Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 5 - Evidence for December 16, 2004
MONTREAL, Thursday, December 16, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 8:35 a.m. to examine the current state of Canadian media industries; emerging trends and developments in these industries; the media's role, rights and responsibilities in Canadian society; and current and appropriate future policies relating thereto.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are resuming our public hearings into the Canadian news media for the second day here in Montreal. The committee is studying the Canadian news media, and the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure that they remain healthy, independent, and diverse, in the light of the tremendous changes that have occurred in recent years, most notably globalization, technological change, convergence and increased concentration of ownership.
[Translation]
Our first witnesses this morning are from the Regroupement des syndicats de Gesca [Gesca council of trade unions]. Their first and last names have been included in the agenda, but I would like to go through them nevertheless. Should I make a mistake, please correct me.
Present here today are Ms. Monique Prince, Desk Journalist at La Presse, Vice-President of the FNC (CSN) and Coordinator of the Regroupement.
Mr. Louis Larivière is Advertising Representative at La Presse, President of the Syndicat de la publicité at La Presse and Treasurer of the SEPB Union Local 574 (CTC-FTQ).
Mr. Charles Côté is a journalist at La Presse and the First Vice-President of the La Presse information workers' union, the Syndicat des travailleurs de l'information.
Mr. Fernand Bélanger is a journalist at La Voix de l'Est and President of the national employees' union, the Syndicat national des employés, for La Voix de l'Est (FNC-CSN).
And last, we have Mr. Stéphane Gousse, office worker at Le Soleil and president of the Syndicat des employés de bureau of the Soleil (FNC-CSN).
It very impressive to have you here so early in the morning; we know that journalists do not like to get up early, so thank you. You know our procedure, I will ask you to make a presentation of roughly ten minutes, and then we will ask questions of you.
Ms. Monique Prince, Desk Journalist at La Presse, and Coordinator of the Regroupement des syndicats de Gesca: I would like to thank you, senator for having invited us here this morning to speak.
The Regroupement des syndicates de Gesca council of trade unions has existed now for eight years. Previously the Regroupement included the certified CSN and FTQ unions for the four daily Newspapers belonging to Power Corporation and through its subsidiary, Gesca. The four dailies included La Presse in Montreal, Le Nouvelliste in Trois-Rivière La Tribune in Sherbrooke and La Voix de l'Est in Granby.
After Gesca's acquisitions four years ago the list lengthened to include the CSN and FTQ unions for the newspapers Le Soleil in Quebec, Le Droit in Ottawa and Le Quotidien in Saguenay.
On a voluntary basis, two to four times per year, representatives from the 26 unions meet to exchange information.
In February 2001, in the wake of major Quebecor, Vidéotron and Gesca-UniMédia transactions, the Regroupement submitted a brief to the Committee on Culture of the Quebec National Assembly, in which we expressed our many concerns about media concentration in Quebec, and also in Canada. It is a matter of concern that Gesca, with its seven newspapers, henceforth controls more than 50 per cent of the French-language daily press in Quebec; this is an unprecedented level.
Over the past four years, the media landscape has continued to change, leading to increasing synergy and convergence. Throughout this time our concerns have remained very much as before. Today, we want to communicate what we have observed in the field and how, in some cases, unions have had to intervene with regard to the quality and diversity of news, the quality of employment and Gesca's development choices.
It is paramount that newsrooms be both independent and autonomous in order to insure quality and diverse news for all citizens. Now in this respect, clearly Gesca has put all its eggs in the same basket, investing almost exclusively in La Presse, the flagship of its press fleet, in order to produce special event broadcasts throughout the world, to conduct in-depth investigations and to put together major program files.
La Presse has unprecedented financial resources at its disposal. These resources, coupled with the hiring of several new journalists, photographers, and graphic artists, have imbued the newsroom at La Presse with true dynamism and have made its journalists enthusiastic stakeholders in the coverage of current events across all sectors.
Evidently the public, who are given an increasing number of opportunities to voice their opinions and to provide feedback, appreciates these efforts, as the readership of La Presse has done nothing but increase.
However, the dynamism that we have observed in Montreal is absent in Quebec City, in Ottawa, and in other regions where Gesca has daily newspapers. On the contrary, our journalist colleagues, particularly those from the Soleil and the Droit, deplore the fact that their newspapers are full of articles from Montreal. This in no way helps to maintain the distinctiveness, the specific character and the local flair of their newspapers.
Whilst the editor of La Presse and the president of Gesca, Mr. Guy Crevier, believes that this is in fact a way of improving the quality of regional news, our colleagues talk, rather, of a two-tiered system of journalism.
In several regional newspapers, writing space reserved for local news, which is often limited and always precious, is being taken up in part by the publishing of articles from La Presse.
What is more, many feature articles that used to be written by local journalists and freelancers, such as those on health, wine, music, cinema, cars, etc., have been replaced by feature columns from La Presse. Perhaps this is not a total disaster, but what worries us is this move towards the standardization of editorial content.
Here is more evidence that we do not always speak the same language as management: Recently our journalists' unions, who had sought and won the right to have opinion pieces excluded from agreements on the circulation of articles within a network, were faced with a done deal: Gesca had signed off on a contract for the simultaneous publication of a columnist who had been called upon to comment and analyze current events in every newspaper in the group.
After several bargaining sessions and after reaching a consensus on an agreement that will be signed shortly, the president, Guy Crevier, ended up admitting that he had gone against the spirit of the Gesca clause, and agreed to advertise the position in accordance with the collective agreements. He also agreed to conduct an appraisal of how the network operates.
A joint management-labour committee was struck for this very purpose. This Gesca watchdog, as it was nicknamed in our newspapers, will enable journalists to lodge any news or article circulation grievances with respect to Gesca.
The 1990s were tough for all our newspapers: in newsrooms, of course, but also in administrative offices, and with respect to circulation, classified advertisements and the sale of advertising space. Salesmen who retired were not replaced and many quality regular positions were eliminated and turned into casual or other such positions of a precarious nature.
Even though the problem is now far less present at La Presse, it remains very widespread amongst the other daily newspapers from the group that have to live with decisions made in Montreal. When it comes to decisions over budgets and hiring, local management has virtually no leeway.
Furthermore, over the past two years Gesca has attempted to standardize many technological tools in use in its newspapers, especially computer programs used to collate subscriptions, billing, classified advertisements and stocktaking information.
In the face of all this, our fear of seeing the regions lose quality jobs to the major urban centres is extremely well- founded.
Over the years, the Desmarais family, owners of Power Corporation, have maintained their reputation as good corporate citizens. Overall, Power Corporation's unionized employees have been treated like human beings.
But the very nature of a press group the size of Gesca is to openly rationalize operating expenditures and to make large-scale savings. It is hard to achieve this without sacrificing good jobs.
Aside from consolidating its press network by focusing more on La Presse, to the detriment of other daily newspapers, and by rationalizing its administrative activities, Gesca seems increasingly willing to compete with Quebecor on the convergence stakes.
By adding to up its head corporation subsidiaries and closely associated businesses such as Cyberpresse, Publications Gesca, Éditions La Presse, Presse-télé, Gesca is trying to increase its influence in the area of communications. In addition to this, Gesca has partnered with Radio-Canada. In so doing, the crown corporation and the private company both make the most of any opportunity to carry out joint projects that lead to increased visibility for all parties concerned.
Our unions need to be extremely careful; it is our fear that advertising and entertainment may invade the traditional domain of the news, thereby causing confusion amongst the public.
When the news workers union of La Presse had its contract of service renewed last spring, the union felt the need to amend an existing clause and to negotiate a new clause on the promotion of content within the newspaper.
In the case of Cyberpresse, the Internet site for the newspaper, the unions denounced, with some measure of success, the fact that there was nothing on the site for people in the regions. The formula has been reviewed, but still has not met our initial expectations. Far from being self-sufficient, the Internet site has added an additional economic burden that the network must shoulder.
What is of even greater concern to us today is the very advertising sales project that is currently brewing. Gesca wants to centralize all the multimarket accounts, which are, by definition, the major clients that have branches everywhere throughout Quebec.
Should this project actually take off, advertising representatives will lose revenue. This will especially be the case for the regional newspapers that, deprived of these streams of revenue, will see their autonomy diminished. They will end up, despite themselves, funding and being subjudicated to Gesca development choices; choices made back in Montreal.
Our conclusion takes the form of a question: Is it possible that Mr. Guy Crevier, in his dual role of president of Gesca and editor of La Presse, is in a position of conflict of interest?
My colleagues will now be more than happy to discuss these issues with you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Please note that Mr. Crevier will be testifying before our committee after the New Year. In the meantime, you have our full attention.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Has there been a significant reduction in the newsroom itself, in the number of reporters in each of the newspapers?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: I can reply on behalf of La Presse, where there are currently more journalists than there were in the 90s and virtually more than there were even in the 80s.
Now I would like to hand the floor over to my colleague Fernand Bélanger, who will be able to provide further clarification on the matter of regional newspapers.
Mr. Fernand Bélanger, Journalist at La Voix de l'Est, and President of the Syndicat national des employés of the La Voix de l'Est, Regroupement des syndicats de Gesca: Madam Chair, allow me to provide you with a brief context. The Sherbrooke newspaper La Tribune used to have journalists at its headquarters in Sherbrooke and also at its regional offices in Drummondville, Victoriaville, Magog and elsewhere.
None of these regional offices exist anymore; they have been replaced by correspondents. Now the newspaper has a newsroom that is a fifty-fifty mix of regular and correspondent staff.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Are those dailies or weeklies?
Mr. Bélanger: All the newspapers in front of you are dailies.
[Translation]
At the newspaper La Tribune there have been office closures. This has led to a downturn in the quality of the news produced there. La Tribune has fewer resources and fewer staff.
In the 1980s at the newspaper Le Nouvelliste in Trois-Rivières, there were about 40 staff including journalists. Now there are roughly 30, or more precisely 28 staff on site. Additional positions were created, but others were eliminated two years ago. So when you do the sums, we have gone from 38 to 31 staff over the years.
At the newspaper Le Droit there have also been major staff cuts. The printing staff were all laid off about 10 years ago and the newsroom staff have seen their numbers reduced by half. The union president Paul Gaboury had to negotiate several job departures a couple of years ago.
At the newspaper Le Soleil in Quebec City they used to have about 108 or 109 journalists, and now there are no more than 75 or 80, if you count up the vacant positions.
At La Voix de l'Est in Granby, the number of staff has remained stable for about 30 years, but the print run has increased. Therefore, the proportion of staff has not kept pace with the increase in print run.
At all the newspapers, however, La Voix de l'Est, la Tribune, Le Nouvelliste and Le Quotidien, there has been a decrease in job security. In other words, there are more positions for people working 15, 25, 30 hours per week, who do not enjoy job security and who multitask.
As a result, the various geographical sectors within our regions are not as well covered as they used to be, whether that be by la Tribune, Le Nouvelliste or La Voix de l'Est. I know these regions better than others because they were former GTC Group newspapers that have belonged to Gesca since the late 60s, early 70s. That concludes my overview.
The Chairman: You mentioned the Soleil?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, I did speak a little about the Soleil, there were about 100 employees, I would say between 108 and 110; and now there are about 80, that is to say between 75 and 80.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: This is in the newspaper. Is there a Power Corporation; do they also own significant television, as well?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: No. Currently, La Presse and its regional newspapers focus their attention by and large on the daily newspapers sector. Power Corporation used to have positions for people working in radio and on weekly publications but it divested itself of these positions in the late 1990s.
Currently, La Presse has its own television production house, but this is different, it is not a station, it is not a channel, rather it is a TV production house which is in its infancy.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: What percentage of the dailies do they own in the province?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: It is actually more than 50 per cent. I think the exact figure is 52 per cent of the print run.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Is the other half all owned by Quebecor?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: It is practically Quebecor, with the exception of 3 per cent for the newspaper Le Devoir, which is independent. Obviously, we are talking about the French-language press here.
Senator Chaput: I would like you to talk a little bit about the partnership with CBC. I would like to know a little bit more about this.
Ms. Prince: It is hard for me to go into detail about this, given that it is a commercial agreement to which we are not a party.
For example I know that each year La Presse holds its Excellence Gala. Following the publication of a weekly, in which a star of the week has been interviewed, the same star is then interviewed on Radio-Canada radio. So, this is an example of a partnership agreement.
The gala evening is then broadcast on Radio-Canada television. These are therefore examples of commercial agreements that serve to promote both parties. This ends up having an impact on the news sector, as more and more journalists from La Presse are invited to appear as experts following or during the events themselves. They are asked to comment current events and the big political party conventions.
So there are exclusions, a journalist may be drawn from La Presse rather than from Quebecor, for example.
Senator Chaput: You state at the end of your brief that advertising representatives will lose revenue, especially in regional newspapers that are deprived of these direct revenue streams, and so on and so forth. I would like to know a little more about this particular aspect.
Ms. Prince: I will hand the floor over to my colleague, the advertising representative for La Presse, who can deal with this more specific question.
