Debates of Nov. 26th, 2024

Official Languages

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this. A decision was made to ask a Parisian studio to dub the podcast instead of relying on the expertise of Quebeckers or francophone minorities in Canada. What message did the CBC and, by extension, English Canada, send to Quebeckers and francophones elsewhere in Canada by doing so? The message was that Quebec French and the French spoken in Canada is not presentable or exportable.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sends the wrong message. Everybody I have heard speak today agrees with that. It was the wrong thing to do and the CBC agrees. It should not have done it. It apologized, the apology has been accepted and it is being rectified.

I can stand here and say I agree with the member, but I think she knows that already. The CBC said many times, in many appearances at committee and elsewhere, that it should not have been done. It was an oversight, a major error, and it is not going to happen again. It sends absolutely the wrong message.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Here we are again debating what the previous member just described as an isolated incident of poor judgment at the CBC. The problem with that argument is that, increasingly, it is not simply an isolated incident of poor judgment at the CBC. It is a continual string of mismanagement, scandal and decisions that run contrary to the best interests of Canadians.

Today we are debating the CBC's decision not to support the strong bilingual nature of our country by using the homegrown talent we have, specifically in Quebec when it comes to the French language, by contracting local talent. A Canadian public broadcaster did not contract local talent because it did not want a Quebec accent on a podcast. How shameful is that? That continues a trend of mismanagement, scandal, waste and corruption that has defined the CBC in our country today.

We debate the amendment Conservatives have made. We do not concur in this report to send it back to be looked at further. What has become of the CBC is that it no longer represents the best interests of Canada. Over the last number of months, I have had the opportunity to be a part of the team leading the discussion on issues of heritage for the official opposition. We have seen it time and time again, as with the current CEO of CBC, Catherine Tait, and her refusals.

Just yesterday, in fact, I gave her an opportunity to make it crystal clear that she could show leadership to that organization by rejecting a bonus. She refused. She could show leadership by not accepting an exit or severance package as she departs the organization. She refused. In fact, it was revealed, I would suggest accidentally, because certainly it is not something to be proud of, that there is a 497K club at the CBC.

For those who might be curious about what a 497K club is, it was revealed there are more than seven executives at the CBC who make more than $497,000 a year. On top of that, there is nothing to suggest it was not all of those executives who received bonuses. The average bonus was $71,000 per executive. That is at a time when Canadians are hurting. Canadians are suffering, yet CBC executives are given bonuses higher than what the average Canadian makes in a year. That is absolutely unbelievable.

It is not just me who thinks this. It is not just Conservatives who think this. Increasingly, we are seeing how the waste, the scandal, the mismanagement and the bloat in organizations like that are simply inconsistent with what Canadians want. There was an editorial published in The Globe and Mail. I will quote the headline because I think it is worth putting on the record: “CBC president Catherine Tait’s reign of error will not be soon forgotten”.

As a new CEO comes in to lead the CBC in January, there will be very simple questions that need to be asked. At the top of the list is the need to ensure that this organization is not awarding big bonuses while cutting jobs, and that it is not seeing declining revenues, declining viewership and declining trust, yet lowering its own KPIs. For those watching, KPI is an acronym for “key performance indicator”. That is what bonuses are paid out on. This is something that happens in government and the private sector. An organization will set targets known as KPIs. If those targets are met, there is a consideration of bonuses.

A number of years ago, CBC met, I believe it was, only three of 14 KPIs. That does not sound like a very good record. That does not sound like an organization that is being successful in its objectives. What happened the next year? All of a sudden, it met the majority of the KPIs. I believe it said that it met 11 of the 14.

If we were to take a quick glance at that, many would say that this is great, that it is doing fantastically. It went from three to 11 in a year. How did it do that? There must be some incredible things happening. That is until we start peeling back the layers, so to speak. One might ask what those layers are. Those layers are that the CBC, instead of improving its performance, simply lowered its targets. As a result, it was not simply that these were bar graphs in a chart, which were then published, that suggested that maybe it was doing better than it was. That is a very small part of what these KPIs are. Rather, what that means is that the organization then recommended big taxpayer-funded bonuses for its managers and executives.

We see this trend under the Liberals. They reward themselves for failure, yet refuse to take responsibility for what has become a series of incidences of mistakes, of mismanagement, of bloat, of paying out big dollars to those who support them and their agenda. This is all while Canadians suffer.

When it comes to defunding the CBC, I think, increasingly, Canadians are the ones who are singing this proverbial tune. They look at the bonuses and say that this is simply not worth the cost. They look at the programming, and they are not watching the programming. It is not like this is something that is being led by Conservatives. This is Canadians choosing to not watch CBC programming. It is clear and simple. The numbers prove it.

