Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 13 - Evidence, February 18, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day, at 6:45 p.m., to continue its study on 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: Today, we are continuing our study into the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications. Our witnesses are from the group CBC I Care!
[English]
It is a non-partisan group of citizens in eastern Ontario and western Quebec. We have before us Clive Doucet, Co-chair; Louise Poirier, Co-chair; and Jacques Gédéon and Ellen Chassé, who are both members of the organization.
[Translation]
Make your presentation —
[English]
They have been in the audience in the past and know how we work. I will let them make the presentation and then we can go to questions.
[Translation]
Louise Poirier, Co-chair, CBC I Care!: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, your thoughts on our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, are of the utmost importance. We are very pleased that you have chosen to address this matter. Thank you for agreeing to meet with us.
I am Louise Poirier, Co-President of the committee "Radio-Canada, J'y tiens!/CBC, I Care!'', former national councillor for the CRTC for five years and member of the hearing committee with regard to CBC/Radio-Canada's license renewal in 2012. I also served as city councillor for a period of nine years, in both the Gatineau and Hull regions. I sat on several important boards of directors, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and I assumed the presidency of the Société des transports de l'Outaouais. Previous to the aforementioned contributions, I have nearly 20 years of experience in the media as a journalist, columnist and host, in both the private and public sectors.
[English]
Clive Doucet, Co-chair, CBC I Care!: I would also like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to listen to Mr. Lacroix and your questions yesterday. We found those very informative. Thank you very much for that.
My name is Clive Doucet. I was also an Ottawa city councillor for 12 years and a mayoral candidate in the 2010 municipal elections. Like Louise, I was a board member and director of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and have sat on many municipal committees. I have also represented the City of Ottawa at international conferences in New York and Brazil. In my private life, I have always been a writer and the author of poems, novels, plays, and memoirs.
[Translation]
The first Doucet arrived in Acadia in 1632.
[English]
Our family goes back a long way in Canada.
The group Radio-Canada j'y tiens!/CBC I Care! was created following the budget cuts last April and the announcement in June 2014 of additional reductions resulting in 1,500 job cuts and a major shift to digital platform integration. The group is composed of people from different backgrounds in western Quebec and eastern Ontario. We are not affiliated to any political party. We are here today to advocate for four key principles, to define what a Canadian public broadcaster should be for us.
First, CBC/Radio-Canada is not a state radio and television network. It is not subject to private interests and has no political ties, including to the party in power. Radio-Canada is a public broadcaster and the Canadian population acts as its shareholders via the Canadian Parliament. This is our first principle.
Second, a modern democratic nation should not have to rely solely on privately broadcast news, information and cultural programs. A democratic nation requires a wide spectrum of views and opinions, a free and objective perspective, independent of the private sector. This principle was initially endorsed and has been restated and reiterated by different Canadian parliaments since 1936.
Third, public radio and television broadcasting should be publicly funded and must be accessible to all citizens across Canada at no extra cost and without recourse to specialized services. This is primordial. Public broadcasting should reflect the concerns and interests of its citizens at all levels, local, national and international.
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: Before I present the fourth principle, I would like to add that Hubert Lacroix, President of CBC/Radio-Canada, has requested for a number of years that Canadians pay a cable and satellite user distribution fee in order to finance public broadcasting.
Fortunately, the CRTC continues to turn down this request. The president of the CRTC has reiterated the importance of live television coverage, free of charge, with the continued use of antennae such as "rabbit ears''. During consultations via Let's Talk TV, Canadians did indeed express their wish to maintain this type of service, which, in several regions, offers between five to eight channels, including Radio-Canada and CBC. We want to remind you that Canadians still watch 28 hours of television per week, and that number is not decreasing.
The fourth principle we advocate as citizens is that Canada is a bilingual country that must serve not only its francophone and anglophone communities, but also the Aboriginal communities spread over a vast territory. The costs incurred will always be higher than those of other countries. We do not need to remind you that Canada is the second-largest country in terms of surface area. We must find innovative ways of adequately financing our public broadcaster, as has been accomplished by most of the modern industrialized countries.
I will now move on to recommendations. In closing, Mr. Chair, this is what we are asking of your committee.
Recommendation 1: Considering that the amount of funding provided to Radio-Canada/CBC by Parliament for public broadcasting is $29 per Canadian citizen, per year, whereas the worldwide average in industrialized countries is $82 per capita, we recommend that the $115 million lost in funding be promptly restored, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage set up a ministerial working group to examine innovative, multi-annual and stable financing for Radio-Canada/CBC and that this report be sent to Parliament. How can a corporation of CBC's size be managed if its budget is not known in advance and is not stable? As Canadians, we think that is very difficult to achieve.
Recommendation 2: Considering that new media is exempted from any regulatory control — and I would be happy to tell you more about this later — considering that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no available study on the impact of a rapid transfer of programming from CBC/Radio-Canada to the new platforms, taking into consideration the public broadcaster's obligations under the Broadcasting Act; considering it is imperative that CBC/Radio-Canada fully carry out its legally prescribed mandate under the Broadcasting Act on all platforms, we recommend that CBC/Radio-Canada remain subject to the Broadcasting Act, regardless of the platform utilized.
