Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 10 - Evidence, November 5, 2014
MONTREAL, Wednesday, November 5, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day, at 1 p.m., to continue its study of the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order. Today, we are continuing our study of the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Our first witness today is Jean-François Lépine.
Before we get started, I have something to discuss. I received a request to allow CBC to shoot some footage during the meeting, with your permission senators. Would anyone care to propose a motion to that effect?
Senator Demers: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Demers that the request be allowed.
Mr. Lépine, you have the floor.
Jean-François Lépine, as an individual: Honourable senators of the committee, thank you for having me. I will be giving my introductory remarks in French, but I will tell you now that I can answer in English any questions that are asked in English.
The reason I am here today is, of course, because you invited me but also because, after spending 42 years working for this wonderful corporation, I became tremendously attached to it and its future, even though I left officially last year to pursue other things.
This institution is, in my view, at the heart of Canadians' and Quebecers' culture. Right up until the end of my 42 years with the organization, I always expressed my opinion. I wanted to help shape the corporation's development and the quality of its services right up until I left.
I even discuss that in my recently published book. In fact, not that long ago, I applied for a senior management position with CBC's French-language network when Sylvain Lafrance stepped down. I felt the need to have my view heard at the corporation's highest levels and to tell those at its helm what had to be done to save the institution. I believe its future is in jeopardy, even more so, having seen the restructuring plans that have been put in place.
It is my belief — which I will strive to convey in all my remarks today — that, in this climate of financial hardship, Radio-Canada must refocus its efforts and workforce on core functions, mainly producing and broadcasting content. I will elaborate on that should I have the opportunity. So internal reforms are needed in order to transform and modernize the corporation.
It is also my belief that Canadians, as well as you, the politicians, must bring pressure to bear on the organization. Every effort must be made to increase the Crown corporation's budget given how vitally important the institution is to our society, as I mentioned. Also important is giving the organization access to sustainable, indexed funding, so that it has the financial security it needs to build a clear vision for the future in a world where the media economy is changing rapidly.
If we really want a public television, radio and Web-based broadcaster that delivers free, innovative and inspiring content to Canadians, it is imperative that the government ensure the corporation's survival through adequate measures and public funding.
That is likely what the discussion on the future of CBC in the current media environment will come down to. As I see it, that is the choice that will have to be made.
For those of you who do not know me, I spent 42 years working for Radio-Canada as a journalist. And for nearly 10 of them, I was a foreign correspondent.
I want you to know that working for Radio-Canada was an absolutely incredible experience that, unfortunately, came to an end in the midst of the budget cuts and management approach that have been adopted.
During all of my years abroad, however, I worked as a bilingual correspondent for both CBC and Radio-Canada. And I can tell you that no public network in the world is using, or trying to make use of, a similar system.
I also worked for two newsrooms, one in Toronto and one in Montreal. That approach came about as a streamlining measure.
I remember ABC journalist Peter Jennings, originally a Canadian, being fascinated whenever he would see us out in the field, first delivering our report to the francophone news anchor and, immediately afterwards, giving the same report to our anglophone colleague.
It was a one-of-a-kind experience that, in my view, symbolized everything that a vibrant, interesting and open Canada could be.
I thought it was one of the Crown corporation's most brilliant cost-cutting measures. A single person working for two networks saved the public broadcaster from having to dispatch multiple media vans to the same location at the same time, an all-too-often talked-about occurrence.
I talk about that in my book as well. Culturally speaking, it was an absolutely fantastic experience: dealing with two newsrooms, one in Montreal and one in Toronto, not to mention two ways of thinking, and trying to bring all the necessary elements together in a news report that would be appropriate for broadcast in both languages across the entire country.
First and foremost, it was a privilege because of the exposure to an absolutely incredible audience. But it was also an unparalleled example of cultural sharing.
Then, briefly, I contributed to the development of a number of highly successful shows on Radio-Canada, including "Enjeux," "Zone libre," and, lastly, "Une heure sur terre", the only weekly TV program in Radio-Canada and CBC history to focus entirely on international news.
Unfortunately, throughout those years, I experienced the effects of Radio-Canada's cost-cutting measures. I would say that, today, the Crown corporation's government funding is probably equivalent to what it was in 1990. As you know, demand and costs have only skyrocketed since then, taking a devastating toll on the broadcaster's budget.
I lived through all of those rounds of budget cuts and I could tell you all about that if you wish. I think, though, the situation has gotten so bad that the broadcaster is now facing a budget crisis.
To offset the decrease in government support, the corporation has, in recent years, gradually been forced to turn to the marketplace for help, in the form of commercial advertising revenues. The impact on the corporation has been very detrimental, given senior management's desire to produce increasingly commercial content. I believe that direction has hurt the public broadcaster.
The abysmal state of CBC/Radio-Canada's budget has forced the broadcaster to do all kinds of things.
For instance, the French-language network had the idea of cancelling the shows "Une heure sur terre" and "Dimanche magazine," dramatically reducing the international news coverage that the network had been delivering for years. It is a tradition that dates back to famous figures like Pierre Nadeau, who, himself, is saddened by what is happening today.
No matter what Radio-Canada says, budget cuts were behind its decision to reduce international news coverage, because it is more expensive to produce.
From a ratings standpoint, since we are talking about ad revenues as well, you, yourselves, will have even noticed that international news is less appealing to people and therefore harder to sell. So the broadcaster is now sacrificing production as important as this.
I should point out that, for years, the man at CBC's helm, Mr. Lacroix, would do the rounds of the country's chambers of commerce and cite "Une heure sur terre" as a prime example of what Radio-Canada could do best, as well as what a public broadcasting network could do best.
Obviously, it takes money. It also takes a willingness to produce a show focused entirely on international news.
I will stop there for now. You all have a copy of my book. In it, I discuss ways that Radio-Canada could streamline internally to focus more on the production and delivery of content and less on non-core activities. I have included a small diagram of Radio-Canada's internal and external communications department to show its importance. And I would be happy to explain why I included it.
I would like to wrap up by reading you an excerpt from my book, Jean-François Lépine: Sur la ligne de feu. It appears on page 438 and really sums up how I view Radio-Canada's future. Loosely translated into English, it reads:
Short of a revolution in the CBC's French-language network, the steady decline in the news organization's funding will mean the end of core public services, such as providing a gateway to the world. Already weakened by the recent transformation, these core services will not be sustainable. In light of recent decisions, however, Radio-Canada will not undergo a revolution but, rather, an inevitable downsizing.
Under Hubert Lacroix's leadership, senior management has decided that every part of the corporation will bear the brunt of the budget cuts, but especially the one responsible for producing content. A downturn towards Internet-focused broadcasting is even planned. Breaking with a tradition that goes back to the network's creation, both Mr. Lacroix and his board of directors have thrown in the towel when it comes to convincing the federal government that the public broadcaster needs a bigger budget.
The Chair: Mr. Lépine, I now give the floor to Senator Plett.
[English]
The province of Quebec is happy to have the first question asked by our colleague from Manitoba, even though we have five honourable committee members from the province of Quebec.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's indeed a pleasure for me to be in Montreal today, and it was a pleasure for me to be in Montreal yesterday, as we watched quite an important sporting event just down the road. Some people enjoyed it more than others.
Thank you for being here, sir. Just so that I get it clear in my mind, your employment was with Radio-Canada, not for English CBC?
Mr. Lépine: Yes.
Senator Plett: You spoke about the mandate of Radio-Canada. Is their mandate fairly similar to that of English CBC, other than obviously the French reporting?
Mr. Lépine: Yes, I think their mandates are similar, but throughout the years, because of the market in which we were evolving or producing our content, I guess we took different avenues. For example, the French network, which more or less produces in a larger English speaking context, traditionally produced a lot more dramas, drama series, and cultural content in terms of fiction than the English network. But in terms of journalism and information, we more or less do the same.
As I said earlier, I was hired by the French network, but I went through that great experience of running bilingual bureaus, where we were the only journalists producing for both networks. We had great exchanges, and I have great stories to tell about the work I did with all my colleagues at the English network. We had the same objective; we had the same sort of cultural bias in terms of independence of mind, in terms of looking at the world sometimes very differently than our American colleagues, because we were different. I'm always saying that if we feel the need to have our ambassadors abroad learn the world through their eyes, their Canadian eyes, it's fundamental for Canadian media as well to look at the world through their own eyes.
My fear now is that, with our budget problems at the CBC, we're gradually closing the windows that look at the outside world. I'm always saying that in, when a house doesn't have windows, it's dark and it doesn't smell very good.
Senator Plett: Obviously, when we talk about private broadcasters, clearly they are very concerned about their ratings. If their ratings aren't good, they don't make money.
We have spoken about the ratings of CBC many times, and the ratings are not, in many of our opinions, what they should be. I am quite a staunch supporter, and I watch the news on "The National," versus watching it on some of the other channels, yet it seems that the ratings for "The National" are the poorest of the major networks. I'm told by my colleagues that Radio-Canada's ratings are actually quite high and they certainly run good competition with the others, but not so for the English speaking network.
We asked this question in Toronto, and we were told that "The National" is competing in a bad time slot and that if Peter Mansbridge were competing in the same time slot as Lisa LaFlamme, the ratings would be higher. Well, for the life of me, I don't know why they wouldn't move him into a different time slot then, if that would improve the ratings.
Would you have any comment on increasing ratings by moving a program to a different time slot? Would that be good business practice?
Mr. Lépine: I'm not an expert on the market in English Canada, and I don't know what effect a different time slot would have. I think, though, if you combine the ratings on the main network and the ratings on the 24-hour news network, and all the different broadcasts, I think "The National" competes very well with its competition. It's a question of internal management at the CBC.
The only thing I can say is that you're right to say that the penetration or the market share of the CBC in English Canada is a lot lower than the market share of the French network in French Canada, but that is due to many different things. For example, an important share of the market in English Canada is occupied by the American networks. We don't have that problem in Quebec.
Senator Plett: You've spoken a few times here today about the budget restraints, and certainly there have been cuts by our government and previous governments. We're looking forward to visiting the Radio-Canada facilities tomorrow, and we have visited them in Toronto, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg.
We have this huge 10-storey building in Toronto, and they are trying to find somebody to buy this building in downtown Toronto. They are renting out parts of the building. Obviously somebody thought they needed the 10 storeys when it was built. How much of that space do you need today? How much could you get away with? I was told five stories, half.
So when we talk about budget cuts, is it not incumbent on CBC — and we'll find out whether Radio-Canada is the same — to do something about all this extra space, to maybe make up for the $115 million that we're speaking of?
Mr. Lépine: You can look at the situation from different angles. I find that a lot of our studios in Montreal are not busy because we don't have the people any more to work in these studios. For me, it's a drama. It's not a question of how to use the equipment; it's a question of how many people you can hire to use the equipment and produce original content. This is an illustration of the budget problems that we have.
But you're right, because of the nature of the evolution of the technology, for example, because of different methods of working, I think we can rationalize the occupation of space. In Montreal, we have a huge challenge. The tower was built in the 1970s when budget constraints were not there, and also the conception of building was very different. I don't know at what stage this project is now, but we're trying to in fact sell the building, build a more efficient building that is more adapted to the new technology. I think it's a preoccupation for the management of the CBC. I think there's a willingness to do that.
I don't know much about the problem in Toronto, but I know that in Montreal, the building is not efficient anymore, too much unused space. But I'm also telling you that it's a reflection of the drama of this company. We have fewer and fewer people working on what is our core business, meaning production and broadcast of content.
Senator Plett: Thank you, sir.
If there's a second round, Mr. Chair —
The Chair: I'm always generous with the first person that asks questions, and if he's a guest, it's even more important, but I would ask that the questions, as well as the answers, be shorter if we want to finish on time. We have the same constraints that you have in radio and television, timetables.
[Translation]
Senator Demers: Thank you very much, Mr. Lépine, for your presentation. I have been going to Radio-Canada for a number of years now. And, having just been at the Radio-Canada building at the corner of Papineau and René-Lévesque two weeks ago, I can say that there is indeed a lot of space and few people working.
In 2013, Oxford university did a study. In light of the economic changes, do you think a public broadcaster is still relevant?
Mr. Lépine: I believe a public broadcaster is still extremely relevant. You need only look to the BBC to find a public broadcasting model that not only is profitable and efficient, but also experiencing growth.
As I said earlier, having access to a publicly funded television, radio or Internet-based broadcasting service is a choice we make as a society, the choice to entrust a group of people with the responsibility of producing alternative content, the kind that is not commercial or ad-driven.
As you know, in recent years, Radio-Canada has opted to favour local news coverage, at the expense of international news coverage, because it is more cost-effective.
Do we want a public broadcasting network that gives us a gateway to the world? And I am talking only about news here. Again, it is a choice. And, yes, I do believe it is relevant and has its place.
I could give you examples of public broadcasters that are doing very well, even in this challenging media environment
Senator Demers: Thank you for your answer. Today's technology has changed things immensely. The world of journalism is totally different than it was.
From your 42 years of experience as a journalist, Mr. Lépine, how do you see the future of reporting? For instance, when something happened 10 or 15 years ago, we learned about it that night.
Now when something happens, we hear about it 15 seconds later. News spreads quickly. My daughter, a schoolteacher in Texas, learned about the recent events in Ottawa within 20 minutes.
As we speak, what do you think the future of journalism will look like in the short and long terms?
Mr. Lépine: Your question is not only timely, but also interesting. As I see it, this is a critical period in journalism's history because of the speed at which information flows and so forth. There are all kinds of different takes on the situation, but increasingly, the reflex among journalists is to join the pack, in other words, rush to where the news is happening, report on it and then toss it aside, moving on to the next thing.
That is the subject of tremendous debate in our field right now. What impact is social media, Twitter and all the rest, having on how we practise our profession, how we cover the news?
You probably noticed that dynamic at work in the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing. The media went astray, and information the police put out on social media turned out to be false.
To answer your question on a more personal level, I would say that it reinforces how important it is for a society to have media that are able to take a step back and are better equipped to resist trends, the pressure to move quickly and so forth.
That, too, speaks to the importance of having a public broadcaster with distinct resources.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much, Mr. Lépine.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If we want to maintain a public television network, which countries, in your view, have achieved the right balance between public television and private television broadcasting?
In Germany, for instance, Deutsche Telekom has a massive budget. We could look to other countries in Europe as well. We need to look at OECD nations.
I am trying to get an overall picture. As a politician and Canadian, I consider it essential to have access to high-quality information, which is consistent with a democratic system.
So I would like to hear your take on the issue of private versus public broadcasting and the information that is delivered to the public.
Mr. Lépine: Just to give a few examples that are quite close to us, I would point to Australia and the United Kingdom. Australia has a public broadcasting network that is thriving in a highly competitive private television and radio market.
I mentioned the BBC, another good example. If we have time, I would like to discuss the type of funding that the BBC receives. I would like to see a similar funding system put in place for CBC. We could discuss that later.
There is a unique example I would like to tell you about first. I saw it in action as soon as I started working as a foreign correspondent. In Beijing, I shared office space with my counterpart in the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, NRK.
For a country that had barely 4 million, maybe 4.5 million, people at the time, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation had as many correspondents around the world as CBC and Radio-Canada combined.
They had a correspondent in Beijing from Aftenposten, a major daily newspaper. For that matter, a small country like Norway has a very high number of daily newspapers per capita.
In Scandinavia, the public broadcasters in Sweden and Norway, for instance, receive $80 to $90 a year in per-capita funding. In Canada, that figure hovers between $28 and $29.
Again, this underscores the fact that these societies, whose landscape is identical to ours, place tremendous importance on the value of a public broadcaster that is independent of commercial influence.
Let me be clear here. Sponsors influence programming. And because, more and more, ad revenues account for a larger share of CBC's funding than do public sources, it influences the content that is produced.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I referred to a small country precisely because Australia is not an international powerhouse either.
The ability to access a more in-depth perspective and, above all, an analysis of local and international news plays an important role, does it not? The impact is not only democratic, but also cultural, affecting how the population develops and thinks.
