Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 8 - Evidence, October 8, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 8, 2014
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 Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
Today, we are continuing our study on the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
[English]
Our witnesses today are from the Canadian Media Guild: Carmel Smyth, National President; Marc-Philippe Laurin, CBC Branch President; and Jeanne d'Arc Umurungi. I invite the witnesses to make their presentation. I want to congratulate you on the quality of the document that you sent us. It is a very good resumé of your position.
Carmel Smyth, National President, Canadian Media Guild: Thank you very much. A professional communications director always helps.
Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear. My name is Carmel Smyth and I'm the National President of the Canadian Media Guild. My colleague Marc-Philippe Laurin is the President of the CMG at CBC, and Jeanne d'Arc Umurungi is our Communication Director.
The Canadian Media Guild is a union that represents 6,000 media workers across Canada at 10 organizations, both public and private. These are the people who bring Canadians the news and who create original Canadian content every day.
They agree, and we agree, with UNESCO's definition of public broadcasting. I hope you do, too. I'll read a short passage from it.
Neither commercial nor State-controlled, public broadcasting's only raison d'être is public service. It is the public's broadcasting organization; it speaks to everyone as a citizen. Public broadcasters encourage access to and participation in public life. They develop knowledge, broaden horizons and enable people to better understand themselves by better understanding the world and others.
Public broadcasting is defined as a meeting place where all citizens are welcome and considered equals. . . .
Because it is not subject to the dictates of profitability, public broadcasting must be daring, innovative and take risks.
As you can see, our national broadcaster's role in the media landscape is unique and, for that reason, Canada needs both enough funding to support its mandate for the CBC and a strong arm's-length relationship with government.
In addition, the Canadian Broadcasting Act states that the national public broadcaster's programming should be predominantly and distinctly Canadian, and it is. CBC has 94 per cent Canadian content between 8 to 10 p.m., versus the major private broadcasters, at 0 to 8 per cent, plus service across the country in both official languages. Only the public broadcaster is required to do this. That is its promise to Canadians, and it costs money.
[Translation]
Marc-Philippe Laurin, CBC Branch President, Canadian Media Guild: With those definitions, let us now look at what CBC/Radio-Canada does to keep its promises to Canadians, in concrete terms.
CBC/Radio-Canada is an important cultural resource in the country. The public broadcaster is present in small and large communities across Canada and provides them with services in both official languages and in eight aboriginal languages, with public interest always at the forefront.
The public broadcaster tells Canadian stories and reports on global news from a Canadian perspective. This is what makes the national public broadcaster a precious resource with 78 years of history behind it.
CBC/Radio-Canada is the largest news service in the country across all platforms. No major private broadcasters have a national scope. None of them have a presence in the Canadian north.
[English]
CBC/Radio-Canada serves communities in six time zones, with 88 radio stations, 27 television stations, 10 all-digital services and 5 specialty television services, including ICI RDI and CBC News Network. CBC is present in 54 communities across the country. The 2011 chart we have provided shows that the large private companies are only present in 13 to 31 communities in the country.
The goals of our public broadcaster and those of private broadcasters are as different as night and day. The privates seek audiences for profit; CBC pursues audiences to inform, enlighten and entertain. It's an important difference that is too often missed.
Al Johnson, a former president of CBC, described the national public broadcaster this way: ''equal time for Canada.'' This is the role CBC/Radio-Canada plays in our lives as citizens, not just as consumers.
Second, CBC is a major source of reliable information for Canadians. One aspect of the public broadcaster's role is to inform Canadians on what's going on, including actions of the powerful and influential, regardless of political affiliations. In our document, we list a sampling of significant stories CBC/Radio-Canada uncovered in recent years. I'll leave that to you to read.
Third, CBC/Radio-Canada is a vital economic asset. Another substantial contribution, in addition to its value as the major cultural institution in Canada, is Radio-Canada's vital contribution to a healthy media industry. A 2011 Deloitte study showed that CBC contributes $3.7 billion to the Canadian economy, a substantial return for a public investment of $1.1 billion. The study cites CBC's contributions to local economies, a vibrant production sector, creative clusters and competitiveness. The research also highlights CBC's role as an innovator and pioneer in new technologies.
Ms. Smyth: We also want to share with you what Canadians have to say about the role of CBC in their lives. Eighty- eight per cent believe that CBC plays an important role in strengthening Canadian culture and identity. This perception has increased in intensity over the last year. Eighty-one per cent believe the CBC helps distinguish Canada from the United States. More than 90 per cent of Canadians who took part in the Reimagine CBC survey say they value and strongly support the network's courageous reporting. Over 81 per cent of Canadians recently told the CRTC that local news, a huge part of what CBC/Radio-Canada delivers, is important. Finally, 87 per cent of Canadians said they would like to see CBC's funding increased or maintained. You can find more details of these surveys in the documents we've submitted.
Jeanne d'Arc Umurungi, Communications Director, Canadian Media Guild: What about the challenges facing the national public broadcaster? Since 2008, over 2,100 jobs have been cut with another 1,500, and possibly more, to be cut over the next five years. The harmful impacts of these decisions include watering down news reporting and decreased capacity for investigative journalism; diminishing local programming across the country; shrinking local newscasts; damaging a critical cultural incubator; and abandoning sports, just to cite a few. Clearly, CBC is being forced to cut its services.
To quote the Deputy Grand Chief at Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Alvin Fiddler:
For years, CBC was a ''lifeline'' for remote and isolated First Nations, and despite advances in technology that still holds true today.
While fair and unbiased in their coverage, our local station, through programs such as Voyage North, has given more attention to Aboriginal issues than most other media. I would expect Canada's national broadcaster to promote that as opposed to cutting it.
''Voyage North'' is no longer on the air, and 25 other communities and regions are suffering reduced services as a result of the cuts.
Other services being cut include investigative journalism, documentaries and long-form journalism, the hallmarks of public broadcasting.
A sobering statistic: With an additional 1,500 jobs to be cut, possibly the biggest layoffs of content creators and journalists in Canadian history, there is no doubt that CBC is being made to further reduce its services to Canadians.
Citizens have already been protesting. Rallies have been held in communities and petitions signed, all expressing concern about the dismantling of their national public broadcaster.
Ms. Smyth: In closing, the ongoing cuts in funding and endless debate over providing adequate funding for CBC/ Radio-Canada are killing the national public broadcaster. CBC needs stable, long-term funding in order to serve Canadians well. You can make that happen. We urge you to consider these five recommendations.
First, reverse the $115 million Deficit Reduction Action Plan cut to the CBC. Second, increase CBC funding to about half the average of what other developed countries invest in their public broadcasters — we suggest $43.50 per capita annually, phased in over several years, by adjusting the appropriation. Third, require the CRTC to establish a fund that is dedicated to public service media programming, including local news. Fourth, on governance, repeal clause 17 of the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60, to remove any notion of government's interference in CBC's day-to-day news operations. Finally, fifth, protect the CBC/Radio-Canada's independence by instituting a non-partisan public process for selecting the president and the board of directors.