Recommendation 3: We recommend that your report enforce, in all its recommendations, CBC/Radio-Canada's compliance with what the law requires under the Broadcasting Act, that is, to pursue local sources, be predominantly Canadian, to actively contribute to the exchange of cultural expression, and to offer a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains with all its independence as required by law.
When it comes to adequate funding — and this part is not in your document — what bothers us is that Canada is one of the rare countries that provides funding directly from the government budget. That funding is therefore left at the discretion of parliamentarians and, more importantly, of the government in power, regardless of its political affiliation.
We would prefer your committee to advocate for licence fees, similar to those paid to the BBC and found in other countries like Japan. That's an indirect way to fund the public broadcaster, since direct funding for the corporation clearly makes it seem like the government wants to control it.
Finally, we want to use this public forum to ask the board of directors and CBC/Radio-Canada's management team to suspend the implementation of its 2020 strategic plan — I do not know whether you have consulted the website, but we have, and our attempt to understand the strategic plan has been totally unsuccessful — until its impact on programming availability, quality and quantity has been assessed by a third party, between now and the end of June 2015.
And now, Mr. Chair, it will be our pleasure to answer your questions to the best of our knowledge as representatives of ordinary Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Poirier.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you. I really don't know where to start on this.
Let me start by asking our guests, who supports your organization? Do you have a membership? How do you raise funds? Give me an idea of who you are.
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: Our committee has 16 members. However, we are present on all the new technology platforms, and we have received 6,000 clicks on Facebook and Twitter. That's our way of reaching Canadians. We are focused on new technologies.
The group of 16 citizens has had one press conference so far and has received feedback from the public. We have also established partnerships with a number of other organizations, such as Amis de Radio-Canada and others. We were invited to participate in the Montreal protest, and we had a chance to speak on that occasion. Our group has held at least 15 meetings, and we are preparing a huge concert that will take place on March 9 at the National Arts Centre. In less than 24 hours, 900 people from the community have already confirmed their attendance. The show will be sold out. Had we been able to secure a larger venue, we would have easily attracted 2,000 people. It's true that we are volunteers. We cover our own expenses such as photocopies, parking costs, meals and so on. However, when it comes to the concert and the production of certain promotional items, some organizations have agreed to help us. For instance, la Guilde, which is a union, has agreed to provide some items, such as the small buttons we are wearing. It's always a matter of basic things.
Of course, in that case, we have asked anyone with whom we have an association — and it's important to point this out, Senator — for complete independence of speech and ideas.
[English]
Senator Plett: Certainly I agree with the last statement. Every Canadian citizen has the absolute right and freedom to express his or her ideas. However we, as senators, need to still make sure that we are doing what the majority of Canadians want and not what a group of 16 wants. I think the question was very relevant to know who you are representing and whether, in fact, you are representing a huge number of Canadians or 16 individuals.
We just visited the BBC in London. You're suggesting in one of your recommendations that Canada start some kind of system similar to the BBC with the licensing of television. I think we would have anarchy on our hands if we ever went to the Canadian public and suggested that.
We have studied this particular issue for I'm not sure how many months and how many witnesses, but for probably close to a year. We have had witness after witness tell us that we should do things similar to the BBC.
Yesterday we had Mr. Lacroix in here, and when I suggested that the BBC was doing certain things, then all of a sudden things turned around and we shouldn't compare the CBC with the BBC anymore. We were different: Canada's different, the U.K. is different. Indeed the people at the BBC accepted the fact that we are different: They are an island. You're comparing us with European countries that don't have thousands of miles of unprotected border where we are getting information from across the border.
The fact of the matter is I don't think there is one person in this country that has his or her arm behind his or her back, being forced to go and turn that television on and turn it to a certain channel. They are watching what they want to and what is interesting for them to watch.
Mr. Lacroix and I are at odds with the ratings in Alberta. I say they're 2 per cent, he says they're 8 per cent. The jury is out on that, and we'll find out what they are. The fact of the matter is that more Albertans want to watch American broadcasting than want to watch the CBC.
I don't think we should force anyone to watch something they don't want to watch. If that is the case, we should not take taxpayers' dollars because of a group of 16. And you still haven't answered how many people you're representing. You're saying you are a group of 16 that is doing this voluntarily, and you're suggesting to us that we do something when I see no proof that the Canadian public wants what you're suggesting.
I would like some background from you to tell me that the majority of the Canadian public wants what you are suggesting. I believe that if that would happen, then any government in power, if they believe the majority of taxpayers want what you're suggesting, would do that.
Please tell me where you believe the majority of Canadians want what you're proposing here today.
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: Of course, we do not have the means to carry out large-scale surveys, but some groups have done that, and I will let Mr. Doucet explain the results of polls showing Canadians' views on the importance of funding their public broadcaster.