Mr. Lépine: I believe so. Radio-Canada, which had significant resources in those days, influenced Quebec's history by promoting the development of the province's culture. Radio-Canada did that initially through its radio contribution and, then, through its exponential contribution to television following the advent of that technology.
Hundreds of actors learned their profession working with Radio-Canada, producing original cultural content that reflected the society we lived in.
That was not so much the case on the English-language side, because the network could more easily purchase cultural content from the U.S. No language barrier existed. The French-language network's contribution, however, played a paramount role in Quebec society.
Radio-Canada had the resources back then, and still does, despite the fact that its production is influenced by the need to seek out commercial revenues.
Radio-Canada still has the resources to make such a contribution, if only by having a Marie-Ève Bédard in the Middle East. That is extremely important, in my view. Our competition over at TVA cannot invest in being a window to the world, or has opted not to do so.
I recognize the value of public broadcasters that represent the choice made by a society. I said earlier that the institution is an integral part of the Canadian culture and that contribution should therefore be preserved at all costs. I have always said that the National Film Board was an absolutely vital institution.
Senator Housakos: Welcome, Mr. Lépine. What a pleasure it is to hear from such a veteran of the industry.
CBC/Radio-Canada is a corporation with a board of directors, an administrative authority, a purpose and a shared strategy. When we started this study months ago, I quickly realized just how different the two market realities were.
We have a French-Canadian market and an English-Canadian market. Radio-Canada is popular, ratings-wise, in Quebec and French-speaking Canada. The market is very competitive. On the English side, CBC's popularity is abysmal.
And the institution is cutting costs owing to the significant drop in advertising revenues collected in the English-Canadian market. Radio-Canada is in a better position.
The markets have very different needs. Has the time come for the government to consider splitting the institution in two? One half would meet the needs of the French-Canadian market, and the other would serve the English-Canadian market.
Mr. Lépine: That is an intriguing question for which I do not have an answer. But I will say this: when I am at Radio-Canada these days, it is shocking to hear something I never used to.
For a few years, we complained about the fact that the English-language network was receiving a larger chunk of the corporation's budget than the French-language network. In fact, I, myself, fought successfully to bring the budgets of the two networks more in line with one another. Producing content in either French or English costs the same thing, regardless of the market. So we achieved that balance over the years.
As we traverse this great financial crisis, which I think threatens the very survival of our operations, people in the corporation, especially employees, are starting to say that, because CBC lost its hockey rights and all the ad revenue it generates, the French-language network is being unfairly targeted by budget cuts given how it manages its affairs and how it is performing.
I think that is dangerous thinking. I said this earlier. From my experience working in bilingual offices, I gained a firm belief in the value of that exchange, even at the cultural level.
As you know, there are cultural differences between francophones and anglophones. That is normal. I have always held that sharing those cultural differences is what makes our nation so rich. As our resources shrink, the danger I see emerging is this unconscious desire on the part of the two networks to split into two.
As far as those bilingual offices go, it was mainly the decision of the English-language network to get rid of them. Time-wise, they are more expensive to run. So the distance between us is increasing, and I find that unfortunate.
The reality of these problems, then, is prompting us to think that way and to ask questions like yours. But I do not think that is the direction we should take. If we want a public broadcaster that reflects our country and our culture, I think we need to step up efforts to bring the two networks together and promote partnership and exchange, which we do not do enough of.
Senator Housakos: For a number of years, CBC/Radio-Canada has been dealing with budget cuts. It is nothing new. The current government has made significant cuts, as did the previous one, and those cuts were even harsher.
In terms of the corporation's restructuring efforts over the past 10 or 15 years, do you think the French-language network has been targeted more than the English-language network?
Mr. Lépine: I would be curious to see the figures, but I will tell you what I heard in that respect.
As far as the latest blow is concerned, with CBC losing major revenue, I think Radio-Canada is bearing more of the burden than it should. The corporation's leadership decided to adopt measures to offset that loss throughout the entire organization. And that is the reason questions are coming up around splitting the two networks' budgets.
I think decisions like these are due to the fact that resources are dwindling. At the same time, however, internal pressure in recent years has resulted in a greater sharing of resources by the two networks, which is a bit ridiculous given that we had fewer resources than CBC.
The corporation's English-language network had a larger audience than we did. And over the years, we successfully fought to gain more or less an equivalent share of the resources.
So other questions of that nature are coming up. People in the French-language network are asking why they should suffer when the English-language network loses revenue.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Lépine. Congratulations on your book. I think it is important for those with practical experience in the field to inform the public debate in a structured way. Obviously, we could debate what was said.
Mr. Lépine: Absolutely.
Senator Joyal: That is part of public debate. But, at least, books like yours and Mr. Saulnier's contribute to the public debate by raising important issues.
It makes for a healthy debate but, above all, allows for a realistic view of the situation, which is very important. In this debate, it seems to me that there is something we need to bear in mind from the outset. And I do not think that the public statements made by Radio-Canada leadership sufficiently highlighted the network's distinct place in Canadian broadcasting.
The fact remains, as Mr. Housakos mentioned earlier and as Mr. Demers could surely speak to as well, that Radio-Canada represents the nerve centre of French cultural expression in Canada. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
That is true on a number of levels. You mentioned the theater earlier. We could also talk about films or music. We could talk about every type of performing art imaginable.
But Radio-Canada was instrumental in public education as well. The corporation's mandate is threefold under its incorporating act: inform, enlighten and entertain.
Just think of what Radio-Canada represents for the francophone community, and not just French Canadians, but also English-speaking Canadians who are bilingual and rely on Radio-Canada's services. I believe we need to establish the importance of its mandate in English-speaking Canada in a different way.
Understanding that means knowing a little bit about Radio-Canada's and the country's history. The current debate is not based on that premise. An accounting exercise was undertaken. Some $300 million had to be cut, so the decision was made to split the difference; $150 million from one side and $150 million from the other.
And, obviously, in light of recurring cuts, CBC/Radio-Canada has reached the point where it can no longer fulfill its triple mandate as it did in the past. It will have to offload certain responsibilities, and it is our understanding that, going forward, entertainment will be contracted out to the private sector. The closure of the network's wardrobe department is one such example. Radio-Canada will no longer produce television series, even though it has always excelled in that area.
As far as news coverage goes, as you said, Radio-Canada will cut its foreign correspondents budget. Its international news coverage will be eviscerated.
From an education standpoint, CBC/Radio-Canada has a role that private broadcasters do not: sharing, with the entire population, the realities that exist around the whole country including those of minority communities. Private broadcasters will only go where advertisers can find a market.
In my view, the way in which CBC/Radio-Canada is supposed to fulfill its mandate under the act has been completely distorted. For all intents and purposes, the act is being tossed aside in favour of the public broadcaster's gradual privatization.
Should we not amend the act to recognize the distinct and historic role that Radio-Canada and its essential service have played in the lives of French-speaking Canadians?
Mr. Lépine: I think the act already addresses that, but the elected representatives of the people need to clearly demonstrate their support for that principle in no uncertain terms.
Over the years, and even more so today, the desire to preserve the unique role you talked about in French-Canadian society is absent. Even the public statements made by those currently in government show no signs of that willingness or desire. I find that worrisome.
So when I talk about solutions, that is why I have two lines of thought. I think Radio-Canada must be given reliable and graduated funding that takes into account inflation.
We have to come up with a different funding formula. Other countries have done that before, England, for example, with the BBC. There, a tax was levied on the purchase of television and radio sets and then allocated to the BBC's budget.
That gives the BBC independence from political power, because its budget is not voted on by the government every year. Thanks to this tax, which some have tried to challenge over the years, the BBC has a lot more independence and can therefore assume the role you were describing.
You mentioned remote communities in Canada, including Aboriginal communities. Here is a fact you may not know. Coverage of Aboriginal news in Canada, or Aboriginal-related programming, always gets terrible ratings for some unknown reason.
News reports on Africa and topics of that nature tend to be perceived negatively by the public. They do not appeal to people.
So what will private broadcasters whose programming is driven by commercial revenues do? They will overlook Aboriginal coverage.
At CBC/Radio-Canada, it is our job to provide that coverage; that is our passion. This clearly illustrates the role of a public broadcaster versus a private one.
Again, I do mean to show disdain for private broadcasters and commercial television. But should we not give Canadians access to public television, radio and Internet content that is meaningful and different for all the reasons we have just talked about?
Senator Joyal: As they say on "Tout le monde en parle," I am going to ask you the burning, or killer, question.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have no music, or wine for that matter.
Senator Joyal: If you had been in Mr. Lacroix's shoes, what would you have done differently? And I ask you that in the context of the unavoidable financial landscape. Having to deal with major budget cuts on a regular basis, what would you have done differently?
Mr. Lépine: There are two parts to that answer. You mentioned the first one, yourself. For the first time in history, no one on the corporation's current board of directors has a background in Canadian culture or media, despite the fact that that used to be a tradition — an important one.
So I do not think the board of directors places much value on that aspect, the key role of a public broadcaster, at least not in terms of its discussions, its statements or the information it gives us. When Mr. Lacroix speaks, I do not detect a desire to sell Canadians on that unique mission.
As I said, he used to cite the program "Une heure sur terre" as the perfect example of what public broadcasting could be, but he abandoned that mission as the corporation's budget shrunk.
The second part of my answer is something I wanted to suggest to Radio-Canada management when I applied for a position among its ranks. I discuss it in my book. If the corporation is not going to ask for more money, I think it is at the point where it should focus on its core functions, rather than cutting services across the board, as it is doing right now. Cost-cutting measures target production and content, hence the empty studios. That will not work. The corporation will not survive if it cuts content production. That is what matters most.
That is why I showed you the organization chart for Radio-Canada's public relations and communications department. Just on the French side, there are 150 people. They occupy two floors of the building, and about 35 per cent of them are executives.
In light of this whole debate around Radio-Canada, should the organization not consider that, perhaps, it would be better off contracting out the service for a quarter of the cost?
That is especially true when you think about the campaign the department led to drop Radio-Canada from the names of all its stations; it ended up having to back down on that. Such a move gives rise to questions as well.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lépine.
[English]
On the second round, I would ask senators to limit themselves to one question.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me see how I can get these three questions into one.
Public versus private broadcasting, again, and I want to build a little bit on what Senator Joyal was talking about, except that instead of Mr. Lacroix doing something different, I want to talk about where maybe the government could have done something different. You talked about the lack of will by government. I would suggest that $1.1 billion a year demonstrates still some will by government, aggressive and stable funding.
My question is: Do you believe that it is right for a public broadcaster getting $1.1 billion, to then go out after advertising revenues, competing with private broadcasters that don't get that funding? We need to write a report. Would you suggest that the public broadcaster get only public money so that they don't have to do advertising? Or should it be 50/50? Where do we go? We need to make a decision, or the government does, at some point. What I find most offensive is not that we have a public broadcaster, not that tax dollars are being spent, but that tax dollars are being spent and the broadcaster then goes after advertising, chasing the same money that a private broadcaster does.
Mr. Lépine: It has always been a big dilemma for the CBC. Mind you, we go more and more towards advertising because of the budget cuts throughout the years, which doesn't help the debate on that question.
Senator Plett: Are they breaking their mandate?
Mr. Lépine: That's mainly what I'm trying to say. I think that when you rely on advertising so much, you have the temptation to be more commercials, which is not the mandate of the CBC. It's a dilemma for CBC/Radio-Canada. I think ideally we should rely on public funding, and maybe a share of what we call a commandite de prestige, which is a form of sponsoring for great series, but different than being purely commercial. There should be a mix of that.
Yes, the question is very important. That's why I'm saying that we should rely on a perspective of financing. Mind you, you are saying $1 billion a year. You probably know that as a public broadcaster, we have probably the lowest per capita contribution in the world. Again, if you chose to have a public broadcaster, you should supply funding.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Lépine, if you do not mind, I am going to ask the four senators to ask their question.
Mr. Lépine: Yes.
The Chair: The four of them.
Mr. Lépine: Great.
The Chair: You will have the chance to answer at the very end. You will also get the last word. We have about nine minutes left. Senator Hervieux-Payette, Senator Housakos, Senator Joyal and Senator Demers will ask their question. Please go ahead, Senator Payette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: One of the most common arguments we hear these days is that the impact of new technologies has been so strong that the corporation has had to change its entire programming. Because of all these new developments, it has to take a different approach, in terms of, what I would call, the nuts and bolts.
Do you think Radio-Canada should focus first on new technologies and then on content, or should it start with the content and then worry about the technology?
Mr. Lépine: That is a very interesting question.
Senator Housakos: Our committee does a lot of travelling around the country, and something we hear a lot, especially from French-speaking Canadians in Manitoba and New Brunswick, is that Radio-Canada is very much Montreal-centered. Could you tell us where you stand on that point?
I would also like to discuss governance at CBC/Radio-Canada. In our capacity as committee members, we have come to the conclusion that the corporation is not transparent enough. The BBC is frequently cited for comparison sake, but the BBC's Web site provides a detailed list of every expenditure it makes, right down to the last penny. I would like to hear your thoughts on the whole matter of transparency.
Senator Joyal: I am inclined to ask you another burning question, provided you have recovered from the first, of course. I want to ask you about Radio-Canada and its independence. Mr. Saulnier's book, parts of which I have read, calls into question —
[English]
I'm going to use an English expression because I think it's descriptive of the reality: the arm's-length position of Radio-Canada.
[Translation]
Do you, as a seasoned Radio-Canada journalist, believe that the corporation should maintain a healthy distance from the government? Do you think that arm's-length position has been called into doubt?
I do believe decisions can be made at whim every now and again. It can happen in politics, as it can in any other field. But, as far as the day to day is concerned, do you think there are doubts about whether it operates at an arm's length? Do you think that distance should be made more explicit in the act, which could be amended in the months ahead?
Senator Demers: Mr. Lépine, I would like to ask you a question. You appear to be blaming the bulk of the budget constraints that are smothering the corporation's French-language service on the English-language service.
Do you have any figures on that? We have figures on the French side for Quebec, Saint-Boniface and other areas.
Do you have any figures on how the ratings in the French market stack up against those in the English market? The corporation may not want to take money away, as far as the big chunk of the pie is concerned, but francophones are still going to need financial help.
Mr. Lépine: I could not give you any details on that. But, in real terms, I think the ratings for major news programs like "The National" are usually the same, except for the fact that CBC is serving a much larger market.
Senator Demers: Absolutely.
Mr. Lépine: Hence, the lesser importance in its market, which is probably CBC's problem right now.
So how big is our market? Perhaps 8 million francophones. The rest is the anglophone market.
And as I said, the ratings in both markets are usually the same in real terms. We have a much higher market penetration. But I do not have the specific figures. So that is the first thing.
Backing up a bit, I will turn to the question on Radio-Canada's arm's-length position. This is why I said its independence is very much in danger right now.
My friend Alain did an in-depth study on that. He examined the relationship between governments of every stripe and the public broadcaster throughout a series of periods in history. Some of his accounts even involve me directly. The government has often shown a desire to infringe on that independence when it was not pleased with the corporation.
I believe, and this is what the study showed, that the government has, in recent months, shown an interventionist side, not just in terms of the rapid-fire budget cuts, but also in terms of Alain's own dismissal as a director of information.
So that balance has really been threatened. And if the act is amended, I think it should define that independence more explicitly. The public broadcaster has to be given its independence if we want it to have the freedom to grow and not to depend on commercial revenue.
It is for that reason that I mentioned the BBC's funding model, which represents a much more systematic approach and is therefore harder to challenge. Its funding comes from an automatic tax levied on purchases.
That brings me to the issue of transparency. As a former employee who helped run shows, the degree of transparency between Radio-Canada leadership and its own employees has been perilous for years.
There is a lack of transparency on the part of management. If you look back over the past few years at the size of the organization's management, you will see that it has ballooned, almost reflecting distrust between employees and management.
But there is certainly a lack of internal transparency. And I would think the government is probably on the receiving end of that, as well, when it tries to obtain more information.
On the regions' view that the broadcaster's French-language service revolves heavily around Montreal, I would say that has always been a problem.
