THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 27, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:46 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to transport and communications generally.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators.
We are continuing the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications of the local and regional services provided by CBC/Radio-Canada.
I will introduce myself. I am Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I would now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator Simons: Good evening. My name is Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec. Good evening.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: This evening, we continue our study of the local and regional services provided by CBC/Radio-Canada.
[English]
I’m pleased to welcome on behalf of our committee, Eva Ludvig, President, and Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General of the Quebec Community Groups Network; Arnie Gelbart, Co‑chair of the Board of Directors and Kirwan Cox of the Quebec English-language Production Council; and joining us by video conference, we welcome Miranda Castravelli, Executive Director, English Language Arts Network.
Welcome and thank you for being here this evening. We’ll have five-minute presentations from Ms. Ludvig, Ms. Castravelli and Mr. Gelbart. I think Mr. Cox will also be participating in the presentation, and then turn it over for questions and answers, starting with my colleagues.
I give the floor to Ms. Ludvig.
Eva Ludvig, President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Good evening, Senator Housakos, Senator Miville-Dechêne, honourable members of the committee and a special good evening to our friend Senator Cormier. Thank you for joining us.
My name is Eva Ludvig, the President of the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, and with me is QCGN Director General Sylvia Martin-Laforge.
The QCGN represents the English-speaking community of Quebec, Canada’s largest official language minority with over 1.3 million members. Our mission is to advocate for the rights and vitality of this unique community. Today, I will highlight the critical role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or CBC, in supporting our community, the challenges we face and the actions required to address them.
We are delighted to be appearing this evening with our long-time community partners, the Quebec English-language Production Council and the English Language Arts Network.
First, it’s essential to understand that the English-speaking community of Quebec is not simply an extension of Canada’s English majority. We are a distinct and diverse cultural and linguistic community with unique needs. Despite our numbers, our representation in CBC’s non-news programming remains limited, leaving many English-speaking Quebecers feeling excluded from broader narratives.
Our community faces significant challenges, particularly when it comes to media access. There is a stark urban-rural divide. Urban areas like Montreal traditionally benefited from diverse English-language media, but rural communities struggle with limited infrastructure, poor connectivity and a lack of locally relevant content. This disparity has created “news deserts” in certain areas, where residents are left without access to reliable information about their communities.
The rise of social media, while offering some opportunities, has introduced its own set of problems. Algorithms on these platforms prioritize content designed to engage, not to inform. That fosters echo chambers and reduces exposure to diverse perspectives, further isolating minority voices. Public broadcasters like the CBC are uniquely positioned to counteract these trends by prioritizing inclusivity, diversity and nuanced reporting at the regional and local levels.
[Translation]
Public broadcasting plays an essential role in our democracy. The CBC isn’t just a broadcaster; it’s an essential platform for informed citizenship and inclusive discourse. Public broadcasters strengthen democracy by providing independent information, promoting pluralism and holding leaders accountable for their actions. To paraphrase French political scientist Loïc Blondiaux, democracy isn’t the vote, it’s the debate that precedes it. The CBC has always served as a forum in Canada and is a public space for informed debate and shared values.
[English]
However, challenges arise when the CBC operates like a commercial broadcaster, focusing on ratings rather than its public mandate. Centralized programming decisions made in Toronto have often overlooked the needs and aspirations of English-speaking Quebecers. This disconnect undermines CBC’s potential to be a bridge between communities.
At this critical juncture, we must take decisive action to strengthen CBC’s role as a public broadcaster. This includes refocusing the CBC to ensure the CBC is prioritizing resources to serve minority communities effectively; prioritizing local and regional content to see to it that the CBC is producing and amplifying stories that reflect the diversity of English-speaking Quebec; fostering collaboration to build stronger partnerships between the CBC and community organizations, such as Y4Y Québec — a group of young Quebecers — the Quebec Anglophone Heritage Network and the QCGN; investing in rural and remote community infrastructure to bridge the urban-rural divide by improving connectivity and access to localized content; and throughout this process, maintain over-the-air on-air capacity for those unable to access digital content.
In conclusion, the CBC is more than just a broadcaster; it is a cornerstone of our cultural and democratic fabric. For the English-speaking community of Quebec, the CBC is a lifeline, connecting isolated communities, amplifying minority voices and fostering informed citizenship. Strengthening the CBC’s mandate to serve minority communities is not just a matter of policy; it is a commitment to Canada’s identity, democracy and diversity.
Let us ensure that CBC continues to serve as an agora for all Canadians — a place where voices are heard, stories are shared and debates shape our future. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ludvig. I now turn the floor over to Miranda Castravelli.
Miranda Castravelli, Executive Director, English Language Arts Network: Good evening, honourable members of the committee. I thank you all for allowing me the chance to speak tonight.
The English Language Arts Network, or ELAN, is a not-for-profit organization that connects over 5,000 English-speaking artists, cultural workers and arts organizations that, in turn, of course, serve the English-language minority in Quebec, calculated today at over a million people.
We advocate for the members’ interests, and to that end, we’re here today to speak about the role of the CBC in that ecosystem. Some of what I’m going to say will echo what my colleague has said, of course, but let me begin by speaking about the economy.
Canada employs over 850,000 full-time artists and art professionals. For a vast majority of those, the CBC represents a method of publicity, a channel of distribution and a source of serving communities, big and small, where no other broadcaster would or could go. Our territory is vast, and the private sector, driven by profit, would not have the interests to serve pockets of a few thousand people. Of course, the government could mandate that a portion of private broadcasting would be obliged to serve those communities, but then, over time, that would lead to what is effectively the CBC, except with partisan interests this time.
I urge this committee to consider that there is no area of life that remains unaffected by art. Other sectors such as tourism and hospitality are the obvious first to consider, but what area of life is unaffected and untouched by creativity and design?
Already we’re seeing that our sector is suffering under the current economic reality. With many people leaving the arts altogether, I submit that a country where artists cannot thrive is an impoverished and diminished one — one where mindshare and the spread of culture are limited to the personal tastes of the highest bidder and the limited few. Taylor Swift doesn’t need the CBC. Our local Canadian grassroots arts and artisans do.
Silencing the CBC means much less publicity and therefore much less contact for the small local artists and the people they serve, making it even more impossible to spread the word and, therefore, to thrive, as my colleague also mentioned.
The need for a public broadcaster goes even beyond this. We must also consider the social impact. At a time when news is reduced to bits of entertainment and analytics are used to silo Canadians into echo chambers, the CBC continues to unite us as one country where truth still matters. I could go into a litany of sociopolitical issues that challenge any modern, inclusive and collective society, but that’s for another day and another hearing. What’s important is having the tools at our disposal as Canadians and to ensure that we stay connected from sea to sea to sea, have the opportunity to hear dissenting voices and to share our stories in ways that help us collectively to build a common vision of our country and ourselves.
We have spoken of the need for reconciliation. In particular, in many places in the great North, the CBC is the only method people have to give voice to the community. There is no replacement for this, and removing the few channels they have would be a huge step backward. It’s extremely unlikely that a private broadcaster would have the reach that is needed to share this content to the wide Canadian audience.
I know one might say, “Well, if it’s relevant and interesting, a market will come,” but that idea is a fallacy. One cannot go looking for what one doesn’t know exists. It is likely that any private replacement would small independent organizations that would be limited to speaking only to their own people over a limited territory. Not just First Nations but communities in small pockets all around Canada need the support of powerful institutions to make things fair and equitable for all.
That the CBC has become such a target for political intervention speaks to its very importance. More and more news and cultural properties have fallen under the control of mostly foreign oligarchs, and we have witnessed the resulting polarization. This speaks really loudly to why we as Canadians need a media outlet that embodies a truly free press and is a reflection of Canadian culture, not a driver of profit.
Obviously, as a representative of the English-language artists in Quebec, I have to underline the importance of the CBC to the arts ecology and, thus, the economy of Canada. According to the 2021 census, the English-language arts directly contributed $4.31 billion to the Quebec economy directly and then $3.5 billion indirectly and in investments. To continue to do this, artists need to have their voices amplified.