[English]
Mr. Doucet: I can understand your reservations about who you're speaking to. By the way, I liked some of your questions to Mr. Lacroix yesterday. I found it very interesting.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Mr. Doucet: A Pollara poll indicated that 80 per cent of Canadians agreed that they wanted to have more local programming and supported CBC. EKOS I think said 70 or 69.8 per cent wanted to have more funding. I think we can pretty confidently say that —
Senator Plett: Excuse me, but those were two different things. Eighty per cent wanted more funding or 80 per cent wanted more CBC? Those are two different things.
Mr. Doucet: Eighty per cent support CBC. When asked the specific question by EKOS, 69 point something supported more funding. I think we can say pretty confidently that we're not some wild-eyed extremist group. We represent pretty much the mainstream.
Senator Plett: Why do you think — and cut me off when I'm done, chair, and I know you will.
Tell me why the ratings don't bear out what you're saying? My colleague Senator Housakos had a different meeting tonight, but he has raised this issue a number of times and he did again yesterday.
During the horrific attack here on Parliament Hill back in October, CBC did some wonderful broadcasting. When you say 80 per cent want to watch CBC, I'm in that 80 per cent. I want you to know that. I watch CBC more than I watch any other of our broadcasters, more than CTV.
Yesterday I watched CTV. The reason I watched it is that when I turned the television on in my hotel room, it happened to be on CTV just when "The National'' was coming on, so I watched it. I don't mind saying publicly I did not enjoy it as much as I enjoy CBC's "The National.'' I'm one of those.
I don't want more funding given to them because of course they do advertising. So they get funding, and yet they can go against the advertising.
Getting back to my point, October 22, they did a great job, a superb job. I think Rosemary Barton was one of the main journalists. She was in lockdown, and for 24 hours she broadcast. And I watched it relentlessly.
When we were in London, we asked for our clerk to get us some numbers on what the ratings had been for CBC that week versus CTV and Global. We did the top 30. CBC didn't make the chart. CTV was somewhere around 20 or 22. CBC, in that week, didn't make that chart. That tells me that Canadians don't want to watch CBC, because I think that that, sir, is the best poll in the world if people are turning to that channel.
Mr. Doucet: I heard you ask that question of Mr. Lacroix and I heard his answer. I liked some of his answers and I didn't like some of his other answers. That was one I had trouble with.
He said basically it was 8.2 for CBC, and the top was 12.7 for CTV. That only puts CBC 4 per cent behind, which isn't much. He went on. He didn't really make this point very strongly, that the British Broadcasting Corporation gets five times as much money as the CBC and they get 35 per cent of the audience. Multiply our budget by five times, and I think you'll find that what you pay for is what you get. We would see a significant increase in Canadian funds.
Senator Plett: BBC can do no advertising, and CBC can run competition to the private broadcasters in advertising, so you cannot just simply equate that.
It's my last question.
The Chair: Since you'll be chairing next week, you'll understand the fact that trying to get people to be disciplined is going to be a challenge.
Senator Plett: That's my last question, chair, if you'll let them answer.
The Chair: I'll be listening to you on the Web, and if I notice that you're letting people talk too much and at the end you're using time, I hope you'll understood.
Senator Plett: I'll use a little hour glass. Please let them answer and then I'll turn it over to Senator Eggleton.
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: I just want to clarify something that's important to us. Our advisory committee for citizens has 16 members, but we have 6,000 Facebook members who belong to our organization. I think it is important to clarify that we feel we represent 6,000 members who have voluntarily joined us on Facebook. As for advertising, you will recall that, in 1960 or 1970, the CBC asked for permission to run advertisements in order to increase its revenues. At the same time — this needs to be said, and I heard Mr. Lacroix mention it yesterday — on the francophone side, had Radio-Canada not been there to provide visibility in terms of commercials, very few channels could have done the same back then. TVA was the only one. We now have VTV and a few other channels, but that was also because of the demand from businesses that needed a way to reach the public. That is why the situation we have just been describing came about.
Let's not forget that there are no commercials on the radio, except in the case of CBC Radio 2 and Espace Musique, which were given permission to run advertisements. Why seek out advertising? Because of a lack of revenues. Parliament is not providing sufficient funding. The BBC had advertising until recently. A few years ago, they agreed to review their model, and things have since changed. I would be the first to be very happy about my government agreeing to provide the CBC with $6 billion to completely do away with advertising. But what can I say, that is the question you asked. I would tell you that many people, even in France, no longer have to watch advertising. Do you know who compensates for the loss of advertising revenue? Private broadcasters do by paying the public broadcaster. I invite you to look into France's case. That country found other ways to do things.
We are not suggesting a funding formula. We are asking that a ministerial working group be created, as we do not have the authority to recommend a funding formula. However, we think that Parliament must maintain a distance from CBC, it should put a stop to direct funding and come up with an indirect funding approach that would be deemed acceptable by Canadians, 69 per cent of whom recognize that CBC's funding is insufficient. The public broadcaster was created to protect our programming from Americanization. I think we must preserve our Canadian values in this day and age. That is what the CBC is doing.