It is very hard not to have that inclination, given that most of the staff are based in Quebec. Even within Quebec, people in the Gaspé region feel that they are overlooked. It has always been an issue.
I would imagine the same problem exists on the English side. People in Newfoundland surely complain, but that is the rub of having a country that is so geographically divided.
All television networks have that problem. In France, regions complain that they do not receive enough coverage, that they are overlooked. I think every news organization on the planet has that problem, especially if they are based in major cities.
And you may not know this, but the corporation's current leadership holds the view that the future of television is practically non-existent. It is true that the sustainability of the economic model on which conventional television — large general interest networks — is based is very much in question.
Major networks in the U.S. are questioning whether they should even continue to deliver newscasts, even though that very news coverage built the great tradition of American journalism. So that whole dimension is being called into doubt.
You will hear this from a lot of other people today and tomorrow. People are active when it comes to producing content. It is wrong to say that television has no future.
As you know, when television first emerged, people said it would be the end of radio. But Canada's radio industry is thriving today.
Even on the radio side, Radio-Canada has very high ratings. Both stations are highly respected and valued channel-wide.
So, it is wrong to say that we should turn our backs on television simply because it is too expensive and move towards the Internet because it is easier.
Radio-Canada set up advisory committees in Quebec's regions. The headmaster of one CEGEP recently told me he had attended a meeting where Louis Lalande said that the broadcaster was going to become a producer of Web content unlike any other in the world.
The headmaster said it was like being told, "Hey, I am going to cut off your legs, but your wheelchair is going to be fantastic."
I thought that was a very clever way of putting it. It would be a mistake to turn exclusively to the Internet in a mad rush. It is indeed important to adapt to new media. But it is also important to produce content in order to attract an audience. Mr. Lacroix always talks about the fact that young people turn to other media sources for content. While that is true, 75 per cent of the population still relies on television and radio.
And that is certainly nothing to sneeze at. They serve as incredible channels for communication and cultural promotion.
I also think we need to be careful not to jump to any easy conclusions.
The Chair: I would like to thank my fellow senators for their cooperation. Mr. Lépine, thank you for your input. I should tell you that, when you were talking about Radio-Canada, you would say "we" every so often.
Mr. Lépine: Interesting. I guess it just goes to show how attached I am to the organization.
The Chair: We are continuing our study on the future of CBC/Radio-Canada. The committee now has five witnesses to hear from, as opposed to one. We were supposed to start at 2 o'clock, but since we had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Lépine, we started the meeting earlier so that he could share his views with us.
But we received a lot of requests and have tried to accommodate them by putting people into groups. Since some of you have appeared before the committee before as regional representatives, we suggested that you give a joint presentation.
I am going to be stricter when it comes to how long you have to answer questions, but I will be even stricter with the senators asking questions so that you have a chance to be heard.
Who would like to go first?
Pierre Maisonneuve, Spokesperson, Tous Amis de Radio-Canada: Would you like me to start given my age?
The Chair: You are losing precious time.
Mr. Maisonneuve: How much time do we each have?
The Chair: The clerk told you that you have between five and seven minutes each, but you do not have to use all your time.
Mr. Maisonneuve: I retired from Radio-Canada two years ago, in 2012. I have been a journalist for 50 years. Back then, Mr. Pearson was prime minister and Mr. Lesage was premier of Quebec. I spent 41 years at Radio-Canada.
Since retiring, I have received numerous requests to give talks on Radio-Canada, first from retired Radio-Canada employees. I belong to the University of the Third Age at Université de Sherbrooke. Every month, I give two talks on Radio-Canada.
Senator Joyal: I hope you are paid for that.
Mr. Maisonneuve: Oh, well. The University of the Third Age does not pay much, you know, but it sure is nice to have an audience to discuss Radio-Canada and other subjects with. I host a radio program on Radio Ville-Marie, and that I do for free. But I love what I do, and once you get your feet wet, they stay wet, so to speak.
Mr. Joyal, I listened to you as you were asking my former colleague, Jean-François Lépine, questions. You said something, and I had an afterthought. In English, the title of my lecture would be "Radio-Canada, the biggest university in our society's history." Is that still true? And if so, for how long? I had begun giving my lecture before I agreed to become the spokesperson for Tous Amis de Radio-Canada. So I am in a bit of a conflict of interest vis-à-vis my lecture because I am extremely concerned. I go all the way back to Radio-Collège, where, one day, I saw a caricature that read, "We do not need to go to school, we have Radio-Collège." Radio-Collège was a popular training school, and that notion characterizes Radio-Canada's entire history.
My father, who was a carpenter, used to watch the show "Point de mire." That was just about the only time when we were not allowed to make a peep at home, and during "Le Téléjournal." It was a struggle; there were 10 of us, so the house was always noisy. It really was the university of the people, so to speak, educating one and all.
When I was on tour, I went to Acadie, Ottawa and the regions of Quebec. Where would Acadian culture be without Radio-Canada? I do not mean only news-wise, but everything. Where would Acadian artists be? Where would Zachary Richard be? Maybe in Louisiana, singing only in English.
As I see it, Radio-Canada delivers such a vital cultural service that we cannot help but be worried by what is going on right now.
Radio-Canada was, to some extent, my university. When I started out, there were no journalism schools; you learned on the job. Having worked in the private sector for seven years, I dreamt of working for Radio-Canada and so I did.
And in 41 years, I worked as a reporter, an education columnist, an interviewer and a public affairs editor, as well as a radio and television host on "Actualité," "Présent," "Découverte," "Enjeux" —
The Chair: I am going to ask you to slow down for the interpreters.
Mr. Maisonneuve: Oh! My apologies.
The Chair: Our interpreters are excellent, but there is a limit to what they can do.
Mr. Maisonneuve: "Maisonneuve à l'écoute," on RDI, "Maisonneuve en direct," on Première Chaîne. Against the backdrop of a divided society in which language, constitutional and political debates raged, not to mention three major referendums, we were responsible for reflecting people's realities, despite the pressure and criticism.
In a 1976 memo, Marc Thibault pointed to the duty we had to deliver free and impartial information, saying that our core job as journalists was to ensure a free and impartial flow of information, because Radio-Canada could, in no way, be used as a tool for propaganda to benefit anyone. He said that it was incumbent upon us, as a news organization, to uphold the free and impartial flow of information.
During my 41 years with the organization, I was able to foster that free and impartial flow of information by welcoming guests whose views covered the spectrum. Our society's ability to survive events such as two agonizing referendums, especially in Quebec, without anyone taking to the streets with a gun the next day is, I believe, a testament to the fact that Radio-Canada gave everyone a chance to have their say.
I would speak with people from both sides of the debate. Those in the yes camp would say that I supported the other side, and those in the no camp would accuse me of the opposite. At one point, Alfonso Gagliano had journalists who were supposed to interview federal ministers investigated. After investigating me, he found that I was an acceptable interviewer but that anyone who came on my show better be ready because I would be. That is probably the highest compliment anyone could give me.
So, if Radio-Canada did not exist, we would have to invent it. More and more, it is turning into a broadcaster, moving farther and farther away from its role as a producer. I think that is a huge mistake and not just from a news standpoint; it could, after all, decide to turn inward, focusing exclusively on news. Everything is news.
Take, for example, a show like "30 Vies," which shines a different type of spotlight on significant social problems. This could influence journalists as far as investigative requirements are concerned.
Can Radio-Canada, having been forced to relinquish its standing as a major producer, still provide the expertise it did? Can Radio-Canada become the leader it used to be?
The news dimension remains. No one can deploy resources around the world like Radio-Canada can. Throughout history, from both world wars right up until today, Radio-Canada has been present in every major conflict, giving us a window to the world.
The fundamental problem, then, does not come down to platforms but, rather, content. It is possible to distribute content on the various platforms.
Is it consistent with the Crown corporation's mandate to do away with free broadcasting and turn the organization into a specialty cable network?
The public broadcaster must reassert its place as a major producer of content, so that viewers have an alternative to shows like "Occupation double" and once again dream of such high-calibre programs as "Course autour du monde," which gave us so many great directors and filmmakers.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maisonneuve.
Ms. Montpetit?
Isabelle Montpetit, President, Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada: Good afternoon. We are here today to discuss the challenges facing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing media landscape. I am the president of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada. We mainly represent the people who work on air and those who prepare the content for broadcast.
I have worked at Radio-Canada since 1993 and have seen the broadcaster adapt to numerous changes. When I joined the organization, it had just moved away from television movies and on to videos. Today, we have CDs, and I now work on the Web side.
So Radio-Canada has always had to adapt to change and must continue to do so; there is no need to debate that. What we have to bear in mind, however, is that Radio-Canada was mandated under the Broadcasting Act to inform, enlighten and entertain. That includes informing the regions, taking into account their special needs and promoting cultural expression.
So that is what it does. Right now, I am touring the regions, meeting with members of my union, and we talk about culture. Every region has produced artists who gained popularity thanks to Radio-Canada, people like the Boulay sisters and Lisa Leblanc. The members of the world-renowned Alcan Quartet told us they decided to get together because Radio-Canada gave it the opportunity to have its concerts broadcast. We are talking about a musical group, a region-based string quartet, that was supported by Radio-Canada.
Radio-Canada informs. To a great extent, news is reported in both official languages across the country, but it is also delivered in eight Aboriginal languages. Previous budget cuts have decimated Radio-Canada International, an international broadcasting service featuring current affairs through a Canadian lens. It is available in a number of languages: Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, French and English. In fact, the service used to be available in a lot more languages but has been reduced as a result of years of budget cutting.
Radio-Canada's mandate to enlighten is largely fulfilled through public affairs programming, which is unique to the broadcaster. Where else, but on Radio-Canada, can you find such weekly educational science shows as "Découverte" and "Les années lumière"?
Radio-Canada's television lineup includes a very popular program on agriculture. No other television network would do that.
Lastly, Radio-Canada is supposed to entertain. It used to be a prolific producer of fiction programming. Once again, unfortunately, that dimension has been eroded over time, resulting in a significant loss of expertise.
As you are aware, the Crown corporation has endured endless rounds of cost-cutting since the 1990s. In our brief, you will find a list of all the changes the broadcaster has undergone since 2009 because of budget cuts.
Today, we have reached a new phase in the broadcaster's history, with senior management's decision to launch its strategic plan for 2020. It is undertaking a series of cost-cutting measures that are not dictated by the federal government. They reflect decisions that were made internally in the name of organizational transformation.
The public broadcaster announced that it would cut $100 million by 2020, eliminating up to 1,500 jobs as it transitions towards new platforms. The Crown corporation has, however, completely disregarded its mandate, failing to indicate how it fits into its transformation efforts. The focus is on the mechanics.
Exactly how it will achieve the shift to digital is unclear. Who will be responsible? What will the content look like? So how the Crown corporation intends to fulfill its mandate in the context of this transformation is very much a grey area.
The organization just announced 400 initial job cuts under the strategic plan. The Moncton area will bear the brunt of the cuts, which will threaten the very survival of Acadians and their ability to learn about themselves.
Cuts targeted media librarians, responsible for archiving the network's content, which belongs to all Canadians. The work of media librarians has made it possible to preserve and consult content, giving Canadians access to a memory bank of Canadian content. These positions have been significantly cut.
It will no longer be possible to preserve Canada's collective media memory as was done in the past, especially in terms of the broadcaster's wardrobe department.
Management also has changes planned for the Maison de Radio-Canada building in Montreal. It intends to sell the current tower and build a new facility where Radio-Canada would be a tenant. Initially, the facility was supposed to have four television studios but will now have just one.
The Crown corporation is going to destroy this existing infrastructure, which belongs to Canadians, without even consulting them or holding a debate on the issue. Senior management made the decision behind closed doors.
That brings me to governance, which came up earlier. CBC/Radio-Canada is a Crown corporation that operates in relative secrecy. The government appoints people to positions without advertising them publicly. The corporation's administrative body is quite secretive as well. Just look online at the meeting minutes of its board of directors; they are heavily redacted. So the Crown corporation shows little in the way of accountability to Canadians.
Another troubling aspect is the proximity between the corporation and those in political power, another issue that recently came up. That is worrisome when you are talking about a Crown corporation that is supposed to serve Canadians, not the government. CBC/Radio-Canada is not a state-run television network or media agency, but a public broadcasting organization whose mission is to serve the public.
So what we, under the Tous Amis de Radio-Canada banner, are asking for is a moratorium on budget cuts to allow for a debate on Radio-Canada's future. You have launched the debate here, but we think it should extend well beyond the parameters of this study, and address funding, governance and programming. We believe the Crown corporation should be given not only a larger budget, but also predictable multi-year funding. We believe it should receive $40 per Canadian per year, as opposed to the current licence fee of $29, one of the lowest in the world.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Montpetit. Is that a joint presentation you are giving?
Nathalie Blais, Research Advisor, Canadian Union of Public Employees: No.
The Chair: No. Please go as quickly as possible.
Ms. Blais: So, Mr. Chair, senators, thank you for having us. Allow me to introduce my team. My name is Nathalie Blais, and I am a research advisor at the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE.
Helping me give this presentation today are Isabelle Doyon, Chair of Syndicat des employé(e)s de bureau et professionnel(le)s de Radio-Canada, and Michel Labrie, National Vice-President of Syndicat des technicien(ne)s et artisan(e)s du réseau français de Radio-Canada.
We represent some 1,700 Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton, some of whom are here today to contribute to the committee's study.
CUPE believes that the reasons that CBC/Radio-Canada was first created still apply today. In the years ahead, a strong public broadcaster will be needed more than ever to counterbalance the flood of news and programming from all over the world.
CBC/Radio-Canada is needed in order to give Canadians an alternative to the programming offered by private broadcasters; it is needed in order to provide not only reliable information, free of any commercial or political influence, but also programming tailored to the special needs of groups such as language minorities, even when it is not economical to do so.
CBC/Radio-Canada is, however, facing major funding challenges that threaten the mandate it was given by Parliament. The Crown corporation is at a turning point in its history. If something is not done immediately, our public broadcaster will disappear: its leadership and board of directors have set about privatizing whole segments of the organization.
The additional budget cuts announced last week include plans to shut down Radio-Canada's wardrobe department and sell off its collection of costumes, the largest in North America. The decision sets the stage for the discontinuation of internally produced entertainment shows and the impending demise of 11 of the broadcaster's 12 Montreal studios.
CBC/Radio-Canada estimates that it will be more cost-effective to contract out content production to the private sector. It should be noted that the federal tax credit and other public funding sources for independent producers have been on the rise for years.
However, the budget that CBC/Radio-Canada receives from the government has been steadily declining since the early 1990s. In constant dollars, the public broadcaster's parliamentary appropriations have hit a record low.
Yet CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate has not changed: providing Canadians with a wide range of predominantly Canadian programming that informs, enlightens and entertains in both official languages, across the entire country, while reflecting the special needs of the regions and promoting cultural expression. No private broadcaster or television producer has that duty.
It is essential that the government recognize the extensive and complex nature of CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, and grant it the funding it needs to fulfill that mandate. By constantly lowering the Crown corporation's budget — even refusing to make adjustments for inflation — the federal government is forcing the public broadcaster to rely increasingly on commercial revenues. That dynamic perverts the Crown corporation, making it turn away from its mandate and look more and more like a private broadcasting network.
Isabelle Doyon, Chair, Syndicat des employé(e)s de bureau et professionnel(le)s de Radio-Canada: In light of the industry's shift to digital and the uncertainty in the advertising market, CBC/Radio-Canada needs stability more than ever.
In fiscal 2014-15 alone, the public broadcaster will have laid off over 1,000 workers to balance its deficit budget. The Crown corporation cannot borrow to finance day-to-day operations.
Consequently, it simply uses its workforce as a line of credit to help it absorb unforeseen costs, which are more and more frequent. That cannot go on.
With its funding sources in flux, CBC/Radio-Canada is cutting its workforce at an alarming and excessive rate. That jeopardizes the public broadcaster's ability to fulfill its mandate, retain expertise and adapt to the needs of Canadians on a number of platforms.
It is indeed appropriate to wonder how CBC/Radio-Canada, with its ever-shrinking workforce and ongoing restructuring, will be able to maintain high-quality radio and television programming while adding digital services.