Mr. Louis Larivière, Publicity Representative at La Presse, President of the Syndicat des travailleurs de l'information de La Presse, Regroupement des syndicats de Gesca: It is understandable that relocating multibrand accounts to the major urban centres, in this case Montreal, obviously reduces in part the newsroom and advertising operating budgets in the regions.
For example, if you take the daily in Chicoutimi, this represents 10 to 15 per cent of the advertising budget that is relocated to the bigger city. These are revenues that will no longer be available in the regions to give newsroom and advertising sections some independence in management, hiring, and the publication of local, relevant news which will not necessarily be the same in Montreal and in major centres like Quebec.
Dailies are needed in these regions because the public is entitled to understand clearly what is going on in the regions.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, the major centre is increasing its revenues at the expense of the smaller players, if I can put it that way?
Mr. Larivière: As my colleague pointed out earlier, quite rightly, the major centre is increasing its revenues. This project has only just started. Will it increase the revenues in major centres? Maybe, we do not know.
Usually these are accounts that are managed in Ontario, in Toronto, by a firm that works for La Presse.
Will that mean extra budgets for major centres? We may think so, but we do not actually know.
The Chairman: There are several very interesting issues here. Can you tell me a bit more about the joint committee, the Gesca watchdog? What kind of powers was it given? What is its mandate? If there is written information, we would like to receive it.
Ms. Prince: I would like to point out that this is what we tried to obtain when we testified before the parliamentary committee in Quebec, four years ago. Professional journalists want some editorial responsibility regarding what is going on in their newsroom.
As for the Gesca watchdog, Charles Côté, who is here with us, was involved in the negotiations and I would rather he answer your question.
Mr. Charles Côté, Journalist at La Presse and First Vice-President of the Syndicat des travailleurs de l'information de La Presse , Regroupement des syndicats de Gesca: I would like to start by putting things in perspective. It is true that we are quite interested in newspapers for the economic role they play, especially in the regions. To put things in their proper context, the sales figures for Le Soleil could be compared to that of three large automobile dealers.
Therefore it is not its economic role that interests us first and foremost, but mostly its political and social role. That is why Power Corporation had been trying for so long to acquire Le Soleil, as you know very well know, Senator Fraser.
So this has happened as quickly as they could do it. I do not think there was any real plan regarding the news, as to how things should be done. We had very dogmatic information, but in the field, it took several years before management realized that things were going nowhere.
In fact, we needed the fight over the selection of Alain Dubuc as network columnist, a battle that we started as soon as he was appointed to the position. We had signed agreements regarding the exchange of articles that clearly prohibited the exchange of opinion pieces, while allowing the exchange of news articles, except for those coming from the parliamentary correspondents, the political desks.
So, Mr. Dubuc was named network columnist, something we were strongly opposed to because they could not try to use a super-freelancer to do something they could not not do with a permanent employee in the field of opinion pieces.
There was a confrontation and that is when management and the newspaper unions finally had to sit together at a table, and finally realized three years later that things were going nowhere as far as information was concerned, that there was no clear plan, and that nothing was actually working well, be it for management or for employees.
As was said earlier, specifically at the newspapers Le Droit and Le Soleil, journalists complained about seeing their editorial space being taken up by articles written by journalists from La Presse, in areas they could have covered themselves.
In summary, the bosses understood that this was not working and suggested responding to our request from four years ago, indeed, to create a monitoring committee comprised of seven union heads and seven managers from the newsroom, regardless of their respective titles.
This watchdog group was struck to review the situation before the acquisition of UniMédia by Gesca. The group was responsible for studying what had occurred since the acquisition and for taking corrective measures in order to respect the principles outlined in our agreement on how texts are circulated. These principles included autonomy in drafting, quality of information and diversity, all those well-known principles, but nothing was put in place to make sure that they were complied with or encouraged.
As well, Gesca wanted to use its network in a way that would help it to better perform its information work. I believe that that, is real.
For my part, indeed, I believe that there are ways to better discharge our duty to provide information, while remaining in the network.
One could say that each and every one of these newspapers would be better off if each had a different, independent owner. It is possible, I do not know if this is going to come about, it does not depend on us, but in the meantime, I believe the creation of this watchdog committee is a step in the right direction.
The Chairman: I presume, there are advantages to belonging to a family, a chain? What we were told about the recent changes at La Presse was impressive.
If La Presse sends somebody to Darfour, to Afghanistan, or to Iraq, other newspapers may take advantage of having a correspondent from Quebec provide a Quebec perspective, which is something that is worthwhile for readers, is it not? It is an advantage, wouldn't you say?
Mr. Côté: I am not saying that it is not worthwhile, but that it comes with compromises. Focusing in on the Quebec perspective is good, but there is also the Ottawa perspective.
For example, when president George Bush came to Ottawa, the front pages of the newspaper Le Droit were filled with texts published in La Presse; that journalists from Le Droit were not assigned to cover this event did not work to the advantage of the newspaper.
Therefore, yes, there are advantages, but there are also disadvantages, particularly for the other newspapers, other than La Presse. When it comes to La Presse, it has not been proven that the newspaper absolutely needs six other newspapers in the group to do what it is doing currently.
It is said that funds generated from regional newspapers fund La Presse's activities; however, La Presse takes on a large part of the costs incurred in managing the network. Therefore, by and large, yes, I support the decisions of La Presse's management. These decisions are certainly made by Mr. Crevier and vice-president assistant editor Mr. Philippe Cantin, to provide better coverage, not only of international events, but to carry out investigations, and to showcase important issues on regional and national subjects.
But do we absolutely need other newspapers to do this? I do not think it has been shown conclusively to be the case.
The Chairman: I am going to turn to my colleagues again. With respect to the editorial policy and the choice of important news items featured, the “play” as it is called, what is going to make the headlines on the front page, is each newspaper independent? Do you trust that each newspaper is independent?
Ms. Prince: I am going to answer this not-so-simple question. Because increasingly, with respect to news decisions are made in Montreal.
In fact, upon resuming your hearings in January, in Ottawa, I would urge you to invite our colleagues from the newspaper Le Droit. Generally speaking, journalistic coverage of an event or news is complex.
Increasingly, all types of decisions are being made in Montreal, even decisions about the news. Therefore, the problem regional journalists have is feeling left out of decisions, not only with respect to the headlines, but with respect to who will be responsible for the text that is to appear beneath them.
The Chairman: The assignment?
Ms. Prince: The assignment and the byline, yes.
The Chairman: I could go on, but my colleagues want to ask you questions. But I would ask you to please provide us with any agreements you have, or contracts, any documents pertaining to this issue of journalistic independence, and monitoring mechanisms. I think this is a very unique set of circumstances that we have to understand.
Mr. Côté: We have already provided the clerk of the committee with a copy of the agreement on text circulation.
The Chairman: Yes. If there is anything else, we would appreciate obtaining it.
Mr. Côté: What you will be missing is a document which for now remains an internal document. I am not sure if we can provide this to you, but it is a document on the Gesca watchdog committee. We will ask our employers, they will surely agree to our request, and as soon as we have it, we will make sure we send it to you promptly.
The Chairman: They must be proud of it, I would think.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Some of these things have already been answered, but I want to explore with you a little more what this does to the quality of information that the readers get, and focus on social and political issues. If you could give us some examples, for instance I know that the population of Montreal is a little different. I come from Western Canada, so you have to excuse me if I don't understand the situation here very well. From what we read, it seems to me, politically at least, that the voting patterns in Montreal are a little bit different than the rest of Quebec.
When you have too big entities controlling the newspapers, and the thoughts explored by these papers, do people get enough diversity of political views and analysis? How is this serving the minorities? Do you have enough minorities working for your papers? This is the political and the social side. Could you give us concrete examples of what's happening here, please?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: Your question is a broad and difficult one for someone who works in a Montreal newspaper, where ethnic minorities are not proportionately represented.
However, La Presse is making efforts to reflect the composition of the social fabric. At the newspaper, over the last few years, there have been a lot of developments with respect to interaction with our readers. Our opinion pages, for example, contain diverse points of view.
However, it is not sufficient in the news business to rely on our readers to paint a complete portrait of what is going on in our society. But in the regions, it is an entirely different matter. On that front, I believe we are losing in terms of diversity of opinions expressed.
Even more so since, as we were saying, articles from Montreal take up a lot of space which is normally reserved for local news, to convey what is going on in our regions.
When journalists talk about two-tiered journalism, this is what they mean. That is to say, they cannot do in-depth coverage of news happening in their regions. Or else, if they do, they are relegated — we were talking about headlines, earlier — to the back pages, to the back of their own newspaper. Therefore, their work is not being valued and the impression they get is that the citizens and communities they are supposed to serve are being shortchanged.
I don't know if my colleagues want to add something to that?
Mr. Côté: With respect to cultural diversity in the newsroom of La Presse, I would say that there isn't much of it. For now, there is no program to encourage greater diversity.
On the other hand, job opportunities at La Presse are made available in journalism schools which are themselves very open. I don't believe that there is any discrimination anywhere along the path that leads people to jobs at La Presse. But there is no affirmative action program to speed things along, either.
I know that is something that we often hear; there is not a great deal of diversity in newsrooms, in light of Montreal's diverse ethnic communities. However, when it comes to divergent points of view, there is always a debate, as is often evidenced in the op-ed pages of La Presse. Of course, everyone is aware of the editorial position of La Presse in Quebec's political debate.
As to letters sent to the editor by readers or experts, there are always people who write: “I have sent you 10 letters denouncing federalism and you have yet to publish even one of them.” I think that we are all free to draw our own conclusions on that, but it is something that occurs frequently.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Yesterday, we had before us a group of people who represented weekly newspapers. They seemed to say that they were serving the regions because some of the remote regions were not very well served by the big press. Do you think this works well? These were weeklies so they do not get the daily news in this manner.
Second, you were talking about reduced staff, so they are not hiring a lot of people. Are young people being taken on to fill in the generation gap because this also has a generation gap. People look at news differently. They are not hiring very many new people because they are reducing staff, or are they moving people around? What is happening?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: Once again, what is happening at La Presse is far different from what is happening in the regions. There has been a turnover in the newsroom staff at La Presse, with young journalists bringing in a breath of fresh air.
We have people who are retiring and who are being replaced. The problem with regional newspapers — Fernand Bélanger can say a few words about this as well — is that the retirees are not replaced or when they are, it is with contract or surplus employees. There is widespread use of independent freelance journalists or contributors who are not very well paid, and who, because of their casual status, are probably more likely to be docile and flexible.
In that sense, therefore, there is really a staffing problem. Generally speaking, there is no staffing in the regions, and employees are replaced by low-cost and possibly lower quality workers.
Mr. Bélanger: To begin with, young journalists do not often spend their entire career in the regions. Once they have worked one, two, or three years, young journalists go to Montreal. A large number of the La Presse and Journal de Montréal reporters come from La Voix de l'Est and Le Droit in Ottawa; that is a well-known fact.
Second, we are facing undue delays in staffing. When we mentioned delays and control by Montreal, in our brief, we meant that for each new position or position to be filled, particularly for positions that must be filled, which is even more surprising, we have to, as they say in this business, get a requisition from Montreal.
Montreal must approve each position, even if it already exists, which creates a delay of a few months, whereas the deadlines for job postings should only be a few weeks. So we find ourselves in a situation where the duties become casual for existing positions.
There is also a greater insecurity for other employees in the newsroom. No new positions are being created in regional newsrooms, unless pressure is exerted during bargaining sessions.
I stated earlier that at the Nouvelliste, there have been 10 fewer positions in 10 years, that is, between 1990 to the beginning of 2000. They filled five positions during the last round of bargaining, but, of that number, two employees have since retired and their positions have not been filled. So we are almost back to the starting point. It is a continual struggle.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I want to follow up on the relationship between Power Corporation and Radio Canada. Senator Chaput asked, and I think the answer was about the gala. Is there more to it? Is it a business relationship of any kind? Is it a marketing relationship? Is it a sharing-of news-people relationship? What kind of relationship is it exactly? Where is it organized?
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: I would say that these are marketing agreements. It is at that level that it occurs, with a number of exchanges, in terms of either services or visibility. That is where the journalists become involved, without necessarily being aware that they are part of a marketing relationship.
There must also be some type of marketing vehicle to compete in the same arena with Quebecor and private television. But as I said earlier, this does not happen in the newsroom. My colleague is motioning to me, that yes, we have the television guide, for example, Voilà, which is a small, weekly television program schedule inserted in La Presse. Of course, the cover stories and other articles tend to be geared towards the Radio-Canada programming.
I cannot say that we, as journalists, are committed to these agreements; essentially, we are not. It relates to the trade war being waged by the media empires in Quebec. From that point of view, La Presse and Radio-Canada have decided to work together as partners.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: We have a state institution. Is this radio and television or just television?
Ms. Prince: Both.
Senator Tkachuk: Radio, too?
Ms. Prince: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: We have a state institution that has gone to bed with a private group, Power Corporation, fighting a private institution of television and newspapers. Is there a controversy about this? Is it written about? I have not read about it in the English press, but it is quite interesting. I know it exists, private TV exists in English Canada with the Global and CBC, especially the relationship politically, maybe, between the two, as well. It is a state institution.
