Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 14 - Evidence, February 25, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Donald Neil Plett (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
Today, we are continuing our study of the challenges faced by the CBC in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications. Our witnesses today are from the French-Canadian Cultural Federation. Welcome.
The FCCF has existed since 1977 and was first founded in my city of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Its mission is to promote francophone and Acadian artistic expression and to act as a spokesperson for the francophone cultural industry. We have before us, Martin Théberge, President; and Carol Ann Pilon, Deputy Executive Director. Thank you for attending. Please begin your presentation; and when you are done, senators will have questions.
[Translation]
Martin Théberge, President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Honourable senators, I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications for inviting us to appear as part of this study.
To start off, I would like to remind you that the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, FCCF, brings together seven national arts organizations, as well as 13 organizations working in artistic and cultural development in 11 provinces and territories in Canada. We also have an organization representing presenters, and an alliance of community radio broadcasters.
In this capacity, our organization is the representative of the entire sector encompassing the arts, culture and cultural industries in French Canada. The FCCF is a member of the Canadian Arts Coalition, the Coalition for Cultural Diversity and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.
The cuts announced in April and in June 2014, as well as the announcement of the new 2015-20 strategic plan for CBC/Radio-Canada last June, which foresees the elimination of more than 2,000 positions and cuts of more than $200 million, makes us fear the worst for our public broadcaster.
In our eyes and given section 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, it is unthinkable that Radio-Canada would become a simple re-broadcaster of content, competing with other media companies through multiple platforms, relying principally on the development of digital platforms, as presented in the CBC/Radio-Canada's new strategic plan.
As you know, if we refer to this section, and I quote:
(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should
(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,
(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.
Also, in the light of these statements, it is obvious that Radio-Canada cannot and must not rely solely on the laws of the marketplace to fulfil its mandate. It is imperative that the corporation be given adequate financial means and that concrete measures be taken to allow it to continue to invest in the production of national content.
In addition, it is clear to us that the reduction, over three years, of the parliamentary credits for the broadcaster, undeniably weakens its financial situation and its ability to contribute to the dissemination of Canadian identity and values, and its contribution to the construction of Canadian identity and linguistic vitality, especially in communities where the official language is in a minority situation.
By weakening our public broadcaster in such a way, the government is preventing it from achieving its mission, which has direct consequences such as: a weakening of the links between communities, a reduction of the number of cultural jobs in our field, a lessening of support for our artistic talent, and mostly, a reduction of the influence of French-Canadian artists and cultural and artistic organizations.
In our opinion, in order to completely fulfil its mandate, our public broadcaster must be given sufficient means that are not simply based on TV ratings and revenues from advertising. In fact, since the CRTC has deemed it reasonable for Radio-Canada to adhere to the requirement that it broadcast Canadian content during peak hours, a requirement which is more restrictive than those imposed on private networks, this must be taken into consideration by the government.
Our country needs a strong public broadcaster that is able to make programming decisions based on its mandate and not its profitability. It is important that Radio-Canada remain a real public broadcaster that is allowed to clearly distinguish itself from commercial businesses, with the quality and variety of the information it broadcasts, and with programming that is varied and high in quality. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that, according to Numeris BBM, our public broadcaster has ratings that are comparable to its competitors, even though it broadcasts a much larger amount of Canadian content. An even more revealing fact is that the reach of CBC/Radio-Canada is estimated at 87 per cent.
The FCCF is also questioning the SRC's real ability to continue to produce and generate original content in which francophones can find and recognize themselves, by providing a multi-screen environment. As much as we might find ourselves applauding Radio-Canada for going in this direction in order to get closer to a new clientele, a major concern persists. Is it realistic to believe that digital platforms are the best way to connect with communities in remote regions that don't have high-speed Internet, or where some members of those communities have low incomes, are aging or are illiterate? We have the right to ask whether the choice of this direction, made in the name of modernity and accessibility, is really taking into account the communities it wishes to serve.