I'd like to end on a short quote from professor and author Wade Rowland:
. . . the public broadcaster is not a business in any conventional sense. It exists not to make money or to satisfy financial goals, but to fill a public need . . .
Thank you for your patience and time. We're happy to take questions.
Senator Plett: I'm really not sure where I want to start. Chair, you gave some praise for this document we got here, and I'm sure you just simply meant because it's neatly printed out and the colour is okay. You couldn't have been praising the document itself, because our guests here are suggesting the Conservative Party is too heavily involved with CBC, and I would suggest Thomas Mulcair wrote the document that we have here.
To the witnesses, thank you for coming. The government doesn't have money. We need to understand something. The governments don't have money. The governments administer the taxpayers' money. Governments need to live within their means, which is something that the Conservative government now is trying to do. Other governments before them have been trying on occasion to do that as well.
You're saying ''turn back the $115 million.'' I'm not sure whether I want to make comments or ask questions here, but who should appoint the board? You're saying government should stop interfering, and yet it's a Crown corporation. The taxpayers' dollars are paying for the operations of CBC. Who should be appointing the board, the NDP when they're in opposition, or who would you suggest appoint the board?
Ms. Smyth: To start with your first comment, we absolutely understand the need for fiscal constraint. We are middle-class taxpayers who have to balance our budgets just like everybody else, just like everyone who works at CBC and probably everybody else in this room.
The CBC has a mandate to provide a particular basket of services, and providing those services costs more than the $29 per Canadian a year that it currently receives. Every developed country has a public broadcaster and we are almost the third lowest funded. We believe there are ways we could find to fund the kind of services that Canadians expect.
To your second question about who appoints the board, the president and board of directors, a multi-party committee — perhaps some of you might have been on it in 2008 — recommended a non-partisan, multi-party subcommittee, perhaps, that would make recommendations of influential public Canadians from every party, from the NDP, certainly, from the Conservative Party and from the Liberals, who would be selected on the basis of their backgrounds, their knowledge about the media and the media environment, and their names would be recommended to the Prime Minister, whoever that would be at the time, and he or she could make the appointments, just as the process is today.
Senator Plett: The Prime Minister would still make the appointments?
Ms. Smyth: That's correct. We're just asking or suggesting, perhaps, that Canadians would appreciate, and probably many of you, that the committee that selects these candidates would have people on it from every party and with different backgrounds.
Senator Plett: I'm not sure that I would, but if it's still the Prime Minister appointing, I'm not sure where we're changing anything. Somebody in a different party suggested that's what we should do with senators as well, and I don't think it would work there either.
As for the $43.50 per capita annually, I'm a taxpayer and I would take huge offence to our doing this. You say we're falling behind our developed countries. I think Canada should be a leader, and I think we are being a leader here. We don't need to fall behind other countries.
You say that things are being watered down and mentioned abandoned sports. I don't think they abandoned ''Hockey Night In Canada.'' I think a company came along and outbid them for ''Hockey Night In Canada.'' That is, indeed, for those of us who watch CBC, sad but, nevertheless, CBC will not be broadcasting ''Hockey Night In Canada.'' That's a lot of revenue. I'm still going to be able to watch ''Hockey Night In Canada,'' as will you, on a different channel. So I don't want my tax dollars then to go to pay the difference that CBC lost because they lost ''Hockey Night in Canada.''
Ms. Smyth: I will say $5 billion for that bid is an incredible amount of money that Rogers came up with. You're right; CBC didn't have a hope of keeping hockey. It's the way things go, progress. Money is different now.
Back to funding and to your point about Canada being a leader, the BBC, one of the most respected broadcasters in the world, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Deutsche Welle in Germany and NHK in Japan are incredible examples of respected public broadcasters. We, too, would like to see Canada up in that list of doing innovative, creative shows that other countries want to buy and that become franchised. That can happen, but in order for Canada to be a leader, as you're suggesting, it takes more money than it has in the past.
I'd like my colleague to tell you a story in a minute about the cost of CBC, and $29 each is what it currently costs each Canadian. We don't think $43 dollars is unrealistic, but we also think $29 is almost unrealistic in the opposite direction.
Mr. Laurin: I had the opportunity to be — and this is a personal story — driving with a young man, 21 years old, and he was hearing about cuts at CBC and the loss of ''Hockey Night In Canada.'' We were chatting about budgets and I said, ''What do you think about paying for the CBC, paying $29? That's what Canadians are paying now per capita.'' He looked at me and said, ''I could afford 29 bucks per month.'' I said, ''No, no, no, not per month; per year.'' His jaw hit the floor, he was guffawed and he said, ''That's a case of beer for what the CBC offers.''
I talked to him about two official languages, eight Aboriginal languages across this wide country, in 54 communities. I do this often when I'm talking to people, and I tell them this is what it's costing you, $29 a month right now. Do you think you could afford an extra 5 or 10 bucks? They all say without question, ''Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that. That's crazy, $29.''
People out there really have a limited notion of what the CBC does, where the CBC is, and what it provides across the country, to all the provinces and in the Northwest Territories.
On the question of sports, Senator Plett, I will quote Bob Elliott of Sport Matters Group, collective of over 60 national and multi-sport organizations, including the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee, Own the Podium, Canada Games Council, Commonwealth Games Canada, Swimming Canada, Canadian Interuniversity Sport and others. He said:
Should the CBC/Radio-Canada abandon amateur sport event coverage on television —
That is essentially what the CBC has said; that they will not cover any more amateur sports unless done in a partnership. They won't invest one more dollar in coverage of sports unless done in a partnership. He continues:
. . . it will have a huge fiscal impact on the Canadian sports community. It is proven that television coverage of amateur sports events has a ripple effect on the future participation and success of Canada's athletes. . . .
Ultimately we risk undermining Canada's success as a sporting nation, something that all of us (including the CBC) have worked very hard to achieve these past few years in particular.
Ms. Umurungi: If I may add, that was part of a letter that this Sport Matters Group sent to the president of CBC, Hubert Lacroix.
Mr. Laurin: To conclude, CBC used ''Hockey Night In Canada'' and it didn't make any money or made few dollars on it. It balanced its budget. You're right, they could not spend on professional sports, so they would broadcast '"'Hockey Night In Canada'' to make up the difference and use it in what they call in advertising a ''halo effect.'' It permitted them to sell ads for other shows.
But these cuts and the constant downsizing of CBC's budget, now down to $29 per Canadian, is forcing CBC/ Radio-Canada to make some decisions and get out of certain types of programming that they used to do to the benefit, in our view, of the Canadian public as citizens. They're not doing that anymore. They can't afford it.
Senator Plett: One more question, chair, if I could.
I won't debate whether this individual could afford $29 a year. I probably could afford $29 a year. I'm hoping that I can afford to buy a case of beer. However, a case of beer I buy because I want to buy a case of beer. This is a tax. This is somebody telling me, ''You pay another $29 a year for something you don't necessarily want.''