We might want to say and consider what exactly a Canadian value is. If we look back on historic programming, the CBC is the voice that unites us. Beyond the news, and through its long history, there have been many programs that have touched us, spoken to our various realities and been a normal part of the greater whole. Let me give you just a few examples that are currently running today, although there are hundreds that I know many of us remember from our childhoods: “Canadian Reflections”, “Just for Laughs”, “This Hour Has 22 Minutes”. There is also “Heartland”, which is an exposure of the western way of life; “Murdoch Mysteries”, which paints a flattering portrait of what a Canadian is and what our contributions have been; and last, CBC Sports, which presents hockey but also curling.
Is the CBC perfect? What institution is? But governments come and go and the seesaw will continue to shift from left to right and back again, which is vital in a healthy democracy. Also vital are strong institutions that stand outside of politics, hold up a mirror to see ourselves and hold our feet to the fire when need be.
I urge this body to consider the CBC is not only worthwhile but indispensable. I ask you to affirm for our artists and all Canadians that the CBC remains a significant part of supporting our Canadian identity and amplifying the complex and complicated mosaic that is Canada.
Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you. I turn the floor over to Mr. Gelbart and Mr. Cox.
Arnie Gelbart, Co-chair of the Board of Directors (Quebec English-Language Production Council): My name is Arnie Gelbart. I am a producer of film and television in Montreal, and I run Gala Film.
Kirwan Cox, Executive Director, Quebec English-Language Production Council: My name is Kirwan Cox. I am the Executive Director of the Quebec English-language Production Council. We represent the official language minority film and TV production industry in Quebec.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this Senate committee today about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its value to the Official Language Minority, or OLMC, in Quebec, which is a minority representing 15% of the Quebec population across the province.
As it is for the French minority outside of Quebec, the CBC is key to our identity and sense of place as Canadians online, on radio and on television.
CBC’s public service media is critical to the vitality and cultural survival of our community as guaranteed by section 41 of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Gelbart: Not since 1812 has our national sovereignty been under greater threat than it is now. Our cultural defences have never been weaker.
Foreign platforms are fighting Canadian regulatory control over media in Canada. We are threatened by a 25% tariff on all goods by the new U.S. President. Canadian private conventional TV broadcasters lost $417 million in 2023. Cumulatively, the industry has lost $2.8 billion over the last 18 years.
The future of Canadian commercial media is in doubt. Linear TV viewing has fallen by 41% over the last decade and radio listening by 34%; TV viewing has shifted online, mostly to American companies; and 94% of Canadian internet advertising goes to foreign platforms.
In the face of this global media storm, local news has been decimated. Hundreds of newspapers have closed. Those that remain are a pale shadow of their former selves.
Local news deserts are spreading. Social media, rife with misinformation, is not a reliable alternative.
Mr. Cox: We have never needed trusted Canadian media more than now. Where is our national champion? Where is the CBC? It is slowly starving to death in a plethora of mandates and shrinking resources.
Some senators complain that with $1.2 billion in public funding the CBC should be doing more. Let’s put that in perspective. Since 1991, when the current Broadcasting Act was passed, CBC has lost 37% of its public funding in constant dollars.
In public service media spending, we rank seventeenth per capita among 20 countries. We have two official languages and CBC also broadcasts in eight Indigenous languages. We spend only $32 per capita versus an average of $78 per capita by those 20 countries.
In 2022, BBC received $6.6 billion in public funding; Germany, nearly $11.9 billion; Japan, $6.8 billion; and France, $4.7 billion. Why so much? Because public service media is key to cultural sovereignty and national identity. That year, CBC got $1.2 billion. We are the ones sitting next to Hollywood, mostly without a language barrier.
Mr. Gelbart: At the regional level, how does the CBC’s underfunding affect independent OLMC programming?
One award-winning doc producer, a member of our council, received a $141,000 licence in 2015 for a program she was producing. In 2024, she only received $61,000 for an equivalent program. That is a loss of 57% in constant dollars over nine years. How does a producer make up for this loss? With more funding from foreign sources that may not be interested in local, regional or even national Canadian subjects.
The CBC has many problems, especially in English television. Most are caused by chronic underfunding. We must ask ourselves, without the CBC, where will we be?
Even more than now, our news, stories and even our prejudices would be filtered through the American lens. If CBC’s English TV service was eliminated as some recommend, we would ask: “What would replace it?” Bankrupt private Canadian broadcasters? American streamers? Nothing?
We should consider the elimination of the CBC to be a breach not only of the Broadcasting Act but also of the Official Languages Act. We would take any action available to us to defend our rights under the Official Languages Act, in fact, to defend our right to survive as an official language minority and, more importantly, as Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here and for your testimony. This is an important part of the story. However, I feel I’m very ill-equipped to offer a judgment on the level of service you are receiving from the CBC, because the only thing we received from CBC is a compiled list of French and English services delivered in Quebec. From that sheet, it’s impossible to see what services at this point .
You probably have fewer services than you had a few years ago. Can you give me examples of that? There’s a newscast I know — a local newscast in Quebec, with an arm in Quebec City, but based out of Montreal. But what about radio programming? You’re right about those pockets of English-speaking people all over Quebec. How to serve them? Obviously, radio could be an easier way.
Tell me more concretely what the services are that have either gone down or are not in existence, so we can have a concrete idea of what we’re talking about.
You gave us an example about the level of grants. What about radio, television and platforms generally?
Ms. Ludvig: In the regions, as we call them, outside the urban centres, the lifeline is radio. Television does not speak to them. We’re talking about production mostly in Toronto. It doesn’t even speak to Montrealers. Outside, that is the connection for them. Not only is it a connection in terms of bringing them information, and reflecting them back but, because of cutbacks, it has been more difficult for CBC reporters to get out there.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is there one based in Montreal?
Ms. Ludvig: Let’s say “Quebec AM” as an example in Quebec City. They’re based in Quebec City. There are so few resources. We have English speakers in the Gaspé, the Lower North Shore and in Baie-Comeau. We have them everywhere in Quebec; 20% of the English-speaking population is outside in the regions.
Another example is in the Eastern Townships. CBC had always been present at their annual events, were important and contributed to it. They have fewer and fewer resources to send people out there. It’s really the slow shrinkage; inadequate as it was before, it is even less now.
It is important to have local information. To get that local information, you have to be able to send your reporter to Carleton-sur-Mer, to New Richmond or to wherever. Wherever it might be, you have to be able to send your reporters there. You have to have people to go there and reflect back, and to be able to contact them and to develop relationships because that is what is out there when you are in small communities. That is becoming more and more difficult.
You have a shrinkage in that, in the services, in the news that is available to you, but also in the information that you can share that is important to your community.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Because on the contrary, on the French side, they tried to do a shrinkage on the East Coast, and finally, they had to reinstall some local services. But has that happened on the English side?
Ms. Ludvig: No.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s downward all the time?
Ms. Ludvig: It has been down all the way.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Quebec Community Groups Network: I would like to say that decisions are made in Toronto about what is happening in Quebec. Not only do we not know exactly what monies are spent in Quebec on English programming, but we also don’t know a lot since 2016 about our appetite and where CBC is.
With the post-census survey that we talked a little bit about before we started, which is coming out apparently before the holidays, we’ll know more information about the situation of English and for francophones outside Quebec and what is needed in Quebec for our community. We don’t understand the pool very well, anymore, because we don’t have the numbers to ask the questions, and we don’t understand the investment either, because when it’s combined, both French and English, you have no idea if the access and the demand fit.
Ms. Ludvig: We could just provide you with anecdotal.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: That’s right. We’re stuck with the anecdotal.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have other questions, but I’ll stop there. I’ll let my colleagues ask some questions.
[English]
Ms. Castravelli: As my colleagues have said, there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence. However, having said that, what we are seeing is that a lot of the smaller communities are relying on community radio. And nothing against community radio — we have some very good initiatives in community radio — but the problem is that these are often amateurs, and therefore, the quality and the amount of coverage is not always fair. It ends up being whoever is convenient. It’s not the same standard as what we would like to see. It certainly isn’t as widespread and it doesn’t have the fairness that we would have been used to in the past.
