The Ben Mulroney Show - Is the CBC taking Pierre Poilievre seriously when he says he's going to cut their funding

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

Guests and Topics: -It doesn't sound like the CBC is taking Pierre Poilievre seriously when he says he's going to cut their funding with Guest: Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation -Small businesses spend more than 250 hours a year wrapped up in red tape: CFIB with Guest: Laure-Anna Bomal, Economist for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey Spotify, this is Javi. My biggest passion is music, and it's not just sounds and instruments. It's more than that to me. It's a world full of harmonies with chillers. From streaming to shopping, it's on Prime. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show, and if you've followed politics for the past few years, you know that Pierre Poliev, the leader of the opposition, and as of right now the front runner to eventually, one day, if the liberals ever let us,

and Jagmeet Singh ever lets us have an election, he's the leader, he's the front runner to become our next prime minister. And he's had a bee in his bonnet for years about the CBC, the cost of the CBC, the slant of the CBC, the value or lack thereof to our country and the value that we get back as taxpayers. And he has said that if he ever becomes prime minister,

one of the first things he will do is defund the CBC, to strip it of its cash and, I don't know, send it off into the wild in the hopes that it can make it on its own or sell it for parts, who knows? But there's a new boss in town, a new CEO at the CBC named Marie-Philippe Bouchard, and she says it's way too early. Oh, she said a few things. She gave an interview on the CBC. And one of the things that she said, this will really bring her into Pierre Polio's good graces.

She says it's way too early to say whether or not she would accept executive bonuses. And she went on and she's essentially in this interview, she essentially calls Pierre Polio's bluff. So that part that's appropriations, that's government money is 1.4 billion. That's a lot of money. I understand these are big numbers, but it supports all of what we do. And so a billion dollars, considering that he's talking about CBC, the math just doesn't work because there's not much left for French services. If we are imagining that we are going to go forward with only French, the math just doesn't work.

There's a serious risk that it would in fact cripple not only the English service, but also the French service. So I'm having a difficulty just reconciling all of that. And I think it's normal because we are at the pre-election stage and maybe the promises are not that fleshed out. So what I'm saying is let's have a real conversation about how it's going to impact Canadians. All right. So maybe according to the new CEO, he's not going to do it here to react and to talk about a number of issues. Franco Tarrazano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Franco, when I hear that, I think to myself, oh, Madame Bouchard, if you think Pierre Poliev hasn't fleshed this thing out yet, you don't know what you're up against. Oh, I couldn't agree more. And like, look, I understand that she's new to the job, new to the head of the CBC, but like, where have you been the last two years?

Like, we've been having this conversation all across Canada for years now. And Mr. Poliev has been so unequivocal. Like you go to a rally and his two biggest applause lines are ask the tax and defund the CBC. Yeah. Right? And like, look, like to give Mr. Poliev credit, he also took a stand on the taxpayer-funded bonuses before

they were a huge national issue. When he was running for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Poliev said that he would end the taxpayer-funded bonuses at failing government authorities, and he specifically cited the CBC. And you know, for the head of the CBC to come in and not rule out taxpayer funded bonuses was crazy. Well, yeah, Franco, I don't know what it is about CBC CEOs and putting their foot in their mouth when it comes to bonuses, but it seems like it's a prerequisite for the job. The former CEO, just to give context to our listeners,

Catherine Tate, well, she defended spending more than 18 million, and she didn't call them bonuses. They're not bonuses, they are performance-based pay. So they laid off 141 employees, they eliminated 205 vacant positions, they had a budget shortfall, and she still gave out 18 million dollars in bonuses. And at one point she was asked, you know, will you cancel those given the fact

that you're in a budget shortfall and said, oh well no decisions have been made. What she should have said is I'm gonna lead by example and if I'm due a bonus I'm not taking it and I urge everybody to do the same, but she didn't. And not just urge everyone to do the same, you're the head of the Crown Corporation and the bonuses. Think about this folks, the Friends of Canadian Media, they're an advocacy group, they're essentially a cheerleader for the state broadcaster. Even that organization called out the bonuses at the CBC. Even that organization said the bonuses were deeply out of touch and unbefitting of the state broadcaster. Like folks, like think about it this way too, right?