Also, for the CRTC, local programming is defined as programming produced by local stations with local personnel or programming produced by locally-based independent producers that reflects the particular needs and interests of the market's residents. Reducing the number of employees and staff on Radio-Canada's territory considerably weakens all possibilities of creating real partnerships with minority communities, leading to the inevitable reduction of their visibility and thereby their exposure on a national level. For example, the Gala de la chanson de Caraquet, which in the past was broadcast live, is now recorded and rebroadcast in a condensed version only.
In addition, even though the announcement made by the CRTC on January 29 about the reviewing the sources of funding for local programming might seem like good news, we still remain concerned. The time needed to complete this study might jeopardize the already fragile gains we have made. The elimination of the local programming improvement fund (LPIF) has already contributed to a considerable drop in the SRC's annual funding.
Today, in certain regions served by the SRC, we have seen a shortening of the length of local news broadcasts and a significant decrease in the resources for cultural activities.
In the current context, based on the co-habitation of traditional and digital media, the multiplication of platforms, the erosion of revenues for traditional media that are slowly moving towards digital, the SRC lacks an adequate budget and sees itself forced to reduce its internal productions because the costs of those productions are too high and the tax credits are less beneficial. It will therefore have to buy or license content from independent Canadian producers, a point alluded to in the new 2015-20 strategic plan.
At this point, the FCCF is asking the SRC to strike a balance between creators and producers from French Canada and those from Quebec when it purchases francophone content. By achieving this balance, the SRC might benefit from a point of view that is less Quebec-centric or Montreal-centric, a fact mentioned by colleagues during previous presentations in front of this same committee.
In conclusion, it is important for Canada's cultural vitality that our public broadcaster once again become strong in order to continue to provide access to Canadian culture everywhere in the country, in both official languages. It is high time that the government took concrete measures to invest in the production of local and national content if it wants our cultural and creative industries to remain competitive vis-à-vis the world market, and to completely take on its role as the social glue that binds all Canadians together.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Pilon, do you have anything to add?
Carol Ann Pilon, Deputy Executive Director, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: No, I don't.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for your presentation. You have covered a lot of key points that we're considering here. You particularly focused in on the cuts and the damage you feel that's doing to the public broadcasting system in this country. I want to get a better understanding about the francophone-Acadian communities outside of Quebec. When we hear about Radio-Canada, we hear a lot about what's happening in Quebec, and I think you pointed out towards the end of your presentation that there has been some discussion about Quebec-centric or Montreal-centric programming. That's the biggest part of your market, so that's somewhat understandable. I am also concerned about how it affects the market in other parts of the country, whether it's northern Ontario, Manitoba or New Brunswick. When we get into the Maritimes, they are getting into more Acadian population, and right across the country there is a francophone population.
You did have a fair bit here about local programming, so how much local programming is going on with respect to French language broadcast in other parts of the country versus the Quebec-Montreal-centric materials and news? Second, how have the cuts that you've talked about in here affected that broadcast again in other parts of the country?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for the question.
Senator Eggleton: You can reply in French.
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: There are several parts to your question. I will do my best to answer it. First, you asked me to talk about the community outside Quebec. I will answer as succinctly as possible. We often hear that Canada stretches from sea to sea. In my view, that applies to both French and English. I just came from Charlottetown, where I attended a meeting with the federation's board. I was there with a colleague from Yukon and another colleague from British Columbia. I was representing Acadia to a certain extent. There were representatives from the cultural industries and a colleague from Ontario. Saying that its presence is stronger in one region than another would be a lie. We are looking at Canada as a whole. We must remember that, in a number of small communities, Radio-Canada is the only French-language broadcaster. So, if the French-language programming is eliminated, or Radio-Canada is reduced or eliminated, you are taking away all the options. The programming schedule changes and the issues are huge.