That’s just a small note to say that having a particular professional approach to things is beneficial for many reasons, and it’s not just the appearance of the thing. It’s the effectiveness of the thing as well — not to diminish but in conjunction with the community radios that are operating in those sectors.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for being here. Before asking my question, Mr. Chair, I want to declare that two years ago I had a contract with CBC/Radio-Canada. I wanted to make sure it was official here.
The Chair: I’m sure you did an excellent job.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, sir.
I want to bring you back on the Official Languages Act because as you know, as a federal institution, CBC/Radio-Canada is also subject to the duties in section 41 of the Official Languages Act. It is therefore required to take positive measures to develop and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities, promote both official languages, and protect and promote French — and English, of course.
Section 41 states that CBC/Radio-Canada must “. . . consider the possibilities for avoiding, or at least mitigating, the direct negative impacts that its structuring decisions may have on . . .” language-related matters.
So, since the Official Languages Act is a quasi-constitutional act and within the responsibilities they have at CBC/Radio-Canada, could you identify either positive measures that were taken to ensure that your communities were able to develop, or is there any decision that has a negative impact on the development of your communities?
And in that direction, does the Government of Canada give enough money to CBC to ensure that the decisions that they make don’t have negative impacts on the development of your communities?
Mr. Cox: I’d like to make a comment about that. The English-language CBC in Montreal has a regular documentary program called “Absolutely Canadian.” To my memory, that’s the only local program of that type. That’s positive. On the other hand, the licence fee is $25,000 or less, maybe $10,000. That is so low that many producers can’t produce for it. It’s so low that it doesn’t trigger the Canada Media Fund funding because it’s not enough.
If you talk to the people who are running that program, they’re bereft because they want to do more, but they don’t have the resources and they don’t have the money. Where is the money? I don’t know. I mean, it’s somewhere else, but the point is that the question you’re asking can be answered simultaneously in two ways. The CBC is essential, it’s positive, and under section 41, if it were to disappear, the vitality of our community would be substantially hurt. On the other hand, the resources are not sufficient for it to do the job that section 41 asks it to do, so we have a push and a pull, a back and a forth, and nobody is satisfied. We hope you understand that.
Senator Cormier: Yes, it’s clear. Where do you consider the production that is happening in Quebec in the English community compared to the English majority of Canada? What I want to know, really, is that as a minority, are you well served compared to the English majority of Canada, or is that an issue? And is CBC part of either the problem or the solution to your production challenges?
Mr. Gelbart: If we’re given enough resources, we’re able to tell the Quebec story, or Quebec stories, to the rest of the country, which given the political winds, is something quite important to do. We need enough of the resources that the CBC has and, hopefully, more resources that it can have for us to be able to tell those stories, because Montreal and Quebec generally is a basin of amazing talents.
Montreal, for a long time, was the centre of production in Canada at the beginning of the 1970s and the 1980s. We have a story to tell, and it’s important for the unity of this country for us to tell Quebec stories to the rest of Canada, but the CBC needs to have the resources to give producers in Quebec the ability to tell this story.
People have alluded to the centralization in Toronto. I think part of the centralization comes from lack of funding. They do quite a lot in all kinds of programming. We usually talk about CBC News, but aside from CBC News, they do children’s programming, they do afternoon programming, and they do public service programming of all kinds. They do documentaries, and they try to do drama, which takes a lot of money. The CBC, first of all, it needs to survive. It needs to have the funding that at the very least corresponds to what the average that other G20 countries give to their public television. Nobody is getting rid of public television in England, France or Germany. They have financial pressures the way everybody does, but nobody is talking about not having public broadcasting in television.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. I was curious about what happens to the parts of Quebec that are closest to the Ontario border. Are those communities covered and receive services from the CBC in Ontario, or is there kind of a wall that divides?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: They get Ontario.
Senator Simons: If you live in Chelsea, for example, you’re being covered by the CBC in Ottawa, are you not?
Ms. Ludvig: And their reality is Quebec. That’s their everyday life, and yet what is reflected to them is Ontario.
Senator Simons: That’s a problem, too.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I will give you an example of a story out of Chelsea. It was a Quebec story that wouldn’t have been known. We have the Quebec Community Newspapers Association as well. Our fabric is made up of CBC reporters and journalists in the low-down. The story three years ago was about a woman who was wearing a hijab. she was a teacher in the schools. The CBC carried that across Canada. The story was in Quebec. It was uncovered in Quebec. If the CBC hadn’t been there, that story doesn’t go much of anywhere.
The same thing could be the Lower North Shore. We need the CBC to tell those stories in the way that an English-speaking community would tell the story.
Senator Simons: That segues nicely to my next question, which I was going to ask anyway.
My daughter had the chance to go to McGill for four years. I visited her, and I could see how incredibly multicultural Montreal was with allophone populations, who are encouraged to integrate into the French community but are often also very fluent in English.
How good a job does the CBC in Quebec do in their English-language services of reflecting the multicultural reality of a young, modern Quebec? That is a challenge for the CBC in every community, but I can imagine it’s particularly acute in a place like Montreal, which is so multicultural and so polyglot. Are those stories being told, or do they tend to be the stories of the older, more established White communities?
Ms. Ludvig: In my experience and from what I’ve seen — it’s anecdotal — is that it reflects the diversity, but it needs the means to do that. It is so limited; it is production time and capacity, as well as air time. Things come from Toronto or from elsewhere such that it is limited in that.
But what they can do with what they have is important and does reflect things much better than any private broadcaster. It does reflect the Canadian and Quebec reality, but it has to have the means to do it not only properly but also do it well. Its resources are so tight.
I think we’re all saying the same thing. With what they have, they do a lot.
Senator Simons: The best they can.
I come from Edmonton, and I spent about six years working for the CBC. In Edmonton, over recent years, there has been more of an effort to get reporters who are bilingual to do voicers for both networks. To what extent does Radio-Canada support English-language broadcasts, or is there a hard line and the francophone reporters would never be doing work that would end up on the English-language service?
Ms. Ludvig: No, more and more, I find there is a mix. It is a good thing. It reflects the very high level of bilingualism that is in Montreal, also in the English-speaking community. I find the same reporter reporting on Radio-Canada as they would on the CBC, and that’s great; that’s terrific. As long as it’s the stories that we need to hear. That is the important thing — the issues that are important to us.
I have to tell you as the resident of QCGN, I am on a consistent basis asked to come on a program like “Radio Noon Quebec”, which comes from Montreal. It’s a segment that runs noon until 1:00. I’m invited to talk about the issues that are important to English speakers, and the response from the community is great. Those things are important. They have to remain, and they have to be funded well enough so that we can have more of that and be able to reach beyond Montreal, to be able to have that outside of Montreal.
Mr. Gelbart: As you all in this room know, many new immigrants have come to this country in the last few years. They come to a country from societies that have a deep history. If you take somebody from India, they know Indian history; it comes with their mother’s milk. They come from other places, et cetera. They come to Canada, and they look where they can find the history of Canada. What is it? What are we telling them? What can the CBC tell them about what the history of this country has been? We have a rich 350-year history.
The CBC should have the resources, the means and the willingness to tell the stories and history of Canada in a new and exciting way, told by young people, but we have to tell the new Canadians what the history of this country is. The only vehicle that can do that on a consistent and serious basis is a public broadcaster.
Ms. Castravelli: I would like to add some nuance there. It is because the CBC exists that Radio-Canada provides services. If the CBC ceased to exist in Quebec, English-language artists would lose services.
Let me explain how it works. If you are a bilingual artist and you are outside of the country, you almost always get a spot on a francophone CBC station or a Radio-Canada station outside of Quebec because of the bilingualism factor, but it is usually coordinated through somebody at the CBC in the Quebec office where you are natively from. So it is that conjunction of services that allows for our artists to be able to get the coverage they have.
If we were to leave it up to Radio-Canada by itself, they would only give voice to those things that they think are important, because even Radio-Canada does not have infinite money and time. They will pick the things they think will attract the major audience, which risks ignoring things like Sylvia’s hijab story, for example — things that are particularly inconvenient — or any voice really that is dissenting from what the francophone majority might be interested in looking at.
I would advise that we take into consideration the working together of these two systems.
Senator Dasko: Thanks to our witnesses for being here.
I want to understand the Toronto factor a little better in terms of what it is that you are getting for the anglophone services — what are you getting from Toronto? What is it? Is it programming that we’re talking about? Are we talking about national news or public affairs?