[Translation]
Ms. Prince: You are absolutely right. I hope that your committee will deal with this. I hope you will take the opportunity to ask questions of other groups, particularly our bosses, the people from Radio-Canada who will be appearing. I understand that you have not discussed this with those who have already come before you. I know that the Radio-Canada union, the Radio-Canada Communications Union, will be appearing in January. That is certainly something that should be raised.
You used the word “controversial,” it is controversial for us, obviously, in our newsrooms, in our unions. But to the public, this is part of a media landscape that is constantly demonstrating what convergence can do.
The model has been established. It is becoming ever more prevalent. I don't think the public is offended by it. It is not a controversial issue. I don't think we can really say that today.
The Chairman: If memory serves, the CBC representatives mentioned these arrangements when they appeared before us. We did not take the matter any further, which was perhaps a mistake on our part, but we will be able to make up for it later.
Mr. Côté wanted to add something and then we will have a short question from Senator Chaput.
Mr. Côté: Yes, I would like to make a few comments about Radio-Canada and La Presse. The Voilà magazine was originally a television guide produced by a corporation or company that was co-owned by the CBC and La Presse. So, you understand.
We might think that Quebecor's strategy is something like star-making. They make musical stars, they make all kind of stars, but they also make journalistic stars.
In the minds of our bosses, and in ours as well, we must produce stars if we want to compete with Quebecor and that cannot be done without television.
We have a public relations director at La Presse; she is a recent addition, having arrived three years ago. Before that time, the newspapers had no need for public relations. This person spends part of her time trying to ensure that La Presse journalists are invited to appear on radio or television programs. I don't think there is a contract between La Presse and Radio-Canada. I don't think that is would be illegal to do that, but it demonstrates the dynamics that are in place. It is a battle between two media empires that is being waged at all levels and with all available means.
Ms. Prince: My colleague Stéphane would like to add something.
Mr. Stéphane Gousse, Desk employee at Le Soleil, and President of the Syndicat des employés de bureau du Soleil, Regroupement des syndicats de Gesca: Yes, I would like to add something. Before Gesca arrived at Le Soleil, we produced our own television guide, which was quite popular with our subscribers.
That is also part and parcel of the concentration of daily newspaper ownership; there are duties that are grouped together in certain areas. We must not forget that within the media, at least at Le Soleil, there are almost two workers, other than journalists, who are involved, either as computer graphics technicians, translators, proofreaders, information technicians, sales representatives or people working in customer service.
The supervisors who are sent from head office are people who are less and less committed to the business, in other words, to our entity. We truly fear that they are working on orders from head office and that, in order to curry favour and ensure their own careers, they may have to make decisions that will not necessarily be favourable for the local community.
Take the advertising sales team, for example; it would be unfortunate if businesses were to take advantage of a deal being offered by regional newspapers without allowing it to benefit the region, and have all of the revenue go back to head office, by having it manage and administer all of the multi-market accounts.
That is also a danger. We often hear about journalists, because they are at the forefront, but there are other employees working in these media who could be the next victims of ownership concentration.
The Chairman: Thank you. I must apologize, we have already gone beyond our allotted time. Senator Chaput, do you have a question to ask?
Senator Chaput: Is there some type of self-regulation which could help to slow down or to protect, or something along those lines, in what you have just told us; could something not be put into place?
Ms. Prince: That, once again, is a difficult question for us to answer. When you refer to self-regulation, are you saying that the newspapers could set their own guidelines, their own criteria, to better serve the public; is that what you mean?
This question might give me an opportunity to take a step backwards and say that we were talking about the television guide produced with Radio-Canada. Le Soleil had a very good one, which met the expressed needs of its readers. When subscribers received the television guide produced in Montreal, they realized that the schedule was for the Montreal stations.
You know that the numbers on our little “zapper” correspond to the channels that we have at home. However, the schedule is produced in Montreal and it means nothing to the people of Quebec City. There was no accounting for the fact that these were Le Soleil subscribers, who cancelled their subscriptions because they no longer had the same level of service.
Therefore, when you say “self-regulation,” of course, there have been some changes. Our bosses had second thoughts about some of their decisions, because the public did not go along with them. So the only self-regulation to which they are willing to agree is based on public acceptance.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I find it very frustrating when we don't have enough time to do everything. Your presentation was very interesting. You will send us whatever documents are available as soon as possible, won't you?
I would like to ask our next witnesses to be seated; these are representatives from the Fédération nationale des communications, Ms. Chantale Larouche, President and Mr. Pierre Roger, Secretary General. Welcome to the Transport and Communications Committee.
Ms. Chantale Larouche, President of the Fédération nationale des communications: Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing us to take part in this important consultation.
I would first like to explain that we will not be reading our entire brief, as we realize that it would probably take too much time, so we will try to concentrate on the issues that seemed to be of greatest concern to committee members.
I would first like to introduce the Federation. The Fédération nationale des communications represents 7,000 communications workers, journalists, technicians, and support staff who work in the media, in print, radio, television, including the Gesca Group unions who appeared before you this morning.
We are expressing our concerns at a time when the effectiveness of national mechanisms and rules is increasingly being called into question; this is due, of course, to the complex nature of the upheavals that have made it increasingly difficult to manage all aspects of the radio, telecommunications, and news system.
Even though at this time, only the electronic media have an official framework, we maintain that the media, as a whole, have a major responsibility to society and to democracy.
We believe that the media are not businesses in the traditional sense and, even though the global economic boundaries have been abolished, we feel that the state must preserve our essential values, that is, public interest, cultural identity, diversity and democracy.
We therefore believe that the state must be actively involved in ensuring that the current economic development be carried out in a manner that will protect the national ownership of the media, their cultural identity, diversity and the fundamental right to information.
The Canadian government must adopt a clear outlook and positions and develop the mechanisms needed to put them into practice.
To do that, the government must have a clear idea of the role that the media play in our society, in order to protect their mission.
You mentioned self-regulation this morning, and I must admit that we do not blindly believe in self-regulation, because, in the past, we have seen that there is a limit to self-regulation among broadcasters, if we can use the regional services as an example.
Broadcasters, particularly television broadcasters have, over the years, progressively abandoned the services in the regions. Notwithstanding a self-regulation system, it is profit and yield that often win over the rights of local and regional populations.
The freedom of the media outlet owners to operate cannot, in our opinion, take precedence over the fundamental rights of the public. We believe that the concept of public interest, as it relates to media responsibility, is being increasingly challenged by economic imperatives.
Even though the state must not control media content, and that is not what we are advocating, we nevertheless believe that the government should ensure that the media do the best job that they can, particularly when it comes to news.
We feel that a multiplicity of news sources is an extremely important key to democracy. We feel that a great variety of media greatly encourages cultural development.
Of course, we cannot blame these businesses for wanting to multiply the effects of their in-house production. However, Canada's cultural identity, our fundamental right to information, is based on the presence of media that reflect and help us to identify with our local reality and allow us to express diverging opinions.
As I said earlier, in Quebec, there has been a huge drop in the services provided to local and regional populations, and the CRTC even allowed this to happen.
What is more dramatic is the disappearance of AM stations that have been replaced by FM stations; at the same time, there was deregulation, which reduced the local and regional news and programming component. This severely affected the services to local and regional populations, and the CRTC was a party to this downgrading of service.
As you also heard this morning, the newspapers themselves have a tendency, for financial and strategic reasons, to centralize and standardize their news sources.
Of course, in Quebec, Quebecor Media has the highest concentration of ownership and causes the greatest damage, particularly because of its CRTC-licensed presence in television, but it is clear that Quebecor, thanks to a multitude of communications platforms, exercises a great deal of influence when it comes to news and culture.
In fact, one might think that Quebecor's vision of culture is being imposed more and more on the people of Quebec.
In Canada, there are four major players who now dominate the market: BCE, Quebecor, Rogers, and CanWest Global. We are very concerned about the establishing of large conglomerates like that.
When these conglomerates will have to sell-off subsidiaries, will they do it? And to be able to sell their interests, they will probably be tempted to sell to foreign interests that are able to pay the full value of their corporations. We are extremely concerned by the trend or risk that Canadian media will eventually fall under foreign ownership. AOL-Time- Warner and Rogers are putting more and more pressure on us to deregulate Canadian ownership both for media and telecommunication corporations.
For us, there is a real danger. If AOL-Time-Warner which owns interests in information, television and newspapers, is interested in Canadian deregulation, it is undoubtedly because the company has an interest in distributing its content in Canada. In our opinion, that could contribute to homogenizing content and even to Americanization of Canadian content, which is already quite concentrated in large centres.
In this regard, we feel that foreign ownership of the media must remain formally and unequivocally protected.
I would like to emphasize the role of public broadcasters, including CBC/Radio-Canada, TV5, Télé-Québec, which in our opinion, in a context of media concentration, play a determinant role in protecting public interest, the public's right to information and in protecting cultural identity.
But in this regard, we want to reiterate the fact that it would be important for CBC/Radio-Canada to receive more financial support from the Canadian government. Stable, multi-year funding must be granted to promote better planning of operations by this crown corporation.
I would also like to pay particular attention to the TV production system, the funding system for TV production, which has had a huge impact on the ability of television broadcasters to fulfill their responsibilities as regards the production of television content.
As you know, there is the Canadian Television Fund, Telefilm, and cuts have been made to appropriations for CBC/ Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec to establish this television production support fund which, in our opinion, creates considerable inequity for public broadcasters.
Approximately 4,000 quality jobs were lost at CBC/Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec, but also at other broadcasters. These jobs were transferred to independent production — they are unstable jobs — and to fund private corporations, which do not have a recognized responsibility with respect to the broadcasting system.
For us, it is important to fund television production. However, there must be real competition among broadcasters and companies producing television content.
As for the CRTC, we feel that it is necessary to review its rules and operation. We believe that the CRTC must essentially focus on its role regarding oversight, and regulation, while taking into account cultural objectives clearly determined by Parliament.
We find it somewhat odd that it is the Competition Bureau namely that, as part of a transaction involving Astral, justified this transaction which, in our opinion, created a highly detrimental concentration, namely in certain regions of Quebec.
We feel that the respective roles of the CRTC and the Competition Bureau need to be clarified.
In conclusion, I would like to state that for us, it is clear that the Canadian government has an extremely determinant role with respect to the future of media, the public's right to information, and the protection of cultural identity. We feel that Canadian policy as regards information and culture must be developed to entrench the notion of public service by the media.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: You say that governments have a responsibility — and I was confused whether you meant that the government has a responsibility to give information, or to protect the right of delivery of the information?
[Translation]
Ms. Larouche: No, we mean to say that the government does have a responsibility for guaranteeing access to high quality, diversified information content, but it must not interfere in the broadcasting of information content nor control what will be broadcast in terms of information.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: How should governments guarantee that right?
[Translation]
Ms. Larouche: We believe, first of all, that the Canadian government could adopt a clear policy outlining the role of the media in a democratic society. As we were saying a little earlier on — and it is probably clearer in our brief — it has, in our opinion, the authority and the responsibility to adopt standards and rules that are not designed to control media on a daily basis, but to clarify that our society is determined to protect Canadian cultural identity from globalization, among other things, and to protect access throughout Canada, in the regions and the localities, in terms of content, to diverse high quality programming.
But it does not need to go further. It could however, through a regulatory body, ensure that the broad objectives are adequately served by all media. We will even go so far as to include print media. All media owners must be required to respect broad Canadian objectives when operating their activities and their businesses.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: If one newspaper was purchasing another newspaper or a company was purchasing a newspaper, they would have to go in front of a body such as the CRTC to obtain permission to do that and there would be hearings. Is that what you are saying?
[Translation]
Ms. Larouche: We think it could go that far. So that means that in order to protect cultural identity, freedom of the press, and diversity of information and opinions, it could be possible to envisage that a regulatory body would have to evaluate the limits or impacts of corporate concentration resulting from transactions, including in print media companies.
Senator Chaput: I would like you to say a little bit about the CBC's mission, as you see it. You say in your brief that it is an essential counterweight in protecting public interest.
Can you elaborate to some extent on what you believe the CBC must do? Following the budget cuts the corporation has faced, what has had to be sacrificed, in your opinion, that means it is no longer protecting public interest as well as it should be?
Ms. Larouche: For us, it is clear that the CBC's mandate is the mandate that was defined when it was created: to educate, to inform and to entertain.
However, it is clear that with the cuts made at CBC, this mission, particularly in terms of information and the diversity of information, has been considerably reduced, if we look at what has happened in the regions, especially in Quebec, where there were numerous closures and many journalists' positions were cut.
We feel that the regions have been particularly penalized by the cuts. Moreover, with respect to the choice of programming, there has also been an important effect: the cuts have forced CBC/Radio-Canada into competition with private broadcasters in the advertising market; this sometimes makes it difficult to choose programming that is perhaps a bit more distinctive than what is being produced by private broadcasters.
We are not, however, saying that CBC/Radio-Canada should be marginalized, because it is now forced to face competition in the advertising market. And at this point, without additional funding, it would be extremely detrimental to ask CBC/Radio-Canada to focus only on programming that is complementary to what is being done by private broadcasters at present, since Radio-Canada would automatically be less relevant and marginalized.