Today's consumers turn to the radio, television and digital platforms for information. So the public broadcaster will have to simultaneously produce even more content, all the while, lacking the resources to retain its staff. It makes no sense.
CBC/Radio-Canada needs to protect its strengths despite the transformation under way. The unions representing Radio-Canada's employees realize that the broadcaster must be innovative and pursue new platforms. Nevertheless, it is important that the broadcaster undertake the digital shift at the right pace, in the right way and for the right reasons.
The current situation is not healthy. The proof is that the priorities identified by the public broadcaster in its strategic plan for 2015 to 2020 were largely motivated by its financial problems. Under the plan, the public broadcaster intends to privatize all content production, except for news programming, and sell off real estate holdings and transmission facilities. The Crown corporation has adopted a strategy that calls for the transfer of assets to the private sector, without any assurance that the measure will benefit Canadians.
By relying solely on independent producers, CBC/Radio-Canada will have absolutely no control over production costs. Without a studio for those producers to work in, chances are good that the cost of producing its shows will go up.
What is more, the public broadcaster's strategy relies on support through the Canada Media Fund, support that could decrease or disappear. Money available to independent producers through the Canada Media Fund varies based on a number of factors including cable subscriptions and ratings.
This year, CBC/Radio-Canada's received $7 million less than it did last year. So there is no guarantee that the public broadcaster will save any money by closing studios and dismantling its production teams.
One thing, however, is certain: taxpayers will pay more. With CBC/Radio-Canada relying on independent producers, Canadians will have to incur not only the cost of producing the program, but also the profit margin of the private producer and the amount of program support.
Michel Labrie, National Vice-President, Syndicat des technicien(ne)s et artisan(e)s du réseau français de Radio-Canada: Furthermore, because the disappearance of the public broadcaster's studios is tied to the Maison de Radio-Canada public-private partnership, or PPP, it will not be possible to backtrack once the project is under way.
The PPP contract binds the parties for a term of 30 years. That means that Radio-Canada will not have any flexibility if, as the industry changes, it becomes more cost-effective to produce content internally.
The Crown corporation's five-year plan also requires the public broadcaster to reduce its real estate footprint in order to invest more in programming. While this is a commendable objective, we doubt that the public broadcaster will genuinely be able to achieve savings through a public-private partnership.
Studies have shown that, when real estate development projects are financed through PPPs, they cost more. In fact, France and Great Britain even bought back infrastructure that had been built under a PPP in order to save money.
By managing the Montreal Maison de Radio-Canada development project itself or entrusting the job to the Canada Lands Company, the public broadcaster could save, in our estimation, at least 2 per cent on the financing rate.
Did the public broadcaster consider that option? Radio-Canada told us that using the Canada Lands Company would not be a cost-effective solution. What was the basis for that conclusion? We do not know.
Similarly, Radio-Canada never provided its rationale for using a PPP to redevelop its Montreal facility. And it was impossible to obtain that explanation through an access to information request: Radio-Canada turned over hundreds of pages that had been censored. So the economic benefit of choosing a PPP model over a traditional solution remains to be seen.
In short, the measures set out in the Crown corporation's 2015-20 plan have all the makings of privatization, something that worries us to no end. By relying more and more heavily on independent production and leasing office space, studios and transmission facilities, the only thing public about the public broadcaster will be its name.
Even the public broadcaster's signal could be privatized if the CRTC accepts its proposal to shut down its television transmitters, a move that would require viewers to have a cable subscription in order to access the public broadcaster's programming.
The direction being taken by senior management and the board of directors jeopardizes the public broadcaster's mandate and unique position in the country's broadcasting system.
Contrary to what its president and CEO believes, the corporation is unlike any other. It provides an essential public service that belongs to all Canadians. It is supposed to deliver varied and innovative programming that meets the needs of all Canadians, regardless of the broadcasting platform.
It is also supposed to inform and enlighten Canadians when it comes to current affairs, whether local, national or international.
CBC/Radio-Canada's strategic plan for 2015-20 should produce not just economic benefits, but also cultural and social ones. The way things are going, however, CUPE worries that the public broadcaster is being emasculated, only to then be accused of having lost its relevance so that it can be shut down.
The government must do its duty and give the public broadcaster adequate funding so that it can fulfill its mandate to the benefit of all Canadians. The government must also ensure that the Crown corporation's board of directors includes individuals with extensive knowledge of the communications industry and not just managers.
The CBC is an important public service. It should be developed, instead of dismantled, and its achievements should be safeguarded.
The Chair: I want to thank our five witnesses.
I already have four senators who wish to ask questions — Senator Plett, Senator Hervieux-Payette, Senator Demers, Senator Housakos and Senator Joyal.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you all for being here.
Ms. Doyon, you referred a few times to CBC firing a lot of people. "Firing" is what CBC did with Mr. Ghomeshi; "laying off" is what they are doing with 1,500 people, and that's a distinct difference. They are not firing 1,500 people; they are laying them off.
I just wanted to make that clarification, and if it was in the interpretation, I'm happy with that.
[Translation]
Ms. Doyon: Yes, that is an interpretation error. People receive a surplus notice and lose their job.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
You are all representing unions here.
Senator Joyal: Not all, except for Mr. Maisonneuve.
Senator Plett: Sorry.
Mr. Maisonneuve: I'm freelance.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, but you're all representing organizations that I would assume have HR departments. So my first question is how would your HR department deal with complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace? How do you determine if a claim is legitimate, and how many sexual harassment claims against one person would it take for you or your HR department to take action?
[Translation]
Ms. Doyon: I will let my colleague Nathalie Blais answer because I have only one assistant, since only two of us are full-time employees. Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Blais: When you refer to our HR department, what do you mean? Do you mean the HR department of the CBC?
Senator Plett: The CBC or your union if it has an HR department. I'm assuming if there was a sexual harassment claim, and you're the union leader or the representative, somebody would come to you and say, "File a complaint against a certain individual." What would your union or your human resources department do in that case?
[Translation]
Ms. Blais: Normally, the union should investigate to try to determine what happened. The union would also have a discussion with the employer. The employer and the union would conduct their own investigations, and a decision would be made. However, the decision would be made only after consultation with people around the complainant and those around the accused individual, or the individual against whom the allegations were made. Meetings would also be held with those involved in the situation.
So a response is always needed because someone is always suffering in these situations, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution. We really have to listen to people and try to figure out what happened. The employer then has a decision to make.
[English]
Senator Plett: And your action would be taken fairly quickly insofar as investigation is concerned?
[Translation]
Ms. Blais: Normally, a union must take action as soon as it has been notified.
[English]
Senator Plett: Does anybody else want to respond, or would that be similar? Okay.
Ms. Blais: Do you read French?
Senator Plett: No, but I have people that can certainly help me.
Ms. Blais: I can send you a CD.
[Translation]
The Chair: We can have it translated if you submit it to the clerk.
Ms. Blais: Yes, I could submit a CD we have made. It explains how this type of situation should be handled.
[English]
Senator Plett: I would appreciate that.
You may or may not have heard about Mr. Ghomeshi, and certainly this would not be part of your union; I understand that. I want to ask a question surrounding Mr. Ghomeshi and some of the events.
The Chair: Senator, if it's process or if it's CBC related, I would understand, but I don't know, the personalization may be a little bit beyond our mandate.
Senator Plett: Well, it is certainly CBC related.
The Chair: The first question was quite clear; you were talking about the process.
Senator Plett: Well, I think the second one is as well, Mr. Chair, and if you feel after the question it isn't, you can ask the witnesses not to answer, but I would like to ask the question.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Plett: You may have heard that journalism students at the University of Western Ontario were discouraged by faculty from interning at "Q" because of Ghomeshi's reputation. In addition to that, a former intern at "Q" — and maybe these interns would be in your union — described her experience working there and how everyone knew about his behaviour. She discusses the first day she returned home from a six-week, unpaid internship in Toronto. The first question she was asked by the Director of Current Affairs of CBC Radio — so, it is related to CBC — in her home town was, "So did Jian Ghomeshi try to sleep with you?" That was met by laughter from all CBC employees in the room. Very clearly, she says they were aware of his behaviour.
Would you care to comment on that issue?
[Translation]
Ms. Blais: I think this is a question you should put to the CBC.
[English]
Senator Plett: Fair enough.
The Chair: So the senator had the pleasure of asking his question, and they had the pleasure of not having to answer it.
Senator Plett: Fair enough.
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can you tell us what percentage of managers were let go during the latest layoffs and the percentage of managers by division or section at the CBC? First, your predecessor talked about a figure of 35 per cent, which I think is very high compared with what is being done in the private sector.
Second, who helped develop the strategic plan and did any external firms, such as KPMG or other strategic planning firms, participate? Were any discussions held on the redevelopment of the Maison de Radio-Canada?
With all due respect to my colleague, a 40-year-old building has normally been paid off and its only cost is maintenance. The space could be reconfigured to optimize that building's performance. I would like you to answer these questions.
Ms. Montpetit: I can try to answer, and my colleagues can expand on that, if need be. Concerning the percentage of managers, Jean-François Lépine was talking specifically about the communications department, but the CBC/Radio-Canada organizational chart is overly complex, and it is difficult to obtain answers to such questions. We have asked those questions in the past, and we have not managed to obtain clear answers. It is known that the managers receive performance bonuses, and Hubert Lacroix has already stated that he has no intention of cutting them.
As for the current strategic plan, I do not know whether the corporation used any external firms. We are told that employees have been consulted, but we do not know which ones. The previous plan had been developed with the help of an external firm whose name I do not remember.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What about space reconfiguration? What about reconfiguring the space for better use and perhaps renting some of the rooms in the current building?
Ms. Montpetit: According to what we have been told, the issue with the Maison de Radio-Canada is that the building needs a tremendous amount of work, since it has been neglected for years. There are water leakage issues. The electrical capacity is insufficient. I think they feel that investing in repairs would be too expensive. That is what they are telling us. But we are unions, we represent employees, and we do not have access to much information on the crown corporation's management.
Ms. Doyon: Just to add to what my colleague said, regarding the number of managers, we have never been able to obtain the number of managers at CBC/Radio-Canada. The number of organizational charts is overwhelming, and even we are having difficulties with our figures. When our people receive surplus notices, we may be given a figure of 32, as was the case last spring, but 70 positions end up getting cut. So the situation is difficult for us in that sense.
As for the strategic plan, 75 per cent of the 2010-2015 strategic plan was developed outside CBC/Radio-Canada. Hubert Lacroix said he was happy to point out that 75 per cent of the 2015-20 plan was developed internally, with the help of 150 employees — as my colleague was saying, we do not know who those employees are — and 25 per cent was developed externally. We do not know what firm was involved, either.
Concerning the MRC, the Maison de Radio-Canada, that is another case of transparency issues. We filed an access to information request and received over 400 pages of censored documents, where we found a few snippets. Here is the document, and we gleaned some information from it, but that is insufficient for us to understand the direction the corporation will take or the reasons behind its decisions.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much for your presentation. Ms. Doyon, you talked about the organizational chart. In my past jobs, there was an organizational chart, and there were employees. All the people involved in that organizational chart had a duty to strengthen the preparation and the game plan, if you will.
How did they get to this point? This is not a new situation that developed in 2014. Is there a lack of management? Is there a lack of vision? Was the game plan not well developed?
You manage and represent employees. At some point, someone has to take responsibility. We are talking about money here. Someone was saying that the government had not provided enough money. I think that more money has been provided. If the figures are correct, I think the funding is $1.2 billion. Is it worth more than that? You said earlier that the amount was $29, or maybe you would potentially ask for $49 per person.
Have you analyzed how and when they came to the current possibility — and I am saying the word possibility — of disappearance and of even more people losing their job?
Ms. Doyon: Concerning the CBC/Radio-Canada organizational chart, two years ago, when the government announced the cuts, we analyzed the number of executives in 2000 compared with the number of executives in 2012 for certain sectors. You will understand that it would have taken us a few months, even years, to conduct the whole study. But the fact remains that the number of executives was much higher in 2012 than in 2000. According to my own figures — as I cannot speak for my colleague — in the early 2000s, we represented about 650 permanent employees and a few temporary workers, not to mention casual on-call employees. But today, not taking into consideration last week's announcements, that figure is 450.
Senator Joyal: What has that been reduced to?
Ms. Doyon: Last week, we were told 27 additional positions would be cut, including 3 in Moncton. You will understand that we are wondering how the work is being done and by whom. Our jurisdiction issues have more to do with immediate supervisors who are leaving with administrative tasks to do the work.
Mr. Maisonneuve: Mr. Demers, when I started working at Radio-Canada, we had a supervisor, and we worked with our assignment editor and our news desk editor. Now, Radio-Canada has doubled the oversight in the newsroom. You should look at the number of people at a production meeting for the daily newscast or news reports. Of course, there are more news reports than before and news is provided on an ongoing basis. The oversight has been increased considerably, and I think this prevents the assignment editor from doing their job properly because someone else is making the decisions. The news desk editor can no longer edit their news report, as someone else is making the decisions. In such cases, everyone ends up waiting for a decision.
When it comes to the use of the Maison de Radio-Canada, a particular phenomenon is taking place because many private business owners are producing for Radio-Canada and are set up on the premises.
I remember that my colleague Charles Tisseyre and I had the pleasure of having a dressing room. I was hosting a daily program and he was hosting a weekly one. We were sharing the dressing room. One day we were told that we could not keep that space because private business owners would use it to accommodate their clients or guests.
So everything is mixed up at Radio-Canada, where we no longer know who is doing what and who is permanent, casual, supernumerary, or who is working for private producers. We no longer know. That is the current situation at Radio-Canada.
Senator Demers: Excellent answer. I would add that this approach is much more expensive because, as you said, a job that used to be done by two people is now being done by ten. No one has any answers.
Senator Housakos: This has been an interesting conversation so far. The whole broadcasting industry has implemented cuts. Over the past five or ten years, the whole journalism field has suffered a significant drop in revenues, and cuts have been implemented.
You represent many workers employed by CBC/Radio-Canada. I assume some of your members also work for private companies. Have similar cuts been made by competitors such as LCN, TVA and Bell, for instance?
Ms. Blais: I can comment a bit on TVA, as we represent TVA employees. To my knowledge, employment growth has rather been noted in the journalism field, especially with the arrival of LCN, TVA Sports, and before them, Argent. Real growth of perhaps 50 per cent to 100 per cent has been noted. Between 1997 and 2012, I would say that the number of journalists has increased by about 100 per cent.
Senator Housakos: Okay. If that is the case — and I do believe you — how can we explain the situation at CBC/Radio-Canada, which has an annual head start of $1 billion in subsidies over its competitors? When a corporation starts off with $1 billion, it has a head start over its competitors. How can a company with such an advantage from the outset be forced to make cuts and reduce its staff, compared with its competitors?
The competing networks have strong growth and slightly higher ratings than the CBC. How do you explain that?
Ms. Montpetit: The CBC is a Crown corporation with a mandate. Its mission includes covering the regions and broadcasting in Aboriginal languages. The international service should also be mentioned. The CBC has many obligations other broadcasters do not necessarily have.
For instance, certain markets are covered only by the CBC. That is a paradox, as the public broadcaster is currently looking for revenues. Its main concern at this time is to increase its revenues. Our radio is in very good shape. It is doing a great job of meeting the corporation's mandate.
Senator Joyal: But cuts are still being made in that area.
Ms. Montpetit: That is true, as radio is not making any money. Cuts are being made to the radio programming to potentially fund television programming. News reports have been shortened, even eliminated. Since 2009, some regional news programming has been cut. Regional radio programs have been eliminated.
In the past, every region had its morning program on the weekend. In Montreal, we have Joël Le Bigot, but every region had its own program. Now, Joël Le Bigot's Montreal program is broadcast across Quebec. This shows that Radio-Canada's logic that should not be the same as that of private broadcasters.
Mr. Maisonneuve: I would say that the funding for CBC/Radio-Canada is $1.2 billion. The funding for private producers and private television stations is $1.2 billion. It is a two-way street, but the responsibilities are not the same, whether the funding comes from tax credits, Telefilm Canada, or SODEC, in Quebec.
CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate is different. People have a hard time grasping this, especially when they see many individuals covering a single event. However, we have to keep in mind all the Aboriginal communities that are provided with programs in their language, as well as the size of the territory and all the regions to be covered. Private producers do not have the same obligation to produce such programs. The public broadcaster has a multitude of newsrooms and production sites, both in English and in French.
The argument that is often put forth is that the $1.2 billion gives CBC/Radio-Canada an unfair advantage. However, private producers also have an advantage. Someone from an international organization said that there is no private television in Canada; there is only subsidized television. On one side, you have private owners and, on the other side, you have public owners. That is the reality.
Ms. Blais: Could I add something before you move on to another topic?
The Chair: Yes
Ms. Blais: Radio-Canada's pan-Canadian aspect is clear, but we should also to consider the fact that the budget is allocated for the next 12 months, whereas a company like TVA will have a 10-year plan to make NHL hockey profitable. For instance, Radio-Canada has to ensure it is not registering any losses year after year. A private company will have more latitude. For instance, TVA can launch LCN and know that it will lose money over the first five years, but it also knows it will recoup those losses over the next five years.
Radio-Canada has no such latitude. Our analysis indicates that employees are currently the ones absorbing this blow. In order to balance its budget, the corporation has to let some employees go because it has a mission to fulfill and cannot make cuts elsewhere.
Senator Housakos: Do you think that Radio-Canada and CBC are currently spending too much of their budget on news production? They set aside 40 per cent to 45 per cent of their annual budget for news. Another 30 per cent of their budget is earmarked for radio programs that have excellent ratings, by the way. Only 30 per cent or 25 per cent of the budget remains for producing Canadian content for artists and developing Canadian programming.
I do not think that the mandate of the CBC and Radio-Canada is to spend 45 per cent of their budget on news. I do not think their news reports are more Canadian than those broadcast by Bell, CTV or SHAW, or more Canadian than what I see on LCN or TVA. Would you agree?
Ms. Montpetit: I can answer your question. The CBC should normally broadcast content intended for Canadians. The goal of the mission to inform is to help Canadians play their role in our democracy and understand the current issues. The public broadcaster's mission to inform should not involve any sort of profitability obligation.
Jean-François Lépine was saying earlier that reports on Aboriginals do not draw much of an audience. Similarly, reports on Africa are not necessarily topics that will generate high ratings, but the coverage of such topics is part of the public broadcaster's mission. There are a number of other topics that fit the same bill.
Nevertheless, I think this is part of the CBC's mission. In any case, the mission to inform is part of the CBC enabling legislation. I think it is important to have access to information that is independent of commercial considerations.
Mr. Maisonneuve: No other French network covers the world like Radio-Canada has covered it throughout its history. That costs money. Should we stay out of Syria and Lebanon? Should we stay out of Europe and Asia?
I carried out a census, for the conference I am doing, of all major correspondents we have had, and this is our only view of the world.
Of course, a daily newspaper like La Presse will occasionally send amazing journalists on site. However, only Radio-Canada has always provided coverage for Canadians in French and for us who have covered the world. I think we need to be able to find out what is happening elsewhere.
During the Vietnam War, we were at the mercy of the Americans. Occasionally, the French would send us some reports. Radio-Canada has never failed in its mission to be on site, even though that obviously costs a lot of money.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Maisonneuve, the perception — and I do emphasize that this is a perception — is that, by wanting to eliminate television, we are sort of saying that television is the new horse cart, pardon the expression. We replaced horse carts with vehicles. The vehicle in this analogy is the Internet.
Is this just a publicity stunt? In practice, television will always be there. I think that watching a program on a computer screen, regardless of the size, is still broadcasting. You ultimately have to choose your medium based on what is important to you.
The CBC's transformation is being presented as an absolutely inevitable step. This is somewhat similar to what is happening in print media — and you can see the transformation of La Presse and Le Devoir. People are saying that newspapers are done, that they will be gone within two years. Everyone will be on their digital tablet. But television is not part of the same context. Is the newspaper analogy not misleading?
Mr. Maisonneuve: I would say that the biggest concern for me in what CBC's president said was his suggestion that the network be available only on cable and that people pay to have access to it — in other words, pay as you go. If you want to watch CBC/Radio-Canada programming, you have to pay.
That was approved, in a way, by the current Prime Minister who said he agreed with this approach. That being said, this is not a matter of politics. My role is not of a political nature, but this a source of concern for me.
This means that all those who cannot afford to pay for CBC — and the cost may be minimal for all I know — will not have access to the network. However, in my opinion, the CBC has always been a broadcaster for all Canadians.
If CBC is producing content, it does not matter whether I am watching it on my cellphone, my television or as a recording. The important thing is to have access to the content. Charles Sirois said that whoever is controlling the content once the speed makes that possible will be ahead of the pack.
Why should the CBC stop producing content that could be broadcast on any platform? My 14-year-old granddaughter uses her thumbs, and she will have arthritis someday, but she watches a lot of stuff on her phone and other devices.
However, this does not mean she should not have access to youth programs the CBC could produce. That is just a medium, but it is still important.
The most important thing we are not talking about is that we have never needed the public broadcaster as much as we do now. When I was working in private radio, we had newsrooms all over with journalists providing coverage on the ground. Private radio stations no longer have newsrooms. All that is left are columnists, commentators. I call them new preachers who tell us how to think and how to act.
We currently need the CBC to continue providing information through reports with reporters whose mission is to inform. There have been referendums where we had the responsibility to seek out opinions on the left and on the right — yeas and nays — to find out what people's thoughts were.
Newsrooms are no longer being used in the electronic environment other than for newscasts, but there are many commentators. The most important figure in an election campaign in Quebec is currently Jean Lapierre, who is a commentator. He has the most influence in an election campaign. This is what will happen without our presence. If Radio-Canada is not there to provide content, something particular will happen.
I remember the birth of Télé-Métropole and the first television broadcast, which was a Montreal Royals' baseball match, at the Delorimier Stadium, in July 1952. I was able to watch it on the only television set in my village.
When Télé-Métropole was launched, poorly translated and poorly dubbed American productions were available. Only once Radio-Canada provided some competition with series and important shows did private television stations start producing to gain ratings.
TVA has an excellent fiction network now, but that was not the case in the past. Eliminate Radio-Canada from production, and we will see what the results will be.
There is a statistic in the white paper showing that, without CBC/Radio-Canada, most of the programs and television expenditures in Canada would be foreign. Foreign programming would trump Canadian programming. Sorry for taking more time.
The Chair: I let you go on, and we are wrapping up exactly at the scheduled time. Do you have a closing comment?
Ms. Blais: Yes, I would just like to answer Senator Joyal. I think you are right when you say that the comparison between television and newspapers is misleading. First, more newspaper advertisement is being transferred to the Internet than is the case in television.
Second, watching television and watching content on mobile platforms or the Internet are complementary. People are not consuming content on the Internet to replace television; that is a complementary activity.
Last September, we attended a CRTC consultation on the future of television. No one agrees on the exact direction television will take. So caution is required. We think that getting rid of 11 out of 12 studios in Montreal is dangerous because, as Mr. Maisonneuve was saying, that infrastructure can help put content on the new digital platforms. We feel that it does not make sense to eliminate that infrastructure.
The Chair: Mr. Maisonneuve, Ms. Montpetit, Ms. Doyon, Ms. Blais and Mr. Labrie, thank you very much for your testimony.
[English]
Honourable senators, our next witnesses are Mr. Arnie Gelbart, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Producer, Galafilm Inc.; and, as an individual, Mr. Marc Raboy, Beaverbrook Chair in Ethics, Media and Communications at McGill University.
Who wants to go first?
[Translation]
Arnie Gelbart, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Producer, Galafilm Inc.: I can address you in French or in English, as you prefer.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In French, as we are the majority here.
Mr. Gelbart: That is sort of our trademark. We are independent producers. Mr. Maisonneuve told you about mean independent producers. We produce in French and in English for the CBC and all other Canadian and international networks.
In the past, we specialized in fiction, documentaries and so on. I wanted to tell you a bit about our experience.
We produce Canadian programs on Canadian history. It is sort of part of our trademark to produce programs that talk about Canada's history in an exciting and interesting way, so we have produced programs on all the wars Canada has participated in. We made a series on the Aboriginals called "Chiefs" — a collection of grand Aboriginal chiefs' biographies. Of course, we have produced some programming on Canada's history. Broadcasters including the CBC used to encourage that type of programming, but that is no longer the case.
There is only a tiny bit of room at Radio-Canada and the CBC for programs on Canadian history today, but there is no room at all for that type of content in the commercial system. Although there is a history channel, it does not cover history and certainly does not cover Canadian history.
We have always felt, without being too missionary, that we had the enjoyable and important role to tell the country's stories in an innovative and interesting way for the Canadian public. I think it is important for those programs that talk about Canadian history to also be targeted toward immigrants and new immigrants in Canada. Those people come from extremely deep cultures with a rich history to a country whose history they do not hear about. They are sort of deprived and are wondering what the history of the country they came to is, as we never seem to talk about our past or tell our stories, which are often quite glorious.
We are also working for the public television network, the CBC. We see what is happening to it and we are saddened. The CBC has been — and can continue to be — the breeder of all the talent now involved in private networks. Back in the day, universities did not provide training. People received a lot of their training at CBC and Radio-Canada.
I arrived in committee a bit early, as I wanted to hear the other presentations, and it is true that the CBC and Radio-Canada are partially responsible for what is currently happening to them.
I think we also need to speak the truth, which is that this country's politicians did not make the right decisions to give the CBC and Radio-Canada an opportunity to develop properly. It was sort of like a football match where the ball was being passed around because politicians from all the parties were not especially happy with the CBC.
You obviously know what the situation was in Quebec during referendums. However, there was an educational mission for the citizens at that time that was extremely important and should not be forgotten.
I think that, with the emergence of this new digital era, we need an institution like the CBC — even though I work for all the networks — to be a public institution whose primary mandate is to serve citizens and not consumers.
Even at the CRTC, the narrative has shifted toward the idea that only consumers watch television or listen to the radio. Consumers are citizens, first and foremost. Educational needs have to be met, but so do entertainment needs. We need a content manager who cannot be just a public manager who sorts information that has become so vast that people can no longer understand what it means.
The troubling aspect is that, if we end up in a situation where CBC/Radio-Canada content is available only on platforms, the key information citizens need will be lost. The vastness of the information is so great, and no one gathers it in a consistent manner.
Although the ratings may not be amazing, we need broadcasters that will cover Canadian history, as well as the history being made every day in Canada as the country evolves.
What I can tell you is that private broadcasters do not take care of this aspect, and only the CBC will be able do that.
[English]
Marc Raboy, Beaverbrook Chair in Ethics, Media and Communications, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you. Good afternoon, senators, and thank you so much for this invitation to present my views. I should just point out that I'm not connected in any way to Mr. Gelbart. I'm here in my own name, as an academic and a researcher.
I want to emphasize with you two issues, funding and governance. In my opening remarks, I'm going to talk essentially about the funding model, and I'm going to say a few things about governance, as well.
I've been observing the Canadian broadcasting system since the mid-1980s, when I did a doctoral thesis and then a book on the history of Canadian broadcasting policy. That was the period of Caplan-Sauvageau, and there were already grave concerns being expressed about the CBC's diminishing place in the system. The CBC was once considered 'the cornerstone' of Canadian broadcasting, and by the 1980s, especially later in the decade, it began to suffer a shift of emphasis, partly brought about by something that Mr. Maisonneuve mentioned in his presentation, a reallocation of part of the public funding purse to the private sector, essentially through the development of the new independent production industry and the private broadcasters, through Telefilm Canada and other government agencies.
There was an underlying political context to this, but the actual bare facts of the matter are that the amount of public funding that had previously, prior to the mid-1980s, let's say, had gone to the CBC, was now being spread around the system, with certain positive benefits, but as far as the CBC was concerned, with a very serious downside.
During the 1990s, I also began to follow international developments with regard to public broadcasting, and in 1995, I coordinated a 16 country study for UNESCO, that was also published as a book called Public Broadcasting for the 21st Century. In doing that work, I noticed two things that I think are still highly relevant to our discussion today. One, the continued significance of the institution of public broadcasting worldwide, not only in the developed democracies, but also as a model to strive for in emerging democracies of the time, and today as well.
Two, I began to notice, with quite some dismay, frankly, that in the international community there was some consternation among observers of public broadcasting with regard to Canada, and essentially — and I say this with a certain amount of sadness, actually — during the 1990s, Canada went from a country to emulate for its broadcasting system, to one whose mistakes were to be avoided in the view of many specialists internationally.
From 2001 to 2003, I was one of two external expert advisors to the Standing Committee for Canadian Heritage, chaired by Clifford Lincoln, which produced the so-called Lincoln committee report and which was considered at the time — and still is by many — to be the blueprint for Canadian broadcasting going forward. It is still an excellent reference point for some of the issues that you are addressing.
With regard to the CBC, the Lincoln committee reaffirmed its importance as an essential instrument for promoting, preserving and sustaining Canadian culture, and that's something that you've heard in a lot of the testimony that you've received. The Lincoln committee also recommended that Parliament provide the CBC with increased and stable multi-year funding so that it could adequately fulfil its mandate. That, I think, is also something that you've heard from a number of witnesses, and it's something which I think is really crucial to keep in mind.
In saying that, I want to point out that it's not simply a question of the government giving the public broadcaster more money, but of finding the appropriate funding model. There was an excellent study on this question done in 1999 by the consultancy McKinsey & Company, in a report called "Public Broadcasters Around the World," in which McKinsey identified a funding model as the key factor for the long term success of a public broadcaster. What they found was that the funding for public broadcasting should be independent from undue government or other influences. It should be predictable over the medium term. It should be substantial enough to allow the public broadcaster to compete with commercial channels. It should be, and this is a quote, "sufficiently simple and equitable that it can be administered with minimum political controversy."
Now, they also noted something that may be self-evident, which is that "funding a public service broadcaster from tax revenue is not always a popular measure." That's one of the reasons why governments always look at this carefully.
I'd like to suggest to you that there are other models than the Canadian one for funding public broadcasting. As you know, the CBC is funded by, on the one hand, an annual parliamentary grant, and on the other hand, by commercial revenues, largely through advertising.
The McKinsey study concluded that the best way to achieve the goals of public broadcasting is through something called the "licence fee system," which you may have heard about. That's basically the BBC model, which is also used by many other countries around the world, where every radio and television set comes with a licence that the user must renew annually, according to a fee that is set once every 10 years by agreement between the broadcaster and the government.
This has the advantage of removing the question of funding of public broadcasting from ongoing political debate in a parliamentary context, and it also allows the broadcaster to plan over a 10-year period. This is a system that is still in use by the BBC and most European countries, as well as Japan.
In many of the cases, the systems that we often think we would like to emulate — like the BBC, Japan's NHK, Swedish public broadcasting — are funded in this way.
I will briefly mention a few statistics in this regard. In the U.K., the current licence fee is £145 per year — in other words about C$265 — per colour TV set, which generates a total of more than $6 billion, which goes entirely to the BBC. As a consequence, the BBC is able to remain completely commercial free.
In Japan, the NHK benefits from a roughly equivalent budget, close to $7 billion, again generated exclusively by a licence fee, which varies between $140 and $250 in our currency, per household, depending on the type of arrangement that the household has, whether they're simply receiving over the air, or whether they have satellite, and so on.
In Sweden, the licence fee is 220, which is $310 in our currency, and that provides them with a very substantial budget compared to what the CBC enjoys. Again, that allows them to remain outside of the commercial advertising market.
In Canada, just on a rough calculation based on an estimated 12 million households, if we had a $150 per household licence fee, that would generate $1.8 billion a year, and it would roughly cost 40 cents a day per household. That is an alternative formula, and there are many others that one could come up with.
The objection to this in Canada has been the concern around — and you can just imagine — the public outcry if the government announced from one day to the next that it was going to impose a $150 charge for the purpose of broadcasting.