As to the second part of your question about the programming, I don't have the statistics. However, let's remember that Radio-Canada also has a mandate to talk about Canadians to Canadians. That does not mean talking about Montrealers to the people in Saint-Boniface. That does not mean talking about the crisis we hear so much about in the Gaspé, in relation to the local development and economy. That works for the Gaspé and for Quebecers. That is an important piece of general information for me since I am in Halifax. The challenge is to talk about the people in Halifax to the people in Saint-Boniface, or to talk about the people in Whitehorse to the people in Montreal. It is not a question of percentage. We need to look at the big picture and talk about all Canadians to every Canadian.
You asked about the programming. Radio-Canada said that it was going to change its ways, and buy more and more. Let me remind you that there are excellent opportunities in Quebec, but also in the Canadian francophonie. I am talking about the stakeholders, the cultural industries, mainly the members of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, APFC, and of the Front des réalisateurs indépendants du Canada, FRIC. Those two organizations are both members of our federation, but they both work in television, the video sector, and so on. Radio-Canada could tap into that great potential and use it for its local content — and when I say local, I mean Canadian content as a whole.
Finally, in terms of the last part of your question about the impact of the cuts, some cuts have been announced; we know that other cuts are on the horizon, but we don't know how things will play out. The cuts are already significant; we are already talking about job losses everywhere. Newscasts have been shortened from one hour to half an hour in some provinces — and I am talking mainly about Radio-Canada. So, on a pro rata basis, local news will automatically be reduced as well; cultural news will also be reduced. And other cuts are coming. What will happen after that? Fifteen-minute newscasts? Newscasts covering all of Western Canada?
We are concerned right now. A step has been taken backwards. If cuts continue to be made as announced, we will have a major problem. Canadians will no longer know how to be Canadian, because they will no longer have a public broadcaster to talk about Canada as a whole.
You are asking me what the impact of those cuts will be. There have already been some quite significant effects. However, let me digress to congratulate Radio-Canada on successfully making the cuts — yes, we are the ones who felt the negative impact, but I think it could have been worse. Unfortunately, other cuts are looming, and we are dreading them.
Have I fully answered your question?
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I think I got most of it. The news is being cut. If you cut the time and a number of other things that are covered, I assume they're also cutting staff. There is not as much coverage of local news. What is filling up the spot when you're cutting the news down from an hour to half an hour? What are they filling the spot with?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: Two things. First, we don't know yet how this additional half hour will be filled. The cuts are just being made and assigned. So we don't know yet what will fill that spot. What we know is that it won't be local news.
Second, I gave the newscasts as examples, but there are many other examples, and I am talking about local partners. In my speech, I mentioned the Gala de la chanson de Caraquet, which used to be broadcast live. Now it is broadcast in segments; you have a three-hour gala that is condensed into half an hour, and it is either broadcast in its entirety on a Sunday afternoon, when the ratings are lower, or it is presented as short clips, somewhere else.
There are a number of other examples, at the local level, where partnerships have been reduced or cancelled. It is increasingly difficult on the ground to form new partnerships with Radio-Canada. While that may have been feasible in the past, it is no longer the case.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Outside Quebec, are there any private broadcasters in French?
[Translation]
Ms. Pilon: TVA also broadcasts nationally; it has mandatory distribution. As a result, TVA channels are also distributed across the country. TV5 Unis is new on the scene; it also has mandatory distribution. However, there is a major issue with these private networks. In places where cable companies have a market of fewer than 20,000 subscribers, they can be exempted from distributing and providing the mandatory channels. So there is an impact on our small communities. Access, even to channels with mandatory distribution, which are few and far between in Canada's broadcasting system, is limited, whereas Radio-Canada is required to be available in all the communities. Radio-Canada is the only broadcaster that does that.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: There is some private broadcasting in French outside Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Pilon: Yes, there is a new channel that is just cutting its teeth in the business, TV5 Unis.
Mr. Théberge: If I may, I would like to add that it is true that TV5 Unis is new. Ms. Pilon talked about the issue of having 20,000 subscribers or less per system. First, the program schedule is still being developed, and second, when we talk about these systems of less than 20,000 subscribers, in Nova Scotia, for instance, only the Halifax region has access to them. Cable distributors are seriously ill-informed, and do not know what mandatory broadcasting requirements are and so do not integrate them. There are francophones who have called their cable distributor to ask for access and were told that they would have to pay to obtain it. There is a major lack of information.