You had Kate crying that the cupboards are poor. I remember it was just before Christmas when announcing hundreds of layoffs at the CBC, clamoring the government for more money from taxpayers. And then you still turn around, hand out $18 million in taxpayer funded bonuses. Not just that, the average bonus, the average taxpayer funded bonus for a CBC executive,

73,000 bucks. Yeah. That's more than what the average Canadian worker makes in an entire year. Oh, listen, I used to see the absurdity of the CBC in real time when I was working in television because I would see what we were able to muster together as a team to go on a shoot in private broadcasting and then I would see what the CBC brought with them. I mean, they were the lap of luxury.

What we did with a cameraman and an audio guy and a host and maybe a producer if we're lucky four people they had eight or nine people to do that that same job. Yeah no kidding right I mean it is a huge waste of money it essentially is what you would expect of the government running any type of corporation that is what the CBC is but look, to get to the point of this conversation, it's way past time to leave this to the CBC. For years now, the CBC has refused to do the right thing and then these taxpayer-funded bonuses. We need our elected representatives to step in. And there's three of them who need to step in right now. You obviously have the Prime Minister, but beyond the Prime Minister, you have Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Canadian Heritage Minister who's in charge of

the CBC portfolio, Pascal St. Ange. They got to step in because the CBC is unwilling to do the right thing and they need to put an end to these taxpayer-funded bonuses. So, Franco, the CEO of the CBC doesn't necessarily believe that Pierre Poliev has the courage of his convictions, but most Canadians are certain that the Liberals won't dump the carbon tax. A lot of them are saying they're going to if they become the new leader, but 51% of respondents say they're not confident that a new Liberal leader would actually eliminate the consumer carbon tax.

What does that say to you? Well, you can't blame taxpayers for having trust issues with the liberals and their carbon taxes. You know what I mean? I mean, look, this is the liberal government that hiked carbon taxes every single year, despite provincial governments providing fuel tax relief. They continue to hike the carbon tax during a 40-year high inflation when families were struggling to put food on their tables, people were struggling to afford the gasoline to get to work, and people were struggling to keep their heat on. So throughout this whole time, the liberals continue to crank up the carbon tax. So can you blame taxpayers for having trust issues?

I say no. But then let's take a walk down memory lane, okay? Because back in 2015, when Trudeau was first running to be the prime minister, his election platform and campaign barely mentioned the carbon tax, okay? Their platform, buried in at 39 pages deep, was a vague reference to a quote, price on carbon. Now, back in 2015, barely anybody would have known what that meant. And then not just that, they told Canadians they wouldn't crank up the carbon tax beyond 2022 at 11 cents a litre. Right before the 2019 election, you had the former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, saying the government

has no intention to keep cranking up the carbon tax. Well, after they're done singing for their supper, after the election, they announced they would keep cranking up the carbon tax year after year after year. So I don't blame Canadians for having trust issues with the liberals and with the carbon tax. Yeah, and I think if we just look at this real quick through the political lens, if 51% of people don't believe them, that means that they believe that anytime

one of these liberal candidates for leadership comes out and says, I'm going to get rid of it, they see somebody lying to their face. And that is not a good look for somebody who's trying to rebrand a very tired liberal party. No kidding. And you know what's making it worse? The fact that all they are giving us is word salads for answers.

Yeah, Franco, we're going to have to leave it there. Really appreciate it. I'll always love your perspective and thanks so much for joining us on the Ben Mulroney show. Hey, my pleasure, Ben. Have a great rest of your day. We as a nation are being subjected to the soap opera that is the reinvention of the liberal party by way of a liberal leadership race. Mark Carney, Christian Freeland. There's no polling. We don't know. I mean, there is polling. We're going to talk about it, but we don't officially know who the frontrunners are,

but it seems like they are the two horses that people are getting behind. And so there's a poll that came out asking the hypothetical question, how would the Liberals fare under one leader versus the other leader? And on the federal ballot, if Mark Carney were the Liberal Party of Canada leader, the Conservatives get 43% of the vote, the Liberals get 29% of the vote, and the NDP get 13% of the vote. In the case of Christia Freeland as the Liberal Party leader, the Conservatives get one percentage point more at 44%.