You’re certainly not getting local Toronto news, so what kind of production are you getting? I’m talking about anglophone services anywhere in Quebec — Montreal, outside, in the North. What are you getting?
Mr. Gelbart: There is a two-part answer to your question.
Partly because of being starved for resources, a lot of things are concentrated. It’s easier to concentrate decision making in Toronto. There is the famous story of the $1,000 teacup. That is what it cost a Vancouver producer to come to Toronto to meet somebody for 15 minutes to try to pitch an idea. We have the same problem. It’s a question of resources.
To be frank, it also is the choice of direction of the kind of programming that the CBC has been doing in the last few years. It has not responded to the needs of telling the story of Canada on an ongoing basis, telling the story of the various regions of Canada and being able to sponsor a big drama series to be made in Montreal that is about Quebec, and how it can be perceived in the rest of Canada. It’s both a practical and financial issue. It’s also a programming issue, to be frank.
Senator Dasko: What is it that you’re getting from Toronto?
Mr. Gelbart: People from all over the country submit ideas. The ideas that get made are made by Toronto production companies in Toronto who have direct access to the decision makers. They don’t need to spend $1,000 to have a cup of coffee with an executive of the CBC. They see them every day. It is a subway ride away. Those are the programs that are made.
There is a filter where everything takes on a hue of what people in Ontario, or in Toronto specifically working for the CBC, think they should be doing.
Mr. Cox: Part of the problem might be the advertising. I know this is a subject that has come up. Believe me, getting rid of the advertising revenue and not replacing it is a non-starter as far as we’re concerned.
The point is “Family Feud.” Why is “Family Feud” on CBC? Why is a program that is an example of an American program running on the public broadcaster? The answer is desperation over advertising revenue. I don’t know what “Family Feud’s” ratings are but, relatively speaking, I am sure it is one of the best things the CBC does.
In terms of the mandate of the CBC for Canada as a public broadcaster, “Family Feud” is not their best moment. Again, you have that conflict between their mandate, on the one hand, and their desperation for money on the other. The answer is to get rid of advertising, but you can’t do that if you don’t replace it.
Rumour has it a new government might not replace that money. Therefore, what is the solution? I don’t know.
Senator Dasko: Rumour has it, it might not be replaced but it might be cut altogether.
Ms. Castravelli, back to my question about Toronto programming. What is your perspective on that? What are you getting and what is the contribution from the regions, let’s say Quebec itself, in terms of the anglophone community and artists?
Ms. Castravelli: What we’re getting is, honestly, a bleed or a stealing of talent. That’s what we’re getting. We’re getting employed artists, but they’re leaving Quebec to go work there. In return, we are getting programming.
Actually, we do get news from Toronto because of the online streaming services and because, through CBC Gem, you can stream whichever region you choose to stream. You get the programing. As one of my colleagues had said, it is put through the lens of whatever is perceived as important by the people who work in Toronto. It has a “Toronto-ized” perspective.
Yes, our artists are getting employed technically. We’re getting employment. They’re no longer our artists now, they’re Ontario artists. Does that answer your question?
Senator Dasko: Yes, I think so. When it comes to national news and public affairs, that’s coming from Toronto?
Ms. Castravelli: We can get local Montreal news. It is big-city news. We are getting some stories from the regions. We do get some of that. I would say it’s better than nothing. At least we do get some stories from some of the First Nations. At least we get some of the stories of some of the various communities around Montreal.
There was something about the mosques in Montreal that was done a few years ago. There is some programming. It isn’t as much as we would like. Obviously, after the shooting at the mosque in Quebec, there was coverage and different community stories that were brought out, things like that.
It tends to be based around when something happens to make it noteworthy, and/or we are seeing more First Nations programming, thank goodness, with the help of the APTN. In general, it’s not as much or as widespread as we would like.
Senator Cuzner: First, I should make a disclosure like Senator Cormier.
Mr. Cox, Gerry Dee is a good friend of mine, a StFX alumni. “Family Feud,” the Canada version, I am okay with it. I know it is not “This Hour has Seven Days.” But it is Canadian actors and people that come from coast to coast to coast. It’s a little bit of fun and they generate some revenue. As an off-hand, I think he is better than Steve Harvey.
You mentioned shrinkage. We’ve heard that theme time and again. It’s similar to the restaurateur who sees a decrease in his customers, clientele and revenues and decides, “I have to save money, so I will cut back on the size of the portions and the quality of the ingredients.” We know where that ends up. That has been a consistent narrative here through the testimony we’ve received.
A couple of witnesses have said don’t worry about the technology. The technology is going to evolve. It’s all about content development. There was a strong statement earlier. I forget who said it. They said, “One could not go looking for what they don’t know exists.”
I believe it is the content developers that identify the talent and opportunities that exist out there. How has that evolved over the last number of years? How has it been supported financially to allow you the opportunity to go out and develop the content? How has that changed? How has CBC stepped back? Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Gelbart: You put your finger on the most vital part of it. Where are the new ideas coming from? Where are the new creators coming from?
We’ve given that a lot of thought. One thing we are proposing to the Quebec government is to use its financing for English-language production to identify these young talents and new ideas.
Again, one of the big concerns in Quebec in the French milieu is that the young people are watching YouTube. They’re watching YouTube in English. They’re very concerned that they’re losing that audience. They’re not creating or building an audience for the future because they’re going to the American platforms, et cetera.
It is vital that public television and new media — not just television, but YouTube channels, et cetera — be created and financed so this new audience is not going to become totally Americanized where they will be looking at American content.
The biggest challenge we have —
Senator Cuzner: But the funding support has been peeled back?
Mr. Gelbart: We have a graph of it. In real terms, the $1.4 million, the amount of funding, has gone down. The real value of that money has been eroded by inflation. That amount hasn’t changed by 37%. In other words, the money the CBC gets now is only worth 37% of what it used to buy.
Of course, I do feel for people who make decisions in Toronto. They’re under a squeeze. I might be asking for something. I can tell them I can make fantastic stories based in Quebec for the rest of the country to also know what is happening in Quebec, dramatically or with documentaries. But there is only so much that can be done, given the fact that they’re struggling doing what they need to do with the money that’s diminishing every year.
Mr. Cox: The money is diminishing on the private side too. It’s not only the CBC. I talk to filmmakers and producers in Quebec. They say they’re frustrated because if they go to Bell or Rogers or, God forbid, Corus, they say those people are not authorized to give me a green light because the company as a whole doesn’t have the money to authorize a production, period. There is a market failure right now in production. That market failure is severe, and it goes across everybody. The only people who are left are the American platforms.
In 1932, public broadcasting was established. A man called Graham Spry came to a committee like this and he explained, in terms of the Aird Report, how important it was to have public broadcast. He said, “You have a choice: the state or the United States.” That’s the choice you’re faced with now. It may even be too late. I don’t know. If you take the public sector out of the equation, you’re taking our strongest player out of the game.
I heard Jen Gerson say earlier that a thousand flowers will bloom. I don’t know if she knew she was quoting Mao Zedong. She said the Conservatives want a thousand flowers to bloom. If you took out the CBC, those thousand flowers would be in the United States. We would have, from a media standpoint, a very small country, not a major country. If we want to go down that road, we can, but we are going to hit market failure. You’re hitting it already, and you have to recognize that.
Simply talking about the fact that the CBC makes decisions and the management makes mistakes, that’s absolutely correct. We might disagree about which mistakes, but we all agree they’re making mistakes. They lost 37% of their money since 1991 in real dollars. To simply say you have enough money isn’t true. If you compare to other public broadcasters, it’s really not true.
Frankly, those other countries value what’s on their media more than we do, at least in English. In English everybody says, “Oh, I turned on the TV, or turned on the computer, and I’m getting all kinds of stuff.” They don’t have a problem because they don’t recognize that they do have a problem. They don’t realize they’re missing the Canadian element. Whether it’s local or national, they’re missing it and they don’t even recognize it. It’s up to you and Parliament to say we have a problem. We have to do something about it, and maybe we don’t know what to do, but to simply get rid of the CBC is absolutely the wrong direction to go.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Senator Cardozo, we’re down to three minutes, and they’re yours.
