 million. This is while Canadians lost their jobs at the CBC.

Unlike the Conservatives who want to cut the CBC, we want accountability and we want to improve it. The Liberals have overseen a CBC that has not fulfilled its regional mandate the way it ought to fulfill it. Earlier, we heard about cuts to Radio-Canada, which is an essential service for francophone communities, for Quebec, for regions in our country like New Brunswick, where Radio-Canada is the go-to broadcaster for francophones. We also know that CBC has cut and failed to fulfill its mandate in regions like mine, here in northern Manitoba, where, for years, we have not had a permanent presence to fill the local broadcasting station, known as CBC North Country.

In fact, very cynically, the president of the CBC, President Tait, when she came to our committee in May of this year, declared that the position here had been filled. We went on to find out that it was by a journalist who came in for two months as a secondment from another CBC office elsewhere in Canada. To me and to our region, that was a cynical message from the CBC, that it was willing to get away with PR messaging that it had filled this critical position, a position that it is mandated to fill. However, the person who filled it was only here for two months.

I want to recognize that over these past years, the fact that we have not had a CBC presence has meant that the CBC coverage of our region has not been up to par. One-off stories about our communities do not cut it when it comes to relaying the real issues, challenges, opportunities, good news and bad news stories that need to be told on behalf of our region.

We also know that the CBC has not built the relationships on the ground to convey the stories that people have to share, stories that undoubtedly inform the view of Canadians of what is happening in northern Canada, what is happening in indigenous communities and what is happening in resource-based communities, many of which are facing immense challenges but are also pursuing exciting opportunities.

Our voices and these stories are not being told as a result of the CBC failing to fill the position in our station, which at one time had three people working in it. As a result of cuts, it was reduced to one. Now, as I mentioned, it has been years since that position has been fulfilled.

I will note that our region has a proud history when it comes to the CBC. I believe it is the first region that had full-time programming in Cree, again based in northern Manitoba. It was also the region that gave Peter Mansbridge his start. He was discovered in Churchill, interestingly enough not broadcasting but working at the airport. It is said that a CBC producer heard his voice and thought he would be great for radio. He of course went on to have an illustrious career broadcasting for the CBC.

Our region has a rich history when it comes to broadcasting and the CBC. However, instead of respecting that and instead of living up to its obligations under the CRTC and its mandate for regional programming, the CBC has failed to fill this position.

I want to raise the issue of leadership. Some years ago, when it was announced that our station would be shut down under the Harper government, we worked closely with then-president Hubert Lacroix. He listened to our communities, he worked with our communities and we were able to restore service in northern Manitoba. This was much appreciated. People in northern Manitoba felt heard by the CBC at that time.

I contrast that to Ms. Tait's leadership, where we have not seen support for this station and just a short-term fill, which is not a solution to the broadcasting needs of our region and CBC's mandate. In fact, when I raised this issue in committee last week, the answers I received were entirely inadequate and, frankly, irrelevant.

Ms. Tait went on to talk about other regions in the country. This was not about that. Regions like ours, northern Canada and indigenous communities, deserve local and regional broadcasting in their regions telling their stories. That is why it is critical that we talk about strengthening the CBC and ensuring that we are investing in the regional and local journalism that is required. This is especially urgent at a time when private broadcasters are pulling out from regions across the country.

We saw record cuts made by Bell Media. We saw cuts and the loss of broadcasting when Rogers took over Shaw. We have seen cuts by media outlets across the country. What we have now are entire media deserts in parts of our country where journalists are not based to tell the stories within these regions. This makes Canada less well off in its connections and is absolutely a hindrance to building an informed citizenry. It is a hit to our democracy in many ways, as Canadians do not have access to and knowledge of the stories of people even within their own regions, provinces and other parts of the country. It is also a contributor to misinformation. People are turning elsewhere to get the news, and not necessarily to reputable sites and sources. Of course, we know the far right has taken advantage of this void and sought to push its agenda through.