The libs get 5% less at 24%. And the NDP get a slight uptick at 17%. So, like, this is not earth-shattering stuff, but that could be a swing of, you know, a dozen to 20 more seats for the liberals. So it is a big difference for them. They're gonna be, according to this, second place. I mean, we don't know where the bloc falls in this. And I've seen polls that could put the liberals

in second place behind them. I've seen polls that have put them in third place and fourth place. So it's dynamic for sure. That being said, the Minister of Immigration Mark Miller has said that Mark Carney gives the liberals the best shot at beating Pierre Poliev. Look, I think he's the right man for the job.

He, you know, he could go through his resume. We don't have to, his CV is probably unequaled in terms of its quality in Canada. What he's done on the world stage is well known. What he's able to do for Canada is well known. But for me, I was joking, he's a goalie like me, but it's about the intangibles. He gives a shot at beating Pierre Polyov. I think that's important given the

toxic rhetoric coming out of Pierre's mouth on a daily basis. But it's about issues that I cared about David. Obviously the economy. I don't think we have to be dogmatic to what we've done for the last nine years. We have to be able to look at some fresh air coming in and some new ideas. So much to unpack there. First of all, the toxic rhetoric coming out of Pierre Poli. You have the other one who called him a jackass this week. I mean, if you're going to call him toxic,

you got to come in with clean hands, Minister Miller, and you have dirty hands. You're not the guy. You're not the guy to level those sorts of accusations because you're just as guilty. And then to turn around and say, I don't think we should be dogmatic when you've been nothing but for nine years. Again, I don't know that we believe you.

And if we do believe you, it means you stand for nothing. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. You went so all in on your ideological vision of Canada. The economy be damned, people's pocketbooks be damned. We are going forth with the carbon tax. And then to say, be so cavalier in how willing you are to look at alternatives now that it suits you. It means you stand for nothing. I at least had a little

respect for you when you said, you know what, we're gonna go down with this ship. The carbon tax is so important we're willing to lose an election over it. Not anymore because we don't lose elections. We don't lose elections. Canada every now and then, just loses its mind and feels like the need to lash out and vote against its best interest and vote in a conservative government. But that's not us losing the election. That's you guys getting it wrong.

So there's that. And then there's this poll that says, I don't know, I mean, yes, he gives you a 1% better chance to beat the Tories. Okay, sure. Go with it. There are some ministers who, let's see, Federal Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, the Federal Energy Minister, claims that no one, including senior Republicans, understands President Trump's

tariff threats to Canada. So, look, people, I have said to people, we need to take a breath, a long breath. This is going to be a bumpy ride. Things are not going to get solved in a couple of weeks. And even determining exactly what it is that President Trump wants is not a simple thing. When I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago, I met with many senior Republican folks, including people like Senator Ted Cruz, who's been around for a little while.

Certainly knows Donald Trump very well. And when you talk to all of those folks, the general answer you get is, we don't really understand why they're targeting Canada. It doesn't really seem to make any economic sense and when you ask them what do you think he's going to do they all say we have no idea. The tone, oh it's gonna be a bumpy ride, it's going to be devastating, it's gonna be a bumpy ride and it's gonna be a few weeks. Why didn't you start working on this a few weeks earlier so that we would have a plan in place to avoid it for the quote unquote a few weeks?