The Chair: Ms. Poirier, I will tell you the same thing I told the senators asking questions. If you kept your answers shorter, we would have more time for questions. I can see that you used to be in politics, as you have a way with words.
Next up is Senator Eggleton, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I was there too, at least three of us in the room.
You mentioned the Broadcasting Act several times. I note the Broadcasting Act talks about the creation and presentation of Canadian programming. It talks about safeguarding, enriching and strengthening the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada. It goes on for quite a few pages saying that. Ironically, it doesn't say anything about ratings.
The ratings, as I think you pointed out, Mr. Doucet, are not as bad as some people might make them out to be.
Senator Plett: Two per cent isn't great.
Senator Eggleton: No, there's no such thing. You haven't verified that. That's not true — 8.2 per cent versus 12.3 per cent at the highest. When you consider the 500-channel universe and how fragmented this whole industry is, their ratings aren't bad. They've got some good programming and it has good numbers attached to it. The BBC, of course, can produce very good quality programming, which they do, but they have so much more money.
You mentioned the Pollara poll and support at 80 per cent. You mentioned that the other poll showed 69 per cent want more funding, and the CBC reports that they have a reach of some 87 per cent in any given month. Those are very high numbers and very strong indications of support by the Canadian public.
There is the question of funding that you've primarily focused on. This government is starving the CBC. Past governments, including my own political stripe, have not been very friendly in that regard either; I admit that. I think this piling on with the current cuts has just gone too far, and you've pointed that out here as well.
You say that we must find innovative ways of adequately financing our public broadcaster. Let's explore that for a moment. We all know what the BBC does. They have this licence fee system. It's something that goes way back in their history. It might be a little difficult to try to bring that into effect here, but there are some other possibilities.
You mentioned Mr. Lacroix talking about the cable and satellite distribution systems, that they should be paying some the share of the money they get to the CBC for public broadcasting. Do you have any sense of how much that would create? I don't recall him saying that. How much money would that bring into the coffers of the CBC?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: Senator, it's very difficult for us to make an estimate like that because, putting a number on the distribution costs would involve going before the CRTC and, then, during a public hearing, CBC, together with the CRTC, could set a price.
That price could vary from one cable and satellite company to another. It would then be possible to determine how much those companies charge the public to cover the cost, but the public would end up footing the bill for those distribution fees.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Another one of our witnesses, Mr. Kiefl, suggested a 7 per cent tax on the communications industry, which may be a little bit broader. The industry has now converged. They're into different platforms and wireless, as well as traditional broadcasting and online services. Have you any thoughts about that? You would just leave it up to somebody else to work out how this money would be found? You definitely think there should be more money given to the CBC.
I'll ask you about one other thing. The fact is that right now it comes from the treasury. It comes from the basic revenues of the government, which means it's subject to the vagaries of the year-to-year allocations, depending on how things are going and how the government wants to cut spending. It means from year to year rather than any long-term funding. What are your thoughts about that?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: We've examined the issue, looking at a number of countries. In the case of the BBC, it's a licence fee, as you mentioned. France imposed a telecommunications tax on mobile phone use. Japan also has a licence fee, which ranges from $140 to $250 per household. In Sweden, per-capita funding is $310, and the public broadcaster does not have any advertising.
Canada opted for a spectrum auction. Spectrum is publicly owned. The government could have decided to keep part of the spectrum revenue that is used by CBC. Millions of dollars that could have been used have gone into the public purse. We want to make clear how unfortunate it is that CBC has to sell its assets in order to produce good programming. Mr. Lacroix made the comment to you yesterday. It's a bit like an average citizen deciding to sell their home in order to buy groceries.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: There is one other subject, and that is advertising. With the BBC, when we were over in London, any suggestion that maybe they would get into advertising was met with horror: "Oh, my goodness, the private sector wouldn't like it.'' It would compete with them. The BBC said one of the reasons for their great success and getting all the viewers they have is that people like to avoid the commercials that can go on and on for several minutes.
Yesterday you may have heard Mr. Lacroix say that their advertising revenue is about $350 to $380 million now. I think that may be just for English television; I'm not sure.
Ms. Poirier: No, it's all together.
Senator Eggleton: I understand there is a little different attitude in terms of the Radio-Canada broadcast and television with advertising. All together it's $380 million?
Ms. Poirier: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: He said about 10 per cent would be the cost of sales. Is it really worth it? If they are cut to the bone the way they are now, it probably is, but if they had a better, stronger base of funding, would it be better to consider getting out of advertising, as it already does for Radio One?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: For us, the most important thing is that CBC have the funding it needs to deliver quality programming, and here is what we mean. In the U.S., which we are competing against, some one-hour shows have $5-million budgets. Certainly, if we had that kind of money to spend, Canadians would have incredible television programs and would watch even more TV.
However, CBC's mandate requires that it broadcast programs featuring the Calgary Stampede, Acadian Day and the life of John A. Macdonald. Between us, shows like those will never draw huge audiences, but they are necessary in order to inform the public, give it distinct Canadian values — values that are different from American values — and ensure that CBC is able to fulfill its mandate. That is why having an adequate budget is so important.