To conclude on this topic, I would add that generally speaking, yes, there may be a few distributors or a few French-language channels for francophones outside Quebec, but if you compare the number of channels for francophones outside Quebec to the number of channels for anglophones in Quebec, there is an enormous disparity, and it is clear that there is still work to be done to arrive at a situation that is desirable for francophone minority communities.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our two witnesses. First I should say that I do not normally sit on this committee.
I would have two questions for you. I believe that CBC/Radio-Canada has received more money from Canadian taxpayers over the past 20 years. However, we have observed that regional services are continually declining. How do you explain that?
Mr. Théberge: It would be interesting to put that question to CBC/Radio-Canada representatives in order to get their reaction. I would say, and this is true for many non-profit organizations, that funding is not necessarily increasing, but the cost of living is, especially when you have to deal with unions, for example. The cost of living for these organizations is increasing. That is, in my opinion, one of the issues. I do not have a complete explanation.
I think that in the past the LPIF, the Local Programming Improvement Fund, was very good for our communities. We are not necessarily asking that this program be reinstated, but that certain measures of that type, which could support local programming, be taken, because you have to understand that there are disparities and greater distances involved.
Some of our colleagues from francophone and Acadian communities who testified before you during the past weeks also mentioned — and I would tend to agree with them — that programming or content calling on francophone and Acadian communities, and non-profit organizations, would cost less to produce than programs that are produced internally, at Radio-Canada. So, in my opinion — and this relates to my previous point — there is an opportunity there for the Canadian francophonie that would also support our public broadcaster and help it to develop good programming.
Senator Dagenais: I would like to discuss technological changes with you.
The other day, for instance, I was watching the Golden Globe Awards, and I was surprised to see the number of films that Netflix now produces. I concluded that Netflix has now become a major player. Netflix is causing a technological change at this time.
I would like to know what the repercussions of this are on Canadians who consume information, and, in general, how francophone and Acadian communities may be affected by these changes. Because now, we know that there are other players: there is competition from Netflix, and possibly iTunes or YouTube. How will this affect programming for Acadian communities?
Mr. Théberge: It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be an opportunity to be better seen and better known, but it is also — for the person sitting in his living room — more competition, more people who are fighting to attract the eyes and ears of listeners. The CRTC is doing the Let's Talk TV review, and we are among those who asked it to look at the regulations that govern Netflix and offer similar services. We are very pleased that the CRTC decided to examine the issue of trying to find other sources of revenue, because we believe that those options indeed have to be looked at, and we have to reflect on how to regulate Netflix and all of the other services.
It is a double-edged sword, and I tend to see the negative side rather than the positive one. That is to say that for local producers it is very difficult to put their content on Netflix. That is a problem. In broader terms, as concerns technology — I mentioned this before and I am repeating it — Radio-Canada wants to embrace the new technologies, and in a way that is a brilliant decision. If you take, for instance, the second largest francophone population in Newfoundland, which is in Corner Brook and does not have access to Radio-Canada, developments such as cross-platform technology and tablets will give that population access to Radio-Canada and to content in French. Other communities such as the one in Hay River may not have access to the high bandwidth that would give them access to the technology, or to high-speed Internet that would allow them to access content on a tablet or on Tou.tv. So if we set aside everything that is happening elsewhere and focus on that, we are excluding another community. What will happen to low-income people who do not have a tablet, or illiterate people who find the Tou.tv site complicated? We agree on these new technologies and on the fact that there is a will to move toward them, but they should not become an end in themselves, or make up the sum total of all the efforts being made.
Senator Verner: Thank you to both of you for being here tonight. Mr. Théberge, last January 22 you published a plea for maintaining a strong Radio-Canada presence in the regions, among other things through an adequate and sufficient financial framework. From the beginning of our hearings we have had the opportunity, quite regularly, of hearing about the funding granted to CBC/Radio-Canada, generally speaking. My colleague just mentioned something important. We have seen a decline in regional services and in their diversity over the years in spite of everything. I would draw a rapid conclusion, or at least make a rapid observation, which is to say that funding has not solved all of the issues, nor met the challenges in minority communities.