Senator Cardozo: I want to apologize for being late for this, but I want to tell you I was at an event to launch Inuit Nunangat University, which will be an Inuit University based in Nunavut. A fabulous idea, and since you’re interested in Canadian history, I thought I would mention it.
Let me come to my question quickly. It’s around bias. Perhaps the strongest argument or allegation against the CBC that is coming from conservatives, not big C Conservatives, but widely across small c conservatives, moderates and further to the right, is that the CBC is biased against conservatives and is too left. I won’t go into the various terminology. Essentially, it is too biased and not fair to conservatives.
What should the CBC do about bias, if you agree there is bias?
The proposal from the Conservative Party is to cut out English CBC because there is enough other English-language content, whereas Radio-Canada plays a special role, and it certainly does in Quebec and in French-speaking Canada across the country.
Ms. Ludvig: May I just say something? Radio-Canada plays a special role, but CBC plays a special role for the English-speaking community in Quebec. We are 1.3 million, and we count. It’s important to us. If we don’t have it, we lose. And especially outside Montreal, we lose connectivity with 20% of our community. In Montreal and elsewhere, we lose a reflection of who we are and what’s important to us. Radio-Canada is not going to invite me to speak to the issues about the English-speaking community in Quebec the way “Radio Noon Quebec” and CBC does. That’s important to our everyday lives. It’s important to our identity. It’s important to our own vitality.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: One of the most important units you have in Quebec is the community engagement unit where they partner with organizations across Quebec to hear stories and to bring community engagement and understand. Whether they be in the Lower North Shore or in Montreal, that community group that does consultation regularly and systematically with the English-speaking community is bringing stories and ideas to content people. I believe that unit, for example, helps to decrease the bias and brings real stories to English CBC in Quebec.
Mr. Gelbart: I think what you bring up is very important. One of the first things I would like to say is that the CBC is much more than news, because what we’re talking about is a certain bias in the news part of the CBC. Let’s not forget that it has a lot of other things, like Indigenous languages and all kinds of programming, a variety of children’s programming, et cetera. The issue is an editorial one with one part of the CBC, and that can be dealt with in an open debate. It doesn’t mean that it becomes the voice of one side or the other. I think that’s where the public argument has to be, but not by eliminating the forum where this can be discussed, but rather confronting the forum and articulating what you’ve said you’ve heard across the country, and letting the CBC be the stage where that is debated.
If the whole of television is just gotten rid of, then there isn’t even that forum to have that discussion, which I think is important to Canadians.
Senator Cardozo: On the matter of the English-speaking community of Quebec, that viewpoint is not being heard in the national debate.
The Chair: I hate to interrupt, but the three minutes are way over.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you all for coming before us and sharing your views.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, for our second panel this evening, the committee welcomes Martin Théberge, President of the Société nationale de l’Acadie. He is accompanied by representatives of provincial francophone groups from Atlantic Canada: Nicole Arseneau-Sluyter, President of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick; Denise Comeau-Desautels, President of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse; Charles Duguay, President of the Société acadienne et francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Edouard; and Tony Cornect, President of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador.
Welcome to our committee. We will first hear Mr. Théberge’s opening remarks of 10 minutes on behalf of all witnesses present. We will then proceed to questions from senators.
Martin Théberge, President, Société nationale de l’Acadie: Honourable senators, my name is Martin Théberge, and I’m President of the Société nationale de l’Acadie. With me are the presidents of the four provincial francophone organizations, representing Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
We’re here today to talk to you about a subject that’s close to our hearts, but which, we must admit, feels like sad déjà vu.
First, I would like to say a few words about our part of the country, Acadia. Today’s Acadia is made up of the French-speaking regions of the four Atlantic provinces. The vast majority of its few hundred thousand French-speaking inhabitants are, for the most part, descendants of settlers from France — and some from other countries — in the 17th and 18th centuries, and even in the 16th century in the case of Newfoundland.
Some of you may know that this colonial experience ended in the Great Upheaval, with multiple deportations, unwanted displacements and decades of wandering. It was an odyssey fraught with hardship, and many perished. That’s why there are so many Acadians in France, Quebec and Louisiana today.
Some of the deportees returned to what is now Acadia and found an even larger group that had managed to hold on to the land, surviving by dint of pain and hardship. These were the ancestors of the Acadians of the Atlantic. Despite these troubled years, Acadia has managed to build a vibrant, diverse community that is proud of its identity and its French language, which it has managed to preserve.
However, Acadia still needs tools to continue its development and not to lose its gains. One of these tools is Radio-Canada, which has been present in the region since the creation of the Moncton station 60 years ago this year, the first outside Quebec.
For decades, the Acadian community — indeed, the entire Canadian francophonie — has been saying how much it values Radio-Canada and how crucial its role is for the vitality and development of the French language and culture. This is all the more true in rural areas, where media coverage is often very poor.
However, Acadian communities have also been hoping for decades to have a greater place in our public broadcaster’s radio and TV programming. Unfortunately, this mission hasn’t yet been accomplished.
We recognize that in recent years, Radio-Canada has invested in its regional stations; it has increased its staff. Radio-Canada Acadie has moved closer to the community in some places. The problem remains in national programming. The Canadian francophonie still doesn’t really feel at home at Radio-Canada.
Having a place isn’t just about being seen and heard; it’s also about adding our regional perspective and expertise to the debates and issues presented on national airwaves.
Our opinions and our way of thinking and seeing the world are also worth knowing and sharing.
During the hearings for the renewal of CBC/Radio-Canada’s licences in 2020, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada raised the idea of establishing a second national French-language production centre for Radio-Canada, outside Quebec. We echo this proposal. However, to suggest such a structural change is a sad reality. It shows just how little hope Acadia has that Radio-Canada, on its own, will be able to achieve the goal we want. We shouldn’t be surprised. How many times have we been told, in response to our complaints, that our message has been understood, that changes will be made? We have been disappointed every time.
Real culture change requires more than words; it requires a structure, an accountable operational framework, and decentralization of programming
It’s incomprehensible that after so many years, Radio-Canada has so few national programs, on both TV and radio, broadcast outside Quebec. How can we justify the fact that a public broadcaster mandated to serve a population from coast to coast can concentrate its national production in a single province or even a single city? How can we adequately reflect Canada’s francophone reality if almost all national news production — its current events shows, its radio and television programs — is designed, produced and hosted from Montreal?
We often hear that the country’s francophone communities don’t know each other very well. How can we hope to discover, appreciate and understand the reality of the country’s other communities with such a concentration of national programming in Quebec?
Canada’s new Official Languages Act sets out Radio-Canada’s obligations towards the development and promotion of linguistic minorities, particularly the French-speaking minority. Furthermore, under its current mandate, set out in the Broadcasting Act, the CBC must “contribute to shared national consciousness and identity.”
Can we really say that Radio-Canada, with such centralization, can promote and develop the francophone minority, or that it contributes to the sharing of a “national consciousness and identity”? We think not.
To do that, we not only need to relocate programs, we must also decentralize teams. National programs need to be able to rely on producers, researchers or other members of the team stationed permanently here and there throughout the country who could then contribute daily or weekly to the development of programming.
In addition to those already outlined, here are three other recommendations that would strengthen Radio-Canada’s services in the Atlantic region and for all francophone minority communities across Canada.
First, Radio-Canada’s national broadcasts of shows that are emblematic of Canada’s French-speaking communities, such as the Fête nationale de l’Acadie air on August 15, during prime time.
Second, the production of a second newscast in the Atlantic region that would be broadcast in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. “Le téléjournal” currently produced in Moncton would then be broadcast only in New Brunswick. Acadian and francophone communities in the four provinces would then be better served with news on television.
Lastly, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a correction should be made to the fact that francophones in a very minority situation, such as in Corner Brook or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, are not served by Radio-Canada radio. Another shortcoming is that francophones on the island of Newfoundland receive their news and regional programming from stations in Moncton and Halifax, while those in Labrador get this service from Quebec. This situation is unique in the country, and it deprives the provincial francophone community of a common platform for exchange.