This is infuriating. And to suggest that nobody knows what his plan is, Howard Lutnick, the Donald Trump's pick to be the commerce secretary, laid out exactly what this is all about. And in this press conference, you reference Lutnick's perspective. Lutnick explained it chapter and verse. This is about securing the border for February 1st. If you do that, no tariffs. And then he's been tasked as the Commerce Secretary

to do a deep dive into the trade deficits, which Donald Trump abhors. And if by April 1st, the determination is that there's something hanky going on and there's something that can be done to diminish those trade deficits, including using tariffs, he's going to do that on April 1st. That's what it's about. I know it because Lutnick said it. So what are you talking about, sir? So these guys at the federal level, they're asleep at the switch, which means we're paying a lot of attention to our provincial premiers and what they have to say about these

tariffs, including Manitoba Premier Wab Kanu. Let's hear what he had to say about standing firm against tariffs. If tariffs get applied, Canada's response has to be noticed. We can't be a punching bag. And we have to get our elbows up and let other folks know that we're in the ring there too. But again, as Canadians, like our response is always going to be like, friendly Manitoba, sorry, you know,

let's try and get things on a good footing here. But of course, just as you see at a hockey game, you know, if you push too hard, then we have to stick up for ourselves. And as a result, you know, I think I support a response at the federal level here at the provincial level. The primary focus is on how do we support jobs?

How do we keep business moving, regardless of what happens? With the understanding the first and foremost priority is to try and head off terrorists from being applied in the first place. Well, he's right about a bunch of stuff. He's right. Like we've got to get ahead of this thing. Unfortunately, they're coming tomorrow. So I really don't know what our day after tomorrow.

So I really don't, I don't know that that's a possibility anymore. And yes, it's nice to talk about Canadian pride and standing up for the country. But if you listen to our interview a little bit earlier with Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University, this is not a fight we can win, like not even by a little bit. And you've got a street fighter who's not

afraid to get his hands dirty and who does not care about the damage that these tariffs will wreak on Canada. He doesn't care. Donald Trump doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about me. He doesn't care if you've owned a business that's been in business for a hundred years. He doesn't care. And whatever damage is done to his economy, he believes he can make up for it tenfold.

There's one grown-up thing that I take very seriously, and that is my appreciation for the entrepreneurial spirit and the hard work that small businesses do to grow their business bet on themselves, hire Canadians and build our economy. And so I'm always happy to have a guest on the show from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, because I want to do what I can to support what my dad always called the engine of the Canadian economy. And the CFIB has done a report on small business

and here to share that report is, and I hope I'm pronouncing your name properly, is it Lorianne? Loriana. Loriana Bommel. Yes. Well, thank you so much, an economist for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and co-author of the report. So, Lorian, if you can tell me, what was the purpose, what was the thrust, what was the discovery in this report?

Yes. So, in this report, we look at the cost of regulatory compliance by small businesses at all levels of government, so federal, provincial, and municipal. And we look at the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the

cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the

cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the look at the cost of regulatory compliance by small businesses at all levels of government, so federal, provincial, and municipal. And what we noticed is that small business owners are spending about 735 hours a year on regulation, which is about $51.4 billion. So rather than running their business, rather than doing the thing that gets them up in the morning, the thing that fuels their passion, they're stuck jumping through regulatory hoops and filling out paperwork and trying to cut through red tape. Yes, and it has a lot of impact. So as you said, for example, productivity,

a lot of impact. So as you say, as you said, for example, productivity, instead of better serve customers, having a plan expansion growth, just training their employees, they have to fill out forms. Yeah. So just to give context to our listeners that the amount of time that they spend on red tape is the equivalent of, she's like, I can't believe I'm laughing 32 business days a year yes exactly so red tape is is really a specific regulation part of regulation let's say that is unfair overly costly pollute design so basically in industry regulations so also delays and poor government services. And yes, they spent about 32 business days on that a year.

So and to give people just a little bit of color, what that means, red tape and government regulation, it's filling out lengthy or redundant forms, navigating government websites, deciphering the complex government jargon. I'm sure a lot of it's on the phone and they're told you're not talking to the right department. They call another department and that person says you got to call the other department. It's a lot. And what is the impact of this? You referenced a financial impact. Yeah, so it has a cost. So it's about $17.9 billion a year if you talk only about

thread bait. But it also has an impact on productivity as mentioned. So for example, we'll talk about expanding their business, hiring more employees. And in the long run, also it may discourage entrepreneurship in the future. Yeah. Because people don't want to start a business to just filling out forms. I'm speaking with Loriana Bommel from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We're talking about a study that they did that said that the amount of lost time by small businesses on red tape and government red tape is in the hundreds of hours and is leading to billions of dollars of lost productivity.

