Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 3 - Evidence, March 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 4, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 a.m. to continue its study of the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are pursuing our study of the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communication.
[English]
Today we are continuing our study into the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
[Translation]
We have witnesses from the Association québécoise de la production médiatique (AQPM) who will be appearing by video conference. The Association québécoise de la production médiatique has existed in various guises since 1966. It brings together more than 130 production companies, as well as some 60 professional freelancers from the fields of cinema, television and online production.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce Ms. Claire Samson, President and CEO, and Ms. Brigitte Doucet, Deputy General Director. Before we begin, one of the senators has asked to make a two-minute statement; I will give the senator the floor.
[English]
Senator Plett, you wanted to make a statement?
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. Yes, I would. At the end of my statement I will be making a request for the consideration of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity.
I would like to make a few points for the record, as I believe they are critical to the study and to the consideration and evaluation of the testimony we heard from CBC President and CEO, Mr. Hubert Lacroix.
I am tremendously disappointed that Mr. Lacroix, as the head of the largest Crown corporation in Canada, refused to answer questions that were not only relevant to our study as a committee with respect to corporate governance, but also to the taxpayers who are owners of the CBC and have the right to see where every dollar is spent.
Information that he could not or would not provide the committee included: his bonus and the bonus of other executives; their travel policies; the total cost to the taxpayers of CBC's trip to Sochi, Russia, whether or not they flew business class; and finally, with regard to his own expenses, why the CBC failed to report the ineligible expenses when they discovered them, why it was hidden from the taxpayers and why they only started talking about it when Sun Media broke the story.
Mr. Lacroix also refused to comment on the substance of Peter Mansbridge's address to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, whether he billed taxpayers for the travel and whether or not he was in a conflict of interest with CBC's ethics policies.
When asked about the cost of salaries of CBC executives and television personalities, he responded:
. . . in the environment in which we work, disclosing those kinds of salaries would not be helpful to our position in the environment in which we work.
This is not a sufficient response for Canadian taxpayers and should not be an acceptable response for this committee. There are questions of hypocrisy, transparency and accountability lingering here, and I believe we, as a Senate committee, and more importantly as taxpaying Canadian citizens, deserve better.
As he said on Power & Politics when he paid back his ineligible expenses, those who needed to know were told. He clearly does not believe that this includes the Canadian public. That was evident in his answers or lack thereof.
My last point is in regard to my question about CBC misrepresenting facts. The CBC has been known to make a correction to the online version of stories when they have made errors, while refusing to make a correction to the other outlets through which they broadcast the story. This is relevant to our study because as a public broadcaster it is their responsibility to report the news and not to subject viewers to sensationalism.
Secondly, we are discussing the challenges faced by CBC in a changing media environment. In this, we need to consider the various media outlets through which Canadians get their news, and in this changing media environment we need to look at what changes have been made, if any, to address journalistic accountability.
When we are dealing with blatant misrepresentation of facts on all of the various CBC media outlets and where CBC journalists have admitted their error, simply making a correction to what quickly becomes old news online is unacceptable.
As I explained, 20 years ago there was no such thing as an online story, so a public retraction would have been the only method for a broadcaster to correct their mistakes. My question to Mr. Lacroix was whether he believed, in general terms, this to be the appropriate way to handle a situation like this and whether CBC has adjusted their journalistic accountability policies to reflect a changing media environment. This is clearly relevant to the study and within our order of reference.
I hope we can all keep this in mind as a committee the next time Mr. Lacroix or anyone from the CBC appears.
Lacroix told the committee:
We post stuff. If you go to our website, we constantly post stuff about what's going on at CBC.
The stuff that CBC posts and the information that Mr. Lacroix is willing to provide to this committee is inadequate. As we all know, other public broadcasters like the BBC post detailed expense reports so that their taxpayers can see how every dime is spent. The CBC seems to only want to compare their corporation directly with the BBC when they discuss government funding and not when it comes to their policies on transparency and accountability.
In light of the CBC's president's reluctance to answer and the outstanding questions many of us still have, I would like to ask the committee to consider inviting the Chairman of the Board of CBC, Rémi Racine, to attend this committee.
The Chair: We will come back to the witnesses as soon as possible.