Listen, I've said here at this committee almost every time we've had a hearing that I watch ''The National'' and ''Power and Politics.'' I watch CBC at certain times of the day. I watch ''Dragons' Den'' — but I do it because I want to do it. If I had to pay extra for it, I've got Netflix at $7.80 a month or something like this. You might say $29 a year is a drop in the bucket, but you put enough drops in there and that bucket fills up. So, the $29 a year or $43 year is a tax.
Last question for this round: You've told me how you would like the board to be chosen. We can agree to disagree on whether or not that would work. But you also say that the government shouldn't interfere in the operations.
Again, when they are administering my money, they are saying to me, ''Don Plett, you're going to pay another $29 a year and we are going to put it into this big hole here, but we won't interfere in how it's operating.'' I will be paying taxes which will go to CBC along the line. Who should interfere in the operations of CBC, if the government shouldn't?
Ms. Smyth: If I could address that in two parts, I'm sure most of you here don't avail of daycare. I don't. I have no children. I have no child to put through the education system, but I'm happy to pay for public daycare and for a great public education system. I don't often use public transit, but I'm happy to pay for it because it makes Toronto a fabulous city to live in. Ottawa's system is good, too.
My point is sometimes you pay as a community for the public good. I don't necessarily see that as a tax. There are many things I don't personally avail of, but it makes Canada a kinder, more tolerant, united country with common interests. I am willing to support that and I believe many Canadians are also willing to support that.
To your second point about interfering, or even the word involvement, if you prefer, in the public broadcaster, the CBC is the largest journalistic organization in the country and it has to be seen to be independent. The perception of tighter government control in any government — be it the NDP, the Liberals or it happens to be the Conservatives now — even if the reality isn't that it's affecting news content, perception is reality. Let's face it. If there's a perception they're sitting at the table controlling the money, and that means less money for investigative reporting because we don't want whatever story on the front cover, that's a perception and maybe that's reality.
That hurts us, hurts journalism and I would propose it hurts any government. Why would they want anyone to think they might have undue influence on news coverage? I'm sure they don't want that. We don't want that. Let's have the rules clear so everybody knows that's not a possibility and it's never going to happen.
Senator Plett: Every government that I've ever seen, ours now, my colleagues' before me, thought that they were being hard done by with CBC reporting. I don't think you're going to get any sympathy there that we somehow are controlling CBC's reporting, because we would suggest that the other parties are controlling it and when they were in government, they were probably suggesting we were.
Ms. Smyth: That's exactly the point, because it always is that when you're in power, you get criticized and when the other person —
Senator Plett: They believe they're the official opposition.
Ms. Smyth: It shows how the press is fair. It's whoever is in power.
Ms. Umurungi: Can I say quickly that I think it's important to recognize that CBC does report to Parliament, reports to all kinds of bodies to make sure that we know how the money is spent, et cetera. It was an added requirement in Bill C-60 about a person appointed by the government sitting at the bargaining table where we discuss what constitutes news, where we discuss spending priorities, and where we discuss who is assigned to what. That's what we're objecting to. That's what we're objecting to.
We have never objected to CBC reporting financially as to how it's using the money and we believe there are a lot of mechanisms out there that they use for that. That's not what we're talking about. We are talking about someone sitting at the table when we discuss what we consider news and how we cover news.
The Chair: With a fine document, you could get very good questions coming out of the senators. I appreciate the fact that the document was clear. It created a positive atmosphere for questions, and we will have some other questions.
Senator Eggleton: As far as I'm concerned, we're talking about a public broadcaster, not a government broadcaster. This is not a dictatorship; this is not Vladimir Putin's Russia. This is Canada. Unfortunately, our public broadcaster is very underfunded. When you get the public broadcasters in other countries having an average of $87 a year —
Senator Plett: You made the biggest cut to CBC ever.
Senator Eggleton: Well, I think that's very unfortunate. We have got to make sure that enough money goes into the public broadcaster for them to be able to provide the service that needs to be provided, what Canadians are saying they want.
Trying to get money out of the current government to backtrack on these cuts, forget it. It is not going to happen.
Senator Plett: That's right.
Senator Eggleton: Another year from now, we will get a change of government.
Anyway, the BBC operates on a different system. They have this viewer-pay kind of thing. It has been long in effect there, and it may not be appropriate here, but it is one example of an alternate funding system — in other words money that isn't coming directly out of the annual budget, because coming out of the annual budget is subject to the vagaries, up and down, of the financing of government every year.
Another one was suggested by I think it was Barry Kiefl who suggested there could be a 7 per cent tax on the communications industry companies, the private sector companies, and that would produce an awful lot of money for both the CBC and, oh, for the creation of Canadian content programming for both the CBC and private networks.
Would either of those appeal to you? Do you think either of those are doable, or is there some other scheme that maybe gets us off of the fiscal framework of the government, whether it is Liberal or Conservative, whoever it is, which would give you more dependable annual funding?
Ms. Smyth: It is a great idea and a great topic for a commission of learned minds, if the Senate ever would want to strike one. We certainly think that's a good idea.
The British system — and it's not perfect; they have some troubles but it is extremely admirable — is a tax on a television, or probably now on any kind of broadcast-viewing platform, so that per cent you pay when you buy something automatically goes into whatever the fund is to fund BBC. It is a model that has been in place for a long time.
Could we do something like that here? I don't see why not. The ramifications would have to be studied. Would consumers accept it? When the BBC started it was years ago, and people just have lived with it and accepted it as part of their regular routine because it has been there for decades.
In Canada you would have to start fresh. That presents a different set of problems because times are tight now and it would be — you would have to look carefully at how you implement any kind of thing. However, we are not opposed to that investigation, were a committee in place to study how it might work.
The BDUs, for example, fund creation of Canadian content, and with the Canada Media Fund — some of you are probably familiar with it — they pay a per cent of revenues into that. We think that's a great model. Yes, there could be more of that. That ensures that Canadian content is funded and created. Without it, we would be the much poorer for what we would be watching, a lot of American television and not Canadian, so we're fans of that.
I will ask Marc to speak to the spectrum auction. Again, it is not reliable, but it is a pot of money that would be available to be helpful.
Mr. Laurin: Last year, and this year they'll be doing it again, the government put up for sale the 700-megahertz band and reaped $5.3 billion. These are ''public airwaves'' and so we're wondering if some of those funds shouldn't be used to fund the public broadcasters.
There are other bands that are going up for sale, and I think the last time in the States they put a band up for sale they brought in $10 billion. These are bought up by companies and corporations, telecommunication companies, who use these to make money, but they are ''public airwaves.'' Why not re-funnel some of that money?
You are right. A model that has a flow-through process would be a logical model for the public broadcaster. In other words, money is collected in some fashion and then it goes right through to the public broadcaster would be a model that would be fair. It would be stable, and it would grow exponentially as the population grows.
The current model is subject to the vagaries of the economy and the decisions that governments have to make, successive governments have to make. In the meantime, I can tell you the folks we represent at CBC are looking around. People don't take their lunch anymore; they don't take breaks anymore because there's so much workload and trying to keep up what we have been trying to do. I got to tell you, the folks I represent — and I used to, too; and I myself worked for 35 years in radio — we look at working for the public broadcaster practically as a vocation. We believe in it. We believe in the public interest. We believe in public broadcasting. We try to deliver every day the best programming and the best news to the Canadian public, the citizens of this country.