But, Loriana, I've had a lot of conversations about the red tape and the bureaucratic heaviness that doctors deal with and the amount of paperwork that they have to fill out. And that is leading to a lot of them leaving the industry, leaving their passion and suffering from burnout. So I have to assume that there is a there is a mental health component to the cost associated with this burdensome bureaucratic mess that business owners deal with.

Yes, of course, about nine in 10 small business owners indicated that excessive regulations at things can stress the life. And also they won't, they agree that they, with the current regulatory environment, they wouldn't advise an extracurricular relation to run a business, so for sure. Yeah, and it might prevent them from expanding their business or passing on. Their kids might see how much paperwork they're dealing with

and not wanna go into the family business. I I mean this doesn't seem like it's a system that's set up for success or long-term growth. Exactly because basically Red Tape just adds another obstacle creating a less business-friendly environment. I mean business owners are already facing higher burden costs and elevated interest rates that both already limit their sales and their increased pressure on the business financing. So it's really hard for them right now. And it's not just, this report isn't just to highlight that the sky is falling,

but CFIB is encouraging a renewed top-down commitment to build on past progress. Can you tell me about that silver lining? So we have a lot of recommendations, but for sure, we would like governments to have measure to measure their regulatory burden, to stay accountable to the public and making regulatory accountability a political priority. and making regulatory accountability a political priority. Have you, has your organization looked into sort of the individual regulations?

Are there some easy ones that could easily be cut and the net effect would be minimal on government but would be optimal for businesses? There are a lot of examples. I don't have any right now to share with you. We did other projects with other examples for sure, especially in the housing. There are a lot of examples and also in agriculture, it's a sector that is really affected by resolutions and red tape. So I don't have any examples for now, but that's for sure there are a lot.

What about the breakdown by jurisdiction? Because I have to assume, you know, a country is diverse as ours, you've got certain jurisdictions that are doing it better than others. Is there a high watermark? And is there a province in Canada that is doing it the worst? It's really hard to tell and pinpoint province in particular, because the regulatory cost we estimated is really considering all levels of governments, the federal, provincial and municipal. So we don't really estimate regulatory costs from the provincial government level only. So it's really hard to tell.

I mean, all governments should do some effort, basically. Laurie Ann Abomal from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Thank you so much. It's an eye-opening look at the struggles of small business. I mean, like I said, I looked at it from the medical, in the medical profession, I hadn't thought about the hoops that these small business owners have to jump through on a daily basis. And it never would have occurred to me that the amount of time that they spend goes into the days and weeks and months. So thank you so much for highlighting what is a real it's a self-imposed hindrance on the growth of our country. So thank you for highlighting it.

Thank you for having me. Before we go to break, I want to have a little bit of a discussion with you. But we all know, we all know that parents have their favorite kid. I don't, I don't. I love all my kids equally, differently, but equally. But there is a study that says some children may be easier to parent than others. That's a very nice way of putting it. There's a new study that suggests

that parents really do have a favorite kid based on birth order, gender, and personality, although the reasons can be very complex. So for example, young siblings generally receive more favorable treatment from their parents. And however, the favoritism for the baby of the family isn't always true when the authors looked specifically at control and autonomy as predictors.

So parents also reported, slightly favoring daughters over sons. I knew it. I knew it. Caroline, I'm looking at you. But personality played a role too, with the authors noting that parents tended to favor children who were agreeable and conscientious,

regardless of birth order and gender. Well, then in that case, you know, I was always agreeable. My dad's nickname for me was Nice Ben. That was his nickname for me. I think that's the definition of agreeable. So, I don't know, maybe on certain days Carolyn was the favorite. In other days, maybe it was me. I love it. Discover the best shows and your favorite trusted experts all under one roof. Are you kidding me?

Every Thursday, watch heartwarming programs like an all-new Extreme Makeover Home Edition at 8. Who's that for? We are so lucky to be a part of this. And Honest Renovation, starring Jessica Alba and Lizzie Mathis at 9. Changing these homes, we can change families. There's no place like it. Home Network.

Stream on STAC TV.