The best way to proceed now is that you make that proposal to the steering committee, and it will go forward if that is decided by the steering committee. At our next steering committee meeting, your request for Mr. Racine to appear will be submitted to the committee.
Senator Plett: I will do that, chair.
The Chair: I would like to keep the debate short because we have witnesses waiting.
Senator Eggleton: You allowed him to speak on it.
The Chair: No, I'm not stopping you from speaking, Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: I don't mind the chairman being invited here, but I want to disassociate myself from those remarks and I don't want that to be the basis for inviting him.
[Translation]
The Chair: Now, we are here to hear from the witnesses. We will listen to your presentation with great attention.
Claire Samson, President and CEO, Association québécoise de la production médiatique (AQPM): Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you. My name is Claire Samson, president and CEO of the Association québécoise de la production médiatique. With me is Ms. Brigitte Doucet, Deputy General Director. Thank you for having invited us to talk about the challenges that the changing environment of broadcasting and communications presents to the CBC.
Of course, we will speak about our experience as independent producers. I would like to mention that in this new multiplatform world, everything comes down to content.
Even the most technologically advanced platform will not succeed if it is not able to offer consumers attractive and competitive content that they want to watch or listen to.
Why are things like video on demand and all the new platforms online such as Netflix, the iTunes Store, Tou.tv, Illico Unlimited, Canal+.ca and so on so successful? It is because of the content they offer either à la carte or by subscription. This content consists mainly of sound recordings, films and television programs, nearly all of which were originally produced for traditional platforms. Even previously unseen and exclusive content like House of Cards or most web series, often take the form of traditional television content.
Demand for content then, is stronger than ever, and the challenge in this new world varies depending on where you are in the process.
For Canadian producers, the challenge is to bring together the creative, technical and financial resources necessary to produce content that can really attract audiences here and abroad, and we need to be able to broadcast that content on many different platforms. For broadcasters, in the broadest sense of the term, in other words standard programming services as well as the internet, the challenge is to acquire the multiplatform rights for the most coveted content, be it Canadian or international, at the lowest possible cost. But these challenges are laden with conflicts, and they bring into play actors who have unparalleled market power and financial power.
On the one hand, there are the large private Canadian broadcasting groups, which all belong to a few large integrated communications agencies, which also control television distribution, Internet access, and mobile telecommunications. Thus, these companies have the power to impose conditions concerning rights acquisition on individual producers of Canadian content, and they can do so in a way that is clearly to their advantage. Given this imbalance of power, the CRTC saw fit to force large Canadian broadcasting companies to negotiate commercial agreements with the large associations of Canadian program producers. This is an important right which should not be put in jeopardy.
Furthermore, like foreign multinationals, the big Canadian communications agencies do everything in their power to ensure that any rules forcing them to help fund Canadian content, like those imposed on their traditional activities, are not introduced for their Internet programming or on their activities as Internet service providers. The result today is that huge and ever-growing swaths of broadcasting, distribution and programming activity in Canada is now controlled by companies that have no financial obligation to fund Canadian content. This is the case for Internet service providers, Internet programming, both Canadian and foreign. That, in our opinion, is a situation that deserves attention, and if it is not quickly rectified, the resources available for creating and funding new Canadian content will diminish as consumers move toward non-traditional platforms. In this way, it will become more and more difficult to produce attractive and competitive Canadian content that reflects our identity, culture and concerns in this new world. Viewership for all Canadian products will decline for all platforms, which will lead to increased financial difficulty, creating an endless vicious circle.
We need to restore competitive balance and to ensure that all broadcasting companies, regardless of the platform, respect the law and contribute appropriately to funding Canadian productions.
In this new world, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a fairly unique role. In fact, following developments in recent years, CBC/Radio-Canada has become the only large national broadcaster that has not been bought by a large television distribution and communication company. If only for that reason, its contribution to ensuring that there is a diverse range of voices being heard in the Canadian broadcasting system is more important than ever. However, this also weakens the CBC, as do budget cuts that have affected it. For this reason it sometimes strays from its public service mandate to increase its commercial revenue. However, it remains the only large broadcaster that is not motivated only by profit and that reinvests all of its revenue in its activity.