Any formula, any model — we would love to participate and give you our thoughts. If there was ever a committee set up, we would love to be there.
Ms. Umurungi: We always have spoken for stable multi-year adequate funding for Canada's public broadcaster.
Senator Eggleton: It is a revenue source that needs further examination anyway.
On advertising, CBC's lost a big chunk of its advertising because of the ''Hockey Night In Canada'' passing over to Rogers, but I have heard one witness say that they really don't make that much money from advertising revenue; it even just barely covers the costs of trying to get advertising revenue.
Would it be better to get them totally out of the advertising business if it doesn't mean much to the bottom line? There is also the principle of the public broadcaster not competing against the private sector, letting the private sector do that kind of stuff since the public broadcaster gets public funding.
Ms. Smyth: When I look back, when CBC was envisioned, advertising wasn't part of the equation. Through the years it has had more — I can't speak for the CBC, but I would think it felt forced to rely on advertising to some degree.
Our position is it would be better for all of us, for many reasons, even programming reasons and the kind of independence in choosing the kind of program that you air, if we didn't have to rely on advertising and we could rely on adequate government funding.
That gives us the freedom to do shows that are not necessarily popular everywhere, to do programming in French outside of Quebec. You will never make any money putting French shows on the air in Saskatchewan and B.C., but the CBC is mandated to do that and we do that, but you're not going to make any money doing that.
You won't make any money having stations in the North in isolated communities and rural areas, but CBC is mandated to do that, so we do that. But nobody with a commercial intent would ever do that because you're not going to make money. Unless that changes, we're always going to be in a position where we have to be funded with a big pot of money from the government. I don't think advertising would ever solve all of CBC's problems. Marc, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Laurin: What I would add is Robert Rabinovitch in 2005 at a McGill conference, when he was asked a question by somebody in the audience about funding, stated that at that point in time the CBC had not had — to his knowledge one red cent increase in its government appropriations for programming, that is directed at programming. The CBC's budget is divided — in 25 years. It is now 34 years later, and the CBC's budget appropriations again for programming have not increased.
It has had increases for capital expenditures for different things. The CBC is now selling off a lot of real estate trying to make ends meet; it's going into the rental business. What I mean by ''rental business'' is renting a lot of its properties, selling them off and renting them back. That takes away the overhead of trying to do building maintenance.
Many decisions are being made at CBC to try to keep it afloat, but at this point in time, from our perspective, I can tell you it's a leaky ship and it's steadily going down. CBC is just a shadow of what it used to be, which was a great international public broadcaster. It's now just a hanging-on public broadcaster.
We have repeats on radio now. For my first 20 years, we never had repeats on radio. Now, we have repeats on radio and television. The CBC is relying on repeats.
Not that I mind repeats. If I can't catch a show on a Saturday morning at 11 o'clock and I can catch it at 10 o'clock on a Tuesday night or at 2 o'clock on a Thursday afternoon, that's okay. But there are more and more repeats happening. Where is the original programming, which is what CBC is mandated to produce?
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Like my colleague, I am not sure where to start. According to recent surveys, the client satisfaction rate — and I do understand that you do not represent Quebec or New Brunswick journalists — is not very high. Since the beginning of the study, we have noted that this applies to both the CBC and Radio-Canada. Canadians are not very satisfied with CBC or Radio-Canada programming.
Given the increased number of television stations available and the proliferation of platforms on which we can watch our favorite programs, how could we convince Canadians and Quebecers, in a time of increasing taxes, to consider such a request? We would have to have some nerve to ask them for something like this, since no new model has been proposed. As an example, yesterday, we heard from Marie-Linda Lord, a former journalist who spent 10 years at Radio-Canada. She is now a teacher and president of TV5 Québec Canada. That lady has a great deal of expertise. She was telling me that, as an Acadian, even when Radio-Canada would broadcast programs in New Brunswick, she did not feel Canadian. She said that the content typically focusses on Montreal. She would like the content to target her as a Canadian more. For instance, she would like to hear news from francophone communities in British Columbia, Alberta or Manitoba. In short, she questioned the methods more so than the budget. If I remember correctly, she said that this was not a funding issue. The situation rather required a comprehensive transformation based on the technological changes that have occurred over the past few years. I think this applies to both Radio- Canada and the CBC. Can you comment on that?
[English]
Ms. Smyth: It's true. You can't make everybody happy — isn't it true — no matter what.
CBC and Radio-Canada do have multiple bureaus in every eastern province. Of all the networks, it serves the regions the best, by far. There's no comparison. While it is true that some of the programming, maybe even the bulk, would come from Montreal because the majority of staff would be in Montreal and Quebec City, with large staff and a lot of expertise, they're filling time 24/7. A lot of programming, no matter how you revamp it, would come from there.
However, there is still a lot of local programming and in French because there are several francophone newsrooms in Moncton and Fredericton, so I'm not sure about her point that nothing comes from that location. I doubt that, but it is possible that what she prefers doesn't come from a location.
CBC does have francophone units in almost every single province. No one else would do that. So overall, the service might not be perfect, but it is certainly better than it had been in the past.
With RDI, francophone programming from across the country is available, although I think with the recent cuts, they're starting to diminish some of their service. Maybe you could address that, Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Just to clarify, we represent all Radio-Canada and CBC employees outside the province of Quebec. You mentioned the Quebec and Moncton stations, which are members of other unions. I will try to answer your question.
I am not sure I understand why this individual you mentioned was dissatisfied, but if I understand what you said, the same tune is heard in other regions or communities across the country. That especially applies to Radio-Canada, which covers Montreal, but not our home regions — Fort Qu'Appelle, St. Paul, or in Leduc or Bonneyville in Alberta. Money is needed to serve those communities. Funding is required. When you have an out-of-breath public broadcaster that is pinching pennies to try to maintain its services, the only option is to make cuts to those services.
At some point in the past, programs were hosted by teams of five or six people. Now, we have two people and sometimes a single individual hosting programs. An attempt is being made to keep programming on the air, but there are fewer people, leading to reduced coverage. And that means people in the regions have less representation. The math is not complicated. Those elements are inter-related.
In 2007-08, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage published its report. When CBC, which received our support at that time, made presentations in committee, there was talk of a social contract with Canadians. This is in response to your question on how to collect information, and how to change and rebuild. A contract with Canadians was suggested. People would come and meet with CBC. Afterwards, a contract would be drafted setting out what CBC would provide and what the situation would be over the next 10 years. The government would consequently allocate an envelope to the public broadcaster, so that it could fulfill its mandate. That suggestion was made at the hearings. Some people suggested other models, but I want to remind you that the public broadcasters have been discussed for years. How can they serve people in their regions better and serve others less? The envelope is small, and there is only so much money to be distributed across the country.