Here are a few possible solutions to a very complex problem. Like you, we’re committed to finding the solution, and look forward to working with the government and Radio-Canada, as always, to achieve it. With you, we would like to highlight the Acadian motto, “In unity there is strength.”
We hope our comments tonight will contribute to your deliberations and recommendations. Now, more than ever, is the time for Radio-Canada to accept and fulfill its mandate to bind all communities together in Canada. Now more than ever, it’s time to put words into action.
You’ll find more details on what we’ve covered in these few minutes in our brief.
Thank you for your attention. We would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge.
Senator Cormier: I’d like to thank the members of the Société nationale de l’Acadie for being here. We recognize that the realities and needs of Acadian communities in each of the Atlantic provinces are very different, and that certain broadcasting needs and the role that Radio-Canada can play are also different.
You quoted the Official Languages Act, and I’ll repeat what I said earlier about Radio-Canada’s obligations to take positive measures to ensure the vitality of communities and to make decisions that prevent negative impacts on community development.
Since we know that Radio-Canada may have less advertising revenue, do you think your observation, Mr. Théberge, is linked to a lack of funding on Radio-Canada’s part?
What can you tell us about your perception and understanding of Radio-Canada’s financial issues?
I have a second concrete question on production.
Mr. Théberge: Let’s be clear: Radio-Canada is essential. We want more, we want more everywhere, and that’s the issue. Indeed, a large part of the challenge comes from funding, but not just funding. In my opening remarks, I talked about having a system with performance measures that allow us to decentralize Radio-Canada and thus have national programs that could be produced in Alberta, for example — it doesn’t matter — but in which we would have an Acadian producer, for example. We need to decompartmentalize and decentralize. Yes, there’s funding, but I think there’s also a challenge in terms of approach.
Senator Cormier: I’d like to ask you a fairly specific question about production. I’ll use the example of a TV series called “Le monde de Gabrielle Roy,” produced by Les Productions Rivard in Manitoba and Zone3 in Quebec, which brings together both Manitoba creators and a producer and some artists from New Brunswick.
This production has now been running for three seasons. The third season is starting soon. There are almost rumours that this production won’t be returning.
It’s about the life of Gabrielle Roy, a francophone artist, a national author for Quebec and for the rest of the country.
After three seasons, while there was a possibility of producing a series that would look at Gabrielle Roy’s greatest success, which was Bonheur d’occasion, and thus showcase the excellence of works by authors from outside Quebec, it seems that Radio-Canada is a bit skittish about continuing this project. There’s talk of positive measures, of measuring the impact.
In this case, do you think this potential decision by Radio-Canada could have a significant impact on the vitality of the communities?
Mr. Théberge: Of course. In Manitoba, Quebec and elsewhere, it’s important to see and hear ourselves much more. The other example I would give in response to your question is the Fête nationale de l’Acadie. It’s a fight year after year to ensure that it’s broadcast well and picked up well. We hear that it’s because of a lack of financial capacity, but not just for these reasons. We want to do things differently, and we want to move to external production in order to lighten the way the CBC does things.
What’s important for us is having a national Acadian day. We therefore accept a national Acadian day that is broadcast across Canada, don’t get me wrong, and we agree to do things differently because we have no choice. We’re talking about a situation that’s damaging to our communities and for which, understandably, Radio-Canada has no choice. Indeed, having to centralize everything weakens our communities.
Senator Cormier: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for being here. I have a couple of questions. If I understand correctly, there’s a difference with the fact that you have more staff now for francophone news throughout the Maritimes, so more resources. Are we talking about a lot more resources?
Mr. Théberge: It’s important to pay attention. What I said is that, from a local perspective, in Acadia and in the four Atlantic provinces, there are new practices — not necessarily more resources or more funding, but new practices that have brought us closer to the communities in some regions. These are examples we should build on.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Could you give us an example?
Mr. Théberge: We’re talking about creating a second “Téléjournal Acadie” for the three other provinces. This example comes from a radio program that has been created. We now have “La mouvée,” which is broadcast from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Radio-Canada, and is created for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. So we have new practices, and Radio-Canada Acadie is doing an excellent job of getting as close to the communities as it can. However, Acadia doesn’t know the rest of Canada, and the rest of Canada doesn’t know Acadia.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So it’s a bit of a paradox, because even in your region, in the Atlantic provinces, Moncton kind of dominates over the other cities, and you’re trying to decentralize that. That’s what I understand. That’s the positive part.
Now, as for the fact that you don’t see yourself on the national airwaves, because that’s what I understand — I’ve had many complaints as Radio-Canada’s ombud about this — there’s nothing mathematically that obliges Radio-Canada in its current mandate to do a number of things. It’s left to the discretion of the broadcaster, which is independent. Do you think the mandate should be changed, for one thing? Regarding national programming, could “La facture” be based in Moncton? There are challenges in terms of the population base and the number of complaints. Without denying what you’re saying, the main population base is in Quebec. How can we bring national programming to Acadia? Do you want a correspondent in Acadia?
Nicole Arseneau-Sluyter, President, Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick: I live in Saint John, New Brunswick, a predominantly anglophone city. We don’t have local francophone journalists or local francophone coverage. We used to. You all know Thomas Daigle. He was educated at the Centre scolaire Samuel-de-Champlain in Saint John. His career began with us, and then he moved on to national and then international coverage. The fact that we don’t have a journalist talking about us still contributes directly to assimilation. We listen to the news in English, and have done so for years. The more we do it, the more we contribute to assimilation. That’s it.
Mr. Théberge: To answer your question, I don’t think that Radio-Canada’s mandate should be changed. It just needs the tools to fulfill its mandate. You asked about the show “La facture.” Yes, it could have correspondents, and every two or three days, it could feature a segment on how much potatoes cost in Newfoundland instead of Montreal. Researchers from across Canada, as opposed to a specific region, could talk about issues on the air.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No one is without blame here. Those choices reflect ratings, because Radio-Canada’s competition is in Montreal too. I’m not excusing the practice, but yes, Radio-Canada is able to land advertisers by having shows that focus on Quebec.
How do you see Radio-Canada’s need to go after that funding, the need to compete with TVA, for instance, for that revenue, versus the need to deliver on its mandate? There is some discord there.
Mr. Théberge: I would be very careful about using the economic case of ratings, because the mandate —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I brought it up because it’s the case that is often made.
Mr. Théberge: You’re right, that does tend to be the argument. Radio-Canada’s mandate is not to be competitive or to fill the country’s coffers. Radio-Canada’s mandate applies to the entire country. To follow up on your previous question, I would give another example —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But Radio-Canada has to have viewers as well.
Mr. Théberge: All right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: CBC has lower ratings, and it is costing the network dearly.
Mr. Théberge: I could interpret your question, and the one before, a different way. Since “Tout le monde en parle” has such high ratings, why can’t the show feature more Acadians?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: These are tough issues, and I’m putting them to you because it’s not a straightforward situation. Talk to me about the second production hub. It’s a mystery to me. Would it be in Acadia?
Mr. Théberge: It certainly was not my intent to come here with preconceived notions. Naturally, the idea raises all kinds of follow-up questions. The purpose of a second production hub is to ensure that everything is not produced in the same place. This is the question: Where would the hub be most effective and have the greatest impact? There is still work to do, but the idea is to decentralize so that all production isn’t based out of one place.
Senator Simons: I’d like to get a better handle on the situation of Acadian people. Most of the population lives in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, or P.E.I.
Mr. Théberge: Acadians live in all four Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and in other parts of the country. We even have a member association here, in Canada’s capital.
Senator Simons: Do you think Radio-Canada has enough French reporters in Charlottetown, Halifax and Saint John?
Mr. Théberge: I am going to ask my colleagues to answer that, starting with Charles Duguay. You asked about Charlottetown, and he’s from P.E.I.
Charles Duguay, President, Société acadienne et francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard: You asked whether there were enough. There is one.
Senator Simons: Just one?
Mr. Duguay: Just one reporter covers the island for Radio-Canada. Sometimes the Radio-Canada reporter and the CBC reporter work together, with one covering one end of the island, and the other covering the other end. They do their stories in their respective languages, and sometimes they share them afterwards.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There are more senators than there are reporters.
Senator Simons: There are four. Do you think francophones and Acadians who live outside New Brunswick look at New Brunswick the same way you look at Montreal?
