THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 3, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study matters relating to transport and communications generally.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. My name is Leo Housakos. I’m a senator from Quebec and I’m the chair of this committee. I’d like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Simons: Good morning. My name is Paula Simons and I’m from Alberta.
[English]
I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac, from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Good morning. Julie Miville-Dechêne, another senator from Quebec. We are in the majority.
Senator Simons: Here today.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Here today.
The Chair: We have complete control here.
Today, we are continuing our study of CBC/Radio-Canada’s local and regional services. We have Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada; Fabien Hébert, President, and Peter Hominuk, Executive Director of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario; Jean‑Michel Beaudry, Executive Director of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine; by video conference, we have Isabelle Salesse, Executive Director of the Association franco-yukonnaise. Welcome, and thank you for joining us.
We’ll begin with a five-minute opening statement, starting with Ms. Pilon, followed by Messrs. Martin, Hébert and Hominuk, by Ms. Salesse and Mr. Beaudry. We’ll then proceed with senators’ questions.
For the moment, Ms. Pilon, you have the floor.
Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada: Thank you.
Honourable senators, I am Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC.
APFC is the professional association representing francophone production companies in official language minority communities, known as OLMCs. For 25 years, our job has been to promote the exceptional audiovisual content produced by our members and to defend its cultural, economic, linguistic and identity value for the entire country before public policy makers.
Our members come from across Canada’s vast territory, from the Yukon to Nova Scotia to New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. Through their activities, our members and all those associated with them contribute to the economic vitality, cultural vitality and sustainability of their communities, while ensuring the expression of a diversity of francophone voices in the country. They produce original and captivating stories for television, film and digital media, which are shaped by the unique place from which they originate, and enrich the diversity of Canada’s audiovisual programming.
Francophone production by OLMCs represents 7% of all independent French-language production in Canada. About 40% of the original programs produced in the Canadian francophonie are broadcast on Radio-Canada.
The role of our national public broadcaster is absolutely fundamental for our sector and is just as fundamental for ensuring the vitality and development of the Canadian francophonie. This is especially true in the digital age, where we have more and more broadcasting sources, but regional realities are increasingly rare on the screen. Francophone OLMCs, and particularly young people, need to see themselves reflected in the programs and films they watch. To do so, they must have access to an abundant supply of Canadian programming that is diverse and representative of all francophone communities in the country.
Radio-Canada has specific responsibilities in that area, which are enshrined in the Broadcasting Act and in the Official Languages Act. Those two acts, which were updated in 2023, provide greater recognition to independent francophone production by OLMCs and OLMCs. Radio-Canada plays a leading role in that regard to enable our producers to take their rightful place in the Canadian broadcasting system, in addition to making the original content they produce accessible.
Our national public broadcaster contributes to the development of Canadian talent. It also creates opportunities to diversify the programming in terms of regional representation, but also in terms of genres. Providing Canadian citizens with a variety of local programming is essential in the current context, where the audiovisual landscape is increasingly standardized. Thanks to Radio-Canada, major drama series were produced by independent francophone production companies outside Quebec. I’m thinking of Mont-Rouge, in Nova Scotia; Eaux turbulentes, in Ontario; and Le monde de Gabrielle Roy, in Manitoba.
By supporting these larger-scale fiction productions, Radio-Canada has been able to achieve four major things: it has allowed the professionals and creators in our communities to use all their talent; brought regions that are outside the major centres to the screen; told local stories to audiences across the country; and given French-Canadian content prominence in its programming.
Radio-Canada is a unique and essential voice in the media landscape. In many cases, its regional stations are the only ones offering local programming in French. Francophones in Moncton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Victoria and Whitehorse are looking to these stations to find out what the major private broadcasting groups aren’t able to offer them — programming in French that resembles them.
Lastly, Radio-Canada is the only broadcaster that provides a forum for a critical mass of francophones and francophiles, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the country.
In conclusion, APFC agrees that the corporation’s mandate is robust. In a changing ecosystem, its obligations are numerous and can create strong pressures. The public funding that supports the national broadcaster is important, but it’s also consistent with its obligations.
The CBC is a fundamental institution for democracy, for the Canadian public and for Canadian creators.
I repeat, no other entity in the audiovisual ecosystem reflects the country’s regional, cultural, identity and linguistic diversity, as does the CBC. That’s why it’s crucial to ensure that it has adequate and predictable support so that it can continue to play its role as a national public broadcaster with confidence and relevance.
Thank you for listening to me and I invite your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Pilon. Mr. Hébert or Mr. Hominuk, you have the floor.
Fabien Hébert, President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I’m Fabien Hébert, President of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario. With me today are Peter Hominuk, our Executive Director; Sonia Behilil, our Director of Policy and Government Relations; and Carolyn Savoie, our Policy Analyst.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of nearly 800,000 Franco-Ontarians, the largest francophone minority community in Canada. Our vibrant Franco-Ontarian community needs a strong and inclusive francophone media presence. Francophone media — public, community or private — play an essential role and face many challenges. Despite our demographic importance, we remain under-represented in national content.