We believe you are smart enough to recommend that the public broadcaster be given more money and to determine where that money should come from. We are proposing a solution but, as ordinary Canadians, we, of course, don't have the ultimate solution for you today.
[English]
Senator Unger: Ms. Poirier, I would like to follow up on the comments from Mr. Lacroix, wherein he has requested from the CRTC that Canadians pay a cable and satellite distribution fee in order to finance public broadcasting. I think one word was missed from that sentence, "the'' word. I think it should be cable and satellite "user'' fee rather than "distribution.'' That's a position I really support.
I do not watch CBC. I live in Alberta. They have cut back our news services. I would volunteer that they pay scant attention to major breaking stories. For example, Premier Peter Lougheed, who was highly revered by many Albertans, passed away, and his funeral might have gotten a total of 30 minutes of coverage. Compare that to other funerals from down east that the CBC would have covered almost non-stop. So if that one word "user'' would be in that sentence, I would agree.
With enthusiastic supporters — and Ms. Poirier, you would be the cheerleader — I think in no time at all the CBC could become the next BBC. However, I think Canada is unique and cannot be compared to the BBC or other countries in Europe because we are the only ones that have a large neighbour to the south. Most of the programming I watch comes from there. If it's Canadian, there are other channels that I watch.
That puts us in a unique position. Someone mentioned earlier the large amount of money that gets spent on certain programs, and if the CBC had that kind of funding, we're a tenth of their size; that will never happen.
The last question that I'd like to ask, or maybe the only question, pertains to a symposium held in September 2013 at the University of Oxford. It asked: Is there still a place for public-service television given the changing economics of broadcasting?
In your opinion, have the changing economics of broadcasting in Canada affected the relevance of CBC?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: I heard the great questions you asked yesterday on the importance of television and local news, among other things. I completely agree with you on the subject.
It's important to understand, however, that if Radio-Canada were ever to disappear — I am speaking on behalf of French speakers in Quebec — only one network would be left broadcasting news in French, TVA. As we speak, no other station — not the V network, not Unis — provides news coverage. And the Broadcasting Act makes very clear the importance of Canadians having access to diverse viewpoints.
Obviously, the English-language market is different. Private English-language networks could offset that gap. What has been clearly established is that, once Radio-Canada is no longer around to deliver the news, the calibre, duration, frequency and quality of news programming all decline. Canadians need this medium in order to be well-informed. Our priorities, as a group, are the delivery of local, regional, national and international news to Canadians, and the creation of original content through documentaries, dramas, as well as cultural and sports programming. That is what we believe Radio-Canada's mission should be.
[English]
Senator Unger: Just a short question: Why is the CBC so unfair with their coverage across the country? Because they are unfair.
Since I've been on this committee, I've listened to the coverage that is provided to other provinces. I don't know where Senator Plett gets his figures from, but he's very close, I would guess. There's a reason for it. We had a witness last week who said, "The CBC cannot be all things to all people,'' and that is eminently noticeable in my province.
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: I accept your comment. What I would say to that is that people outside Montreal often say the same thing; they feel neglected. It's important to understand, however, what a broad mandate CBC has. Our group estimated that it has to deliver 33 different services in both official languages, not to mention Aboriginal languages, within its budget. It has antennas all over the country. No private broadcaster has to cover the entire country in the same way using as many antennas.
To my mind, it's a matter of budget. We are insisting upon the importance of giving the public broadcaster a bigger budget precisely so that it can provide comprehensive local news coverage across the entire country.
[English]
Mr. Doucet: Your complaint would be shared by people like me. I'm not an expert like my colleagues. I'm just an old city politician, but I can tell you from my experience of being a city politician that 1.3 million people live in this region. That's a significant chunk of the province of Alberta, and they have one public-service journalist now covering all local news. If you think they can cover it, you're wrong. They can't.
Yesterday, I think it was Senator Eggleton who asked why we should cover local news. Often the national stories come out of the local ones. When I was first elected, we had the world's largest ice storm that shut down a whole part of the province. We needed coverage; we needed the CBC.
I can tell you right now there are stories happening in this city that I would love the people of our city to know about, let alone the people of Alberta. There's a great discussion over the islands in the Ottawa River. The local Aboriginal people and others would like to keep them as a national gathering place because those grounds are their traditional gathering place. It's not the fault of the CBC. When you have one journalist, you can cover very little.
I think most of your complaints could be dealt with if there were the resources. To me, when we were doing all this research for your committee in the hopes of helping you prepare, one of the staggering statistics was how little CBC got compared to every other industrialized nation. It's a long way from $82 per capita to 29. That's a huge difference. Our country makes France look like a peanut.
I'm a rough guy, I guess; I don't have my colleagues' sophistication. To me, it looks pretty simple. You get what you pay for. We have a big country with all kinds of problems, and we have this tiny budget for a national public broadcaster.