At committee yesterday, the CEO explained what connected TVs were and how they just recently discovered that Canadians were able to access content in diverse and different ways. What is very interesting about that is that Canadians are not surprised about the way that they can access content. Canadians have been accessing a diversity of content, which certainly does not line up with what the CBC offers, and increasing numbers of Canadians are looking for new and creative ways to see that content, yet here we have the CBC awarding itself big bonuses, and manipulating the information and the performance indicators. If we were to look at it at first glance, we would say that it is doing great. However, it is manipulating it to look good at a time when, by any objective measure, it can only be described as failing.

Here we are. We have an example of that. Despite the proud bilingual history of our country, what did CBC decide to do? It decided to outsource the dubbing of the French language of an English podcast to a company from Paris. It might have even been a similar to the CEO taking a taxpayer-funded, supposed break from her holiday in Paris to go to the Olympics because she had to be there. It could also be similar to the fact that the Liberals said yesterday at committee that being paid half a million dollars to be proud of Canada is certainly worth it when it comes to those at the CBC.

We see how this record of failure and decline is what defines the Liberals. The message is simple: Is it worth the cost? To those French-language artists in Quebec, who could have gotten that contract, it seems like the CBC certainly did not prioritize them. We have now heard that the CBC is now, because of that mistake, reversing that decision and going back, at a cost to taxpayers.

The problem with failure is that it hurts everybody. When it comes to the future of the CBC, I think Canadians are making it clearer and clearer every day that it is not worth the cost. It is time to reject the bonuses. It is time to fire the Prime Minister. It is time to defund the CBC.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members who speak should qualify their introductory remarks by indicating very clearly that the leader of the Conservative Party, for many years, has wanted to defund the CBC. Let us be very clear on that point.

We can take a look at a recent CBC news article, where Conservatives, referring to the leader of the Conservative Party, are saying, “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself ... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” However, his vision is to get rid of the CBC. From my perspective, institutions such as the CBC, CTV and Global play a very important role in our democratic system.

Would the member not recognize that there is value in having a publicly supported CBC?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that that member would talk about control when the Liberals have to ask permission and have to apply to be able to go up to the microphone to speak in their caucus. It is unbelievable the level of control and manipulation that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have used to muzzle Parliament.

Here is the reality: The Prime Minister and the Liberals do not want an opposition that opposes the agenda. They do not want an opposition that highlights their corruption and incompetence. They want an audience. Well, I am sorry, but we were elected as the opposition, and when we run in the next carbon tax election, which hopefully comes soon, it will be Conservatives that present a vision for this country that will get this nation back on track.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share on the issue of “not worth the cost”. There is the member who lives in the 19-room mansion at Stornoway, which costs $94,000 to operate and cost $170,000 in repairs. When he moved from his swanky digs in Ottawa to his super swanky digs, he dinged us $19,000 for—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member's comments have absolutely nothing to do with the motion that is being debated.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As much as that may be off, it is questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know it hurts when the Conservatives have to look in the mirror.

However, there was a $4,000 water bill for April and May, and a $7,506 bill for the months of July and August. Here is the thing: The member also has a private chef. If the Conservatives are serious about this, how about they forego the chef? Now, I know that “forego” is a complex word, so maybe we can put it into a bumper sticker. It could be this: “F the chef and be accountable”.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that member and the NDP party as a whole are flip-flopping on their flip-flop, which flopped and flipped. When it comes to the reality they have before them, they came out and said that they were not a part of this coalition arrangement to squeak out a by-election win in what used to be a safe seat for them. Then they flipped, so that an election would not be called because they looked at the polls. Then they flopped again because they are now trying to pretend that they care about accountability, yet just the other day, they said that they had come to this amazing agreement with the Liberals. Now they have said that it is no longer what they bargained for.

Well, when it comes to what is not worth the cost, it is that member and the leader of the fourth party in this place who need to look Canadians in the eye and justify why they keep the corrupt Prime Minister in power.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech contained some interesting information, but I still have one question.

My colleague spoke a few times about the fact that the Conservatives could soon come to power. If that were the case, would it not be a mistake to defund a network that produces reports and investigations that are very important to democracy? Should he not instead take a cautious approach to reducing CBC/Radio-Canada funding, especially considering its outstanding investigative reporting?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, even the president and CEO of the CBC, Catherine Tait, and Liberal members acknowledged that Parliament brought the public broadcaster into existence, and Parliament can decide its future.

That is so important to highlight because we have an example where, in our system, Parliament is supreme, yet the Prime Minister and the Liberals are doing everything in their power to reject the role that this place has in preserving Canadian democracy. It is shameful, and anything other than a government needing to heed the will of this place is a constitutional crisis. The Prime Minister and the Liberals have normalized constitutional crises in this country, and it is time for better.