It also seems impossible to deny that the French-language network, Radio-Canada, is effectively meeting its mandate in terms of funding, broadcasting and promoting Canadian content.
As you can see in the tables included in the appendices of our presentation, in 2012, the French-language network dedicated 98 per cent of its total programming expenditures to Canadian programs, and those Canadian programs accounted for 92 per cent of viewership. It would be hard to ask for more.
In addition, from 2002 to 2012, the French-language network Radio-Canada did the best job of retaining viewership out of the three general French-language networks. Furthermore, Radio-Canada succeeded in getting its programs out on new platforms quickly. These include platforms that it created such as Tou.tv and external platforms such as Netflix. It is exploring the possibility of making Tou.tv a pay-per-use service, which would allow it to increase its revenue and to better compensate its creators and producers.
Of course, nobody is perfect and there is always room for improvement. For example, it is unfortunate that Radio-Canada has shown a lack of leadership when it comes to negotiating a trade agreement with the AQPM that would provide a framework for its business relations with independent producers. For years, Radio-Canada has maintained a reasonable position and seemed to want to reduce the financial burdens of independent producers.
We also find it unfortunate that Radio-Canada has not spent more of its money earmarked for Canadian entertainment shows to funding independent production. Doing so would allow Radio-Canada to have access to complementary funds provided by independent producers, such as private equity and tax credits. It would also allow Radio-Canada to reduce its programming costs and possibly to reduce its payroll and administrative costs. That said, we still do not believe that the goals of the Broadcasting Act can be met without the presence of a strong and dynamic national public broadcaster. We hope that with the significant budget surpluses that seem to be coming, the Canadian government will be willing and able to provide multi-year public funding which is stable and which will allow Radio-Canada to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing multiplatform world.
Thank you for listening. We are now ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Ms. Doucet, would you like to add anything?
Brigitte Doucet, Deputy Director General, Association québécoise de la production médiatique (AQPM): No, not for the moment. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I am interested in the over-the-top broadcasting issues and how that affects the public broadcaster, in particular. Perhaps you would know, through your members, the costs associated with producing television programs for a television network versus the programs that are created in the digital distribution area, things that go on to Netflix or other over-the-top broadcasters. Are the costs that much less? Is it a threat to the public broadcaster? What do you think we should do about over-the-top broadcasting in terms of it making a contribution to Canadian content?
Ms. Samson: As far as production costs are involved, particularly in Quebec, the status of the artist, television and feature film production is under what we would call a labour law. Everything is done within a collective agreement, so production costs would be the same whether you produce for Radio-Canada or TVA or if you were to produce an original series for Netflix, which has not been the case yet, to my knowledge. The production costs would not be any different. Although I would say that if an independent producer from Quebec were to produce something exclusively for Netflix, as Netflix is not recognized as a broadcaster in Canada, that would mean the producer would not have access to tax credits or to the Canadian Television Fund. That would mean that Netflix would have to assume 100 per cent of the production cost, which is greater.
Senator Eggleton: Is Netflix broadcasting in French?
Ms. Samson: It has some production in French, but it's not original programming. It's the translations from mostly U.S. programs.
Ms. Doucet: There are some French programs from Canada, but they are produced — this is not original content — for traditional conventional broadcasters and then rebroadcast by Netflix.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ms. Samson, you have a lot of experience in the field of television viewership in Quebec. You have worked for Radio-Canada, TVA and TQS. Is there a big difference between the production cost of a program produced by Radio-Canada and one produced by an independent producer such as TVA or the former network TQS? Are the costs the same or is there a difference in terms of costs?
Ms. Samson: I would say that it is quite comparable. Of course, the broadcaster who acquires the rights does not have access to provincial tax credits. So it is in his interest to do business with an independent producer, who will be able to contribute to the budget through provincial tax credits. Furthermore, broadcasters are limited in their access to the Canada Media Fund, which is not the case for an independent producer. There are also distinctions to be made when it comes to collective agreements. We, the independent producers, have collective agreements linking us to different production unions and these agreements may be different from the internal collective agreements of Radio-Canada or TVA. We like to think that our agreements are somewhat more favourable than those of broadcasting employees; the costs are somewhat lower in the independent sector than in traditional broadcasters.