While we support the banning of executive bonuses, we certainly do not support the Conservatives' full frontal attack on the CBC and Radio-Canada. We need a strong public broadcaster, but not one that doles out executive bonuses and cuts jobs, not one that does not fulfill local and regional broadcasting mandates, as we are seeing right now with the CBC, and not one failing to tell Canadian stories from across the country. We need a public broadcaster, a CBC, that is accountable to Canadians and has as its priority local and regional journalism.

We also need to cut through the Liberal games. The Liberals have threatened to cut the CBC, have overseen the doling out of $18 million in bonuses and have failed to ensure the CBC fulfills its local and regional broadcasting mandates. Canadians deserve a strong CBC, an accountable CBC, a CBC that puts Canadians at the centre, does not prioritize bonuses and does not leave glaring gaps when it comes to local and regional broadcasting.

With that in mind, I would like to make an amendment to the amendment. I propose that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: The eighth 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 how the Liberals' threat to cut funding led to hundreds of CBC/Radio-Canada job cuts, including the effects on smaller communities, as promised by the Leader of the Opposition.

I hope my fellow colleagues will support the subamendment we are putting forward, and, more importantly, that as Canadian parliamentarians we get behind strengthening our public broadcaster, rendering it accountable by banning executive bonuses and investing in local and regional journalism. Canadians deserve it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will check to make sure the amendment to the amendment is in order.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

While the amendment to the amendment is being considered and before we move on to questions and comments, I will suspend the House until I can determine whether the amendment to the amendment is in order.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 12:05 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 12:16 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Having reviewed the subamendment the hon. member was looking to table, unfortunately it was not tabled in the proper format. Therefore, it is not receivable. The hon. member can approach the clerks if she wants more information on that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the move by the current president of the CBC to accept bonuses and raises for the executive while cutting positions in the corporation was totally unconscionable, and I trust that her successor has learned something from her experience.

That said, as a former programmer of small market stations that were CBC affiliates, on the radio side, we very much valued the news coverage the CBC offered back in the day, as well as programs like As It Happens and Cross Country Checkup. However, when it came to television, back in the day when I was at those small market stations, the CBC was the only game in town. There was no cablevision. There was certainly no satellite.

Could the hon. member comment on what the mandate of CBC Television should be? I think she will find very broad support for restoring as many radio services as possible, especially given that commercial broadcasters are very much letting us down on the radio side.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing from the member. I wish other Liberals felt that the executive bonuses doled out at the CBC were not a good idea and were, frankly, outrageous at a time when Canadians are suffering and when the CBC is making cuts.

I will say once again that the Liberals' threats to cut the CBC led to the elimination of 800 positions not too long ago. I am so disappointed that, while we are all talking about how to strengthen the CBC, although I should not say “all”, as certainly the Conservatives are not, the way the Liberals have overseen the CBC and the way the CBC has been run in recent years have contributed to an attack on its reputation.

We need to restore support for the CBC, which is very much centred on local and regional journalism, as the member referred to. In my region, we lost radio. Under the Liberals, the CBC has not fulfilled its mandate in northern Manitoba.

We need to get back to the basics. Canadians deserve a strong CBC but also an accountable CBC that is committed to local and regional broadcasting.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

If I understood the intention of the defeated amendment correctly, my colleague was saying that she thinks that we should review how CBC/Radio-Canada employees are paid. I think that is an excellent point. However, it is a complex issue. Competing private broadcasters pay their executives big salaries. Of course, everyone currently agrees that it is completely unacceptable to give multimillion-dollar bonuses to executives when they are cutting jobs. Everyone agrees with that.

Could my colleague elaborate on how she thinks we should proceed? How could we review the compensation scheme without any political interference, since a Crown corporation that reports the news must be completely at arm's length?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

One of the reasons we put the amendment forward was to demonstrate that the Liberals are part of the problem when it comes to CBC/Radio-Canada's reputation crisis. Clearly, Canadians and Quebeckers are not happy that bonuses were paid to executives. We are talking about a Crown corporation, a public broadcaster, paying out bonuses at a time when Canadians are suffering and inequality has never been worse.

Political interference must be avoided when it comes to news broadcasting, of course, but this is a governance issue. I think it is obvious that, in order to protect CBC/Radio-Canada, we need to render it accountable, and that means banning executive bonuses.