Mr. Duguay: To be honest, I would have to say yes. If you’re talking about people who live in P.E.I., for sure, the viewership in Moncton is higher, usually. If you’re watching the news program “Téléjournal Acadie,” it’ll be a while before you see a story about P.E.I. People who are bilingual watch “Compass.” They don’t watch the news in French anymore. If you want to be able to talk to people at the local coffee shop about what’s going on, you have to watch the news in English. We don’t have the luxury of switching the channel to TVA. The senator brought up TVA, but I can’t tell whether I’m watching TVA or Radio-Canada. The traffic on the Jacques Cartier Bridge, well —
Senator Simons: In Edmonton, we have a morning radio show called “Le café show.” It covers all of northern Alberta, almost all of Alberta, because Edmonton is the downtown when it comes to French in Alberta. Do you have a French show in Halifax, or is all the Acadian coverage based out of Moncton?
Mr. Duguay: As far as radio shows in P.E.I. go, about 20 or 25 years ago, we fought for a morning show in P.E.I., but it was based out of Moncton. There was a push for the studio to move. When the host gives the weather report and it’s raining in Charlottetown, the program in Moncton…. We wanted the show to better reflect what we wanted to hear. Recently, the Atlantic region got a Saturday morning show, but it’s in Charlottetown. We have two radio shows based in Charlottetown, so we have better coverage of our reality. We hear people speaking with our accent about our community.
Mr. Théberge: The situation in Newfoundland is unique, as I’ve said a number of times, but Mr. Cornect could answer your first question about French journalists.
Tony Cornect, President, Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador: In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have two reporters based in St. John’s.
Senator Simons: Two? For TV and radio combined? For online coverage as well?
Mr. Cornect: Yes, the services are shared with CBC. Do we get Halifax’s or Moncton’s news? On the island, our news comes from Halifax and Moncton, but in Labrador, it comes from Quebec. There is a separation, because the way it works on the island, the people in Labrador don’t get the same information or news. During the pandemic, for instance, they were not getting the guidance and recommendations from their own province. The same was true during the forest fires. It’s a huge problem.
Radio-Canada is for Acadians. They are everywhere, all four Atlantic provinces, every region and every community. We need to protect our identity. It is important. Radio-Canada is essential.
Mr. Théberge: The situation is such that —
Senator Simons: I’d like to know whether all of Acadia has one identity. Do the people in Nova Scotia have their own identity?
Mr. Théberge: There are differences. It’s the same as saying all Quebecers are the same. It’s not true that all Albertans are the same. It’s not true.
Senator Simons: Not at all.
Mr. Théberge: Certain things make our situation quite unique. For instance, people in Newfoundland and Labrador know who Quebec’s health minister is, but not who their own premier is.
Senator Cardozo: Welcome everyone. Thank you for being here. You talked about the importance of having more French programming, but unfortunately, I don’t think that is where the national debate lies.
Three factors come to mind. First, the number of newspapers and broadcast sources in the private sector has dropped significantly.
Second, people consume traditional media less. That includes CBC/Radio-Canada.
Third, a very serious political party has said that it wants to do away with or defund the English-language network, CBC, and perhaps Radio-Canada too. What do you make of that complex situation?
Mr. Théberge: You raised three points. I’ll try to address them briefly. With respect to the decrease in private sector broadcasting sources, I will say that Acadia has no private French radio stations, if I’m not mistaken. We have community radio stations, and their work is very complementary to Radio-Canada’s. Radio-Canada has a different role, so they can’t be seen as competitors. However, there are no private radio stations. They aren’t part of the equation.
The decrease in the consumption of traditional media is a fact. When a news report is produced for the television news, that same report can be used for the purposes of a podcast and an online article. That is how Radio-Canada works. A product can be created for one thing and be used for another. Technology is beneficial that way.
As for the proposal to get rid of CBC, defund it or reduce its funding, I would urge a lot of caution. We are not talking about a single type of infrastructure. The transmission infrastructure doesn’t belong only to Radio-Canada or CBC. In Halifax, the studio is huge, equivalent to two or three school gyms. The French-language service has an office in the corner.
What happens if CBC is no longer around? There is an empty gym with a small desk in the corner for the francophones because we managed to keep them? The building is sold?
The government has to be very careful, because underfunding one has repercussions for the other. It’s important to be very careful.
Senator Cardozo: I hear you, but I’m not the one proposing the idea.
Mr. Théberge: I understand, but I’m giving you arguments.
Senator Cardozo: Still, the reality is that a government could very well do that within the next few years.
You mentioned the studios that exist. If some of that space isn’t being used because CBC is gone, it could be used for French-language services. Could it not?
Mr. Théberge: It’s hard to provide a clear answer to that, because a full analysis hasn’t been done. It’s not limited to one type of infrastructure, in our view. You can talk about a building, yes, but what about the technology? What about all the infrastructure, not just the physical assets, not just the bricks and mortar? Doing something to one weakens the other.
Senator Cardozo: Do you all have community radio stations in your provinces?
Mr. Duguay: In the birthplace of Confederation, Charlottetown, P.E.I., if you want to listen to a French radio station while you’re driving, you have Radio-Canada. There is no community radio station.
Mr. Théberge: In Newfoundland and Labrador, we do not have a community radio station. What’s more, Radio-Canada isn’t available in some communities: Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Corner Brook. Even though there are French-speaking communities, Radio-Canada is not broadcast there.
Mr. Cornect: You can’t get it on FM radio.
Denise Comeau-Desautels, President, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse: Radio-Canada matters. As Acadians, we need visibility in our province, as well as in Canada and abroad. Consider this example. When Senator Aucoin was appointed to the Senate, it wasn’t a top story. It was mentioned near the end. His appointment was very important to us. The news is based out of Moncton, so the story wasn’t seen as important. It was just a senator from Nova Scotia. It is very important for us to be seen and heard, both within and outside Canada.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question before we begin the second round. It’s about the inferiority reflex and the complex that French Canadians have in relation to CBC, the English-language network. The way I see it is simple. CBC monopolizes the annual funding the government provides.
Every year for the past nine years, CBC/Radio-Canada’s funding has gone up, and yet, CBC Toronto keeps cutting French services for minority communities across the country.
The corporation really struggles to meet the challenge of providing local regional services like it’s supposed to. Those paying the biggest price are obviously francophone minority communities.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand. Right now, Radio-Canada, the French-language network, uses 10% of the infrastructure it could and gets about 25% of total funding — maybe a bit more, 40%.
Imagine this: CBC is gone tomorrow, and Radio-Canada’s funding goes up to 60%, and its infrastructure use goes up to 30%. What is even better is that it has the freedom to create what it wants and run itself how it wants.
Don’t you think that would make Radio-Canada stronger, giving it more opportunities to promote the minority French language and provide better French service for regions in Canada? It makes sense. I’m a businessman. More resources means more money. The only explanation is that I don’t have any talent, and I’m wasting the money. However, if I have more money, more infrastructure, skills and creative ability, I will do amazing things. Don’t you agree?
Mr. Théberge: I think it’s necessary to examine how it’s done. On a basic mathematical level, when you take one away, you weaken the other. If you then change all the measures and resources, you change the equation, and there may be a formula that can work.
What we believe is that such a structure is necessary. One already exists, but an operational framework is needed, one that is accountable. Furthermore, the programming needs to be decentralized. As for how to do that, we’ll leave those decisions to others.
The Chair: I’ll leave you with this comment.
There is a basic need to support French in minority communities in every part of the country. Right now, there is a corporation called CBC. Its ratings are declining, the public’s trust is declining, but its funding keeps going up with no improvement in performance to show for it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You said something I found very interesting. You are trying to rebalance programming within Acadia to better reflect the realities of communities. The idea is to have coverage that is not Montreal-centric, as we often say, or Moncton-centric in your case. I would think that’s a positive step.
Do you know how much funding is allocated to local and regional news coverage across Acadia? Has it gone up or down? Have staffing levels increased or decreased? Are you able to give me some information on that?
Mr. Théberge: Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer to your question. I’m not sure whether the information is available to do that analysis. I will take the liberty of repeating, somewhat jokingly, something one of our authors said: We are all someone else’s Paris.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s true.