Ms. Doucet: Generally speaking, the costs are the same whether the production is done for TVA or Radio-Canada. But it depends on the genre. Radio-Canada often commissions dramas, which have a larger audience, and which are more expensive to produce on an hourly basis. Radio-Canada is known for broadcasting more large-scale productions than private broadcasters.
Ms. Samson: Yes. Traditionally, Radio-Canada always has one or two series each season which we call "plus series," which is to say series with larger budgets than series produced by other broadcasters.
Senator Maltais: I have one final question. Regarding independent producers, what percentage of their productions that are conceived and made in Quebec are sold to the CBC or to other English-language stations?
Ms. Samson: There are very few original French-language productions conceived and made in Quebec. French-language productions from Quebec are still rarely exported today. There are a few successful programs, but these remain the exception. There have been one or two serial dramas developed in French in Quebec that have been adapted for English-speaking Canada by the CBC, and I think one by CTV, but these remain the exception. It is not a regular occurrence.
Ms. Doucet: However, there are also producers who work directly in English for those networks.
Ms. Samson: Absolutely. However, if the senator is referring to French-language production that is sold to English-speaking Canada, translated productions, I am not aware of any; there are a few that have been adapted. But I have to say that the opposite is also true and that there are very few programs produced in English-speaking Canada that are seen or that can be seen in French in Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Perhaps you can tell me: in Quebec, several years ago, there were many Stratford Theatre productions that were purchased by Quebec broadcasters. They were translated, of course. We do not see that anymore. What happened, in your opinion?
Ms. Samson: I believe it is because production costs have become very expensive. These were captations of plays, if I am not mistaken?
Senator Maltais: Yes, plays, classics.
Ms. Samson: Right. I believe that captation costs have become very high. We were saying earlier that, unfortunately, the budget cuts at Radio-Canada—whether we like it or not—have sort of forced it, over the years, to certainly focus on programs that are likely to attract a larger audience, that will generate advertising revenues that will compensate for the budget cuts. Unfortunately, these kinds of programs, such as the captation of plays and theatre arts, are fewer and farther between, but it is simply a question of money. I believe that the public interest is there, even if there is less than for a drama series or a variety show, but it is basically a question of money, of choices and of investment.
Senator Maltais: It is bizarre; budget cuts are not all that unusual, and get every time we ask the question, when we ask CBC/Radio-Canada, when they feel constricted, it is because of budget cuts. Now, when we are in such a context—all governments are in this context— do we not have to do more with less? Does there not come a time when we have to make an effort to do more with less?
Ms. Samson: I can bring a personal point of view having worked at Radio-Canada for a dozen years, and having seen the first round of budget cuts. Obviously, you are right in principle. When we are faced with budget cuts, whether they are major or reasonable, it is certainly necessary to re-examine how we do business; it is essential. I think that the problem comes from the fact that budget cuts were imposed at the same time as Radio-Canada needed to change direction and put in place resources to catch the digital wave. At the same time as Radio-Canada needed to do its homework or change its ways of doing business to, as you say, do more with less and do better with less, they were hit with the challenge of new technology, at the same time as all the other broadcasters. This was a major challenge for all broadcasters and for Radio-Canada as well with all of its broadcasting and production infrastructure. A lot of resources were needed to move into the digital era and there was, in particular, pressure for Radio-Canada to play a leadership role and to be visible on all of the different platforms; this certainly required additional resources. If there had not been any budget cuts, maybe it would have been able to find the means internally to redirect some of these resources; but in an era of budget cuts, more blame was likely placed on the budget cuts. However, it is often forgotten that the budget cuts were compounded by an additional challenge for Canada's public broadcaster.
Ms. Doucet: Also, in a general context where the Media Fund has stable funding—it has started to go down, but it has essentially been stable for a long time— some of the money that was used to fund television has been for developing and experimenting with new platforms. This has reduced the funding devoted to television. At the same time, production costs continue to increase. In the overall context, everything happened at the same time for Radio-Canada and the others.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you to the witnesses. I want to continue along the same line that Senator Maltais started with his last question.