I hope this won't be considered too much of a frivolous analogy, but just imagine if we thought about a broadcasting licence fee like a car registration. I just paid $320 to renew my car registration for one year. I didn't think about how much I used my car, or even whether I used it at all, I just paid it. And I'm sure most Canadians do the same routinely, without considering it an issue, as just part of the cost of citizenship.
I'm certain that it would take a tremendous political will, and probably something like an all-party consensus, to introduce a system like a licence fee for funding public broadcasting. But I would suggest that we need to begin thinking along these lines, if we want to find a long term lasting solution to the perennial question of how to fund our public broadcaster.
Now, I would briefly like to say a few words about the other topic I want to address, the governance model. I'm told that this was addressed by an earlier speaker today, whom I didn't have an opportunity to hear. There's been a certain amount of talk and criticism recently about the CBC's relations with the government, which are meant to be arm's-length. Without going into those particular details, I would like to suggest that a close relationship with the government of the day is deeply ingrained in the system, on the one hand, because of the current funding model, and also because of the appointments process.
Again, it doesn't have to be this way. The Lincoln committee made an interesting suggestion in that regard, when it suggested that in the interest of fuller accountability and arm's-length from government, nominations to the CBC board should be made by a number of sources, and the CBC president should be hired by and be responsible to the board, rather than under the current system.
Here, once again, there are international examples that we can look to. In the U.K., for instance, the Director-General of the BBC, the equivalent of the CBC president, is hired by and accountable to the board of trustees.
In South Africa, there's broad public input to the appointments process of board members. In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation employees have a designated seat on the board, and there's also a citizens' advisory council, which serves as a sounding board and a source of recommendations on programming, as well as a platform for community involvement.
The Chair: Mr. Raboy, we want to get to the questions; I already have four senators on the list.
Mr. Raboy: Excellent. I can leave it right there. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
Senator Housakos: Mr. Gelbart thank you for your testimony. Is a national public broadcaster the only way to ensure the future of Canada's culture?
[English]
Mr. Gelbart: Probably not, but we haven't found out what the other solution is. The reality is that the commercial broadcasters sell eyeballs to advertisers. Traditionally, they were selling eyeballs, viewers, to advertisers, and that is the way they run their business, and that's perfectly understandable. So their interest is to make shows and produce things that are going to be seen by as many people as possible; that is their thing. But their concern is not for some other kinds of programming that the citizenship and the citizenry might be interested in. It may not be a huge part of that citizenry, but it speaks to the values of the society, and also to new ideas. All of the great successes in the U.S., like Discovery Channel, come from an idea that started on PBS. Doing documentaries started on PBS many years ago; somebody took that idea and turned it into the Discovery Channel.
Is it the only way? It isn't the only way. If we're talking about Canadian culture, it's on other channels as well. But their considerations and their mandates are not the CBC mandates. One of the things that's not talked about is that there is a Broadcast Act, and that there's certain things that were given as obligation to the CBC. A Federal Court judge in Ontario, in the Windsor case, which the CBC was involved in, said that the government and the institution can't continually cut its budget and still fulfil the mandate that is in the Broadcast Act that the government of the day, whichever government it is, should go back to Parliament and redefine —
Senator Joyal: The decision in Windsor is under appeal.
Mr. Gelbart: That's right, but the opinion of that judge, for what it's worth, said that you cannot continue to cut CBC, as it's been cut for the last 20 years, without changing its mandate.
Senator Housakos: Mr. Gelbart, I understand that, but there are two sides to the coin. I'm in favour of the mandate of the CBC as is, to promote Canadian culture, to develop and distribute Canadian culture and Canadian art, and so on, and so forth.
There's some that have come before this committee and they've argued the contrary. CBC and Radio-Canada, as I said earlier in the day, are two different animals right now, with two different market shares. CBC's mandate is not to spend 50 per cent of taxpayer's money to produce news, to cover the news on the Hill, or to cover the news locally — as four or five other Canadian private broadcasters are covering — at the expense, particularly in the last few years, of eradicating Canadian documentaries, Canadian films, Canadian productions, Canadian games and shows, locally and nationally, and so on and so forth. So I'm all in favour of giving an increased subsidy to any entity that's going to promote our Canadian cultural communities, our artists, our actors, and so on and so forth.
The crux of my question to you is: Is the CBC right now, the platform that's doing that for our arts or cultural communities, getting out the story of Canadiana to Canadians? You said earlier that you can't just judge by eyeballs, but you can judge by eyeballs, because that's where you get a sense, as a government, if where we're spending the taxpayer's money and there's an interest. That's why I make the argument with Radio-Canada, they are serving that cultural requirement, because here in Quebec and in French Canada there's a thirst for more Canadian Francophone programming that Radio-Canada is developing, local game shows, local programming.
Are they number one in ratings? No, they're not. Are they number one among the private companies? No, they're not. But it justifies me, as a parliamentarian, to say, "Wait a second, we need to spend more there, and less there."
So, that's my question to you — and you come from that milieu — is CBC that platform that is promoting Canadian cultures?
Mr. Gelbart: Can the CBC be improved? Should it be run better? Should it be governed in a better way? Yes, totally agree. It's problems have dragged on for a long time, but no government seems to have taken hold of the nettle, "taken the bull by the horns," to use a cliché, and said, "Okay, what do we expect of the CBC? What should it be doing? Should it be doing 45 per cent, if that's the figure, for news? Should it be doing more of this and more that?" Maybe, because of this funding crisis, the loss of hockey, now is the time to have that debate. Maybe you're the conduits to feed into that debate, both at the political level, since it's funded publicly, but also more generally, to initiate that discussion as to what its mission should be, and how should it fulfil it. Is it fulfilling it?
Look, the events in Ottawa two weeks ago, where did everybody turn to? Where did all the American networks turn to? They turned to the CBC. People didn't turn to CTV to find out what was happening in Ottawa, or to get a clear image of what was going on. Because you had really experienced cool people like Peter Mansbridge. The New York Times said, "This is the way we should be doing news in the U.S.," because it wasn't hysterical, it was checked. He said, "We don't know. As soon as we'll know, we'll tell you what it is."
So it continues to be a model in a very different market, because you can't avoid the fact that we live next to the elephant with all of this stuff coming over the border. How many American channels that you capture? I don't know whether you live in Ottawa or Montreal. So the market is different and you can't expect it to have as big a portion of the audience as the French network has in Quebec, where you have only two players.
Senator Plett: Let me just pick up on that last comment, and then ask a very simple question in that regard, and then I have a few questions about the licensing.
But you're absolutely right, I watched CBC during the events in Ottawa. I happened to be travelling with this committee in Halifax, so I was not in Ottawa, and so I watched CBC to get the events in Ottawa. Without a doubt, I agree with you. I watch "The National," and most of my political news on CBC. Nevertheless, their ratings are not up there. So, why are they not up there, if they're that good? As you say, everybody wants to watch them, why are their ratings continually in third place?
Mr. Gelbart: They're not in third place. For once, they're not in third place for everything. That's the problem, that everybody who has an opinion about CBC usually watches their news. They watch the news and the public affairs, the things you're looking at, but there's a lot more to CBC. Do you watch afternoon programs that are popular? Do you watch "Dragon's Den"? The CBC does more than that, it's a general broadcaster. It comes from an older model, where a television station did all kinds of broadcasting. They didn't do just documentaries or just children's shows, but did a whole panoply. They would have children's shows in the morning, and then afternoon programs for people who were at home, and then serious drama in the evening, and it needs to satisfy that whole range of viewership.
Senator Plett: Well, fair enough. I accept your comments. To me, to measure success with a broadcaster, it has to be ratings. To measure success in a private company, it's the bottom line at the end of the year. And so, there's got to be a way of measuring success. To me, that's what it is with a broadcaster, whether it be CBC or any other.
Mr. Raboy, licensing has been raised here at this committee a few times, and others have suggested that approach.
When you talk about broadcast licensing fees, are you talking about buying a television set, hooking it into my cable provider, and paying a fee for all of that? That is not just for CBC. How does that benefit CBC, if that's an overall licensing fee for whatever I want to watch?
Mr. Raboy: Well, if we take the BBC example, for one thing, by agreement between the BBC and government, that fee goes one 100 per cent to the BBC, regardless of if the person paying the fee ever watches BBC, regardless of whether they watch only BBC. That's the way public broadcasting is funded in the U.K.
Now, there are variations. Take the Swedish example, where public broadcasting is delivered by separate corporations, part of it goes to television, part of it goes to radio, part of it goes to educational broadcasting. Basically, I think this is what your question comes to; it's a fee that is paid by the user that goes exclusively to the public broadcaster, and private broadcasting continues to be funded as is.
Senator Plett: If I was the government of the day doing that, I would want to do that on the first day of my mandate, and hopefully everybody would have forgotten about it four years later.
Mr. Raboy: Yes.
Senator Plett: It's a different concept. I'm not sure that any government would want that.
Mr. Raboy: Can I just say something a little further to that?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Raboy: I think Canada is in an interesting position right now, because obviously the countries that are being funded by a licence fee on television are forced to face the reality 30 years from now that people might not watch television. I mean, my students don't watch television, they don't own televisions. So who is going to fund it? There are new models being thought about, and we may actually be in a position, in Canada, where we can leapfrog over this period to when a new model emerges. That's why it's a good time to start thinking about this.
Senator Plett: Mr. Chair, I'll leave my governance question for now, and if I do have time later, I'd like to ask it.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Would Canal Historia not want to broadcast the programs you produce?
Mr. Gelbart: No. They do not comment. I will use the example of the History Channel. If you look at their programming, most of the shows are along the lines of "Ice Road Truckers" and "AskMen" — in other words, programs that were purchased from the United States. Those are quality large-scale programs. They are reality shows, but they have nothing to do with history. The History Channel made "CSI," and the CRTC told the network that this was not history. The network argued that, since the twin towers were destroyed in New York, and the program was "CSI New York," it definitely was history. The CRTC told the network to change its programming.
Programs have to be produced and invested in. They first have to be selected, and that is no longer being done.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What you do falls directly within the CBC's education mission.
Mr. Gelbart: Yes, those are the only benefits. We are currently producing a two-hour program on the First World War, but that is the only major program CBC/Radio-Canada is making to commemorate that event.
The BBC has produced 300 hours of programming on the First World War and its impact on the Second World War.
We had an opportunity to produce a program on Canada's participation in the First World War. No one aside from the CBC and Radio-Canada would invest in that kind of a series today.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Raboy, you gave us the cost of licenses. In fact, when you pay about $30 a month for Internet access, you are already paying to have access to your computer. You cannot say that the content will be free on the Internet, while it is paid on television. People are already paying a certain amount.
Are you satisfied with the transparency in the CBC's governance?
I sit on the national finance committee, and this is not the only organization with transparency issues. I must say that many federal organizations have the same problems.
If we were to head in that direction, without implementing another technocratic process, how would you view the collection of that $150 amount? Would it be like my drug insurance plan in Quebec if I did not have medical coverage through my employer? Every year, when I file my income tax return, $150 would be going to television.
I just want to know how this could be implemented because I like this position a lot, as it would ensure some sort of sustainability. However, at the same time, I think that what politicians are concerned about — aside from their popularity — is the matter of administration in terms of collecting that money.
Mr. Raboy: I think that this is primarily a matter of political will. If there was political will, solutions would follow. As you suggest, one possibility would be to add the amount to the income tax return.
We have to remember that this goes back a long way. However, in the beginning, when television was a new technology, the process was relatively simple. People bought their television set for the first time, and it was registered. It was sort of like cars. That is why I am making this analogy.
I think this is really a matter of political will. Currently, as you know, the CRTC is conducting a very important investigation on the whole system, with all the fees that are paid — hidden fees, transparent fees and unknown fees. But Canadians are already paying a few hundred dollars a month for their communications service. I think everything needs to be looked at.
Your other question is about transparency. I do not have the same level of expertise as some of the other witnesses who have come before you, but I think there are transparency issues in a number of areas at the CBC. Those issues are somewhat related to the governance problems in terms of how board members are appointed.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Gelbart, the Federal Court rendered a ruling in the case involving the people of Windsor, The Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada and Dr. Karim Allellal v. CBC/Radio-Canada. I wanted to say that, after reading the Honourable Judge Martineau's ruling, I agreed with the court's interpretation principles recognizing the rights of linguistic minorities to have access to a public Canadian broadcaster.
However, you may know that the government has decided to appeal the decision before the Federal Court of Appeal. I think this happened about three weeks ago. The government is challenging the decision rendered by the Federal Court's Judge Luc Martineau on September 8, 2014.
This was not the question I wanted to ask you, although I thank you for raising the issue. I think this is an important decision, as it brings up the CBC's underlying responsibility toward official language minorities, which are covered in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
I think that the CBC is bound by that obligation. We will see what the courts will have to say about this during the appeal process. I believe this is one of the key elements in the potential redefinition of the CBC's mandate.
I was initially surprised by your decision, since you are a private company, if I understand correctly. Your company's name, Galafilm Inc., makes that clear. When I saw your name on the witness list, I thought the first thing you would say would be that you were happy with the CBC's shift toward purchasing programs from the private sector, since your company produces programs. I figured you would praise the CBC's new model. Yet, having listened to you, I see that you are in favour of a system where a having a public broadcaster is a must.
Did I understand correctly that you think public interest comes before the private interests of your company?
Mr. Gelbart: I do not think those two ideas are mutually exclusive. However, we must recognize that we have a wonderful broadcasting system that was built over a long period of time.
The CBC was, is and should continue to be part of that system. A former CBC vice-president, who had to leave his position, saw that the private sector was an important factor and should be worked with. The private industry is well-liked, as it certainly meets a demand. But someone has to create programs private companies do not want to gamble on — programs that incorporate new ideas or new ways of doing things. That is where Radio-Canada and the CBC can contribute and have always contributed. In Canada's digital future, CBC/Radio-Canada will once again be the laboratory for figuring out how all this will be integrated. Television will not disappear. We are hearing many things. For example, I think that the shift the CBC's president has brought about is a huge mistake because it does not take into account the data or the fact that U.S. studies indicate that 92 per cent of the market is still taken up by traditional television. That means 92 per cent of the content is still viewed on television.
Yes, young people do not have television sets. What are they watching on their tablet? They are watching programs they could have watched on their television. However, those programs have to be produced, and that is the issue. Who is producing those programs? Who is making that content?
Senator Joyal: Exactly.
Mr. Gelbart: The devices people use do not matter; what matters is the content. I think that Radio-Canada and the CBC can and should be the laboratory for this major technological shift.
Huge changes are taking place, and this is an amazing opportunity, but getting rid of traditional television now is not the best approach. It is much too early for that at this point because we are not certain where things are headed.
Senator Joyal: Another comment you made surprised me. You said that the CBC was partially responsible for its current situation.
Could you elaborate a bit more, as that is a very serious claim.
Mr. Gelbart: The corporation is not transparent. You are in Ottawa, and I read the papers like everyone else. We all know it is always difficult for governments to find out how the CBC is managed and how the corporation is managing its funding.
This was a major problem, and Sheila Fraser tried to figure out what was happening. She and her team never managed to obtain answers. The management structure is either too disorganized or to complicated, and the CBC has not been transparent with his finances. For example, I was not familiar with that 45 per cent figure you gave me. You probably know what your source is, and I accept that.
The CBC should have been transparent, as that would have helped its current situation. Instead, the corporation has been something of a fortress, and it has been impossible to find out what is happening within its walls.
Senator Joyal: Is that your main criticism? Do you have any other criticisms of the CBC?
Mr. Gelbart: Television and media are the most powerful and universal means of communication today.
Senator Joyal: They are still in a privileged position to talk to the public.
Mr. Gelbart: Yes.
Senator Joyal: In a way, politicians are placing themselves in a conflict of interest situation by discussing this issue.
Mr. Gelbart: No, but the Broadcasting Act — which is an act of Parliament — is part of this situation. I think they should look at that. What do they want to do? Whether we are talking about 1990 or today, what do they want to do with the public broadcaster?