That said, last October 7, we also welcomed Ms. Marie-Linda Lord, a former Radio-Canada journalist who is now vice-president of Student and International Affairs at the University of Moncton. She recommended that the crown corporation focus more on presenting regional diversity rather than multiplying traditional and digital musical platforms, as well as French and English-language specialty channels, as CBC/Radio-Canada has done over the past two years. She even described these initiatives as desperate gestures. I also remember that she said, and I quote: "You know, I am Acadian, and back home I have no trouble finding news or information about my Acadian community." She also said, "Sometimes, I would also like to know what is happening elsewhere in Canada." So this seems related to some of the statements you have made here tonight. I would like to hear your comments.
Mr. Théberge: I won't necessarily go over everything that has already been said. You are correct: there is a common shift. I agree entirely with the fact that we should not move strictly to digital, as I have just said. You can be sure Radio-Canada is also thinking about diversification. I cannot deny that there is a trend today toward digital technology and the new technologies, but we also cannot deny that the aging Canadian population may not have reached the digital era. You talked about Marie-Linda Lord, who is Acadian. In Nova Scotia, 50 per cent of francophones are illiterate. How are they going to manage with these platforms and technologies? We have to look at the diversity within the community and offer the content as well as a way of offering it that is appropriate to these communities and their diversity.
As I said in my statement, and it seems Ms. Lord also said this: in Acadia, we want to hear what is going on in the west, in the north and in Quebec, and not the reverse, where we hear a whole lot about Quebec and a very little bit about the other provinces if there is some big event. I think we have to think about this and look at the community and the most appropriate offer for that community.
You spoke about regional services, once again. As I explained to Senator Dagenais, that question should really be put to Radio Canada. I would indeed be interested in their reply. Regarding the regional offer, I invite you to take a look at some testimony; I do not remember the exact date, but the senate committee went to Halifax and there were statements by Acadians, one of them by Marie-Claude Rioux, the director general of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, who gave you a quasi-statistical example of the content that is presented online and on the news. It was striking. In my opinion, this demonstrates very clearly the issue we are facing and the issue Radio Canada is facing regarding its future offer of services.
[English]
Senator Greene: I have two questions. One is to just explore exactly who you represent in order for me to get an understanding of where you're coming from. You say here that you represent 7 national arts organizations as well as 13 working in artistic and cultural development. It says here in 11 provinces. I assume you mean 10?
Mr. Théberge: We're in the territories.
Senator Greene: Well, the translation is wrong then.
Mr. Théberge: Sorry about that. It should be 11 provinces and territories. We're not in Quebec. We're in the Northwest Territories and Yukon and the other nine provinces.
Senator Greene: I see. Do your organizations or your membership produce content for programming? Is that what they do?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: Some of our members do so. For instance, the Front des réalisateurs indépendants du Canada and the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. These are two organizations that are in fact working on production and content development.
[English]
Senator Greene: Where do they market their content? How do they put it on the air? Who buys it?
[Translation]
Ms. Pilon: There is less and less of that at Radio Canada. Fewer and fewer licences are issued to independent Canadian producers.
In the last deposit to the Canada Media Fund, Radio-Canada did not fund any project from the Canadian francophonie, although it has done so in the past. Perhaps this was an unusual year. With its envelope, Radio-Canada can do less and less. As we said earlier, the value of the dollar is dropping and its purchasing power as well, and the crown corporation's parliamentary appropriation is also shrinking.
The new TV5 Unis channel is another path. In the past, TFO was also an important partner in Franco-Canadian independent production. However, it also changed its mandate somewhat. It is for the most part no longer producing documentaries or documentary series. It really changed its programming, which has an effect on the whole milieu.
[English]
Senator Greene: The private stations that you mentioned, TV5, et cetera, are geared to the market.