Conservatives would bring home better when we run in the next election and offer a common-sense plan to Canadians. We do not take for granted one single vote, but when it comes down to it, Conservatives would offer a plan to Canadians and Canadians get to choose.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, which set the stage about the extreme lack of sensitivity shown by CBC/Radio-Canada and its president, Catherine Tait. While Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, the cost of food has doubled, the cost of housing has doubled and young families have no hope of becoming homeowners in Canada, someone made a decision to give $18 million in bonuses to CBC executives. At at time like this, that is unacceptable and completely disconnected from reality. However, it is not surprising that the CBC is so out of touch. There is something I want to bring up.

Yesterday, in committee, the president of the CBC made a point of reminding us that CBC/Radio-Canada was founded in 1936, that since then the broadcaster has served the Canadian public and that she was very proud of what CBC/Radio-Canada has accomplished.

I took the liberty of consulting the history books to find out what led to the creation of CBC/Radio-Canada. The member for Winnipeg North was probably around when the Report of the Royal Commission on Broadcasting was tabled in the House in 1929. I am sure he remembers it. The report was presented to the Hon. Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who was responsible for telecommunications in this country at the time. The report states that “[t]he Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting was appointed by the Government to inquire into the existing situation in Canada and to examine the different methods adopted in other countries.”

That commission was created because nothing existed. There was no control and no way of ensuring that Canadians had access to radio waves and content. There was nothing. In 1929, the government decided to launch a royal commission of inquiry and give Mr. Aird the mandate to determine how Canadians could be better served. I will quote an excerpt from the report and I will try to make a connection with what is happening in the media sector and with regard to Radio-Canada. These are comments that were heard by the royal commission. The report says the following:

At present the majority of programs heard are from sources outside of Canada. It has been emphasized to us that the continued reception of these has a tendency to mould the minds of the young people in the home to ideals and opinions that are not Canadian. In a country of the vast geographical dimensions of Canada, broadcasting will undoubtedly become a great force in fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship.

That was in 1929. Consider how the arrival of social media and the Internet has altered the state of communications today. Is that not exactly the situation we find ourselves in? What has the CBC done to foster a national spirit and sense of citizenship? Unfortunately, the CBC completely missed the boat. Just look at the CBC audience. Anyone who takes two seconds to really hear what I am saying will understand that I am talking about the CBC. We need to separate the CBC's role from that of Radio-Canada, which has been able to protect francophone culture in Canada and is still an important player in protecting that culture. I think it is important to look at what was done in the past. Later on, I will comment on an outrageous statement made by the president of CBC/Radio-Canada yesterday at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I will read two recommendations from the royal commission report at the time. It says “any broadcasting organization must be operated on a basis of public service” and that “stations providing a service of this kind should be owned and operated by one national company.” It also mentions that “[i]t is desirable...that provincial authorities should be in a position to exercise full control over the programs of the station or stations in their respective areas.” A little further it states that every province should appoint a “Provincial Radio Broadcasting Director...who will have full control of the programs broadcast by the station or stations located within the boundaries of the province for which he is responsible.”

Over the past few years, Radio-Canada has responded and adapted to the situation by ensuring a constant presence at the centre of Quebec culture. Unfortunately, the numbers prove it. The same numbers that Ms. Tait cited yesterday show that the CBC audience is practically in ruins. The CBC no longer plays the Crown corporation role envisaged by the Aird commission back in the day, or as the act that created the CBC/Radio-Canada said it would at the time, in the 1930s.

We are also here to talk about the outrageous way that president Catherine Tait has flatly refused to give up any severance pay or bonus pay at a time when the Crown corporation is no longer fully assuming its role. Unfortunately, on her watch, we witnessed different positions that showed contempt for Quebec and Quebeckers. It all started with the CBC podcast that was translated into French in Paris. That was when the full scope of the situation became clear. Why did they do that? They did it, apparently, out of dislike for the Quebec accent on the Radio-Canada side.

Instead of doing business with our experts and people from our culture, someone at CBC/Radio-Canada chose to have the podcast translated in Paris, supposedly because the Quebec accent was not good enough for the CBC. It was probably someone who works at the CBC, not at Radio-Canada. That set off a whole saga. Eventually, the president and CEO came to testify before the committee, where she apologized and said that such a thing would never happen again. Who did she apologize to, and what were the consequences? There were obviously no consequences, because they paid themselves bonuses. The 1,100 people at CBC/Radio-Canada who are not governed by union agreements got both raises and bonuses. That is what we learned yesterday when Ms. Tait appeared before the committee.

The translation of this podcast is a brazen attack by the CBC, so how can executives be allowed to collect bonuses, which are supposed to compensate excellence, when Canadians are suffering and cannot make ends meet at the end of the month?

Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals yesterday to defend the president and CEO of the CBC, who allowed the French-language podcast to be dubbed in France because the CBC did not like the Quebec accent. The Bloc Québécois preferred to defend the Prime Minister and the CBC's CEO instead of standing up and punishing her for showing such contempt for Quebeckers. The motion defeated by the Bloc Québécois read as follows:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Liberal government's Privy Council Office to not approve any bonuses, performance pay, or severance package for the outgoing President and CEO of the CBC, Catherine Tait.

I think the Bloc Québécois should have listened carefully to what Ms. Tait said yesterday. I asked her if she had confidence in the people at Radio-Canada to ensure continuity and take over going forward to protect Quebec and francophone culture and identity for the country. She replied as follows: As I have said many times, are we going to ask Canadians to support a federal national institution for 20% of the population? Personally, I think that is a bit much.

What she said was beyond the pale. It is perfectly normal for the federal government to invest in protecting francophone culture in this country. It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to ensure that the necessary funds are maintained so that Radio-Canada can continue to play its role for francophones, because it has proven, with figures to back it up, that it has done so in recent years, and it will continue to do so if it has the support. Unfortunately, Ms. Tait should understand before she leaves that it is time to put an end to this policy of rewarding poor results.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but what I would like to see from Conservative Party members, especially francophones, is more courage. There seems to be talk that there will be no impact on francophone communities if the CBC is dismantled. That is completely false. It is a misunderstanding of how Radio-Canada and CBC share resources.

When will my colleague have the courage to stand up to his leader and say that eliminating CBC will have a direct impact on francophone communities?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was one of the 24 members calling for the Prime Minister's head recently. I do not know if he has the courage to publicly say that he was part of that group of members calling for the Prime Minister to leave. I do not know if he has the courage to say which MPs do not share this Prime Minister's opinion.

What I can say to the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is that Radio-Canada is currently doing excellent work for francophones across the country. In Quebec, the audience is dwindling, but not as quickly as the CBC's audience. I think that if we put the right resources in the right places, francophones across the country will be pleased that we putting more emphasis on Radio-Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the subamendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Air Service to India

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition in regard to international flights.

The petitioners are asking for the House of Commons and others, whether they be members of Parliament, private industry, different airlines or levels of government, to take a look at just how important it is to recognize the growth of our Indo-Canadian community and the increased demand for more direct traffic between Canada and India or, at least, Europe. In particular, this petition is with respect to Winnipeg North. The petitioners hope they will see direct flights going from Winnipeg to India.

Tax Benefits for Single Seniors

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, including Sandy Knowles of Kitimat and Karen Sage of Terrace, with whom I met a couple of weeks back.

The petitioners wish to draw attention to the inequitable treatment of single seniors under the Income Tax Act. They highlight that income splitting rules allow couples to split their pension income, claim double non-refundable tax credits, transfer certain unused credits to a spouse and, when one partner dies, transfer retirement savings to the living spouse. Single seniors have none of these options available to them, putting them at a significant financial disadvantage.

The petitioners urge the government to introduce several measures specifically for single seniors, including a new tax credit, an increase to the pension income amount, an increase to the OAS clawback thresholds and an amendment to the tax treatment of registered retirement plans upon death. The petitioners eagerly await the government's official response.

Lead Testing

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers have been exposed to lead while in the workplace. I rise today to present a petition pointing out that exposure to lead needs close monitoring and that standard practices in Canada involve collecting blood samples instead of bone samples.

The petitioners note that blood samples have been proven to be less effective and much more costly than testing one's exposure in a bone sample. They also note that bone measurements are collected through non-invasive scans and can show the long-term cumulative effects of lead exposure. Lead exposure can have extremely detrimental impacts on one's health and can even be fatal.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to test individuals for lead exposure with bone data instead of blood data to create a more effective and cost-efficient standard of practice.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Questions Nos. 3001 and 3002, originally tabled on November 19, could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.3001—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

With regard to federally-funded salmon hatcheries in British Columbia, the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many federally-funded salmon hatcheries are currently in operation in (i) British Columbia, (ii) the Maritimes, (iii) Newfoundland and Labrador; (b) what has been the yearly amount of federal funding spent on hatcheries, broken down by each of the last five years, in (i) British Columbia, (ii) the Maritimes, (iii) Newfoundland and Labrador; (c) how many salmon smolts were released in total from these hatcheries, broken down by each of the last five years, in (i) British Columbia, (ii) the Maritimes, (iii) Newfoundland and Labrador; (d) for each of the next five years, how many additional hatcheries are planned for (i) British Columbia, (ii) the Maritimes, (iii) Newfoundland and Labrador; (e) for each of the next five years, how many additional salmon smolts will be released in (i) British Columbia, (ii) the Maritimes, (iii) Newfoundland and Labrador; and (f) for each of the next five years, how much additional spending will be required for the additional hatcheries, broken down by each of the regions in (d)?