A debate needs to be held on the CBC's role going forward. That is what we are discussing today. What should be the corporation's duties? How is it managing those duties? Is it managing them responsibly? How many news reports should it produce? How many of them should focus on Canadian culture? How is all that funded?
I am somewhat familiar with Mr. Raboy's examples, but the British system is no longer operational. I am not sure whether you know this, but when people would buy a television set, they had to buy a licence, and a truck drove around the streets of London to check who had a signal.
They can no longer do that with today's technology. Japan implemented a system after the war that was based on voluntary contributions. Five or six years ago, a scandal unfolded at NHK, and people said they would stop contributing.
This was not a legal obligation, as the payments were truly voluntary. The Japanese, being who they are, were contributing because that is the type of society they have. There was a huge scandal when someone stole large amounts of money, and 10 per cent of people said they would no longer contribute. So NHK had to live with that.
So the easiest system is the one we have. At some point, the government has to decide what the CBC's mandate will be, how much funding the corporation will receive and how that funding will increase with inflation.
Whoever is involved in the corporation's governance should be familiar with the inner workings of that system, which will have been redesigned and revamped for the upcoming era.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Raboy, based on your opinion or your assessment, would the arm's-length relationship Radio-Canada or the CBC should have with the government need to be redefined in CBC/Radio-Canada's enabling legislation?
Mr. Raboy: Are you asking whether the arm's-length relationship should be better defined?
[English]
Senator Joyal: In other words, if the relationship of CBC with the government should be better defined in the enabling legislation of CBC/Radio-Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Raboy: No, not necessarily. I think that relationship is well defined. If anything, I would be more in favour of changing the appointment system.
I also think that the fact that CBC's budget essentially depends on an annual decision by the government in power and is part of an annual discussion with the Treasury Board on the overall federal budget excessively politicizes the whole process and makes the arm's-length relationship a bit hypothetical. There is no problem with the definition in the act. I think the act is perfect in that sense. The problem arises in practice.
Senator Joyal: So you basically think that the annual budgetary discretion is the biggest issue with the CBC?
Mr. Raboy: Absolutely.
[English]
The Chair: We have five minutes left, and we have three senators on the second round. I'll ask them to ask their questions, and you can finish your answer and your closing statement at the same time.
Senator Plett: I have a supplementary question to what Senator Joyal asked.
The government is responsible for administering tax dollars. Public broadcasters are using tax dollars. Thus, that makes the government responsible for the public broadcaster, and in some way, shape or form, they are going to be in charge of putting the board in place. If it's through a nominating committee, they will appoint the nominating committee; that will maybe put them a little further away. But the government of the day, if we're using tax dollars, will always have the final say, no matter how much we say they should be at arm's-length.
That's maybe more of a comment and observation, but if you would like to reply to that?
The Chair: Perhaps you can take the three questions and reply at the end.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Earlier, we were discussing the issue of market shares. According to what you said, we have several markets. The CBC is the only broadcaster that covers all the markets — immigrants, linguistic minorities, Aboriginals, different age groups, children and others. When a company is covering all the markets, it becomes difficult for it to compete with private networks that specialize in the most lucrative markets.
Should market shares be used to decide whether or not a public broadcaster should exist?
The Chair: And finally, we have Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: Here is my question. The CBC definitely covers various environments and regions of the country that the private sector does not cover, and the same goes for Radio-Canada. It is present in certain regions of Quebec the private sector does not touch. However, its ratings are much higher than those of the English network. My question is more specifically about the CBC, which has terrible ratings when compared with its competitors in English Canada.
The CBC's funding is constantly being reduced, but what is even worse is that the corporation's revenues are decreasing significantly. The CBC recently lost a Canadian cultural mainstay, the program "Hockey Night in Canada." Here is my question. Are we less Canadian in English Canada than we were 20 or 30 years ago? I see no correlation between what is happening in English Canada and what is happening here, with Radio-Canada, in the francophone world.
[English]
My last question is in regard to fees. Any way you do the math, Mr. Raboy, households in Canada pay a $100 a year right now to CBC/Radio-Canada through the media fund, through tax revenue. It comes out to about a $100 a household. As to the BBC model, recently I saw polls that were done by Whitehouse Consultancy where 51 per cent of citizens in the U.K. want to abolish the fee. It's pretty controversial across the pond as well, and there's a lot of controversy over whether the taxpayers can sustain it.
I agree with you, there has to be a change in the model, and we're trying to figure out concretely what that change is.
The Chair: So you have the final word. Please answer the questions and the comments.
Mr. Gelbart: Yes, the government will be ultimately responsible because they'll name the consultants that will name the board members, but this has been tried in the U.K. There is a way, but this is a public process. It's a public process, and everybody feeds into it, and it isn't partisan in the way that it sometimes has been in Canada. That is just a general comment.
[Translation]
Are the CBC and Radio-Canada doing too much? They make up is what we refer to as an all-purpose broadcaster, so is this part of what the CBC should do, by definition? For example, should the corporation stop producing its youth programming? You know how important programs such as "Bobino" and many others are in Quebec. To an extent, that type of programming has been abandoned. That is the audience of tomorrow. Who made that decision and why? This has never been discussed publicly, but the decision to stop producing youth programs on Radio-Canada and the CBC was shocking.
[English]
You must take into consideration that they're in a different market place than English Canada. CBC is a different market place than French Canada, where they only have really two major players, CBC and TVA.
In English Canada, there are two things. First of all, there are a lot more networks, and they're competing against all the American networks in a much larger way than people do in Quebec. Actually, when you look at, I think their share is now 8 per cent or 9 per cent. It isn't as disastrous as all that, given the circumstances. If the CBC were better run and had enough funding, raised in the proper way, they would be competitive with a lot of the other channels that they're competing against.
The Chair: Mr. Raboy, a final comment.
Mr. Raboy: First of all, Senator Plett, with regard to the arm's-length approach and the governance, just simply the fact that the president would be accountable to the board, rather than to the Prime Minister, would make a huge difference, certainly in the perception of arm's-length, if not in actuality.
With regard to the licence fee, I actually think the funding formula is part of the problem with regard to ratings and popularity of CBC programs, as well. Because of the excessive reliance on commercial revenue, the CBC ends up in a very bottom end competition with the private sector for audience share. Obviously, the CBC should be aiming for the highest possible audience, but not necessarily in a competition for tax dollars. That's the problem; that's why the CBC has not been able to maintain a distinctive look to it.
Let's look at radio, for example, and the fact there is no advertising on Radio One. When you turn on the radio dial, you know when you're on CBC. On television, you don't know it necessarily, because all the programs look the same.
The Chair: Mr. Gelbart, Mr. Raboy, thank you very much for your presentations.
Senators, please welcome, from TV5 Québec Canada, our final panel of the day.
[Translation]
Suzanne Gouin is the President and CEO, and Benoit Beaudoin is the Director of New Media.
Thank you, Ms. Gouin and Mr. Beaudoin. Here is my conflict of interest. I had the pleasure of sitting on TV5 Québec Canada's board of directors many years ago. I am an admirer, and I watch the network's news every evening.
Ms. Gouin, you have a presentation for us. The floor is yours.
Suzanne Gouin, President and CEO, TV5 Québec Canada: The first presentation we have for you concerns Francolab, at the committee's request. Without further ado, I will ask Mr. Beaudoin to make this presentation, which was previously submitted to you.
I would then be happy to answer any of your questions on TV5 Québec Canada and its two networks — TV5 and UNIS.
Benoit Beaudoin, Director, New Media, TV5 Québec Canada: Thank you, Suzanne.
Good afternoon, everyone. You have received our presentation, so I will rather talk to you about Francolab's short history and tell you a bit about where we are heading with this platform that has been bringing us a great deal of happiness and pleasant meetings with teachers across Canada.
Francolab was an outcome of a desire to provide Canadian teachers of French as a second language and French immersion with our content geared toward the educational field. Teachers were asking for more Canadian-centric content and coverage of Canadian topics. Authenticity in French as a second language education is essential.
We quickly realized that, in the digital environment, the projects proposed to teachers had an international focus and very little Canadian content. We began this project around 2010 with "Ça bouge au Canada" — a website containing all sorts of videos and resources on Canada's 10 major regions with a focus on fitness in order to target young people aged 14 to 20.
We saw that this was exactly what teachers wanted. We went on tour, attending conventions to present a discussion group to teachers, and that helped us come up with a platform. Francolab.ca is a resource platform dedicated to the teaching of French immersion, French as a second language and, increasingly, content that is helpful in the teaching of French as a first language.
Those resources contribute to learning and get more out of the production of televisual and interactive digital content TV5 is so good at.
Since then, we have added projects on Canadian legends and stories, as well as projects that have to do with immigration in Canada, always from the perspective of learning French, but also with additional resources that help teachers impact students' daily lives.
We then moved toward much more sophisticated projects, with the two latest ones mentioned in the presentation. "Dans l'air du temps" is an important project on French-Canadian songs from the beginning of the 20th century until today. We used 30 songs to create content for 180 interactive activities.
This platform promotes self-learning. Students can go to a computer lab, but they can also have the experience at home and on their tablet. Teachers have access to an extremely sophisticated tool for tracking learning progress that helps them organize courses around the activities we propose.
Finally, we are currently producing a fairly bold platform for children aged 6 to 9 — Francolab Junior. We are still working on the title. That platform is currently being tested in Quebec and Ontario schools. The results have been very good. I can tell you that testing of the five capsules and the pilot application began yesterday..
This is a television series with 41 3-minute episodes. That short fiction will also be available through an iPad application to help children, both at home and in class, improve their basic knowledge of French. This initiative is aimed at new francophones at the very beginning of elementary school.
Along with Francolab Junior, this will help us provide a rich and varied content portfolio to French teachers across Canada.
I also want to point out that we have a collection of television programs that provide educational support. Every year, new programs are added to that repertoire. Copyrights are negotiated. That is one of the significant issues with Francolab. We work with lawyers, copyright specialists who enable us to use that content over a very long period of time. A broadcaster plans its operations over a three to five-year period. In this case, we are trying to plan over seven to ten years, so that teachers can integrate this content in the program.
Know-how has been developed over the past four years, along with content and fairly good coverage of educators' and teachers' needs. We are very satisfied and aligned when it comes to resources, both in terms of TV5 program development and distribution on various platforms. This concludes my remarks.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Beaudoin.
Ms. Gouin, did you want to add anything about TV5?
Ms. Gouin: Yes, for the committee members' benefit. TV5 Québec Canada is a Canadian company that was founded over 25 years ago under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. We are a non-profit organization.
The company manages TV5's signal in Canada and was authorized by the CRTC, in August 2013, to launch a new station called UNIS, which focuses on the achievements and aspirations of Canadian francophone communities.
That network was launched on September 1 of this year, so it is only two months old. It is now available to all Canadians across the country with the TV5 network in mandatory distribution by cable broadcasters that have 20,000 and more subscribers.
UNIS is an all-purpose network without news or sports reports because, when we submitted our project to the CRTC, it was important for the new network to provide added value to francophone communities, since Radio-Canada and RDI were already included in basic services across Canada.
Given that most of the Radio-Canada and RDI programming focused on representing minority francophone communities was primarily news-centric, we did not want to duplicate that work.
So we quickly moved away from the idea of having a newsroom, since that requires huge operational budgets and would have really taken away from all of the new network's operational budgets.
Radio-Canada's programming was produced internally. That includes programs such as "Découverte," "Les coulisses du pouvoir," "La semaine verte," "La facture," "Second regard" — basically all the programming that was mainly related to Radio-Canada's news service.
In short, there were very few documentaries or entertainment programs made by independent producers from minority francophone communities. In order to really ensure real and strong value added in our programming, we structured our project around three basic commitments.
First, all of our original Canadian programming would be made by independent producers and would cover a whole range of documentary and entertainment programs. As of the third year, we also committed to dedicating most of the combined spending related to original Canadian programming of TV5 and the UNIS network to the acquisition of programs that reflect the situation in minority francophone communities or regional communities, or are produced by independent producers established in those communities.
Third, we committed — and this was done almost a year ago — to opening three regional offices in Moncton, Toronto and Vancouver, and to striking an advisory committee made up of members of the francophone communities who could support us in developing our programming grids.
The value added of TV5 and UNIS derives fundamentally from those three objectives: see to it that members of minority francophone communities produce and create a diverse array of various categories of programs that speak to their community and to all Canadians, and which eventually, thanks to our partnership with TV5Monde, will be offered on that international channel.
No other Canadian broadcaster has made such a broad commitment to minority francophone communities. This channel, which was launched last September 1, that is to say a scant13 months after the CRTC decision, has in its first year of existence already broadcast over 220 hours of original content. The first year expenses for original production totalled $13 million, that is to say twice the requirements in our CRTC licence conditions.
So, that is a very summary picture, but I hope it sets the stage well for your questions.
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What is the relationship between TV5 Canada and TV5 in general, which is what one sees when one leaves Canada? Are they on your board of directors, or do you simply have a business relationship? Do you choose the content to be broadcast in Canada? What is the relationship between TV5Monde and TV5 Canada?
Ms. Gouin: It is really a business partnership, and we exchange programs. TV5Monde provides us with a pool of international programs that come from France, Belgium, Switzerland and Africa, thanks to partnerships among public channels. For our part, we provide TV5Monde with a varied portfolio of Canadian programs they can broadcast.
To provide more detail, the TV5 director general has an observer's seat on the TV5 Québec Canada board of directors, and in the same way I occupy an observer's seat on the TV5Monde board.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: And they fund TV5 Canada and the new UNIS channel?
Ms. Gouin: Almost 80 per cent of the funding for TV5 Québec Canada, which is an enterprise that has two channels, TV5 and UNIS, comes from cable broadcasting revenues. Approximately 10 per cent of the revenue derives from advertising, and 7 per cent from Quebec and Canadian government contributions; the proportion being approximately 60/40, that is to say 40 per cent from the Quebec government, and 60 per cent from the federal government.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Ontario does not contribute?
Ms. Gouin: No.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Not at all? That is surprising. When you decided to go for those markets, did you consult linguistic minorities before choosing the three components you decided to focus on for the UNIS channel?
Ms. Gouin: When we chose the programming orientations, before we even submitted our project to the CRTC, we held discussion groups with francophones throughout Canada; we met francophones as well as francophiles.
We feel it is very important to mention the importance of francophiles, who throughout Canada are increasingly signing up their children for French immersion classes. Certain members will already know that there can be up to a two year wait to register a child in an immersion school in certain Canadian provinces. So it was very important for us to connect with that population. Throughout the country, we really consulted and surveyed francophones and francophiles on their expectations regarding programming. People told us that they wanted documentaries, entertainment, games, and also a lot of programming for children. The whole issue of children's programming plays an extremely important role in learning the language and maintaining French-language culture.
So we took all of this into account when we were developing our programming grid for the new UNIS channel.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In the context of our study on CBC/Radio-Canada, do you think we could consider the model you used to develop your channel? This could allow us to consult a vast number of citizens throughout the country, by constituting groups in various cities; even though our committee is a part of the consultation, I am thinking of ordinary citizens who are not experts like you, who could come and talk about their expectations from public radio or television.
At this time we have a strategic plan, but it seems to me that the population as a whole has not really been consulted.
Ms. Gouin: I do not know what means CBC/Radio-Canada has at its disposal, but in order to demonstrate the seriousness of our approach to the CRCTC, we had to conduct that consultation. In the same way, before the end of the current fiscal year, we will carry out another consultation of television audiences and network fans to find out whether we are meeting their expectations well and how we could improve. That is very important.
I should add that because of the advisory committee we created in December 2013, these people are also our ears in the various communities they are from, and they tell us about their topics of interest, concerns, and also the type of content they would like to see on the new UNIS channel.
Senator Demers: I listened closely, and I must say I am very taken with the objective of providing educational resources and authentic audiovisual material. I have visited many schools over the past seven or eight years, and spoken to a lot of teachers and principals. They are excellent, but overwhelmed. There are a lot of young people in classrooms, but the illiteracy rate in Quebec is 47 per cent, and 59 per cent among Aboriginals. In English Canada, the figure is 41 per cent. That is enormous.