Senator Verner: I just want to explain something. I did not want to discuss official language minority communities across the country. However, Ms. Lord gave that example, and she went as far as saying that Canadians elsewhere in the country could probably say that the content is more Toronto-centric, for example.
Mr. Laurin: You hear these types of statements from time to time.
Senator Verner: I am trying to understand. You are saying that your teams used to be made up of five or six people, and that they have now been reduced to two. Is that not how things work in the private sector? What is your response to that? At press conferences, journalists often say that they make do with limited means and that they are working alone. And then you see Radio-Canada and CBC show up with their big trucks and large teams. I see some of my colleagues nodding their heads.
Mr. Laurin: That may be true.
Senator Verner: That is hard to hear for taxpayers in a time when money is tight and hard to earn, and God knows it is difficult for average Canadians to set some money aside.
Telling us that no new model is being proposed, but assuring us that more services will be provided if more money is allocated is not enough. I think you will have to be more creative as we approach 2015 by providing different platforms that are accessible to everyone. I would have liked to hear other proposals, aside from requests for money.
Mr. Laurin I do not wish to either defend or speak against the CBC. However, CBC/Radio-Canada has made certain decisions over the past few years. The corporation is now opening digital stations without transmitters or television broadcasts. This is all web-based. Hamilton has one such station. We are waiting to take stock of those stations' impact. CBC/Radio-Canada is trying to serve the people living in those regions.
Costs related to transmitters and studios are being eliminated. However, coverage still has to be provided, and our reporters have to go where the people are, so that they can see themselves and hear their stories. To do that, technical infrastructure is needed, but so is on-site staff. That is the challenge the public broadcaster is facing. A distinction must be made between those two things.
At the same time, the biggest portion of the public broadcaster's budget is spent on production staff. Any cuts to the budget are hard on the staff. The infrastructure is still there, but fewer and fewer people are available to provide coverage, and to produce programs and original programming. That is the problem, and that is what we are trying to make people understand.
We feel that the public broadcaster is becoming smaller and smaller. We are trying to plead our case for the public broadcaster and make the people who are tuning in understand how important a public broadcaster is for a democratic country. We owe everything to the citizens of this country.
Ms. Umurungi: This is a common good. It is not seen as a personal tax. We all decided to set up a service we feel is important to us. For instance, people are telling you they want to see themselves in their region. That is what we are actually trying to do. As my colleague said, investments and resources are needed to accomplish that goal. This is a common good we have established for ourselves.
Of course, we can talk about the level. In our analysis, we looked at the money other countries around the world invest in their public broadcasters. We considered what was proposed by the heritage committee in 2008. There was talk of $40 per person. Mr. Manera appeared before you and suggested a contribution of $50 per person, so that the public broadcaster could do what it had to do. So we told ourselves that we would propose an increase to make it possible to provide that service — which is important for all of us as citizens, across the country — in both official languages and in eight aboriginal languages. You have already heard about that, but it is really important to see things from this perspective.
What is being provided is not a simple service. You can go on Netflix to watch something, but you may not be able to find the Canadian programming that is talked about from coast to coast to coast. Public interest will primarily guide those decisions. This is what differentiates us from the private sector.
The private sector is certainly doing a good job in a number of areas. However, we do not have the same objectives. The public broadcaster works in the public interest, across the country. It tries, as much as possible, to represent all of us and provide the Canadian point of view. That mandate is very important in our eyes. We are saying that it is also important to provide the broadcaster with the funding it needs to fulfill that mandate.
The Chair: Four senators have questions. Please show some restraint, so that we can keep the questions and answers shorter.
Mr. Laurin: Let us go back to CBC showing up on site with five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten people. Twenty years ago, that may have been true. CBC would arrive with several teams, since a number of programs would be covering the same story. However, that is no longer the case. In my role at CBC/Radio-Canada, I provided training to journalists to show them how to self-manage. VJs now arrive on site with their camera and an audio recorder to make clips for the radio. At the same time, they are on Twitter and, once back in the studio, they take care of the web content. People are doing everything. They are now bending over backwards to do everything for the public broadcaster.
What you are talking about no longer exists.
Senator Dagenais: I do not usually sit on this committee. This is my first time here. I think this is a very interesting discussion. I did not expect to hear from Radio-Canada representatives.
Everything is a matter of perception. I will tell you a true story. Over the course of my other career, I often gave interviews in Montreal — at TVA and at Radio-Canada. One day, I was invited to give an interview at TVA, and I was told that it would be nice if I gave one at Radio-Canada, as well. It was timely because, if you are familiar with that area, the two stations are downtown, and you just have to cross René-Lévesque Boulevard.
I arrived at TVA and parked in a very small parking lot. The building had about 20 stories. I came into a small entrance way and addressed a security guard. I told him I had an interview at LCN, and the studios were in the same building. He told me to take the elevator to the 10th floor.
I got to the 10th floor, found the place, sat on a small stool and waited. At some point, I was called in, a microphone was set up and we began the interview.
Afterwards, I made my way to Radio-Canada, where things were very different. I arrived in front of a big beautiful tower — the Radio-Canada tower is quite a beauty. It has a large entrance way. The security guard welcomed me. I told him I was there for the Patrice Roy program at 6 p.m. He said that someone would come and get me.
So someone came to get met and told me they would put some makeup on me because I did not have much hair. If my profile got too shiny, I would end up looking like a bowling ball on television. I thought that was funny. Then they brought me to the makeup room.
I am telling you this story because I have been hearing for a while that there is no money at Radio-Canada.
Three or four makeup artists were waiting in the makeup room. Obviously, not everyone would arrive at the same time. They put makeup on me and asked me to sit down in a nice lounge with a television screen. They brought me a glass of water. Then someone else came to take me to the Radio-Canada news studio, which you have probably seen on television. The studio looks like it came from another planet. It is very modern. I stopped for a moment and told myself that this was very different from what I saw at TVA. I did the interview, and then someone brought me back.
I felt like I had gone from a room at the Quality Inn, which is pretty comfortable, to a five-star Sheraton. This experience did not happen so long ago. I actually still give interviews, and the situation is still the same.
However, you are saying that Radio-Canada's budgets have been cut — and I do believe you, as I can see that. However, that is not how it feels when I go to that big beautiful tower. There may be fewer people there now, but they are still numerous.
You are explaining the difference between a private broadcaster — but with studios elsewhere — and what I have seen. This is a matter of perception. My perception was that there was some money available.
That is all I had to say. It is not a question, but rather a comment.
The Chair: Would you like to comment on this comment?
[English]
Ms. Smyth: I hope you didn't mind being powdered. Some people like it; in fact, some gentlemen ask for it.
It is true. You heard Marc-Philippe say that the CBC is selling its properties and renting, often downscaling. Some of the things you're inferring are happening.
We were touring a CBC station in Ottawa last week, and the amount of empty desks is screamingly obvious. It's the same in Toronto, where whole floors are almost empty. The desks are there, but there is nobody in them. Sadly, for us — perhaps you would approve — it's been downsized to a significant degree already. A lot of what seems like more staffing, I would just say, working in the industry, it's often because the CBC has so many shows in production that is one of the reasons they have more people, unlike private broadcasters who tend to show American programs, but they are purchasing it, not creating it, and so they don't have as many people around.