Ms. Pilon: They're non-profit. They're both non-profit.
Senator Greene: I didn't realize that.
Ms. Pilon: TFO is a public broadcaster. It's the French counterpart for TVO.
Senator Greene: How about international sales? Is that a possibility around the world? There are a lot of countries around the world whose first language, of course, is French.
Ms. Pilon: That market is not fully developed. I don't think that it has been fully developed because of the capacity to reach those markets.
Telefilm has initiatives internationally to promote film, but as far as the Canadian Media Fund is concerned, I don't think work is being done with independent producers to try to market that work outside Canada.
Senator Greene: What do you do for your member organizations? Do you assist them with marketing or promotion in general?
Ms. Pilon: It's mostly positioning the organization with the funders. We accompany these members.
[Translation]
We support them in their demands and in their positioning with the funding organizations. They are mostly partners, but we are talking about Téléfilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund and the NFB, for instance.
[English]
Senator Greene: With the lack of market at the CBC and within Quebec, should there be, perhaps, a separate channel for Acadian productions — a separate Acadian channel?
Ms. Pilon: Within CBC?
Senator Greene: Within CBC or independently of CBC.
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: What I was saying earlier was that Acadians in Nova Scotia should hear about people in the Yukon, and people in Saint Boniface should hear about people in Moncton. From that perspective, if there were an independent channel for Acadia, that would run counter to our objectives. My first reply to Senator Eggleton was that Canada is spread out from coast to coast. Seen from that angle, Acadia is as much a part of the francophonie as the francophonie is a part of Acadia. In my opinion, there should not be an independent channel for Acadia.
Ms. Pilon: But Radio-Canada regional offices have dealings and contacts with independent producers and directors and the whole community of creators. The organization is structured in such a way that independent producers submit their projects to Radio-Canada regional offices, for instance, and then the decisions are made in Montreal.
[English]
Senator Greene: Should there be a specialty channel devoted to French language production and stories across the country outside Quebec?
Ms. Pilon: TV5 Unis is a new player in the ecosystem. And Radio-Canada has that role as well. You can't service an entire population with one or two broadcasters. Compared to the offer out there for the English-speaking population, we've got lots of ground to cover before we get even close to anything proportionate in numbers that are representative.
I've mentioned mostly the national broadcasters, but there're a lot of specialty channels as well that producers will obviously work with. In the system that's in place, you often need more than one broadcaster to buy into your project. You have a first window with a larger broadcaster, such as CBC Radio-Canada. Then TFO might put some money in the project to get a second window. Historia and other smaller players are owned by the larger conglomerates. As far as the international market goes that you were talking about earlier, before a product can actually be available to market internationally, there are all kinds of restrictions in the contracts that producers sign with the broadcasters in terms of licensing agreements and how long they have the rights to broadcast that before they can actually market it outside the agreement.
By the time your product is free of obligations, it might be completely out of date and difficult to market.
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: If there were a separate channel for the Canadian francophonie and another one for the Quebec francophonie, we would be saying that Quebecers are more Canadian or less Canadian than the other Canadians, and that the francophones outside Quebec are less francophone than the Quebecers. I am not saying that that is what you are telling me, but that might be the public perception. We would be destroying the Canadian social fabric which Radio-Canada is supposed to support and help build.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I think I'll go back to Nova Scotia with some of my questions.
Obviously, I'm not an expert on the listening habits of French Nova Scotians when it comes to French radio or television. They have made it very clear in the times they've spoken to us that they were concerned about the Montreal-centric approach to Radio-Canada, which is somewhat understandable. Those of us in English Canada find CBC somewhat Toronto-centric, so I can understand their point of view.
Take the difference between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. New Brunswick has 250,000 to 300,000 francophones running from the northeast to the southwest. Nova Scotia is a much different layout. There're really two groups. In Halifax there are 400,000 people of a real eclectic mix with Acadians, immigrants from France, New Brunswickers, Quebecers, francophones and all kinds of different backgrounds. There're two areas of Isle Madame and the French Shore in Nova Scotia. These are all inhabited by old Nova Scotian stock — very rural people in small communities.