And we are not talking only about people of 50 years of age or more. A lot of young people are illiterate. Your enterprise is proposing a simple way of helping them improve their French. This can only be helpful to young people, and it provides an easy way to improve by listening to audiovisual material and so on, because the baby-boomers, if you will, are leaving us gradually; that has already begun.
It is essential that young people have a very good education and know how to read and write properly. So I think we have to look to helping young Quebecers and francophones throughout Canada improve.
Ms. Gouin: You are perfectly correct, Senator Demers. Given our mission to promote Canadian and international francophonie, and also because we want to showcase the Canadian francophonie on the international scene, it is also essential that we have this commitment to Canadian francophones and francophiles.
Since we are a non-profit organization and do not have to pay a dividend to shareholders at the end of the year, it seemed obvious to us in the context of that mission of promoting the francophonie that we needed to create resources such as Francolab and put them free of charge at the disposal of students and teachers who want to share these resources with their classes; this seemed, to our mind, like a normal thing to do.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Benoit for his work; when I talked to him about this project, he really embraced it. If we have a project like Francolab Junior, which is aimed at younger students, I think it is because we really have at our core a determination to see to it that French, which is one of the founding languages of our country, really is showcased throughout Canada.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much.
Senator Joyal: I am tempted to say something: if we did not have you, I think we would have to invent you. Regarding the minority francophones and francophiles you were mentioning, we know that overall, francophone minorities represent about a million people. How many francophiles do you estimate there are? In other words, what would your optimal viewing audience be?
Ms. Gouin: In Canada, there are reputed to be between 1 million and 2 million francophiles; unfortunately, because of Statistics Canada, it is a little difficult to obtain a precise figure.
Senator Joyal: Between 1 and 2 million?
Ms. Gouin: Between 1 and 2 million francophiles throughout the country.
Senator Joyal: So your optimal audience is approximately 3 million people, or between 2.5 and 3 million viewers.
Ms. Gouin: In addition, with your permission, Mr. Joyal, I would add that the UNIS channel project, for me — since Quebec is a part of Canada — represents a potential of approximately 10 million viewers, because if we include Quebec, where the anglophones are for the majority francophiles, I would say that we would like to reach a potential 10 million francophones and francophiles in Canada.
Senator Joyal: I understand that the programming you broadcast must have been prepared by producers who live in the francophone communities. Does that mean, consequently, that Quebec producers are excluded?
Ms. Gouin: Not at all. What we submitted to the CRTC is that first of all, production would be done by independent producers. Afterwards, gradually, because there is not an enormous pool of producers outside Quebec to draw on, we will significantly increase the percentage to be allocated to independent production outside Quebec, on a yearly basis.
We asked Quebec producers to present the achievements and aspirations of francophones outside Quebec, throughout Canada, but sometimes with a Quebec perspective. Take for instance the program I mentioned, "Ma caravane au Canada," which goes out to discover francophones from all over.
In this way, we went to Newfoundland; last week we were in Vancouver. We have also gone to the Beauce region, because the Beauce is an area that is not all that well known, even by people in Montreal.
So we feel our mission is truly to offer an opportunity to discover this francophonie that is not well known throughout the country, to all francophones.
Senator Joyal: When do you broadcast, from what time to what time?
Ms. Gouin: We broadcast 24 hours a day.
Senator Joyal: Twenty-four hours a day. So you must replay some things?
Ms. Gouin: Clearly, yes. For the UNIS channel, we operate on a specialty channel model. That is to say that we have an eight-hour loop that is rebroadcast three times, with a small difference for children's programming.
Because of the very strong demand for children's programming, there is a lot of it in the morning. When children come home from school in the afternoon we replay two hours of children's programming.
While respecting the east and west time zones, this allows us to have quite a large pool of content for young people throughout the country.
Senator Joyal: Is there a link between the fact that you broadcast original programs for children and the fact that Radio-Canada has ceased producing children's programs?
Ms. Gouin: Not at all. Clearly, the UNIS channel project completes what Radio-Canada provides. For us Radio-Canada is a public broadcaster with antennas throughout Canada, with its own particular means.
UNIS is a specialty channel and it has smaller means at its disposal. We really try, with the means we have, to reach communities throughout the country — and that is why we have chosen to broadcast documentaries, some children's programming, as well as some entertainment programming.
Senator Joyal: Do you have some kind of organic link with Radio-Canada, in particular with its regional antennas? We were talking about Moncton earlier, as well as other regions such as Windsor and Edmonton, for instance. As I said, do you have an organic link, some meeting place where you get together to exchange information, plan your programming, et cetera?
Ms. Gouin: No. We are really two independent, separate enterprises. It was important for UNIS to establish its own editorial profile right from the outset. That does not mean that in future there could not be collaboration with Radio-Canada, but I think that before that it was important to broadcast content and a specific identity to brand that channel, to avoid having viewers complain to the CRTC that we were offering products identical to those of Radio-Canada. We wanted to present the image of a new channel that was complementary to what is currently on offer in the country.
Senator Joyal: How is the production financed? Are you the only ones to provide funds for the programming, or can the producer also call on the Canada Media Fund?
Ms. Gouin: Yes.
Senator Joyal: In general, what is the financial structure behind the average program?
Ms. Gouin: It is essentially similar to all of the enterprises that do production. You have the broadcaster's share, and producer's share. You have the fund's share. There are also income tax credits, which are of primordial importance. Some programs cannot access the fund. When that is the case, we finance a larger part of the production.
Clearly there is also the revenue from the fees we receive, and advertising revenue. We also make a lot of efforts to find sponsors, to ensure that we have as many sources of income as possible. In fact it was very important for the new UNIS channel to respect the standards we had developed for the TV5 network. One of those important standards is quality.
If you view our two channels, you will be very proud of the quality of content and production. This is not community television. It is truly television produced by professionals.
Senator Joyal: What is the total budget of the UNIS channel?
Ms. Gouin: Since the CRTC awarded mandatory distribution to both channels, the fees are paid by the cable broadcasters for both channels. It is a 28 cents fee in the francophone market, and 24 cents in the anglophone market, for both channels.
For TV5 and UNIS, we have a joint budget of approximately $36 million.
Senator Joyal: What is the share of the UNIS channel budget out of that $36 million?
Ms. Gouin: Unfortunately, Mr. Joyal, I cannot answer you, because all of the CRTC requirements concern both channels and so we did not draw up separate budgets for them. Everything is done with both channels in mind. I would even add that at TV5/UNIS we wear all the hats, except for some people who are assigned to very specific duties; everyone works for both channels.
Senator Joyal: What is the average contribution to the production of programs?
Ms. Gouin: To give you some idea, in the coming year, because of the CRTC licence conditions, these must be linked to the previous year's revenues. Thus we would have had to base ourselves on the 2013-14 revenues, and according to that, our obligations would have been around $10 million.
What we decided to do when we launched the channel was to use our projected 2014-15 revenues. So, we had already committed $13 million to production, given our licence conditions. You can imagine the impact this can have, given all the other things that may be triggered by these $13 million. There is a considerable impact on independent French-language production in Canada.
Senator Joyal: What type of percentage are we looking at in the case of a producer who asks for a contribution from TV5? Would that be 20 per cent, or 30 per cent of the proposed budget? What would it be on average?
Ms. Gouin: I would say that normally, it would fall between 20 and 30 per cent.
Senator Joyal: Between 20 and 30 per cent.
Ms. Gouin: Yes, according to the type of project.
Senator Joyal: Yes, of course. And how many projects have you funded since you went on the airwaves?
Ms. Gouin: We funded 220 hours of original programming for this firs year. Since this is the first year, this means that since August 2013, we have commissioned 220 hours of original programming. Moreover, since we have some very high requirements to meet regarding Canadian content for the UNIS channel, we acquired Canadian content that had already been broadcast. In terms of acquisition, strictly, I would say that the figures are around $4 million to fill the UNIS channel programming grid.
Senator Joyal: What kind of follow-up do you do to prove to the CRTC that you have met your objectives? I imagine that you prepare submissions, since you have to apply for your licence to be renewed, and so on.
Ms. Gouin: As I often say facetiously to my teams, we are always preparing for the next licence renewal.
Senator Joyal: Yes, people always do that. Radio-Canada does that also.
Ms. Gouin: Exactly.
Senator Joyal: All broadcasters do.
Ms. Gouin: Exactly, we do not have a choice. So I can tell you that in any case, we produce an annual report that must be submitted to the CRTC, and it specifically aligns what we have done with our licence conditions.
In that way, the CRTC is very up-to-date on all of our activities with regard to our obligations, whether we are talking about the advisory committee, the creation of regional offices, or more importantly, the production of original content made by producers outside Quebec, or programs that are produced in the regions, outside of Montreal.
Senator Joyal: May I ask one last question?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Joyal: Is there a distortion, if you will, caused by your very existence, which may mean that Radio-Canada feels less responsible for presenting the realities of official language minority communities, since it may feel that now there is UNIS, there is TV5 Québec Canada, and so it can be less present because there is someone else, finally, who is offering quality service?
In fact, is it possible that Radio-Canada may be thinking along those lines?
Ms. Gouin: I hope not, because why would minority community francophones not be entitled to more than one channel, more than two or three channels that reflect their achievements and their aspirations?
If we look at the situation of the anglophone minority group here in Quebec, do they only have one or two English-language channels to choose from?
Senator Joyal: No, they have access to many channels.
Ms. Gouin: So, why should francophones in minority environments, or francophones anywhere in Canada, be limited to a certain number of channels?
Senator Joyal: I was thinking along those lines because as you know, Radio-Canada wound up before the Federal Court regarding the Windsor station situation. One of the aspects of the decision made by Justice Martineau, who handed down the decision that is currently on appeal, was that Radio-Canada could be tempted to demonstrate that there is already another service present in the region, and that consequently, its obligation to offer a more complete service is not as absolute as it was when it was the only broadcaster in the region.
Not that I am opposed to your existence, but I think that the accessibility of what you offer, which appears to be of good quality insofar as I am able to judge, could have this distorting effect on Radio-Canada's national mandate.
Ms. Gouin: I am sure that if ever Radio-Canada formed an intent like the one you describe, this committee and other committees would hasten to ask it to continue to offer the services all francophones are entitled to throughout Canada.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Simply for clarification, when you are talking about the UNIS channel, you are correct; Radio-Canada is not in the picture. But as for TV5, in your relationship that involves TV5 Québec Canada and TV5Monde, Radio-Canada is your partner.
Ms. Gouin: Radio-Canada is an administrative partner for TV5Monde, but it does not sit on the TV5 Québec Canada board of directors. These are really two distinct corporate structures. Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec are part of the TV5Monde corporate structure in Europe, but are not members of the TV5 Québec Canada board of directors.
The Chair: However, you do collaborate with them for your news bulletins?
Ms. Gouin: Yes. There is a joint committee made up of representatives from Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and TV5, and together they work to offer the best possible French-language programs that are produced here to our partner TV5Monde, which chooses Canadian programs. It is through us that news bulletins, among others, those from Radio-Canada, are provided through our satellite lines and sent to TV5Monde on a daily basis.
The Chair: I wanted to clarify that with regard to the UNIS channel, it does not play a role, whereas it is somewhat more involved with TV5. Senator Housakos, and then you, sir. You have a complementary question? Go ahead.
Senator Joyal: I forgot a question. You referred to this but did not say, specifically: how many programs produced by you were rebroadcast by TV5Monde?
Ms. Gouin: Specific TV5 Québec Canada programs, or programs from all Canadian partners?
Senator Joyal: All Canadian partners.
Ms. Gouin: I do not have the specific figures, but I would say that about 9 per cent of programs from TV5Monde program grids are rebroadcast. However, tomorrow I can send the clerk the exact percentage.
Senator Joyal: Fine. Thank you very much.
Senator Housakos: Do you consider Radio-Canada to be a competitor? My other question is about Radio-Canada's mandate, which is, it seems to me, to offer services to minority language groups throughout Canada. However, according to what I see, you do this in a terrific way. Is there some reason why this field was left open for you? It seems to me that Radio-Canada has left this area completely free, and that you are meeting that need.
Ms. Gouin: I cannot answer on behalf of Radio-Canada. You really need to put the question to them. The proposal we submitted to the CRTC with regard to what was being offered francophones outside Quebec was a content proposal; we wanted to offer content that would be very complementary in terms of programming, but also as regards the provenance or origin of the production.
Moreover, by asking independent producers outside of Quebec to offer a pool of such important original content, our ambition, senator, is to create a new generation of French-language producers and young francophone producers who will be able to work in their language throughout Canada, and continue to produce stories that all Canadians will want to hear.
Senator Housakos: Do you have any competitors in this area at this time?
Ms. Gouin: All of the channels are our competitors. And I would add that for a television channel today, the competition is not just the other channels, but all of the other platforms, all of the websites. Currently the competition is fierce.
However, as for how it is offered and how content is consumed, television remains the most popular vehicle. I think that TV5 and UNIS will maintain that power of attraction as an aggregator of francophone content. We have a very strong brand that people turn to to obtain quality services and programs. I think we really are this beacon that allows viewers and content consumers to find what they are looking for on our two channels.
Senator Housakos: Thank you very much.
Senator Joyal: Are you considering going on the Web also, will you become accessible there?
Ms. Gouin: All of our products are offered on the Web.
Senator Joyal: All of your products are on the Web?
Ms. Gouin: Yes. Benoit, as our director of digital products, is responsible for that.
Senator Joyal: And the Francolab programs as well?
Ms. Gouin: Yes. Everything is on the Web.
Senator Joyal: Everything is on the Web.
Ms. Gouin: Yes. We are also very careful at the same time regarding proportions. We also have to take into consideration the fact that we cannot put our entire grid on the Web, because then why would cable distributors pay us a fee?
Senator Joyal: Why would they purchase your distribution?
Ms. Gouin: Precisely. So for that reason, we are very careful about what is offered on the Internet. We do offer certain replays in a limited way. We have some broadcasting collaboration agreements regarding our content with cable distributors. However, we meticulously monitor the percentage of our content that goes on the Web, in order to ensure that the business relationship which is primordial for TV5 and UNIS is maintained in the collaborations we have with the cable distributors.
Mr. Beaudoin: If I may add something, we rebroadcast certain programs on the Web. We also offer collections of older programs that have been archived, or programs that focus on a theme. We transfer certain rights to Francolab in the case of educational material.
We also develop a great deal of original content with UNIS channel producers, to offer an interactive experience. The rules of the Canada Media Fund, stimulate the development of multiplatform projects in order to offer francophone content on the Web and on television as well.
Thus, producers who want to obtain a TV licence from us, and obtain public funding, will in general propose convergent, interactive content, and we guide them in that undertaking. This means that a television series can be accompanied by a web series, an interactive platform, a game or a mobile application.
So, we work on implementing that know-how out there.
Ms. Gouin: And on developing it.
Senator Joyal: You do not receive any funding from Heritage Canada?
Ms. Gouin: Yes.
Senator Joyal: Yes.
Ms. Gouin: As I said, almost 8 per cent or 9 per cent of our funding comes from the governments of Quebec and Canada; the federal funding is provided through Heritage Canada.
Senator Joyal: You receive your funding through Heritage Canada?
Ms. Gouin: Yes.
Senator Joyal: So, this is a vote in the Heritage Canada global budget?
Ms. Gouin: Yes.
Senator Joyal: Fine. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Gouin, Mr. Beaudoin, thank you very much for your presentation.
Colleagues, thank you for your cooperation. We are going to adjourn the meeting. May I remind you that tomorrow morning, at 9 o'clock, we will begin with the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations.
Senator Joyal: Since we have the opportunity of having a representative from the Library of Parliament, we need to verify the exact reference of the Federal Court decision which was mentioned in the citizens of the city of Windsor case, and the date of that decision.
I do not have it to hand, obviously; unfortunately, I did not bring it. However, tomorrow we should perhaps have the exact reference and the date of the Department of Justice's decision to appeal that decision.
The Chair: We will do that quickly before offices close in Ottawa. Thank you; I will see you tomorrow at 9 o'clock.
(The committee adjourned.)