My main point is, yes, that may have been the case years ago when CBC had more staff, but it's a remarkably different place now. For example, whole categories of jobs are disappearing. There's no such thing as an audio specialist who travels with the team to get audio any longer. As Marc said, now the cameraperson has to do the audio, shoot, feed the tape, sometimes cut it, do the editing and even report and produce it.
A foreign correspondent now reports in English and French. They have to shoot the story, edit it, do radio and TV, do an online story and any live hits. Before it was three or four people. Now it's one person. If you don't have those skills, you're not getting that job.
It's the same with other jobs. An editor is an endangered species because now the reporters have to cut their own stories. That never would have happened five years ago. Everything is digital. Some of these things you're suggesting are happening at the speed of light.
Mr. Laurin: You're right, it is efficient, but every time you make a change, there's a cost to efficiency. If you have a reporter cutting his own story now, he's not researching the next story, which is what we used to do. If you had an editor editing the story, the reporter could be researching the next story; in other words, providing more stories to Canadians and digging into other stuff. But now they're involved in editing their own stories, doing their own audio and everything else, so there's a reduction in the amount of content that used to be created.
There are decisions being made like this at CBC now for the last decade or so, if not more. On an ongoing basis, jobs are changing. There are job classifications that used to exist but don't exist any longer. A lot of reporters and hosts across the country —
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais, they put on their own makeup now because no one is there to do it for them.
Senator Dagenais: I was there 15 days ago, and Mr. Durivage was not doing his own makeup.
Mr. Laurin: That may still be the case at big stations such as Toronto and Montreal. But I get complaints from people all over the country because they have to do their own makeup and they are not very good at it.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you for being here this evening. I want to pick up on what the senator was just speaking about and what you referred to in regard to divesting, leasing and renting out property.
Unlike most government institutions, we basically have three headquarters for CBC, one in Toronto, one in Montreal and one in Ottawa. It would seem to me that it would be natural to expect a lot of redundancies, duplication and unnecessary expenditure when you have three organizations.
Has CBC ever internally looked at consolidating those three offices into one in Ottawa and turning Montreal and Toronto into regional operations?
Ms. Smyth: I don't think any politician is going to cut anything in Montreal to put in Toronto.
Senator MacDonald: I'm not asking about politicians. I'm asking about you.
Mr. Laurin: To be honest, I think that's a question that should be more fairly directed at CBC management. We're not part of those discussions. We're informed when the CBC is reorganizing its buildings, selling buildings, selling half a building in Toronto or leasing out half a building. They tell us these are decisions made by corporate management at CBC, not by us.
There has always been a sense that Radio-Canada headquarters should be in Montreal, in Quebec, and there's always been a sense that CBC English should be based in Toronto. That's where the buildings are; that's where they were built. Whether or not CBC envisages splitting it up or doing something different, I would suggest you'd have to have that discussion with Hubert Lacroix and company, not us. We're not part of those discussions.
Senator MacDonald: We have and we will continue to do so.
The Chair: We will have the President and Chair of the CBC in front of the committee. To add on, we will be visiting both facilities in Montreal and in Toronto. Sorry to have interrupted you, Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: No problem. Picking up on regional services, CBC, like any other corporation or any other government entity, can be centralized at the top. When you go in and cut 10 per cent, they will automatically look to the regions and start cutting there.
Senator Verner brought up the point that a lot of people in the regions think they aren't being very well served. Wouldn't the money go further and be better spent if more money was taken out of the bigger centres and given to the local centres, the regional centres, to pursue local news and things of that nature? There's almost no local content at home anymore; everything is fed out of the major centres. This doesn't seem to be answering the —
Ms. Smyth: Are you from Newfoundland?
Senator MacDonald: I'm from Nova Scotia.
Ms. Smyth: There are several bureaus in Nova Scotia, and I think there are three or four in Newfoundland. We do have a fairly significant regional presence.
Again, as Marc said, we don't manage the budget, although we've tried to give CBC advice for years; they don't usually take it from us.
I'm sure they've struggled with that very question, how to allocate resources, be it in the larger centres and/or in the regions. It's a struggle. They've had various models throughout the years when they had a larger presence in the regions and times when they've downsized, such as in Toronto, at the expense of the regions. It's gone back and forth. I think it's something they struggle with constantly.
Mr. Laurin: I don't have anything to add. We've had discussions and shared our views with CBC management. We believe in regional programming, local programming, and we believe that CBC best serves the public there, but there's also a network involved, so decisions have to be made, and that's done at the corporate level.
Ms. Umurungi: Just to add, I have a list — I think we submitted it as well — indicating that the latest cuts affected more than 25 Canadian communities, and in there we have Ottawa and Toronto. Toronto took a big cut.
I think the cuts are happening all over the place. Sometimes I worry that if we discuss pitting places against each other, it's not necessarily the issue. I think the issue is really just having a presence that's needed.
I agree with my colleagues that CBC management is better able to answer certain questions in detail about the decisions we make or where to cut, et cetera. But certainly a presence everywhere — I mean, I wouldn't want CBC not to be in Toronto or Montreal, either. There are a lot of considerations we have to take into account. When we say ''present in communities,'' we mean big and small.
Senator MacDonald: I wasn't implying that it shouldn't be in Toronto or Montreal. I'm just saying perhaps they should be a regionally based office and not run out of there.
Looking at my own experience, like most people from my generation, I grew up with CBC when it was the only television station. I listen to CBC quite a bit, but it's CBC radio I listen to. I have it on almost all the time in my house. Even if it's just background noise, it's there.
In terms of CBC television, I'm very selective in what I watch. You were mentioning that 89 per cent support this and 92 per cent support this, but when it comes to marketshare and viewershare, there are no numbers like that in the CBC. We're down in single digits with a lot of things.
Maybe CBC has to accept the changing landscape. I think CBC should put more money into radio and less money into television production, because I think they would get a lot more bang for their buck. There doesn't seem to be a real culture to embrace that, as far as I can see, and I'm wondering if that should be looked at.
Ms. Smyth: With technology being what it is, radio is produced at a fraction of the cost of television. That's just the way it is and will always be.
The CBC is spending a lot of money now not just in television but in all the new technologies. You can probably tell with your grandchild watching, every day there's something else. Every day we have to learn different technology, different equipment and things are changing rapidly. A lot of expenses are tied up in changing technology, probably more than any other single industry, I would imagine. That's part of the issue.
As for programming, one of the main principles of public broadcasting is that it is free from commercial restraints to do programming that, for example, unites the country, programming that may not be universally popular — for example, anything in French outside of Quebec is probably not going to be that popular. Programming in Aboriginal languages and programming on Aboriginal issues is probably not going to be that popular, but should we not do that?