We feel that Radio-Canada would have many more possibilities, opportunities to produce content and programming that is diversified and distinct from what is being done by private broadcasters, if financial resources were increased and brought back at least, to what they were before the cuts in the 1990s.
Mr. Pierre Roger, Secretary General, Fédération nationale des communications: I would like to add something, Senator Chaput.
Clearly, you must understand that Radio-Canada's budget was largely cut. When the investment funds were created, which were used to set up independent production companies, independent Canadian television production, for the most part, the money was recovered from cuts to Radio-Canada.
Bear in mind that the same phenomena occurred in Quebec. Large cuts to Télé-Québec made it possible to invest in independent production. The same is true for Radio-Canada.
On the English TV side of CBC, you are undoubtedly aware that the cuts to regional newscasts affected a large part of the country.
The Chair: Thank you. I have an additional question for you. The cuts, the major change saying that drama and entertainment should be done in the private sector, there was never a policy decision that news, information should be cut, but that was the result.
I should have the numbers in front of me, but I do not. Did the budget cuts at Radio-Canada exceed what was necessary to fund the private production of drama and entertainment programming? Was that the problem?
Ms. Larouche: Did the cuts go beyond what was necessary? I would not be in a position to confirm that formally. But one thing is indeed certain: the money that went to private production was used to reorganize Radio-Canada, and forced and in-dept reorganization, which also had an impact on information services.
The Chair: For the entire corporation.
Ms. Larouche: I would not be in a position to confirm with certainty that choices made by Radio-Canada executives went beyond what should have been done.
However, there were nevertheless collective agreements in force, and they could not necessarily randomly cut staff. But it is clear that had an impact on drama and entertainment programming.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Because I come from Western Canada, I am interested in Radio-Canada. Governments can legislate Canadian content, to make rules, but they cannot legislate that the listener has to listen to Radio Canada.
Do you have any idea what kind of audiences Radio Canada has in the province of Quebec? I think it is different than it is in Western Canada. In Western Canada, they have a very, very small audience because audiences are very fragmented and compared to the private networks, they have a very small audience.
There comes a point where one might question how much money you can pour into protecting a Canadian entity. If the population does not listen to it, then you have to make some decisions as to whether your money is well spent. When CBC appeared before us, I think they put a value of approximately $500 per Canadian to deliver their programming. In my household we are five, so that means I am paying $2,500 a year to have access to that one channel. I wonder about Radio Canada in the province of Quebec.
Senator Tkachuk: If you do not listen to it.
Senator Merchant: Yes, I listen to it. I get a little bit out of it.
[Translation]
Ms. Larouche: Contrary to the English CBC network, the French network has the support of the Quebec public. We saw it again this morning: recent BBM pooling was published, confirming namely that the morning show in the Montreal market is the most listen to show by Montrealers, which is quite phenomenal.
There were some years where Radio-Canada was considered a radio station for intellectuals and in fact, the target audience was not as broad as it is now.
Having said that, we continue to believe that we cannot evaluate Radio-Canada, TV5, and Télé-Québec, simply on the basis of their ratings. Because in our opinion, in addition to their mission to entertain, these corporations have a requirement to educate and to inform, which creates requirements in terms of choices of programming. These requirements are designed not only to be popular, but also to contribute to the development of Canadian society in terms of culture and education.
In our opinion, we must make a distinction when we talk about Radio-Canada and choose how to fund it. We cannot marginalize Radio-Canada to the point of making it completely useless and unpopular. But nor can we require it to do so only what the private stations are doing, for purely economic reasons.
Mr. Roger: I would like to add some information for Senator Merchant.
Clearly, the francophone public is a bit more of a captive audience and the anglophone public that also has the choice of programming from the United States, a little bit south of the other Canadian provinces, which means that for CBC, it is much more expensive to produce drama than it is on the francophone side, if they want to be able to compete with large Hollywood production. That is why truly adequate funding must be maintained for Radio-Canada, if we wanted to pursuit its mandate to provide information, but also to entertain and to educate as such.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I speak from a Western point of view.
Senator Tkachuk: You talked about the need for government funding of television production. When I am watching TV, I sometimes see credits at the bottom like Tele-Film Canada, the National Film Board and the CBC. There is a private company which is given grants by the federal government. Why should the government fund this stuff? Why should the government be involved in any of this? If people want to produce programs that people want to watch, why should private people not do it?
[Translation]
Ms. Larouche: That is a very good question. We can in fact ask that question, but it is clear that even if we question the way which the rules were established to fund the production, we believe that when these decisions were made — when the funds were created — they were appropriate.
That was at a time when we were seriously concerned about the impact of the penetration of foreign content, especially American content, in Canadian markets, with the arrival of satellite TV.
At that time, everyone in Canada agreed that it was necessary to promote the emergence of high quality, high level Canadian content that could compete with foreign content.
Having said that, although it is a useful measure, it is perhaps time to review the criteria for distributing these public funds. In fact, an average of 36 per cent of the public funds is earmarked for producing programming, whether it be broadcast by private or public broadcasters.
We are not against funding, but against the use of public funds and the way in which these amounts are distributed among the various broadcasters. It is clear that the private broadcasters that often criticize Radio-Canada and Télé- Québec for being over-funded, will seek out a large part of this funding and are directly subsidized, which I think most Canadian citizens do not realize.
[English]
Senator Munson: You talk about being extremely concerned about conglomerates and you are worried about Quebecor. We heard some of those same worries yesterday. How can the clock be turned back? How can people believe big is better? Once again we get back to government: Do you believe government should step in and break up these massive mergers?
[Translation]
Ms. Larouche: In all honesty, it would be extremely difficult to go back in time when these transactions have been authorized. I am thinking namely about the cross-media ownership transaction involving Quebecor, authorized by the CRTC.
Nevertheless, we believe that if the Canadian government were to adopt clear rules and clear policies governing the medias obligation in our society, without going into the past, excellent requirements could be set as to the way in which Quebecor can act while maintaining its level of concentration.
A regulatory body could provide oversight, including monitoring convergence which has an impact on newspapers, to require a true and clear distinction between what is produced in the newspapers and what is produced on TV.
But going back would be absolutely illusory, I am convinced of that.
Mr. Roger: We have, in the past, presented several briefs to various parliamentary and Heritage Canada committees. I would like to table them. I think they could be useful to you. They are very relevant, and they deal among other things with media concentration.
The Chairman: Yes, indeed.
Ms. Larouche: If I may, Madam Chair, my colleague has reminded me of something. Last year or the year before, when the CRTC had to make a decision on cost-media ownership transactions, we asked the CRTC, as did the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, to suspend any new request for a cross-media ownership, given the long term consequences that it could have, namely on Canadian cultural identity, diversity and the public's right to information and accessibility to diversified content.
We feel that the CRTC has become a little more cautious with respect to these transactions, because several organizations have criticized the CRTC for having made decisions hastily, without taking into account what was under consideration within the Canadian government, namely by the Standing Committee on Heritage.
And on that, I would like to emphasize something that we feel is extremely important: once the Canadian government sets specific policies for cultural identity, diversity, and protection for media ownership, regulatory bodies must not be completely disconnected from these cultural policies, which are essential for our society.
We have often had the impression that the CRTC was not directly linked to cultural organizations or organizations responsible for reviewing the Canadian broadcasting system; instead, we were under the impression that these organizations were competing with each other.
However, once we have clear Canadian policies, we believe that the organizations, that must subsequently get involved, must be directly required to comply with the policies that we have set for ourselves as a country.
The Chairman: Thank you very much; your presentation was very interesting. You are going to send us the previous briefs?
Ms. Larouche: Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, we will get a translation of the brief into English, because there is a lot of material in there. However wonderful the translators may be, it is always helpful to have authentic texts.
[Translation]
We will now welcome representatives from Télé-Québec, the provincial public broadcaster in Quebec. Ms. Paule Beaugrand-Champagne, President and General Manager; she is accompanied by Mr. Denis Bélisle, Secretary-General and General Manager of Legal Affairs and Mr. Jacques Lagacé, General Manager of Corporate Affairs.
Ms. Paule Beaugrand-Champagne, President and General Manager, Télé-Québec: I was going to do the introductions, but Senator Fraser has just done such a good job, thank you.
Télé-Québec is Quebec's educational and cultural television station. Since its inception in 1968, it has made a name for itself through programming that reflects and values all forms of expression, that takes into account cultural diversity, depicts social realities, shows interest in a vibrant world and its environment, that promotes learning by children, and instructs and informs a variety of people on a host of information topics.
As a broadcaster of programs focusing on learning and knowledge, as well as on the creation and promotion of culture, Télé-Québec plays a major role in the francophone broadcasting environment. This year, it is pursuing its mission and presenting original programs that are different from other television services in Quebec.
As part of these hearings, you are looking for comments on the role of the state in helping to ensure that Canadian news media remain healthy, independent and diverse in light of the tremendous changes that have occurred in recent years.
Among your key issues, you mentioned globalization, technology change, convergence and increased concentration of ownership. In our presentation, we will focus solely on two questions that are the subject of your concerns: access by Canadians to information on international, national, regional and local affairs, or your first question; and the role of public broadcasters in Canada given the numerous changes in Canadian media over the past 20 years, or your question number 14.
In conclusion, we will offer some general comments linked to these two questions.
Is the quantity and quality of information in Quebec sufficient?
Faced with the rapidity and complexity of change that is occurring in our society, whether it be challenging the health care system, the impact of the rise of the Canadian dollar, the retail price of electricity or gas, or problems linked to pollution in our waterways, poverty or our ageing population, citizens have trouble understanding the true issues at stake and imagining the consequences of these changes on their own lives.
Does this difficulty understanding the issues stem from a lack of access to information? I do not think so. It is surely not an issue regarding the quantity of information.
In fact, if we consider the multiple newscasts presented by Radio-Canada, TVA, and TQS, on the two headline news service channels, RDI and LCN, to which will be added in the next few weeks LCA, the Canal Affaires; and if we take into account, to a lesser extent, the information presented by networks such as RDS, Météo Média or TV5, for example, Quebecers have never had access to as much televised information as they do now.
It is more a matter of the way in which the information is processed. The increase in the number of channels is creating huge pressure on performance for broadcasters and even newscasts are now subject to rules governing ratings and competition.
It is which headline news channel will be the first to announce a news item, without even having verify the details or the accuracy. But that can cause serious slippage when you push it a bit farther, as we saw in the United States during the election campaign with Dan Rather and George W. Bush.
To capture viewers' attention, news is often presented in raw form, sometimes in short 90-second segments, that does not allow time to put the news into context. For the same reason, an increasingly large place is being carved out for information of an anecdotal or spectacular nature.
Finally, this conversion of information into quasi-entertainment is reinforced by the phenomena of increase concentration of media ownership. Concentration and convergence enable the groups involved to create synergy among the media that they own in order to reinforce their brand.
And to do that, it is common for information programs to be used to showcase the group's other products, including drama or television serials. We have seen that over the past year on more than one station.
In such a context, programs that analyze current events or do investigative journalism, and public affairs programs that delve into topics through debate or reports, are receiving less and less air time.
Although understanding the issues of our society would require information that is rigorous and in-depth, we are seeing an increase reduction in audiovisual space devoted to programs design to explain, analyze and debate, often to the benefit of raw newscasts, delivered quickly, without any context.
What role should public broadcasters play? Over the pas 20 years or so, television programming has undergone major change. It has undergone a spectacular increase, going from a few channels to several hundred channels.
It has considerably diversified in terms of genres, it has become more commercialized, and it has become an industry whose priority is to pursue performance objectives. In such a world, it has even become good form to call in to question the legitimacy and the usefulness of public television.
We believe, on the contrary, that in this new context, the role of public television is even more important than ever, because they alone can fulfill the mandates that are under appreciated or not appreciated at all by private television stations.
For example, let's look at the need to provide citizens with analysis that is in-depth, rigorous and critical of information and the need to take into account regional issues on national networks; these themes are not very profitable for private stations.
Télé-Québec, as a public television station with an educational and cultural mandate, has chosen to fulfill these mandates by discriminating in favor of a certain number of tools, author documentaries, public affairs programs, interviews and debates, and new magazines.
Author documentaries are a special kind of genre use to provide critical analysis of social phenomena found in the news and to provide diversity of opinions. Télé-Québec has chosen to make this a key part of its programming.
In fact, each year, Télé-Québec produces and broadcasts about 30 author documentaries, that can also be called opinion documentaries, which deal with social issues of the at most importance. Some have had a considerable impact on Quebec society and have even led to government decisions.
Forest Alert, for example, broadcast in 1999, called into question the forest management system in Quebec. The debate raised by this documentary contributed to the establishing of the Coulombe Commission on forestry management, which tabled its report this week. This report should lead to legislative or regulatory change. Several stakeholders have highlighted the triggering effect of this documentary.
Bacon, The Film also gave rise to a lively debate on the development of the pork industry in Quebec, the following year. And, more recently, the film Manon and the debate program entitled Le dernier droit? that followed the broadcast, gave rise to action by many citizens on the issue of assisted suicide and on treatment provided by the health care system to people who are severely handicapped or who have terminal diseases.