Senator Greene: We talked about ratings earlier. In English Canada it's 8.2 per cent, and CTV is at 12.6, or something like that. One of you made reference to the fact that this meant that CTV was 4 per cent ahead of CBC. Actually, it's 50 per cent because the difference between 8 and 12 is 4, and half of 8 is 4. So CTV is 50 per cent ahead of CBC. I think I recall that the ratings in Quebec are about 18 per cent. That makes Quebec two and a half times better or stronger than in English Canada.
I can imagine there was a time in the early years of CBC TV in 1952, 1953 or 1954 when the ratings that the CBC was able to attract were considerably higher than now because it was almost the only game in town. People along the border could attract the American networks if they had rabbit ears and an antenna. But most everybody else, if they were going to watch television, had to watch CBC. I don't know what their ratings were, but they must have been extremely high.
At that point, I think there was a real reason to ask the taxpayer to pay for the CBC, because there were a lot of Canadians watching it. It's not the case anymore. So I question whether taxpayers should continue to pay for the CBC. On the other hand, I like the CBC. I'm like Senator Plett. I do watch it.
I would like to explore alternative models to fund the CBC. One that we haven't really spent enough time on as a committee is "user pay.'' I want to ask if you, who care for the CBC, would agree to pay for the CBC every time you watch it, assuming that a method could be developed to make that happen. Would you do that? Would you each pay to watch the CBC?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: CBC/Radio-Canada is the only network that brings together all Canadians at the same time. When I'm in Vancouver, I can watch a program that other Canadians are watching at the same time, or just about. Canada is a large country, and in order to bring Canadians together, it's necessary to show them who and what they are. Without CBC, I don't think the country would have the same values, especially given that we welcome people from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds from all over the world. CBC/Radio-Canada is often the benchmark newcomers rely on to learn about Canada. We are absolutely convinced that, like our health care system, the values and social fabric that define us should be free.
[English]
Senator Greene: I take it your answer is no, you would not pay for the CBC.
Ms. Poirier: No, and I would add that the President of the CRTC made a speech not too long ago and said that Canadians want to keep the rabbit ears. Why? Because the kids now, what do they do? They don't get the cable. They don't pay for it, but they use the rabbit antennas to listen to the CBC because it's free.
There are a number in the United States. It's very important. In 2010, 14 per cent of the population used rabbit ears. Now we know in 2013, 20 per cent of them do that because it's free.
Senator Greene: Would that be the same answer for all of you, that you would not pay for the CBC in order to receive it?
Mr. Doucet: I would like to answer your question this way. I think an essential part of public broadcasting is that it be of no charge. It's one of the reasons that brought me here before you today.
To give you a very personal example, I'm a great — I hate to say it — Montreal fan. When Maurice Richard had his memorial at the Forum or the new Bell Centre you had to dial in to TSN to see it. When I wanted to see the world junior hockey games, you had to pay $250 to Rogers. People in Canada are paying $70, $100 or more every month to watch specialized TV. Well, if we allow CBC/Radio-Canada to fall apart, the only way you can be a Canadian is if you have the money to pay for that entry into it. I think everybody in Canada should be able to see things like that.
Senator Greene: That's a very nice wish, but my question is if you had no other choice but to pay for the CBC, would you do it? I'm hearing no.
Mr. Doucet: You wouldn't have a Canadian broadcaster, then. It's like apples and oranges. You wouldn't be paying for the same thing.
Senator Greene: Suppose there was an incentive.
Senator Plett: It's irrelevant.
Senator Greene: Suppose the federal government provided a dollar for every dollar that you pay.
Ms. Poirier: We already pay in our taxes. We pay $29 a year. We are saying we would be willing to pay $40 per year from our taxes to get a better service and to make it a regional, local service. That's what we're here for.
Senator Greene: But most of the people aren't watching, though.
Ms. Poirier: And that's why I want to add one thing, Mr. Chair, if you allow me.
Many Canadians don't have a car but pay for the roads. So I would say many Canadians don't watch CBC but are willing to keep it because it's a safeguard.
Senator Plett: It's irrelevant, right?
The Chair: The question and the answer might be relevant to some and not to others. I would like a little discipline. There are thousands and thousands of people listening to us.
Senator MacDonald: I want to thank the witnesses for being here.
If I may, I want to give a special greeting to Mr. Clive Doucet. I consider Clive a Cape Bretoner. His dad is from Grand Étang and his mom was a war bride. He wrote a great book in the early 1980s called My Grandfather's Cape Breton.
Senator Plett: Is this relevant?
Senator MacDonald: Of course, it is.
The Chair: Senator Plett, you're chairing next week, not this week.
Senator MacDonald: It was a great book, Clive.
Mr. Doucet: Thank you very much, sir.
Senator MacDonald: I was always pulling for you in the mayoral races even though I didn't have a vote. You're a fine Canadian and a great public servant.
Mr. Doucet: Thank you very much, sir.
Senator MacDonald: I want to go back to some of your recommendations here. I don't have a lot trouble with the last two recommendations, but I have some trouble with the first recommendation, to restore $115 million in lost funding. One of the things the CBC has to do is adjust to the new reality in broadcasting and to spend money well. I want to ask you how the first recommendation relates to the last two, which refer to the Broadcasting Act.