The CBC is mandated to do a lot of programming, even Canadian content. People want to watch Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis in American movies. Okay, we all like that, but on the other hand, are we not going to have an independent Canadian industry? Are your grandchildren, who can sing and dance and maybe act, not going to have a chance to be on Canadian television in Canadian movies? If we don't support an industry, it will not exist in 10 years. We need champions to fight for that, and that's one of the roles of the public broadcaster, to provide that.
It will never be massively popular. Maybe in a dream world in 20 years if it had massive amounts of money, the kind of money that American networks can marshal, millions of dollars. We just can't do that in Canada because there's just not that kind of funding. We will never have that kind of production value in our programs. That's just a sad reality, but we don't believe that means we can't have a healthy and vital film and television industry.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I have a number of very short questions, and I would like the answers to be very short as well; otherwise, the discussion could go on forever. I would like to welcome the members of the Canadian Media Guild.
Mr. Laurin, with respect to point 4 of your document, could you give us at least two or three examples of the government's interference in programming as far as a host or someone else is concerned? I would like an example.
Mr. Laurin: Actually, Senator Maltais, the legislation is new, as you know. Clause 17 of Bill C-60 is brand new. Our concern has always been —
Senator Maltais: I appreciate your concern.
Mr. Laurin: There are no examples at this time.
Senator Maltais: Thank you. As far as your survey results go, do you not find your scores a bit high?
Mr. Laurin: Which survey exactly?
Senator Maltais: You rank above 80 per cent on all the questions. You seem to be giving yourself some good scores. We should hire EKOS to examine things from a political standpoint; we would have to go back a bit in the surveys. You do not find the scores high?
Mr. Laurin: They are not our surveys.
Senator Maltais: Who did them? Who asked the questions?
Mr. Laurin: Different organizations conducted them, including Pollara.
Senator Maltais: You should do one in Quebec tomorrow morning, and I would like you to report back to me with the results, please. My question would be this: ''Are you satisfied with CBC?'' Afterwards, we can talk.
Mr. Laurin: Then, this question should also be asked: ''Do you think that a public broadcaster is important to a country's untity?''
Senator Maltais: Wait, it is coming. What is CBC's first mission?
Mr. Laurin: To inform.
Senator Maltais: When CBC was established.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, yes; to inform.
Senator Maltais: And?
Mr. Laurin: I will say it in English.
Senator Maltais: In French, please.
Mr. Laurin: You have me there. In French, divertir.
Senator Maltais: Canadian unity.
Mr. Laurin: Canadian unity, yes.
Senator Maltais: Do you think Radio-Canada Montréal is preaching Canadian unity?
Mr. Laurin: Well —
Senator Maltais: Your members?
Mr. Laurin: They are not our members in Montreal, senator.
Senator Maltais: My apologies.
Mr. Laurin: They belong to another union. They are Radio-Canada employees, but they are not our members. We do not represent the people in the province of Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Oh! No?
Mr. Laurin: No.
Ms. Umurungi: However, in regard to the role that the public broadcaster should play, the Broadcasting Act says that role is to inform, enlighten or entertain.
Senator Maltais: I see that you had to reread CBC's main role closely. Last year, your president was here, and he had not read it either.
The public broadcaster's role has to be clearly defined. What people criticize CBC for — in a calm manner, of course — has to do with the point Senator Verner made, in relation to Toronto and Montreal.
In Quebec, in particular, it is terrible, terrible. People do not watch Radio-Canada because they are fed up with hearing about the Plateau, which represents about half of one per cent, or one tenth of Quebec's population. Radio- Canada television programming is overrun by people from the Plateau. That is what people see, and they are sick of it.
How many workers are there in Canada, do you think?
Mr. Laurin: At CBC?
Senator Maltais: No, no, no. How many workers in all of Canada? Out of 35 million people, how many of them do you think work?
Mr. Laurin: I would say around 20 million or 22 million, perhaps 23 million.
Senator Maltais: When you say it costs $43 or $45 per capita, that is for 20 million people; you have to subtract children, seniors, pensioners, people with disabilities and those on social assistance. So it costs more than $43.
You see, then, that the information — you are a union and you did quite a good job — does not reflect the reality. It is not true; it costs a lot more per capita. When you come to us and ask for an additional $115 million, your arguments need to be much more convincing.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Plett on a second round, or should I call it a second period?
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair.
[Translation]
Ms. Umurungi: I would just like to say that people who work are not the only ones who tune in to CBC; the network also offers programming to children and those who do not work. It offers programming for everyone. So when we talk about the annual per capita investment, we are talking about the investment for everyone who is served by the public broadcaster. Thank you.
The Chair: Madam —
[English]
Senator Plett: Senator Maltais made a very good point. It is more than $43 per person anyway.
Ms. Smyth, you talked about you want to make sure that CBC is still here in 10 years from now and the way to do that is to make sure we have more Canadian content. Sad as it is, I think the way to maybe get rid of CBC is to have more Canadian content. That's very unfortunate, but I believe that to be the truth.
In 1996, a small guy from Shawinigan cut $414 million to the CBC, in 1996, 2,400 jobs, and here we are almost 20 years later and CBC is still alive and well. The fact that there was $115 million taken away, that in itself is not going to kill CBC.
What happens with any corporation? CBC isn't unique in that. What happens with any corporation that gets a cut in funding? Well, let's lay off or fire all those people below me. Maybe if I would leave, 10 others could stay, but this is, of course, what happens. We would rather get rid of all the people below us, and that's of course why it's 2,400 and that's why 3,600 and that's why we have these large numbers.
You referred to a cameraman now needing to do a lot more stuff and the reporter needing to do more stuff, and yet when I watch what CBC does — and I agree with Senator MacDonald — the ratings are down, but they're not down because of the quality of reporting. They're not down because of the quality of the cameraman doing his work.
Obviously, I believe that many of the private broadcasters are doing the same thing, because they're all needing to live within their means. The Conservative government is asking not just CBC to shave 5 per cent or whatever it is that they're asking it to shave; it's not just CBC; it's all government departments, because we need to live within our means. We came through a terrible recession here a few years ago and we ran deficits, and I think we did a good job of coming through that recession, but now we need to get back to a balanced budget. So the government, as any responsible government would do, and even the Finance Minister in the previous government ran balanced budgets and surpluses because he asked provinces to live within their means and cut their health care, but nevertheless he got governments to live within their means.
If the ratings go down, what should CBC do? What should the government do if the ratings aren't those of CTV or Global? If they need to live within their means, if they need to have a 5 per cent haircut, like all departments do, how should CBC react to that? Should they not live within their means? Should they be treated differently than other government organizations?
Ms. Smyth: I take your point that they have shows that are popular: ''Rick Mercer,'' ''22 Minutes,'' ''Fifth Estate,'' and ''Marketplace.'' There are award-winning shows. I just don't want to leave the impression that all CBC television ratings are low. That's not the case.
They have some exceptional ratings in many instances, programs that we all love. As for living within its means, I do take your point. We are well aware that we have been on the hit end of many governments' cuts. That is true. But we're still hopeful and optimistic.
Senator Plett: Mulcair is still promising.