Less spectacular, but equally important, documentaries dealing with the closure of the Murdochville mine in the Gaspé peninsula, with the closure of the village of Saint-Paulin-Dalibaire, or with the situation facing young people in the Haute Gaspésie region, have made it possible for us to give national exposure to issues that can be felt in many regions of Quebec that are grappling with the loss of their people or with the closure of businesses in the natural resources sectors.
These remarkable documentaries have, in our opinion, had a much longer lasting social impact than simply dealing with these issues in the daily news.
Documentaries are not the only genre that enables Télé-Québec to provide TV viewers with in-depth analysis, critical approaches and debates that are likely to enhance the quality of democratic life.
Each week, Télé-Québec puts Points Chauds on the air, one of the rare Quebec TV programs that is devoted to providing contexts and analysis of major crises affecting the planet, be they in Darfour, on the Ivory Coast, in Ukraine or in Tchetchenia.
Télé-Québec has always included broadcasts in its programming that enable citizens to debate major political and social issues. For twenty-five years, it broadcast Droit de parole, a forum that enabled concerned citizens to debate important topical issues with experts or politicians. Since September, a new program hosted by Marie-France Bazzo and entitled Il va y avoir du sport has taken over but in another way.
Finally, Télé-Québec began broadcasting Méchant contraste!, a feature program that takes into account what is happening in all regions of Quebec from several points of view, social, economic, environmental, municipal and cultural.
News magazines, now, are another genre. Broadly speaking, the mandate of public television is to provide citizens with the information they need to effectively manage their lives, be it on health, food, the environment, and so on.
Several of our broadcasts do exactly that. That is the case of a documentary series like Chronique de la violence ordinaire, that deals with psychological violence on a daily basis. Les artisans de rebut global deals with recycling and sustainable development. Des nouvelles de Dieu deals with new religious realities.
That is also the case of news magazines like Cultivé et bien élevé, which, for the past five years, has been describing and explaining how the food that ends up on our plates is produced. À la di Stasio invites people to eat healthy food, that is original and varied. Une pilule, une petite granule, provides advice and recipes for maintaining good physical and mental health.
As for the regional issue, Télé-Québec has chosen to reflect the reality of the regions in all of its programming rather than to limit it to a single thematic regional program. And it has done so for several years. The regional dimension is a priority in the mandate that has been given to us by the National Assembly.
For us, public television in the current context of the audiovisual industry is a more rigorous way of producing television and makes it possible to go farther in terms of information than simply reading the news.
We also want to point out the fact that public television is concerned with young people and provides programming for young people based on research concerning them, and it prepares them to become future viewers of news and public affairs programs.
And if Télé-Québec or CBC/Radio-Canada were to disappear one day, no private station, in our opinion, would want to take up the genres that are as costly as future programs for basis youth program and auteur documentaries, par example, which are extremely costly and not big money-makers.
I tried to summarize the conclusion, and I would now be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Are you governed by a board of directors? Is it a crown corporation? Is that the way you are set up?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: We have a board of directors that is appointed by the government, and my position as President and General Manager is also a nomination made by the premier.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Does the board change with the government?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: The members of the board are appointed for three years, and their mandate can be renewed once. But it is clear that they can be replaced at any time. If a newly-elected government decided to completely change the board of directors from one day to the next, it has the authority to do so.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: When there was a separatist government in charge of the province, was there political pressure on the public broadcaster through the board?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: Be it under a PQ or a Liberal government, there has never been any political pressure on Télé-Québec. What you call “arm's length” in English is truly respected. The government does not interfere in Télé- Québec programming. The only problems we have had with governments, regardless of their stripe, is with funding for Télé-Québec.
Mr. Denis Bélisle, Secretary General and General Manager of Legal Affairs, Télé-Québec: If I may, I might add that the Télé-Québec Act sets out the mechanism for appointing members to the board and it must be done in consultation with the cultural and educational communities.
A Télé-Québec employee is also designated a member of the board, but this is always done in consultation with the Quebec cultural and educational communities.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: We heard testimony earlier on this morning about the business relationship between a public broadcaster, Radio Canada, and Power Corporation. Would you comment on that and would you see yourself, as a public broadcaster, ever entering into a relationship like that?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: I think what happened in the case of Radio-Canada as regards, for example, La Presse or the Gesca group is a sort of defensive response, a reaction to the convergence that is occurring in other media groups, be it Quebecor or Cogeco.
So at one point there was an agreement with respect to the promotion of Radio-Canada broadcasts through La Presse. In both cases, whether private companies or large private groups or public televisions is involved, this prohibits us from promoting our programming.
In the area of promotion, we had to face what some people call advertising, but it is more a question of promoting the station and the programming. That has indeed blocked opportunities where we could have promoted our programming.
But we are not without resources and we fought back. And as they say, necessity is the mother of invention, and we came up with excellent solutions to overcome these obstacles. I have deplored this convergence for promotion and advertising for the 30-odd years that it has existed.
As regards the print media, that has been going on for some time. When I was in the print media, I experienced it, it is done at several levels. I find that deeply regrettable.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I found your presentation interesting as an educational television network, and there was no reference in the whole presentation to young people, to children, but I am sure —
The Chairman: At the end.
Senator Tkachuk: I must have missed it. You did spend a lot of time talking about public affairs and documentaries — and these are political issues, right? Do you have political points of view, or do you have different political points of view presented? As a public broadcaster, how do you manage the unmanageable?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Lagacé, General Manager of Corporate Affairs, Télé-Québec: Télé-Québec has specially designed products for all young viewers. We pay particular attention to producing original programming for young people at Télé-Québec.
We have truly made our mark on generations through a series of products. In Quebec, there is a generation called the “Passe-Partout generation” that is now 20 years old. These young people watched a daily program we produced for 10, 12 or 13 years and it serves as a reference point for an entire generation.
We currently have two daily programs, one called Ramdam and the other called Cornemuse, that provide cultural references and help socialize young people in Quebec.
Of the entire budget devoted to programming at Télé-Québec, about one-third goes solely to youth programming. In terms of volume, 40 per cent of our programming is devoted to youth programming. It appears very clear to us that the main responsibility of educational public television is youth programming.
I want to point out that there are, of course, other specialized channels where you will find youth programming. Télé-Québec's specialty is to involve authors, to involve home-grown creators, and also to produce original programs that are imaginative and that provide ways of developing the very identity of young people with respect to their own society.
It is absolutely fundamental for all educational television in Canada to be able to develop original programming for our young people. At Télé-Québec, for the 0 to 12 age group, we are by far the television that has the largest market share.
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: May I answer the second part of Senator Tkachuk's question?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: The question was this: Do you provide all political opinions or do you have one political opinion?
We do not have a political opinion. We make room for all trends, since we do not have a news service. That is why I told you about the auteur documentaries and the debate or public affairs programs, because that is our way of providing information. And we feel that that should be a priority for public television.
Since we are talking about public affairs programs where all opinions are solicited, there is automatically room for the full range of political opinions. Does that answer your question, Senator?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Chaput: I am from Manitoba and I am a francophone. When I hear about everything you are doing at Télé- Québec, I am jealous. I would like to have the same thing back home.
Having said that, I would like some additional information on your funding. Your funding undoubtedly comes from the Quebec government, but are there other sources? As for the broadcasting of your programs, it is surely not just done in Quebec? What links do you have with other public television? Do you have any links with TVO? Do you work together?
Mr. Bélisle: With respect to funding for Télé-Québec, we receive a government subsidy from the Quebec government that is roughly $54 million, or $53.35 million.
We also have advertising revenues. Télé-Québec broadcasts eight minutes of advertising per hour. Private sector stations are at 12 minutes of advertising per hour. Our revenues include a subsidy of approximately $54 million, advertising revenues, and we also have what we call “the provision of services.”
Télé-Québec underwent a major transformation in 1995, and at the time it was called Radio-Québec. Staff was cut by more than half.
Since that time, we have been renting our facilities to independent producers. Eighty per cent of our production is done by independent producers. So we have staff for the technical facilities and the studios are rented, which provides Télé-Québec with another source of revenue. The overall budget is approximately 75 to $77 million.
Mr. Lagacé: As for the availability of the signal outside Quebec, we have, on several occasions, paid particular attention to that dimension. Our signal is available to all cable broadcasters or other operators in Canada free of charge for all of Canada.
We have repeated that on several occasions at the CRTC and at the Heritage Commission, the Clifford Commission. We currently hold the rights for our programs for all of Canada. If there are operators who want to distribute our programs throughout Canada, we make them available.
The other aspect is cooperation with the other television stations. We are members of ATEC, the Association for Tele-Education in Canada. Our relationship is sometimes close and other times not as close, depending on the situation we are facing.
We have been very close to TVO, for example. Together, we negotiated several issues for all of Canada, such as everything revolving around the 2,500 megahertz band. For educational purposes, TVO and Télé-Québec truly co- managed the files for two years for all educational television stations, and the provinces and the territories of Canada.
In terms of programming, we have resumed coproductions with TFO, which is the francophone sister organization. We had a number of disagreements with them four or five years ago, but the situation has been resolved and cooperation is good.
Senator Chaput: You said that approximately 80 per cent of your production is developed by independent producers. Do they seek support through the fund that was created?
Mr. Lagacé: Through the funds that are available for all public and private television stations. The CTF, tax credits, in other words all of the regular funding measures for Quebec and Canadian television.
Senator Chaput: The funds can be provincial, or they can be federal?
Mr. Lagacé: Absolutely. And in that regard, we are following the debate on the Canadian Television Fund very closely, because we are afraid that small television stations, which represent independent points of view, like Télé- Québec, TVO, or TFO or other television stations, will end up between a rock and a hard place if the major players get involved.
[English]
Senator Munson: On average, how big is your audience in comparison to, let us say, TVA's audience in a different market?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: In the fall, we were in fourth place on the list of broadcasters in terms of ratings.
So after Radio-Canada, TVA and TQS, came Télé-Québec which had a rating this fall of about 4 per cent, which has been unheard of at Télé-Québec for about 20 years. So since to the cuts in 1995 and 1996, that shook the corporation to the core, we have had to rebuild to get where we are.
Four per cent for an educational and cultural television station makes Télé-Québec the number one educational and cultural television station in the world, ahead of PBS, ahead of France 5, ahead of BBC Kids, Education. It is the public television that has the largest market share.
[English]
Senator Munson: I need some clarification on what you were talking about regarding programming outside the province of Quebec. It seems to me that it would benefit all Canadians to see your programming. Is it being stopped because cable will not carry you, or is the CRTC dithering or not making a decision? Should you not have the right to program all across the country, and have a channel to do this without all this regulation?
[Translation]
Mr. Lagacé: There is no obligation for cable distributors or satellites, although satellites, I believe, make their signal available throughout Canada. But for cable broadcasters, there is no obligation to carry the Télé-Québec signal outside the province.
We make it available, but it is really at the discretion of each operator within the territories and the other provinces. It must be provided free of charge. Of course, we provide it free of charge.
The Chairman: Is it distributed anywhere?
Mr. Lagacé: In New-Brunswick.
The Chairman: In New-Brunswick?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes, of course with our viewing area and our antenna array, we already cover part of New-Brunswick and Ontario.
As regards cable broadcasting or satellite distribution, I know that there are some suppliers that offered Télé- Québec, but at this point I would have trouble telling you if we are being broadcast in British-Columbia or not.
We always offered the Télé-Québec signal free of charge to these distributors, but we have not taken stock of the situation recently.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Do you broadcast programming from other provinces? Have you made any attempt in a similar vein as we have been saying, that perhaps your programming should go to other provinces and areas in Canada? What attempts have you made to get programming, in a similar manner, from the West and other provinces? Have you had any of those programs broadcast here?
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: Bear in mind that for us, the main problem is the language issue. We must translate the English programs we buy, be they from the rest of Canada, the United States or England, for example.
[English]
Senator Merchant: You broadcast only in French, then?
[Translation]
Mr. Lagacé: Yes.
Senator Merchant: Yes?
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: Yes, but we have purchased some series, English-Canadian documentaries that we have translated to broadcast on our station.
Senator Chaput: Of course, for cable distributors it is at their discretion. I am going to take the case of Manitoba for francophones in a minority situation.
Cable distributors, when they add a signal, think in terms of money, I assume. If there are not enough of us in Manitoba, I assume that it would not be in their interest to provide Télé-Québec's signal, or am I wrong?
Mr. Bélisle: I would say the opposite is true, because we give the cable distributors an opportunity to offer it free of charge, so that is a nice package to offer people.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I think it would be good if your channel was more available for French-speaking areas especially. In our province we have a lot of bilingual programs in our schools. Do you know if any attempt has been made for English-speaking people in Quebec to be able to buy Ontario or Saskatchewan programs, because there are other educational channels like yours in different provinces. Is that something you might all want to work on? I just bought digital and I cannot believe how much crap there is on there. It is true. There is a lot of it, and I know Gravelbourg and quite a few French communities would probably enjoy having a program like yours.
[Translation]
Mr. Lagacé: At one point, there were discussions with TVO to lobby in an attempt to make educational TV signals much more widespread.