I have another question. We have these sheets with information on New Brunswick, but they don’t give us a historical breakdown of exactly how much money has been spent in Acadia by province.
The information refers to an Acadian police show called “Mont-Rouge.” It says that most of the TV production work is done regionally. Is that the only show? It is highlighted here, but are there others? It’s a drama. Is it popular? Does it air anywhere else?
Mr. Théberge: As far as I know, the way “Mont-Rouge” works is similar to the process for “Le monde de Gabrielle Roy.” I think it’s also done through a partnership, but I am not 100% sure. I can’t give you an official answer.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s okay. I’m not that familiar with the show either, so I will find out. Don’t you worry.
I do want to hear your thoughts on a survey, though. This sheet lists everything Radio-Canada does. Under the heading “New Brunswickers and CBC/Radio-Canada,” it states that, according to a public opinion survey, 91% of New Brunswickers feel that CBC/Radio-Canada’s content reflects Canada’s regions. That suggests that people are very satisfied, which seems to be very different from what you’re telling me. Perhaps it was a bilingual survey, I’m not sure.
Mr. Théberge: I was going to ask this. Is it all languages? Is it about satisfaction at CBC and Radio-Canada? Anyway, I’m having trouble answering that one too. Sorry.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Perhaps you could tell us again — and others can certainly take part in the discussion — what you need. Are you primarily looking for more local journalists or more national exposure? Which is more important?
You were talking about the need to preserve the French language, which obviously lies at the heart of these issues. Some would say that, compared to smaller communities in the rest of Canada — and I’m sure that you have heard this before — Acadia seems to have more resources. There are more of you proportionally, perhaps less than in Ontario, but more proportionally.
How do you view your priorities if you had to break them down for me? You can sum them up.
Mr. Théberge: I’ll take care not to make a biased interpretation based on news alone, such as journalism alone.
It must have a presence in every aspect of Radio-Canada. For us, more must be done. Doing more primarily means ensuring that Acadia features in all the programming for both actors and for every level of the company, if I may put it that way.
We need to see a stronger Acadian presence through decentralization. Acadia must also become the second production hub, both in terms of having more Acadians on the team in Montreal and having directors based here to produce programs for broadcast on the network. We could provide many other similar examples. However, more needs to be done through a stronger Acadian presence in programming and through decentralization.
Ms. Arseneau-Sluyter: Yes, there are fewer people and fewer journalists and the numbers keep dropping. Saint John probably last had a journalist over 10 years ago. This means that we haven’t had a journalist in our community for at least 10 years.
Mr. Cornect: You have often said that the country must be brought to Acadia. However, it’s also important to think about bringing Acadia to the national level. Resources and infrastructure are needed to do this and to do it well.
Mr. Duguay: Senator, earlier you asked a question about “La facture.” I said that things should be done differently. “La facture” gives us a topic, but it applies to other places. They’ll tell us about the legislation in Quebec, but a bit more effort is needed. Why can’t they say that the situation is different in New Brunswick or on the island?
It doesn’t change anything. We’re interested in the content. However, it seems that their approach is limited to Quebec. Yet some topics appeal to us. Give us an overview of the same topics, but in other places. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of thinking differently.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Absolutely. I’m asking you questions, but I greatly sympathize with your situation, of course.
Mr. Duguay: Sometimes, it doesn’t take much. I tune in to shows. I think that it wouldn’t take much. The shows could be turned into national content, similar to the old radio programs for young people and children. Young people from all over the country would take part in the show. Why could they do this for young people but not for adults?
Senator Cormier: Mr. Théberge, I’ll pick up on what you said about boiling down Radio-Canada’s issues to the need for journalists.
In our ecosystem, the creators who create programming in our regions still depend on a broadcaster to make it available. This is the case for the program that I referred to earlier and for many other programs.
The funding cuts to Radio-Canada and its productions aren’t limited to traditional television. They’re also being felt across various platforms. They’re happening everywhere. Right now, it seems clear that Radio-Canada must make choices that hurt creators and producers in francophone minority communities, such as Acadia. Obviously, this is the result of financial decisions.
What can you tell us about the obligation and the need for Radio-Canada and the federal government — because the federal government funds this institution — to fairly and impartially grant licences that enable creators to create successful productions such as “Le monde de Gabrielle Roy,” for example?
Mr. Théberge: I gave you the example of the National Acadian Day and the various decisions made by our public broadcaster to move away from producing its own content. For a number of its own reasons, it chose to turn to the purchase of content and licences. A choice was made there.
In terms of the federal government’s responsibility, I’ll refer you to the Official Languages Act. You can understand that I’m interpreting this legislation a bit loosely. Doesn’t our government have an obligation to help us experience our culture, live and get to know each other in our own language? This is where Radio-Canada takes on its full significance for our communities.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I want to address the issue of trust and bias. As our chair said, there’s a lack of trust in the CBC. Does the same issue arise in French with Radio-Canada? When I think of trust, it’s a matter of bias against conservative and liberal viewpoints, or left against right, for example. Is there an issue, in your opinion, with Radio-Canada?
Mr. Théberge: I would be curious to hear my colleagues’ thoughts on this. I don’t think that we see or sense any political or partisan bias at Radio-Canada, anyway.
However, at the start of your question, you talked about trust. All I hear on the air is talk of traffic and garbage issues in Plateau-Mont-Royal. If I live in Chéticamp and I’m stuck in traffic because it was a bit too windy and people were driving more slowly, I can’t trust my national radio station if it doesn’t know me, doesn’t hear me and doesn’t talk to me. Our trust issue lies there. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with partisan bias. That isn’t the source of the trust issue.
By the way, the high winds in the Chéticamp region are called suêtes. We’ll talk about them later.
Senator Cardozo: Do you think that Radio-Canada doesn’t reflect the regions?
Mr. Théberge: It doesn’t reflect the regions. We say that it doesn’t reflect Acadia. However, I hear Quebecers complain that it talks only about Montreal. If it talks only about Montreal, and Quebecers are complaining, then what about when you’re in Souris, Prince Edward Island, or Corner Brook, Newfoundland?
Mr. Cornect: This hinders the development of our communities, because Radio-Canada isn’t there. It’s a source of communication. It connects all the little corners of Acadia. We should be an active and visible part of history.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Hasn’t the Internet improved this? Hasn’t this platform improved your visibility?
Mr. Cornect: If you have Internet access. Some parts of Newfoundland and Labrador don’t have any access.
Ms. Arseneau-Sluyter: In New Brunswick as well.
Mr. Théberge: When a 30-minute YouTube video takes four hours to download, you can see what we’re getting at.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Exactly. It isn’t all over New Brunswick.
Mr. Théberge: I wouldn’t say that the problem is widespread. However, these issues do exist.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The issue exists across Canada.
Mr. Théberge: Multiple platforms are a must.
Senator Cormier: Since we’re talking about CBC and Radio-Canada, does CBC seem to have a more national vision of our country than Radio-Canada, which has a more Quebec-centric vision? We often hear this. Is this the case?
Ms. Arseneau-Sluyter: I agree. I receive many complaints that our local news comes from CBC, but never in French from Radio-Canada.
Mr. Cornect: I’ll give you an example. Last year, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the province’s francophone community movement, the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. The event was held on the west coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, 800 kilometres from the capital of St. John’s. The CEO of Radio-Canada attended as a guest, but there weren’t any journalists to cover our event. How can we develop our communities, share our history, pass everything on to our young people in our schools and develop tourism if they aren’t there to help us?
Mr. Duguay: We were there because it was the annual general meeting of the Société nationale de l’Acadie. It was a missed opportunity. This anniversary marks 50 years. We can’t do it again. It’s a matter of pride for people who have kept their language, despite all the obstacles.
I would like to answer your question about bias and being biased. I play sports and I’ve done a great deal of refereeing. Every time you make a decision, someone always tells you that it isn’t a good one. I tune in to Radio-Canada on the French side and it seems objective to me. Personally, I don’t see any bias, at least not in terms of news stories. However, if it’s an opinion and the journalist is really good, both sides will believe that the journalist is biased.
The Chair: Colleagues, please join me in thanking our witnesses for joining us and sharing their perspective here today. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)