The latest version of the Broadcasting Act was put forward in 1991. That was almost a quarter of a century ago. A lot of things have changed in broadcasting in a quarter of a century. My two sons stream the content on their computers and phones, and all of their friends do. It's an entirely different infrastructure and reality that we're dealing with. Is it time we readdressed the Broadcasting Act and how it serves Canadians? Perhaps it should be updated. What are your comments on that?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: We think that should be left to parliamentarians and the government to decide. We believe it's your job to determine whether or not the act should be updated. I will, however, mention that when I went to the CRTC, I met Konrad von Finckenstein, and he felt the act should undergo a review. Conversely, Jean-Pierre Blais disagrees. We believe you are competent enough to decide whether the act needs updating.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: The other three people haven't spoken much. I wonder about your opinions on this.
Mr. Doucet: Louise tells me I have too many opinions on too many things; I'm a Cape Bretoner. We are building a home in Grand Étang, by the way.
Senator MacDonald: Not to be confused with Petit Étang.
Mr. Doucet: No, not to be confused.
You touched on a very complex matter. I'm shocked to see how many of the younger generation use the iPads and so forth. For them, it's a service they're buying. If they want to listen to pop music, they listen to pop music. If older people want to listen to classical music, they go to classical music. But if you want to know what the community of Canada is saying about any particular thing, the only place you can go to is the old platforms, television and radio.
What is interesting is that in spite of the take-up on the new platforms, the old ones are remaining solid and growing. That's extraordinary. It seems to me that there is a very big feeling out there that they want to have those old dependable services. You turn that television on, turn that radio on and you get news from across the country.
It is truly exciting. I'm amazed, Senator MacDonald, that you're here and know my dad is from Grand Étang because it's a tiny little village.
Senator MacDonald: I've been to Cheticamp, Petit Étang and Grand Étang many times.
Mr. Doucet: But you're one of the few. The interesting thing is when I'm down there, sometimes somebody will phone me from Moncton to do an interview in French. They'll say, "We hear you're there.'' Then somebody in Ottawa will hear I've done an interview in Moncton in French, and they will call me from Ottawa. That's community. That's building a sense that we're all in this together, and that's the great thing that I think you can't replace with the digital stuff.
Senator MacDonald: I think you're right. I also think you said something that is very illuminating: CBC Radio. I'm a fan of CBC Radio. I think CBC Radio is relevant and has adjusted well. I still think there is room for improvement. I don't think CBC Television has kept up to CBC Radio in terms of adjusting to the realities, and I think they have to do that.
If CBC Television is to be relevant and current, I agree that they have a bigger road to walk. They have a bigger challenge, but they still have to step up and meet that challenge.
I want CBC Television to succeed, but they have to do more than just say, "Restore funding and give us more money.'' I want to see them step up to the challenge, that's all.
Mr. Doucet: I agree.
[Translation]
Senator Demers: I'd like to bring up another consideration that will hopefully make sense. There's a lot of talk about CBC/Radio-Canada and its budget. But its infrastructure costs are in the millions. Only half the Radio-Canada building at the corner of René-Lévesque and Papineau is being used. That's millions of dollars.
I have a 5,000-sq.-ft. house. It fills up with stuff and I start to run low on space. I decide to downsize to a 3,200-sq.-ft. house. I can do the same things I did before, even though I have sold a few pieces of furniture. The public broadcaster wants to carry out its activities on a large scale but doesn't have the money to do so. The Crown corporation has a lot of square footage in office space. I have been to Radio-Canada. I'm a friend of CBC/Radio-Canada, and I don't want to see it disappear. But it has offices in Toronto and around the country that are costing a fortune.
If CBC/Radio-Canada cut its operating costs, wouldn't it have enough money to carry out the same activities, just more efficiently and in a smaller house? If it did that, it would be able to survive, as opposed to having to ask for more money. Wouldn't that be the case?
When you ask for more money, you are asking taxpayers. We are already heavily taxed. People in Quebec are overtaxed and are at their limit. Wouldn't it be possible for CBC to review how it operates? Its operating costs are so high that it can no longer make ends meet.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, please.
Ms. Poirier: Senator, your suggestion makes perfect sense. We didn't examine every aspect of the situation. Some considerations are left in the hands of the Crown corporation's senior managers and board of directors, which was appointed by Parliament. It may be worthwhile to ask them how much they could save and figure out if that amount could make up for the shortfalls the public broadcaster has been experiencing for years.
Regardless, once the extra space is sold and the savings are spent, it still won't give the public broadcaster access to recurring funding that is adequate and stable in order to address the senator's point about coverage. It has become clear that, any time the broadcaster makes cuts, it is local and regional news coverage that suffers. That is what we want to prevent.
It's a good idea, but it might not be the long-term fix for all the broadcaster's needs. In our view, those kinds of solutions only work in the short term.