And as you know, all it takes is a change in government, some repositioning, we lose track of each other for two or three years, or budget cuts, and projects like that one that we wanted to promote are suspended.
And in addition, since educational television stations are television stations under provincial jurisdiction, the bulk of our work is done for the area where we work.
We had told the Heritage Committee, which was reviewing the entire Canadian broadcasting system, that for us it was important to make our signals available throughout the country. But that suggestion was not taken up.
Moreover, we have a collection of digital educational videos to which schools currently have access. We are contacting education officials in other provinces to make them aware of the 2,300 digital videos we have available for school children. We have had contact with some ministries, Manitoba, among them.
Mr. Bélisle: If I may, I would add, in defence of other educational channels, that we must never lose sight of the issue of copyright.
Over the years, Télé-Québec has had to relinquish the rights to all of its programming for francophones throughout Canada; as a result, it is easier for us to simply offer the programming.
But that does come at a cost. It is not clear that the reality is the same for the other English educational channels. Because there is the issue of copyright, and there is also the issue of territory. Copyright royalties must be paid for each territory.
I would like to add that a couple of weeks ago, we met with the ATEQ, and we are currently looking at programming to see if there aren't some products that might interest Knowledge Network in British Columbia or SNC in Saskatchewan, and vice versa, so that we can exchange programming or work on some co-productions. It is easier today. We are currently attempting to set that up.
Télé-Québec, as part of its educational services, has an English component. We have a sector reserved for anglophone educational services in Quebec, in addition to the francophone sector.
The Chairman: What is the anglophone service?
Mr. Lagacé: The anglophone service is modeled after the francophone service. We acquire and make available to the schools a series of videos that we have purchased on the market, such as the American market, but also from TVO which has always been a major supplier of programming for our anglophone service.
In addition, we do a considerable amount of captation of American programs especially in the field of science and nature, etc., which are broadcast on satellite and which are offered free of charge to the American education system, like programs from NASA, and so on.
We do captations at Télé-Québec and we make the programs available to the education network, literally by duplicating the cassettes or by broadcasting the programs at night so the people in the schools can record them and use them later on.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I find this quite interesting because you are a very significant political tool. Yesterday we had a person before us complaining that, other than the English and French language, other cultures were ignored in this province. I understand now where he's coming from. I come from a province where, for the last 60 years, we have had one political party. Other than for a period of about 60 years, we have had the same political party in power.
Télé-Québec is funded by the tax payers of the whole province, and yet your programming is in French. You have a significant population of English-speaking and other-speaking peoples. Even to say that you have made a change in opinion through your programming, I find this a very powerful tool because who decides what is an important issue to present to the public? Who makes these decisions as to what it is that is important to the society? Even there you have the control of what you present.
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: Yes, like in any news media, there is an editor-in-chief or a news director. In the print media, there is even an editor, an editor-in-chief, a news director and middle level managers.
Télé-Québec is too small to have an editor-in-chief. The public affairs sector we have talked about this morning, because that is the topic of interest to your committee, is just one part of our programming. Forty per cent of our programming is devoted to young people. There are also public affairs and many other programs.
We are small and there are not many of us, but we are thinking about the possibility of hiring an editor-in-chief or a news director who could follow the public affairs or debate programming more closely.
But at present, this monitoring of the choices that are made, of the guests or the content of programming is the responsibility of the general manager of Programming and the general managers at Télé-Québec, if it is necessary to go to a higher level. I am the one who makes the final decision if there is a problem.
[English]
Senator Merchant: These are all appointed people. They are appointed by the government of the day because you said that they do change. I am wondering about the independence that a person has, when you get your funding from the government of the day. I think it is a very powerful tool because media play a very large role in forming opinion.
[Translation]
Ms. Beaugrand-Champagne: Yes.
Senator Munson: It is the same in Ontario.
The Chairman: We heard from Ms. Bassett two days ago when we were in Ontario.
Mr. Bélisle: I would like to make a distinction between public television and state television. They are separate things. We are public television.
I would like to add regarding the choices that are made at Télé-Québec that we do have a large research department. Télé-Québec relies heavily on analysis, and on focus groups, to identify trends in our society.
With respect to youth programming at Télé-Québec, we work in cooperation with the Ministry of Education on its own concerns, through our education team. So Télé-Québec has assistance and guidance regarding the decisions to be made and the issues in society that it wants to deal with.
Mr. Lagacé: There was a change of government two years ago. The new government did not remove any of the members of Télé-Québec's board of directors who had been appointed by the former PQ government.
Since about 1995, I have seen boards changed, and governments have, in my opinion, been very cautious in the choices of people that they have sent to us, and have above all ensured that they met the cultural and educational requirements; these were people who were respected in the field of culture and education. Our board has a very important mission and acts as a kind of buffer that enables us to maintain a distance from our own government.
I have been at Télé-Québec for 20 years, and since I have been there, I have never seen any kind of political interference in programming at Télé-Québec. In fact, the only real problem is funding. I remember when Forest Alert came out that the Ministry of Lands and Forests in Quebec was very unhappy that we had broadcast the documentary. We learned that the ministry was very unhappy, but there was not any interference at the station to prevent the broadcasting of the documentary in any way, shape, or form.
Mr. Bélisle: I would like to add that I am the secretary general of the board at Télé-Québec. There are ten members on the board, including the president, Paule Beaugrand-Champagne. We have seven members whose mandate ended two years ago, and the government has not considered it necessary to replace them even though they were appointed by the previous government.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, that was fascinating. As always, we could go on for hours on end. You have given us a lot of food for thought and we thank you very much.
Ms. Beauregard-Champagne: If you have any questions, you can send them to us and we will be more than pleased to answer them.
Mr. Lagacé: I would like to emphasize that in television, there is not much of what I would call independent media, at least not unique voices that are outside the large groups. I think that we must be very careful with respect to these media. I am thinking about TVO and TFO and the other television stations like that, in Canada, that represent unique voices within the world of large groups that are currently being set up.
The Chairman: Indeed, one of the most interesting trends to note is the broadening of networks that were, initially, purely educational in a rather limited sense. I remember having interviewed your very first predecessor who spoke with great enthusiasm about the retraining programming designed to help workers recycle.
That was the vision. And that was 40 years ago, I think. But listening to you today, it is a different world. And you are not alone, it is the same thing for TVO. A rather interesting evolution has occurred. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, our next witnesses whom I will invite to introduce themselves now are from the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec.
Welcome to the committee! I would like to make a short statement, to be transparent: decades ago, I was one of the founding members of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec.
We now welcome Mr. Alain Gravel, President of the Federation, and Mr. Claude Robillard, Secretary General. I want to clarify for my colleagues that the Federation is not a union.
Mr. Alain Gravel, President of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec: Madam Chair, I was just elected president of the federation two weeks ago. In my other life, I host a public affairs television program on Radio- Canada, which can be compared to the Fifth Estate and which is called Enjeux. I am also teaching a course at the Université du Québec at Montreal called “Le grand reportage.”
I am accompanied by Claude Robillard, the Secretary General, who is sort of our memory and our conscience at the federation. I want to thank you for inviting us and above all for hearing from us today.
The Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec is a professional association that represents, on a volunteer basis, more than 1,800 journalists. Members include editors-in-chief, unionized and non-unionized employees, freelancers, contract journalists, and even journalism students as associate members. We are the largest association of journalists not only in Quebec, but also in Canada.
We have tabled a brief which outlines our concerns regarding concentration of the press, especially in Quebec. And our concern is not just theoretical.
The Chairman: Mr. Gravel, could you slow down a little bit for the interpreters?
Mr. Gravel: Yes. That is what my producers always tell me. I learned that at CKAC when I had to do 55-second reports with three clips.
This week at the federation, we received a monthly paper from Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships; look at it carefully, as you will not see it again. You can read on the cover: “Final Issue”. And if you look inside the paper, there is a cartoon showing a paper airplane on which it is written “VOIR, owned by Rémi Marcoux”, that is being thrown in the direction of the paper's editor.
This is referring to the incursion of VOIR in the market in the Eastern Townships. The editor explains that after nine years of hard work, he is throwing in the towel. Last August, Recto Verso, a 52-year-old alternative magazine, closed its doors.
A few weeks ago, the journalists' union at the Journal de Montréal filed a complaint with the Quebec Press Council — you also heard from them yesterday — condemning the impact of convergence on the information provided to the public.
The complaint dealt with the promotion of reality TV programming on TVA in the Journal de Montréal, two companies that belong to the Quebecor group.
All journalists can, to varying degrees, bear witness to the impact of the concentration of ownership on the exercise of their profession.
In the 1980s, I worked in the newsroom at CKAC which was the head of the Télémédia radio network. CKAC had great credibility in news circles in Quebec.
Perhaps you may recall that a CKAC journalist found the body of Pierre Laporte in 1970. CKAC hosted the famous debate between Robert Bourassa and René Lévesque in 1967, which was followed by everyone in Quebec.
So in the 1980s, I clearly remember the lively competition that existed among the various radio stations in Montreal. As a journalist assigned to the news desk and to reading the news, I was in the habit of listening to our competitors' news reports every hour.
We had a kind of vintage radio, like those old car radios where you pushed the buttons and went from station to station. We wanted to see who was covering what, who was better than we were and if we were missing out on something.
We continuously went from one frequency to the other, from CJMS-Radiomutuel, to CKVL, to CFCF-Radio, to CJAD, to CBF-Radio-Canada, to CBC-Radio and to CKOI. Each of these stations was owned by a different entity and had its own way of covering the news. The existence of this diversity in radio news encouraged us to do more, and it was stimulating.
Then, as a reporter, still at CKAC, I covered major events both within and outside Quebec. Among other events, I covered various crises in Haiti, including the massacre during the failed election on November 29, 1987, the story of the Lévesque sisters in Rome, and numerous Quebec, Canadian and even American election campaigns for a private Quebec network. I covered the Michael Dukakis campaign in 1988.
Each time, I had to measure up to my competitors from Radiomutuel, among others. In Haiti, a Radiomutuel journalist was there in 1987. There were journalists from Télémédia, from Radio-Canada, and from CBC. And there were people from Quebec. So we were all competing with each other, even though we got along very well.
What is left from that time? Almost nothing. Many FM stations with a few journalists reformat the news that they receive from other sources, copy from Internet sites, like the Radio-Canada site, that gets information from various press agencies.
Radiomutuel was taken over by Télémédia; CKVL and CFCF have disappeared from the air. Today the CKAC newsroom, which includes about a dozen journalists, might well disappear with the CORUS buy-out proposal. I remind you that CKAC is one of our best news sources in Quebec.
The Télémédia and Radiomutuel networks had an excellent reputation. Their newscasts were for the most part derived from reports coming from affiliated stations in the Quebec regions.
So if I were still assigned to a desk in a radio newsroom in Montreal today, my job would be much simpler, much easier, but also less stimulating.
If the CORUS proposal is accepted, I would probably work for the only private source of news that exists on radio, Info 690, and I would no longer need to listen to CJAD, CBF, and BCB to see what my competitors are doing. I do not need to tell you that the main losers are the listeners.
What is currently happening in radio in Montreal should not leave public authorities indifferent, nor should the trend towards greater concentration of the press in all areas of information.
Your committee has a broad mandate. It is often summarized as being a committee on concentration of the press, but we understand that your mandate also goes beyond that.
For the QFPJ, governments play an essential role in maintaining and improving conditions conducive to freedom of the press. From a traditional perspective, the government, as set out in the first amendment of the American Constitution, “shall make no law abridging freedom of the press”.
This policy position dates back to a time where the state was the main enemy of a free press. That is still the case in many countries. But the times are changing, and the new threats hanging over freedom of the press no longer come solely from states.
It is no longer enough for the state to simply not interfere. Often, in other areas of life, there are laws that guarantee individual freedoms.
In Canada, one of the best television news media belongs to the state, which respects its editorial independence. I am referring to CBC. There is also the Broadcasting Act, assistance programs for magazines, support programs for community media, and so on.
In Quebec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement invested $2.3 million to enable the creation of the Quebecor media empire.
For us, the question is not whether the state must intervene, but how it must do so to guarantee freedom of the press and, as a result, better information for the public.
As you can well understand, the QFPJ rejects from the outset any new state intervention in information content. The only role we see for the state is with respect to conditions promoting freedom of the press.
The QFPJ's first recommendation is to create a legislative framework to protect journalists' confidential sources and material.
We cannot have strong independent media able to keep listeners well-informed if they are grappling with seizures and subpoenas. The media is not a place where police officers go for evidence.
Last week, police officers searched e-mail at La Presse, Le Journal de Montréal and at CKAC. A few days earlier, a rehabilitation centre went to court to force the TVA network in Quebec to reveal a confidential source.
Two weeks ago, a journalist and the Hamilton Spectator were fined $31,000 for having refused to reveal the identity of a confidential source.
Earlier this year, you saw the search at the home of journalist Judith Miller from the Ottawa Citizen. And the list continues to grow.
These seizures and threats to the anonymity of certain sources undermine public confidence in the media. People who have important information will refuse to share it with the media out of fear of being denounced.