Ms. Samson, you have a fairly impressive resumé here. You've already alluded to it. You were Director General of Communications and Director General of Programming at CBC, Chief of Operations at TQS network and Vice-President of Communications at TVA.
Given the fact that we are in an environment of fiscal restraint, deficit reduction and so forth, it's inevitable that an organization such as CBC is going to have to pick up their share of that, so indeed there was a reduction. They still get over $1.1 billion a year.
The president, Hubert Lacroix, said that the CBC can continue to fulfill its mandate and implement its 2015 plan while participating in our government's deficit reduction action plan.
If you were still at CBC, given the fact that the budget reduction is there, what would you have done to deal with that and assure Canadians that we still get the Canadian content, and so on, that you are desperately, and rightfully, looking for?
Ms. Samson: Honestly, sir, to answer your question would imply that I would have access to a lot more information about the CBC than is available now to any citizen. I left the CBC about 15 or 20 years ago, and it certainly has evolved.
I would say that I probably would have tried to reduce overhead costs a bit more and would have taken on the numeric challenge a bit differently. But as long as you tell CBC that they have to continue offering services across the country in both English and French, with radio and television signals, local and national programming is quite a challenge when you reduce resources. I'm not saying that it was an impossible task, but they did not have many options either.
As I was saying to Senator Maltais, the budget cuts arrived at the same time that the CBC had critical decisions to make with respect to technology in terms of whether it would be distributed on new platforms. As the Canadian public broadcaster, we expect the CBC to have a certain leadership in those areas. It's important that Canadian content is available on the new platforms and on the Internet. We don't want to find ourselves 10 years from now with no Canadian expression on the net, but only foreign culture. More important for the rest of Canada, if the only content available on the net in English is American, it's a great challenge for the CBC, and we expect them to be there for us.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I certainly would concur with your first comment, which is that CBC should possibly concentrate on cutting some overhead, maybe salaries and bonuses. That would go a long way toward getting it down a little bit, at least.
Telefilm Canada's 2014-15 allocation to invest in Canadian-made productions is in excess of $95 million. How much was that in previous years? Do you have that answer? How much of a hit did Telefilm Canada take, still receiving over $95 million a year?
Ms. Samson: I would not be able to give you that answer off the top of my head. I'm sorry; I couldn't, sir.
Senator Plett: Would you be able to find us that answer and maybe, through the clerk and chair, provide it to us?
Ms. Samson: Certainly. Yes, I will, sir.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for appearing before us.
I just wanted to make the comment, pursuant to Senator Plett, that certainly CBC/Radio-Canada should be good to you in Quebec because Radio-Canada is well ahead in French TV revenue and well ahead with French radio. In Quebec they should be treating you just great.
My question is one that has already been asked, but I wanted to get clarification in my own mind.
We earlier heard from the Canadian Media Production Association. I want to understand your organization, and perhaps you could distinguish or tell me where you are alike. I read that your association provides members with consulting services; you do industrial relations; you do taxation, copyright, and that type of thing. Could you distinguish between your organization and the Canadian Media Production Association, as well as explain the similarities?
Ms. Samson: I would say, sir, we pretty much have the same missions. Our objectives are a bit different. In Quebec there is a specific law, the Status of the Artist law, which doesn't have exact equivalency in the rest of Canada. The way we go about our business is a bit different. We have 14 collective agreements in Quebec, both in French and English, with every group of artists or workers who work on a TV set or a feature film set. That represents about 80 per cent of our resources in the volume of work that we do.
Our organizations are pretty similar. We collaborate on many issues and items. For example, every year, with Canadian Heritage, we produce a profile of the Canadian industry that provides facts and data about how well the industry is doing. We collaborate a lot, so we're very similar.
Senator McInnis: It's a terrible word, "lobbyist," but obviously —
Ms. Samson: That's what we are too, sir.
Senator McInnis: That's what I was going to say. That's what you remind me of, because you deal with all levels of government, both in Quebec and, of course, the Government of Canada. That is one of your main goals.
Ms. Samson: We don't find it such a terrible word because that's part of what we do as well, but we do represent the interests of our members to the Canadian Media Fund, Telefilm Canada and the Minister of Heritage. We present to the CRTC when licences are renewed for broadcasters. We do the same thing on the provincial level as well. Yes, it is an important part of our mandate. So, yes, we are lobbyists, and registered too.