[English]
Senator Plett: Ms. Poirier, I agree with the last comment you made that whenever there are cuts, it hits the regions, but that isn't the problem of the government. That is the problem of the management at CBC. They are given money. I think you, yourself, are saying government shouldn't be interfering. They should be giving money and then letting CBC run their own programs. If we do what you're suggesting, then we have to allow CBC to decide where they cut when they have money issues. Even though I agree with you, it's not a problem for the government to handle.
I want touch on a couple of issues, if I could. You suggested that when money starts getting tighter, the quality of programming suffers. I think you even alluded that if CBC wouldn't be there, the quality of programming would go down.
Ms. Poirier: Yes.
Senator Plett: I don't know what you have to back that up. We would lose Canadian content if we didn't have our public broadcaster, but I think quality of programming and Canadian content are two different things and we need to determine what Canadian content we want. I don't think the quality of programming would go down.
BBC got a 20 per cent cut in funding. They had some other issues. One of the questions I asked when we were with members of the House of Lords was what they had done to bring their ratings back up. You're suggesting more money. The fact of the matter is Mr. Lacroix suggested more money and that that would get their ratings back up.
The member of the House of Lords said, "We improved our ratings by getting quality programming first,'' not, "First, give us more money.'' First is quality programming.
I think we need to establish what Canadian culture is. Canada is a multicultural country. Now in the province of Quebec, the ratings are higher, and I think CBC is doing a much better job. They are at 18 per cent versus their closest competitor at 22 per cent. It is a 4 per cent spread, and Senator Greene is correct that when it's 4 and 8, it's 50 per cent. When it's 18 and 22, it's whatever that percentage would be.
They are doing much better in Quebec, but it's easier to identify Quebec culture than Canadian culture. Yes, we have Aboriginals, our First Nations, if you will. It's easy to identify that. I'm an immigrant going back a few generations, but I'm an immigrant. Probably everybody in here is an immigrant. We have so many different people that have moved into our country over the years.
Really, it is becoming more and more difficult to identify what Canadian culture is. When we insist that CBC promote Canadian content and Canadian culture, in fairness to CBC — and I'm not here to defend Mr. Lacroix on this — I think they are struggling with what Canadian culture is.
I do want you to answer what I have just asked, but the other comment I do want to make is you referenced that they had to sell off real estate, building, because of their cuts. The fact of the matter is that probably the most successful companies in the world lease and rent. I lived in Calgary for a few years. If you went into an oil company's office and you turned a calculator upside down, there was a lease number on the bottom of the calculator. They just lease everything.
I don't see why selling assets is a bad thing when they can rent for less than owning. They have a building in Toronto that's 10 storeys high. When we toured it, I asked the person conducting the tour, "If you built this building today, what would you need?'' He said, "Five storeys.'' They have real estate that they don't need, so what is the bad side of them selling off real estate and renting or leasing?
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: Very quickly, if I may, I'd like to address the five points raised by the senator — who is very involved, which we appreciate. You probably know that private English-language networks broadcast American shows during prime time, not Canadian ones, as Radio-Canada does.
Second, the BBC produces high-quality programs because it can afford to, and it turns around and sells those programs to networks around the world. We buy BBC programming both in English and in French.
If Canada had the resources to produce quality programming, it, too, could sell its content to others around the world. In response to globalization, every European country made the decision to step up investment in its public broadcaster in order to protect the country's values.
Here, in Canada, I would say that it's harder to protect our Canadian values in the English-language market because of our close proximity to the U.S. Here's an example that illustrates what I was saying earlier. When Radio-Canada disappears, the private sector will produce less and less content. Radio-Canada shut down a station in Rimouski a few years ago. The private sector quickly followed suit, shutting down its regional station as well.
Ultimately, I don't think ratings are the most important thing for us, as Canadians. There has to be a balance between ratings, which are necessary for advertising revenue, and the ratings generated by Canadians who choose to tune into Canadian programming.
It is imperative, in our view, to reflect Canadian values and to accomplish that in a way that isn't solely ratings-based.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: It should be quite obvious that quality programming is what we want, but you've got to invest in it to get it. You can't keep cutting their base funding and expect that they can get a lot of quality programming out of that.
They have produced some. We've talked about "The Book of Negroes'' here, which has to do with our history. There is a lot of Canadian culture. There is a lot of great history in this country. There are a lot of great stories that could be told about Canadians from different parts of the country, and have been. But the problem is that we don't have enough money when you compare it to the Americans, which is the main competition we have in the English part of Canada. The Americans can pour tons of money into these things and promote them to a great extent, but we keep cutting back on the CBC. We can't keep doing that and expect quality programming.
Yes, we have to invest more in it, and I think that's the bottom-line message. A lot of people do watch these things. "The Book of Negroes'' had almost 2 million people watch the first episode. That's a lot of people.
The Chair: And the question?
Senator Eggleton: Oh, the question. Don't you agree?
Ms. Poirier: No comment.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you all very much for your presentation.
[English]
I'm quite sure the senators appreciated your passion.
Next week the committee will be chaired by Senator Plett. We will be meeting only on Wednesday night, and we will be hearing from Fédération culturelle canadienne-française.
(The committee adjourned.)