The QFPJ would like your committee to ask the Department of Justice to amend the Evidence Act and any related legislation to provide maximum protection from seizures and breaches of the confidentiality of certain sources.
Our second recommendation is designed to promote free competition. For that to occur, there must be limits on media ownership, and more specifically, a ban on cross-media ownership within the same market.
A mere five years ago, TVA, the largest private broadcaster in Quebec, was owned by a cable company. At the time, no one ever thought that Quebecor, which already owned the most widely read newspaper, would take over the most- watched TV station in the same market.
You know what happened. Quebecor took over TVA. One might have thought that it was impossible for things to go further. Wrong. Quebecor subsequently tried to buy out CKAC, one of the most listened to information radio stations in Montreal.
This time, the CRTC refused. This incident teaches three things. First of all, left to their own devices, these media groups naturally try to take over as large a part of the market as possible.
For them, the sky is clearly the limit. However, the concentration of ownership is already too high, particularly in Montreal and Quebec City, as your interim report pointed out. If nothing is done, there will be more and more concentration.
Second, concentration of the press and cross-media ownership make it possible to influence public opinion in a way which is not compatible with the public interest.
The saga of the single editorial at CanWest and the imposition of a political line on all dailies in the chain on certain issues show that our system is not safe from abuse of power on the part of all-powerful owners.
We let this power be created, without foreseeing anything to offset it, apart from the owners' goodwill. Basically, it is in the name of free enterprise, free competition in the media and freedom of thought that we are calling for the equivalent of antitrust legislation that would apply to the media.
Thirdly, the only force able to stop too much concentration is a regulatory framework established by the state. There will have to be an agreement with the provinces to outline consistent steps to take in the case of cross-media ownership, since broadcasting and the print media do not come under the same levels of government.
Therefore, we recommend a new ban on cross-media ownership within the same market, like the one that existed from 1982 to 1985.
We also recommend that the Competition Bureau be required to take into account criteria on the diversity of information sources, when it examines a transaction relating to the media.
As the Bureau said to us in a letter last March 5:
The very important issue of diversity of sources of information does not fall within the purview of the competition commissioner [...]
The only thing that matters to him is competition in the radio advertising market. If the diversity criteria cannot be included among the criteria used by the Bureau, then the CRTC must become the sole judge of media transactions.
The main objective of our third recommendation is to promote diversity of ideas and the broadest discussion possible on the various issues raised by life in our society.
In this spirit, we feel that the committee should consider the creation of a new Canadian assistance fund to encourage media diversity.
The two magazines that have disappeared in recent months show that we must have special measures to enable small players to survive and grow.
In a context where the major players are sharing the market and taking over advertising revenues, small players cannot find the resources they need.
We are thinking here about media devoted to general information for the public, because there is no shortage of magazines that pursue different objectives. It appears to us that general information holds the most promise for enriching democratic life.
Our fourth recommendation is to encourage measures to offset ownership concentration. This could take the form, for example, of a press council that hears complaints from citizens against a journalist or the media and that makes ethical decisions.
These councils exist in different forms throughout Canada, but they are notoriously underfunded and hardly able to play the role we expect of them.
Media consumers' associations, organizations that conduct research on media, specialized media magazines, the creation of ombudsmen's positions in the media, which could be made mandatory within the licences granted by the CRTC, those are just some examples of the types of counterbalancing measures we need to consider.
In closing, a little anecdote to show you why concentration of the press is not that necessary or mandatory in the current economic context.
In 1991, I was covering the Persian Gulf war in Qatar with Mr. Munson. I was working for TVA at the time. TVA belonged to Vidéotron. So the group was quite large, but not as large as it is now.
And often, people say that concentration in the press is important to consolidate groups, to have more means, for example in Quebec, to have correspondents or to do coverage abroad.
However, TVA was much smaller that it is now, but necessity knows no law, and I had been to Qatar and we had done a deal with CTV. It was an exchange of services.
So Jim was providing coverage for CTV. I was providing coverage for TVA. We each had our own cameraman and we shared CTV's editor. And I also shared the satellite window that CTV bought. So TVA paid for a part of the window to minimize costs.
In Quebec, during the Oka crisis, I was still working for TVA, and we provided extraordinary coverage with hardly any means, and not much money. What the anglophones groups or stations did, and they were much smaller than they are today — like Global for example — was that they came to Oka and shared the services of the cameraman with TVA, without there being any cross-media ownership.
It was a type of gentleman's agreement, that is all. So there are ways of having good coverage without necessarily being dominated by these very large groups.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: There are few good things about getting older, but one of them is that what other people read as history, you actually lived through. I remember when the conglomerates were being formed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and everybody was worrying about what was going to happen. That ended by everybody saying, “Well, no, that did not work very well, actually,” and everybody went back to the knitting. These conglomerates were all broken up.
On a local scale, everybody worried that the downtown cores were going to die in the 1960s because of suburban malls. “Oh, what's going to happen to the downtown cores? There are suburban malls.” Well, the downtown core has finally figured out when it is 30 degrees below zero, it would be good to have pedways and underground tunnels, and the downtown core has revived, because of the competition.
In the media business, I know everybody is concerned about this convergence that is going on but should we deal with it with more regulation or less regulation? If we opened up the CRTC and basically said, “If you want to start a television station or a radio station, go ahead,” maybe we would have a resurgence of news radio. It may not be exactly the same as it was before, because nothing ever is. Certainly, if you did not have limits on these things, you would have creativity, entrepreneurship, more product out in the marketplace, more jobs for journalists and there would be full competition, rather than the protected monopolies that we have today.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I think the question is do you agree or not?
Mr. Gravel: In fact, I do not think that there has been a resurgence in radio, of what we call news radio. There is “talk radio”, which uses morning newspaper articles, press agencies, and the big network Internet sites, such as the Radio-Canada site, but there are fewer and fewer newsrooms in the private radio networks, newsrooms that do information, that provide content, in accordance with the rules of the profession, in other words, that gather the information in the field, verify it, verify again, edit it and broadcast it.
There is a lot of twaddle. There is a lot of blather on the radio at present on the FM stations in Quebec, but there is less and less solid, credible information. That sums up for radio.
As for the large newspaper groups, yesterday you heard from the journalists' union of the Journal de Montréal: you just need to live in Montreal for a little while to see the effects of convergence and above all the effects of cross-media ownership.
For the past few years, there has been a phenomenon known as reality TV, which exists in Quebec as it does elsewhere in Canada and throughout the world. I did a report on that a year ago. We were in Europe, in France, and we were explaining to people how things work with Quebecor.
There is a large group, the Endemol group from the Netherlands, that has had a lot of success marketing reality TV. There is a branch of Endemol in France.
They were very surprised to see to what extent companies in the same group could help each other with promotional activities, marketing.
Just walk around and look at the newsstands in Montreal, look at the gossip magazines; their front pages are all about the reality TV shows carried by the TVA group. They all belong to the same group.
And then, there is Archambault Musique that sells the CDs of the groups that participate in Star Académie, which is a huge success in Quebec.
So we see the effects today. It is not a theory. When I talk about the press groups, it is not true that we were worrying for nothing, when we look at convergence and when we look what is happening to radio today.
It is a disaster for journalists. I worked at CKAC for nine years. As you will recall Senator Fraser, it was a jewel in the crown of private radio stations.
And I clearly remember that in the 1970s, doing a newscast on a private radio station was a bit like condemning an entrepreneur to doing newscasts in the name of public interest.
CKAC successfully showed in the 1970s that it was possible to get high ratings for credible information very effectively by covering the October Crisis, or the election campaign that brought the Parti Québécois to power in 1976.
So CKAC fulfilled the mandate of selling serious and credible information. And today, with this exchange possibility between Astral and CORUS, all of that is in jeopardy. Newsrooms are in jeopardy.
Of course, there are many FM stations that are picking up the slack. But listen in to the morning shows on these FM stations, you will see that the journalist who is there is a newsreader who is not backed up by a newsroom.
Last year, I was out at one of these private radio stations, one of the most popular ones in Montreal, promoting a report that we would be airing on Enjeux, and there was a journalist on site who was picking up the papers, because there were no journalists in the back, all there were were agencies.
So she was reformatting or repeating what the agencies had given her, whether from Internet sites or other sources. In the end, INFO 690 will be supplying everyone. There is not much of a contribution from the regions in these information services.
What was extraordinary at Télémédia was that the Télémédia stations provided us with information. Half of our newscasts contained regional information at the time. And it worked.
CKAC, for example, was doing coverage in Haiti. During the recent events in Haiti, CKAC was not there. So we should not be surprised to see ratings plummet.
Of course, there is the whole AM and FM phenomena. CBF 690, that used to be Radio-Canada's AM station, moved onto the FM network; we have ratings for this morning, and they are first in the Montreal market. And a large part of this success is due to the fact that they have a credible and solid newsroom.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Is it not just change? You are talking of a time when there were evening newspapers in the 1970s. I listened to radio in the morning in the 1970s because my paper came at night. There were no morning shows on television that had news. Now, I have choices. I get up, there is a morning paper, there is radio, and there is television — U.S. news cable television, as well as Canadian cable television. There is lots of potential variety.
My view is that if there is a market for news on radio, and a group of entrepreneurs believe that, they should be able to start a radio station. They should be able to have a news radio station like the old days, and see if they can sell it, if there is a market for it, and if anybody would listen to it. If no one listens to it, what is the point of it?
[Translation]
Mr. Gravel: I am not talking about the good old days, I am talking about ratings that were published this morning that show that Radio-Canada radio is in a dominant position in the market for the second time in a row. So these are not the old days.
What is more, it is true that there is diversity among newspapers. There is perhaps greater diversity with respect to general content and journalistic content. There are many radio stations and specialized cable channels on the Internet. There are many all-news services, and so on.
But there is not necessarily greater diversity among owners of these sources of information. If, for example, you listen to a TVA newscast, and if you listen to the LCN newscast, LCN belongs to TVA. LCN has hired journalists to reformat material from TVA. The raw material comes from TVA. So in net terms in the field, there have not necessarily been any additional jobs created in journalism.
The same is true at Radio-Canada. If you watch Radio-Canada's newscasts, you watch RDI — although RDI has some original programming — but most of the content on RDI and News World, and on all these speciality channels, comes from a big broadcaster, in other words, Radio-Canada's main network.
There are a lot of newspapers. There are a lot of radio stations. There are speciality channels and they belong, for the most part in Quebec, to the same owner: Astral.
Consequently, there are diverse sources of information but fewer and fewer owners. Gesca recently purchased the Le Quotidien in Chicoutimi and Le Soleil on Quebec City. Le Soleil was an organization that used to work very well.
I was in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and, once again, it was not all that long ago, it was towards the end of the seventies. Le Quotidien was an independent newspaper which was in good shape at the end of the seventies in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We see this less and less often.
There are more and more local weekly newspapers in Quebec City. However, there are fewer and fewer owner groups. That has become a relatively significant issue.
The Chair: One additional question. There are fewer and fewer owners. Are there fewer journalists or has the overall staff remained the same?
Mr. Gravel: I am quite familiar with the radio sector. I will go back to the example of CKAC, because this is quite an important question. In January, the CRTC must decide whether or not it will allow CORUS to become the owner of CKAC.
Right now CKAC has a newsroom with about fifteen permanent and part time reporters. There are now slightly fewer reporters than in my day. If this transaction is given the go-ahead, there will be three reporters at Info 690 because it will be some type of exchange. CKAC will limit itself to the health and sports sector and the newsroom will disappear. And there will be three additional reporters at Info 690, which will belong to the CORUS group.
There will probably be one additional reporter at the former Cool station, which is 98.5. This is not a new station but it has been given a new role and mandate for the morning program. However, the reporters who work at the FM stations do reformatting.
As a lecturer at the University du Québec à Montréal, I have observed that the young people we train leave the sector and become information processing specialists. They may work for a small newspaper, such as the Journal Metro. They receive texts from agencies that they then reformat and rewrite. This is happening more and more often in the radio stations. This is also being done more and more in all news stations. Reformatting is part and parcel of a reporter's job, but you have to go out and get information from the street. This is where diversity is important.
If one reporter covers an event and supplies information to everybody, there is only one vision. But if you have fifteen different reporters who cover the same event; you will have fifteen different visions.
Moreover, you need to do the job to realize that when Jim Munson did a report for CTV from Qatar and I did as well, it was completely different. While the main angle was generally the same, the approach was completely different. The public is different. The culture is different.
So if you still have fifteen reporters covering the same event, but they belong to two press agencies, you run the risk of there being convergence of thought, of having one vision.
Senator Chaput: I would like you to elaborate further on one of your recommendation to establish an assistance fund for plurality of the press.
From what I read, when you talk about plurality, you define it as being a plurality of sources, a plurality of content and a plurality of representation.
And it is this third definition that I would like you to clarify a bit more because yesterday we heard from a young man who expressed his frustrations concerning the fact that, on one hand, there is linguistic duality and, on the other hand, there is cultural diversity in our country.
He did not necessarily feel included in this scenario. We explained that, in Canada, there is not only the two official languages but also cultural diversity.