How do you reach those people? How much input do they have? They seem to say all the time that they don't think their voices are heard very well at Radio-Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: I would reply first of all by saying that I am here as chair of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, but that my work, on a daily basis, is that of director general of the Fédération culturelle acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse. I work with the francophone and Acadian communities of Nova Scotia, and we are members of the FCCF.
You talked to me about the people of Nova Scotia; I must say that I know them very well and I work with them. I can tell you that they are very well listened to by the FCCF, without a doubt.
Now, if we assess who does what and who wants what, there is of course some disparity. There are approximately 1,500 Lebanese persons who have adopted French as their official language in Canada. They are also part of what I define as Acadia. What I mean is that Acadia, as the word is used in the corporate world and by associations, refers to the persons who live on the Acadian territory and speak French. It does not matter a bit whether their skin is black, white or pink with blue polka dots, nor does the way they dress, their accent or the color they paint their houses. They are a part of the same Canada I have been talking about from the beginning, and they also deserve to hear about what is happening to citizens in the Yukon, just as the citizens of Saint Boniface should be able to hear about an Egyptian person who now lives in Halifax and has chosen French as her official language. That is the beauty of today's Canada, and it is the duty of Radio-Canada to tell all of these Canadians about all of these other Canadians.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: You say you are speaking to the communities in Nova Scotia all the time. Do they think things are going in the direction they want? Are they bringing things to your attention that aren't being fulfilled?
Mr. Théberge: It's human nature to always want more, right?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: That is broad philosophical question to which I can provide a general answer. Anyone you ask in Nova Scotia will give you a similar opinion. I think we can do better. I could go into more detail and talk about specific measures, but I will illustrate what I mean with an example, by asking you the following question: the people who live in Nova Scotia and listen to Radio-Canada are very familiar with the Champlain Bridge, but how many people in Montreal are familiar with the MacKay and Macdonald bridges? Is there some room for improvement? Absolutely, but that is also true of my work. We can always do better.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Before I ask Senator Eggleton for the last question, let me ask one, if I could. We travelled to London a few weeks ago, as you may or may not be aware, and visited the BBC. They have also had some cuts. In your presentation, you were talking about the cuts and CBC laying off people. You said in your presentation that it makes you fear the worst for our public broadcaster.
The BBC had what they considered about a 20 per cent cut to their budget. We asked about their ratings. You talked about ratings a little bit. Some of us, I will admit, are fixated on ratings and believe that that may be a sign of success or failure. When we talked to the people at the House of Lords about the ratings and what had happened at the BBC after they took the 20 per cent cuts, their ratings since then have actually increased. They now have ratings between 35 and 40 per cent, and CBC's, from the president's own admission here the other day, are 8, 8.2., 8.5. I asked one of the members of the House of Lords what they attribute their success to, since their ratings have actually increased since the cuts. They laid off I think about 8,000 employees during their cuts. He said quality programming was their reason for success.
I guess my question to you is simply this: Rather than thinking that, well, they have been cut too badly and this is kind of an end-all for the CBC, would you not agree that maybe they could get a strategic plan that would allow them to do something along the lines of the BBC? We have heard from so many witnesses, including the CBC themselves prior to us going to London, that you have to compare them with the BBC. We went to London and came back and compared them with the BBC, and then we were told not to compare them to the BBC because that's apples and oranges. Yet, I believe we need to compare them somewhat. They're public broadcasters, albeit logistically they have different problems. We're right up against the United States, which is a huge problem. The U.K. is kind of an island, and they don't have the same competition from outside sources. I would like your idea on whether the CBC could maybe work at improving programming to get their ratings up as opposed to just having more money to get their ratings up?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: I would have several things to say in reply to your question. First, briefly, I would say that it is a mistake to use ratings alone to assess Radio-Canada. The corporation has a mandate that goes beyond ratings and forces it by its very definition to do things that cost more, and will serve some more than others, and will affect its ratings. Looking at Radio-Canada strictly from the ratings aspect is a mistake. The ratings may be a part of the equation, but they are not the whole equation. Moreover, you compared Radio-Canada to the BBC. If we assess the BBC, despite the cuts, we can ask ourselves the following question: what is the funding it receives per person? The other question that must be asked is the following: how many square kilometres and official languages are we talking about? There are enormous differences there which mean that we are comparing apples and oranges. If we want to make a comparison, let's look at the whole picture. You cannot take the ratings alone and use them as the only element for comparison. There are many other variables in the equation and to ignore them would be a mistake, in my opinion.