Senator McInnis: I will rewrite the definition in my mind.
The Chair: Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's normally a duck, so I guess they are lobbyists.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ms. Samson, what percentage of the content on Radio-Canada, TVA and Quatre-Saisons comes from private producers? What percentage do your producers sell to Radio-Canada?
Ms. Samson: First of all, let us look at French-language Quebec broadcasters. That includes Radio-Canada, TVA, the V channel, Télé-Québec and all of the Bell-Astral channels, which were previously known as Astral. If I set aside news programs, current affairs programs and sports programming that independent producers do not produce, for scripted programming, variety shows, documentaries, children's programming and magazines, independent producers produce, for all broadcasters, between 65 per cent and 75 per cent of all televised programming.
Ms. Doucet: We have a chart in appendix 4 that indicates 60 per cent for TVA and V, and 32 per cent for Radio-Canada.
Ms. Samson: Brigitte has reminded me that at appendix 4, in the charts that we have presented, you can see the percentage of spending on Canadian programs. You can see that 65 to 75 per cent of Canadian programs are produced by independent producers, depending on which network you look at.
Senator Maltais: What percentage do you produce for Radio-Canada?
Ms. Samson: For Radio-Canada, the independent production of Canadian programs represents 32 per cent of spending. That includes news and current affairs programming. If I exclude those programs, independent producers produce a much bigger share.
Senator Maltais: Overall, if we set aside news, sports, football and the weather, which you do not produce, what does Radio-Canada produce?
Ms. Samson: It still produces a drama series internally called L'Auberge du chien noir.
Senator Maltais: We have heard of it.
Ms. Samson: Radio-Canada has a long history of producing very successful series internally. It still produces certain variety shows and weekly talk shows.
Ms. Doucet: A lot of game shows.
Ms. Samson: Some game shows are produced internally. Major series and variety shows are entrusted to independent producers. It still produces a few documentaries, but not very many. Documentaries are mostly produced by independent producers.
Senator Maltais: In your opinion, who is the main independent producer? Who is your biggest client?
Ms. Samson: That would be Radio-Canada, sir.
Senator Maltais: The second biggest?
Ms. Samson: The second biggest client, in terms of volume, would be the Astral network, which is now owned by Bell.
Senator Maltais: You have never worked on news programs?
Ms. Samson: No, very little. Sometimes on current affairs programs. It should be noted that, when it comes to the news, there is the whole issue of accountability and of journalistic codes of conduct. All of the networks have ethical codes and are responsible for editorial opinions or reports that are broadcast. As a general rule, any television station that produces news or current affairs programming has its own system because they are accountable and they must respect their own journalistic standards and codes that independent producers are not a part of.
Senator Maltais: For my next question, do not worry if you do not know the answer. Do you know how much money Radio-Canada spends on independent production?
Ms. Samson: No, I do not.
[English]
Senator Plett: Ms. Samson, how is your association financed? Do you get any direct government money or is it solely membership fees that you work on?
Ms. Samson: It is solely membership fees.
Senator Plett: In light of that, you don't need to answer this question because it's not as relevant, but I would like to know if you have the answer.
Senator White asked the CBC president about budgets, and in a time of restraint he got a $75,000-plus bonus, which is more money than most Canadians make in a year. This was when they had huge budget cuts, and apparently there are those who get up to a 50 per cent bonus. In light of the budget restraints, are you paying your people bonuses?
Ms. Samson: Well, yes, but none of that amount.
Senator Plett: Since you're not directly getting government subsidies, I won't comment any further.
[Translation]
The Chair: We have come to the end of our questions. Senator McInnis asked a question concerning your relationship with the Canadian Media Production Association. I put this question to another lobby group, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. In Quebec, is there an equivalent to Mr. Morrison's organization, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting?
Ms. Samson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chair, no.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I would like to thank you, Ms. Samson. It appears as though you will be very busy over the next few weeks.
Ms. Samson: Apparently.
The Chair: We greatly appreciated your presence here this morning. Ms. Doucet, thank you for being here. I declare the committee adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)