When you talk about representation here, I also read that you wanted to make room for minority, ethnic and linguistic groups. So this fund was created for jobs, I presume, for content and also for giving space to these people so that they feel that they fit in and are part of Quebec or our society in general. Is that correct?
Mr. Robillard: Yes, that is right. The real purpose of our recommendation is to say that we need some counterweight to the mainstream, if we can call it that. This counterweight requires money. Many countries in the world provide assistance to the press. So this is money that enables the independent press, which is not part of the major groups, to prosper.
Included in this independent press is the plurality of representation. Our federation has already been involved in such programs to promote, for example, exchanges for reporters from other countries in the media here.
Right now, we are involved in another program where we will soon be meeting, once again, to advocate the participation in the Quebec media of people from here who are not white francophones. So we can take measures like these.
This fund is designed to create new media or to maintain, develop and establish business plans. The federation receives requests from people from the cultural communities on a fairly regular basis.
For example, some two weeks ago I received a request from people who wanted to start up a new media outlet. I believe this was to be a francophone media outlet in the Chinese community. They asked me what they needed to do to achieve this.
But what do you do? What exists to help the Chinese community give itself a francophone media outlet? I have no idea.
To answer the concern expressed earlier, what we need is general information, civic information, information on everything that is occurring in society. We are not talking about decor, fashion and so on. We are really talking about important social issues. We need to have many points of view, many inputs. We need to have the means to do this. Right now, there is an appearance of diversity.
We can obtain information on absolutely anything, but there is not so much information about our society. We can find out what is happening just about everywhere else, but when it comes to finding out what is going on in Montreal, in Quebec City or in Trois-Rivières, we don't have all that many sources to find out what is going on exactly.
Media do exist. We do already have some little things, but we feel it is incumbent on the government to make resources available to those who want to have new voices heard.
[English]
Senator Munson: This is a public record. I want the record to show that Alain Gravel scored a beautiful goal in 1991, in the first Gulf War, against the Van Doos in a hockey game. He was the Guy Lafleur of our team and I was Yvan Cournoyer. I got an assist. It was a great day in history. That is what I know about the Senate. If I put this on the record, it will stay there forever.
Should cross-ownership be eliminated, and if so, how?
[Translation]
Mr. Gravel: I believe so. Moreover, in the 80s, from 1982 to 1985, the CRTC did not allow cross-media ownership. I remember covering the CRTC hearings where it was decided not to allow the acquisition of TVA by Power Corporation in 1986, if I'm not mistaken.
I do not believe that cross-media ownership is in the public interest. I believe that, generally speaking, reporters, and not just those at the Journal de Montréal, are worried about this trend of newspaper or television station owners taking over newspapers, radio stations and so forth.
And the how? Indeed, we do not want to get into the terms and conditions per se. We would like to see some thresholds set, as is done in other countries or in other markets both in Europe and the United States. There needs to be a rule that, beyond certain thresholds, cross-media ownership would not be allowed, or that at a given threshold, one newspaper could not purchase another per se.
[English]
Senator Munson: On another subject in your report, you talk about print media companies having no scruples about flouting federal copyright legislation by requiring contracts for an assignment of copyright to be signed under duress. Could you explain that, and what could we do as a committee to try to change your allegation?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Robillard, Secretary General, Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec: As for the issue of copyright, I would say that the federation has no expertise in this matter, and that it is generally the unions that advocate for copyright.
Moreover, an organization that you will be hearing from or which you may have already heard, namely, the Association des journalistes indépendants, has instituted legal proceedings against several Quebec publishers.
This group could talk to you more on this issue. We feel that the current copyright legislation states that freelance reporters retain their copyright unless they have signed an agreement to the contrary. But right now freelancers have little power to negotiate with publishers, who can say: listen, if you want to write, you have to relinquish your copyright, and that's that.
There are various scenarios. Some publishers are a lot more understanding than others. Basically, I think that our recommendation means that we support the fact that freelance reporters — because salaried employers do not have their copyright — should have their rights recognized as stipulated in the Copyright Act without being left too vulnerable to pressure from a few employers who have the big end of the stick.
Currently, who is the freelancer working for? Gesca or Transcontinental. And, just with these two employers alone, you have a tremendous pool of magazines. And of course, there is Quebecor with all of its TVA publications.
So there are three employers that provide a tremendous source of employment for these people. So if they have to renounce their copyright, if these three employers say: we are taking such and such measure or following such and such a policy, that has an impact on a huge percentage of the written media. So that is more or less what our recommendation is about.
The Chairman: Recently, we saw at least one company, I believe, which asked its freelancers to assign copyright for all time, for the world. Has that become common practice in Quebec as well, in the francophone market?
Mr. Robillard: That's what I was telling you. There are very diverse terms and conditions. The magazine Protégez- vous asks that copyright be assigned for 25 years, but we are talking about an assignment here, which is not exactly the same thing as a renunciation.
There are other cases like at Le Devoir, where an agreement provides for certain payments to be made for articles reproduced from the Internet site. Transcontinental has another agreement, viewed as being more advantageous by the executives at Transcontinental, but challenged by others.
Each media organization has its own renunciation policy. But it is quite possible that certain publishers could demand renunciation. But then again, the market is not at all standardized when it comes to this area.
Mr. Gravel: In concrete terms, when there was a lock-out at Radio-Canada two years ago, I was working on a few biographies for a production company that sold its content to Canal D, and we had to sign contracts to assign our copyright to a certain extent, namely, our concept. So I did a biography on a television host, Alain Montpetit, who died in dramatic circumstances at the end of the 1980s.
I was paid for this biography, but the show has aired seven or eight times. And every time it is aired, I meet somebody who says: “Oh, your biography was good.” — “Which one?” “Alain Montpetit.” — “I did that two years ago.” — “It was rerun yesterday again.” This program is aired on a regular basis, every two or three months.
Generally speaking, when you sign contracts, you forget the rights. You sign over the consequential rights. These contacts are more or less standard in the television production sector, in small television production companies that produce for the big broadcasters, the big groups.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I think one of the great issues of our time is that we are failing to engage young people in debate. They don't want to participate in the issues that we think are important. Is this a sign that youth is wasted on the young and that they will come to their senses as they grow older, because people seem to mature a little bit more slowly these days?
Somebody had suggested that people do not get married at 21 anymore. They go to school. They do not get employment until they are a little bit older. Is there something that we see, that they do not want to engage in the political debate? Is there something that the press should or could do to engage young people? Do you have a responsibility, as a press, to try and engage people, or is this just something that has always happened? You gave us statistics this morning as to the audience. Can you tell us how that breaks down according to age groups?
[Translation]
Mr. Gravel: These statistics are not broken down by age. As for the commitment of young people on major social issues, I would say that the answer depends on which young person you are talking to and where.
I would go back to my role as a lecturer at the Université du Québec. This was my feeling beforehand. And I was very surprised to observe that they are not really different from the way we were.
For example, in the media sector, it is perhaps more difficult for them to find a job now than it was for us. But once again, this is true and not true.
In our day, it was much easier to find permanent work, our jobs were all unionized, we were very well protected by our collective agreements whereas today, securing a job like this is as hard as winning the lottery, in some respects, when it comes to the media in general.
However, at the same time, there are a lot of precarious jobs. For example, there are a lot of short-term jobs in the production companies that feed the major press agencies. And when we talk about the importance of state involvement, there is nothing new about that.
The reporter who is in favour of state financial assistance, for example if you produce documentaries in Canada or Quebec, if you do a documentary on an author that is going to be aired on a specialty channel, which will belong to one of these major press agencies, that is subsidized to the tune of 90 per cent and even higher.
To some extent, the company is a shell that provides the infrastructure and distributes subsidies for such a production. So in companies, there is work for your reporters, but it is precarious in nature and depends upon a renewal of the contract, etc.
As I said earlier, today's young reporters are often assigned to reformatting information in the electronic media before they are able to go out into the field.
I personally began away from the major centres, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We had a newsroom at CKRS in Jonquière, which is also being threatened with a takeover by CORUS. At the time there were four reporters working full-time in a newsroom for a small city with a population of 65,000.
We won Canadian awards from the association of news editors. I was 21 years old and we had won a national award for a report we had done on rape.
Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult for to get a job at CKRS Radio in the radio newsroom in Saguenay-Lac- Saint-Jean as a reporter in the field, covering city hall, labour disputes at Alcan, protests or student life at the Jonquière CEGEP or the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi because there are fewer and fewer jobs in the regions.
I talked about Télémédia in its day. Once again, I am not necessarily talking about ancient history — I am talking about the situation 15 years ago. The regional stations provided the content, there were networks and therefore there were groups, of course, but there was some interaction between the regions and the city.
That was one of the keys to the success of Télémédia and Radiomutuel: we got the news. When there was a labour dispute at Alcan, we knew about it in Montreal, and this is not so clear today.
Going back to your question, it is much harder for a young person to do real journalistic work in the region, in the field, because there are fewer and fewer positions. There are more sources of information, but less of this information is being gathered in the field.
Mr. Robillard: If I may, I would like to add to that. The Centre d'études sur les médias said that in the space of 10 years, between 1992 and 2002, the number of pages of information in the regional weekly papers has decreased by 24 per cent. Furthermore, the information is much lighter, and therefore more superficial than it was 10 years ago.
What we are seeing at the federation with respect to young people is that there is a tremendous appetite amongst journalism students and young freelancers to connect with the federation.
A lot of new people are now part of the federation. A lot of young people are coming in. At the convention, per example, there were bus loads of journalism students who came to the convention in order to meet the professionals. So there is some succession that is occurring.
Unfortunately, I do believe that it is very difficult for these young people to do hard news. Usually a young person begins his or her career in a very precarious job in a sector outside of news, covering couples relationships, or similar things. And it is no longer the permanent newsroom that covers hard news.
Nevertheless, some media outlets have had a big influx of new blood. There are a significant number of young people working in the newsrooms, at the Journal de Montréal, and at La Presse. That is quite clear.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I would like to thank you for your answer. It was interesting because if you have young people working in the press, then young people are perhaps listening to those opinions because they are related more closely to their way of thinking.
I had asked a different question. How do we engage the interest of young people in news? Is there a responsibility on the side of the press to give the kind of information which would engage and interest young people? Part of it, I think, is to have young people working in the media. That was a different question that I had asked. I don't know if I had made myself clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Robillard: Right now the big challenge, particularly in the written media, is to interest young people in public affairs and in discussing societal issues.
The federation does not have any answer as far as that is concerned. The media is bending over backwards to find some way to interest young people in the La Gaspésie scandal or in the scandal that resulted in the Montreal/Laval subway extension running way over budget.
These questions cannot be ignored. How do you get young people interested in these topics? I do believe that the media are going to some length to do this. However, at the same time, as Manon Cornellier of the Canadian Press or Sophie Langlois of Radio Canada said recently at the convention, at some point, there are some issues that are important but difficult to understand and there is no easy way around it. These things have to be explained.
The media need to be aware of their role and social responsibilities, and not ignore these issues in favour of others that are easier to handle, such as which bar to hold your Christmas party in? Yes, you can talk about that, but it does not lead anywhere. This is not information that really benefits society.
Consequently, in order to attract young people, that route is a dead end. Senate hearings need to be of interest to young people. No, but you can just imagine the challenge. We do not have any answers as to what you need to do.
In my opinion, it is somewhat scandalous that in Quebec we have heard nothing about your work in Ottawa. We have heard just about nothing.
Mr. Gravel: If I may, one way to interest young people is that, unless I am mistaken, the FM stations are not compelled to air any news bulletins. And we know how much the young people listen to the FM stations, particularly the morning programs. In Quebec, we have the program Les grandes gueules and many others.
There is a great deal of entertainment on these FM radio shows in the morning, afternoon and evening.
And without this obligation, having a newsroom is always a bit dry. It is easy to keep the program going with one, two or three good announcers who are a little bit showy, and to fill in with music. That doesn't cost very much. The talent may cost a lot, but it does not require as much investment as a solid newsroom.
I will go back to the old days. At the start, information did not sell. It is the CRTC that made it mandatory for the FM stations and television stations to report the news. And, as someone who has spent some time in private stations, I can tell you that the people who sell advertising were not necessarily our friends.
They found that sitting up a good news department swallowed up a lot of money. But since they had to do it, there were some visionaries who worked very hard, saying that their mandate in life was, generally speaking, to make important things interesting.
So it is by taking something that is difficult to digest, racking ones brains and using every unimaginable technology and creative approach so that people wind up being interested in the budget for the City of Montreal or in a report produced by the auditor general or a senate committee, something that is not always simple to do.
We have to make all of that interesting. Without this obligation, stations that attract young people will never air the news differently from the way we did it in our time, more creatively, in a new way using different approaches on matters of public interest, because a news service costs a great deal of money.
However, if we take action, if we have visionaries who go into these stations armed with some regulations obliging them to invest in a new service because it is a privilege to be on the air, I think that there is some hope.
I have a 20-year-old son who gets his information in all kind of ways, not using the sources that I use, but who is very interested in everything that is going on. So we have to meet these people's needs as well.
[English]
The Chairman: On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank our witnesses for attending our hearings.
The committee adjourned.