Ms. Smyth: We have no problem trying to live within our means. Of course we try. CBC is hamstrung in that it can't operate like a regular private company. It doesn't have the same ability to manage its finances as other companies do. There are so many regulations it follows as a public broadcaster that other corporations don't have to. It can't just import a bunch of award-winning American programming and make money; it has to broadcast in two official languages across the country where it is not going to make money. It has to support the transmitter system, which cost millions through the years, because that's part of the function of a public broadcaster.
It can't divest itself of some of these things it has to do. It's a little unfair to put it in the same playing field as a private company that can make their own independent decisions guided only by the shareholders' interests. CBC doesn't have that; I don't want to call it an advantage. It can't do that. It has to be treated a little differently.
Senator Plett: Fair enough. I will accept your argument. Aside from the $115 million that the government has asked the CBC to do without — and I have every confidence that they will continue to operate — we have talked about the digital world, the Internet world, the Netflix of the world, and I buy Netflix.
How is that playing into it? That is something clearly beyond the control of any government, and that's playing into all broadcasters' ability to operate.
Ms. Smyth: Yes.
Senator Plett: How does that affect CBC and, surely, you aren't asking the taxpayers of the country to make up for what they are losing because of these broadcasters or the Internet and so on.
Ms. Smyth: Shades of the CRTC hearing, I'm sure. They don't want to hear any more from Netflix. It shows what an incredibly changing field the broadcast business is. There are new players constantly. It is Netflix today, but in two years it will be someone else that could entirely change the way we communicate and digest broadcasting.
The CBC has no more advantage than anyone else. Everybody can see that the train ahead of us is hurdling forward with more changes. We have to try to jump on and do what we can.
Senator Plett: My administrative assistant tells me that she doesn't subscribe to any television. She has her computer and she streams or whatever it is.
Ms. Smyth: Exactly.
Senator Plett: I tried doing it. It hasn't worked for me yet. Nevertheless, she watches everything on her computer, plugs it into her television.
Ms. Smyth: I know. Amazing, right?
Senator Plett: That has to be affecting —
Ms. Smyth: That's absolutely right. All broadcasters have to be ready to change all the time.
Mr. Laurin: You are right. The CBC outlined its five-year plan to 2020 last spring, and it is concentrating on mobile, Internet, radio and television. The previous plan — the 2015 plan that started in 2010 — was television, radio, Internet and mobile. Now, the motto across the industry is go mobile or go home.
We appeared a couple weeks ago, and the CRTC is holding hearings on this very matter. The CBC is trying to adjust, as a Crown corporation, with its limited funds as best as it can to the new world. It can't borrow money, and it can't squirrel away money like the other private broadcasters.
Senator Plett: It can sell assets.
Mr. Laurin: That's what it is doing. At one point in time it is going to run out of assets to sell.
Senator Plett: Good.
Mr. Laurin: By the way, those assets were purchased with government approval back when, right? Just so we are clear.
Senator Plett: No doubt.
Mr. Laurin: No doubt. To wrap it up, I think I have said what I needed to say. The CBC is trying to live within its means, within a fast-changing industry, and a lot of hard decisions have to be made.
Senator Plett: I also said what I need to say.
Senator Dawson: Contrary to CRTC, we will not erase the testimony whether we like it or not. If it's been said, we will keep it. We live in a digital world. I think it is out there in digital land and —
Ms. Umurungi: Can I say one thing about watching? I understand that there are opportunities; I agree. But even if you watch television on your screen or phone or you are watching on the computer, you are still watching the news that someone gathered and reported on. You are still watching programming that was made. It is important to note that; the screen doesn't change the fact that we have to build and create this content.
Senator Eggleton: Living within your means can mean different things to different people. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder as they say. Maybe it is a mean budget, where the word mean should be put. One of the difficulties with a lot of cuts — they have been done by both colours of government that are at this table — is the pylon effect; it's getting to the point it is strangling the public broadcaster. That's the main problem.
There is one hope, and Senator Plett pointed it out to me that when we were in government we did work to balance the budget and then we had surpluses, then we had money to spend. This year, the government will have a surplus, so let's go after a share of the surplus for public broadcasting.
Let me ask you a question about public broadcasting in the sense that, as you have just pointed out, things have changed over the years. We're still talking about a public broadcaster, but we're talking about a public broadcaster in a different atmosphere, a different context today than what it was 10, 20, 30 years ago certainly.
So that raises the question of the Broadcasting Act, which hasn't been reviewed for a number of years. Should it be reviewed? What kind of changes do you think should be made in the broadcasting end?
Ms. Smyth: That's a good question. We have heard calls from different quarters because of course there's so much — and you referred to Netflix — new technology not addressed directly in the Broadcasting Act as it stands. It is a complex document. I do not propose to be an expert on it. It would take a significant group of individuals to make any kind of change and/or review it.
Mr. Laurin: Suffice to say even within our organization, we are having a lot of discussion about the Broadcasting Act, whether it should be reopened or not. We haven't come to any conclusion on that point.
We think it can stand as it is right now. There are some of us that think it can stand as it is. There are ways to get the governance model changed within the current Broadcasting Act, for example, without changing anything.
That would require another hour and some, and more in-depth —
Senator Dawson: On this, before giving Senator Maltais the floor, I would like to thank the witnesses for their participation.
The committee will be travelling so we will have a chance to hear people. In the next few weeks we will be in Halifax on October 21, talking to the people listening to us; Quebec City on October 23; Toronto on October 27 and 28; and in Montreal on November 5 and 6.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: When a business is in trouble, the unions often come up with good ideas. We have seen it happen with a number of businesses. Now, a good idea does not necessarily require money, especially when there is none. I would have expected you to tell us, this evening, that you had looked elsewhere, to the private sector or to organization X, and that you absolutely could not budge, that nothing could change and that it was set in stone.
I will give you a real-life example. Quebec used to have a small TV network called TQS; it went bankrupt and was bought by a fellow named Mr. Rémillard. He is in the process of rebuilding the network with very limited resources. He did not have enough money to provide news coverage, so he moved on to something else. And yet, the network is producing its own programs — surprisingly — and they often feature former Radio-Canada personalities who had been dropped or whose contracts had not been renewed. He is rebuilding the network and is even competing with Radio-Canada on a very small budget. Within your union, could you not find a way to look around at what is being done elsewhere and come back to us with some tangible solutions, all the while never straying from CBC's first mission?
Perhaps that is asking too much of you, but I would think that is something you should be examining. If others are doing it, why not you?
[English]
Ms. Smyth: We would love to. If that means you're going to invite us back on another occasion, we would love to accept that invitation and will take some time to look into it, although we're a small organization.
Can I leave you with a question? What we really need is a champion. This is an opportunity for a great Canadian to leave a legacy — a lifetime legacy of saving the national broadcaster. I think it is a wonderful opportunity for the right people to step up and make that a life work that will be part of Canadian history.
Senator Dawson: As you know, we are being broadcast, so maybe somebody has heard the signal and will be answering you in the next few weeks.
(The committee adjourned.)