Moreover, here we are in competition with the United States, and that is a factor. Getting back to the CBC, you have to look at the territory it serves and the official languages involved, and to the mandate of CBC/Radio Canada which is much broader when it comes to informing the Yukon resident and the Halifax resident equally. There are many more factors in the CBC equation.
I will conclude by saying what I said earlier: yes, there may be new operating methods to assess that will allow us to do better and arrive at quality programming in a better way. I will grant you that. There are many opportunities, and we mentioned FRIC and the APFC. These are opportunities that could be used to further quality programming, indeed, but be that as it may, there is a minimum threshold if Radio Canada is to be able to function. In my opinion, if we have not reached it yet, we are very close to it.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I quite agree with the comment that you just made. It's more than just about ratings. The CBC, like the BBC, is a public service broadcaster. Talking about the BBC, I agree that quality programming is important. They also have, though, more than three times the amount of revenue that the CBC has. They operate in one language in one time zone compared to two languages and six time zones for CBC/Radio-Canada. And by the way, they don't have advertising, either.
I want to clarify something in your presentation. When you said "11 provinces and territories," I didn't realize that Quebec was not one of them, so your organization doesn't operate in Quebec. You go on to say, "in this capacity, our organization represents the entire sector concerning the arts culture and cultural industry in French Canada." Can you clarify that for me?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: There is indeed a clarification to be made. As a Canadian cultural federation, and consequently as a national organization, we do not have any official members in Quebec. However, several of our member associations have members in Quebec or partnerships with Quebec. I am thinking, among others, of the Réseau national des galas de la chanson. The Festival international de la chanson de Granby is a member of the Réseau national des galas de la chanson, which is a member of our federation.
The other clarification I would like to make is that once again a nuance may have been lost in translation. We use the term "Canadian francophonie." In Canadian associations, that term is used primarily to refer to francophones outside Quebec. So, a nuance was lost in the translation.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Is there a sister organization in Quebec that you relate to or do you just do this all through the members of your organization who also happen to be in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: You have to be careful with the term "sister organization," because there is one aspect of the comparison which is the linguistic minority. Indeed, in Quebec, there is the organization English Language Arts Network, ELAN. It is a provincial organization that deals with the provincial and federal governments. We are a national organization that deals with the federal government and the provincial government in almost all of the provinces. Yes, the English Language Arts Network exists. However, the realities involved are sometimes different. We try to work with them. Sometimes the issue is language. They promote anglophone artists and work with them. We work to advance the Canadian francophonie. Sometimes this means that our work is not compatible. It does not mean that we don't talk and that we exclude each other, that is not the case. Several of our members have partnerships with Quebec organizations in all artistic and cultural sectors.
[English]
Senator Greene: If you have one or two specific recommendations to make to us, what would they be?
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: First, stop the cuts. Let's get organized so there isn't a long-term round of funding cuts.
Second, we mentioned the LPIF. We are not asking for the fund to be brought back in its original form. There might be other ways to support local production in the Canadian francophonie and in the small communities that would be helpful to independent producers as well as to Radio-Canada. We would see that as a very interesting development.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Théberge and Ms. Pilon, thank you for attending here this evening. We appreciated your testimony, and wish you well in your future endeavours.
Senators, our next and final public meeting on this study will be on March 10, when we will hear from Ken Goldstein of Communications Management Incorporated.
Honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)