Radio-Canada focuses on Quebec content, and the lack of visibility and representativeness of the rest of the Canadian francophonie in its content isolates the various francophone communities from one another. Francophone media must contribute to maintaining our cultural and linguistic identity, especially in a context where English dominates. We have noted Radio-Canada’s commendable efforts to adapt to the realities of our communities. For example, in southwestern Ontario, people in London are now listening to the Windsor station rather than the one in Toronto. In addition, a new office has been opened in that region to better serve the growing francophone population there.
To remain relevant, Radio-Canada must increase its coverage of local and regional issues. Increased collaboration with community media would help enrich content while avoiding direct competition with community media. Access to Radio-Canada’s services — television, radio or digital platform — must be equitable for everyone, regardless of where they live. Despite improvements in access to high-speed Internet, disparities persist, depriving rural communities in particular of digital content. CBC/Radio-Canada, by virtue of its mandate and its leadership position, has a clear responsibility towards official language minority communities, especially in light of the CRTC’s new obligations towards our communities. For example, CBC/Radio-Canada should ensure that Franco-Ontarians and other francophone minority communities receive fair and important coverage.
That being said, it’s crucial to strike a balance to avoid harming independent French-language community media in Ontario. Those small media outlets, which are struggling to survive with very little government funding and low advertising revenues, also play an important role in our communities. We encourage collaboration between Radio-Canada and those community media for news services, and more.
The birth of partnership between Radio-Canada and TFO is a success story in Ontario. We need to do more. Our news and content must be broadcast on multiple platforms, from print newspapers to social media, to television, radio and websites.
We encourage Radio-Canada to enter into partnerships to amplify local voices, while avoiding significant competition with small community media.
In conclusion, I encourage you to consider ways that would allow Radio-Canada to better reflect the realities of Franco-Ontarians, as well as other francophone communities outside Quebec in all their diversity, while relying on our community media.
CBC/Radio-Canada should position itself to strengthen public trust, raise awareness among young people of the sector’s trades, particularly in French, and emphasize the importance of ethical considerations in news broadcasting. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Salesse, the floor is yours.
Isabelle Salesse, Executive Director, Association franco-yukonnaise: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Association franco-yukonnaise, known as AFY. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you the importance of Radio-Canada’s local services for francophone minority communities, particularly in the Yukon. The AFY has existed for over 40 years and it represents more than 14% of the French-speaking population of the Yukon.
In the Yukon, as in other parts of the country, francophone communities are a minority and sometimes remote, but they’re nonetheless a fundamental part of Canada’s cultural and linguistic mosaic. In this context, Radio-Canada’s local services play a crucial role in maintaining and strengthening the presence of the French language and culture in geographic areas where the majority of the population speaks English.
French-speaking citizens of the Yukon actively contribute to the region’s diversity and richness. For them, access to French media services is crucial. Radio-Canada plays an essential role as a direct link with the francophone world, both locally and nationally. Radio-Canada’s local services allow francophones in the Yukon to stay connected to their language, culture and values. This allows them to get news in their own language, but also to have access to reliable information, because, as we know, it’s increasingly difficult to find that type of information today.
Radio-Canada Yukon’s local programs offer coverage of regional events, local stories and news that explicitly concern francophones in the Yukon, while also dealing with national and international issues that concern them. Without those services, Yukon francophones would be in a sort of media and cultural isolation, which would limit their ability to fully participate in the social and political life of the region.
I’d like to share with you concrete examples of Radio-Canada’s good practices in the Yukon, which are making a difference for our francophone community.
The AFY has had a partnership with CBC for over 30 years, through Radio-Canada, which allows us to offer a 90-minute radio program called “Rencontres” every Saturday on CBC North and Radio-Canada’s radio stations. The CBC, which houses Radio-Canada in its premises, offers us free space to record programs and air them later. The technicians for these programs are French-speaking people who are trained and paid by CBC, which makes it possible to cover the news of Yukon francophones and broadcast music taken from the repertoire of the francophone world. The show is coordinated by an AFY project officer and hosted in French by volunteers recruited by the Association franco-yukonnaise.
Here’s another example of a good practice. Every two weeks, on Thursday, when it’s published, Aurore boréale, a community newspaper that reaches more than 2,000 people per print run, is invited by Radio-Canada to talk about certain news during the morning broadcast of “Phare Ouest.” Here’s another example. In 2021, Radio-Canada ICI Grand Nord was live on radio and Facebook for the first election night hosted in French in the Yukon. Hosted by a Vancouver journalist, the program gave a voice to Franco-Yukoners across the territory and welcomed a guest as a political analyst. Journalists in the field regularly shared the results. It was a first and it certainly needs to be done again.
In February 2024, the team from “Phare Ouest,” located at Radio-Canada Vancouver, came to Whitehorse for more than two days and showcased members of the community, politicians, francophone organizations and Franco-Yukoner artists. The host discussed Yukon issues in French on Radio-Canada live from Whitehorse.
These local services are not only disseminating information; they’re actively involved in the preservation and development of the French language.
It’s essential that Radio-Canada continue its work, which consists in talking about communities with the communities, covering francophone events and interviewing various people who have the same interests and concerns as people from the majority, including the cost of living and the environment.
All this allows members of our francophone community to recognize and hear themselves, and to be exposed to content they can identify with. This supports the vitality of our communities and strengthens the cultural identity of its members.
It’s also important to talk about French-speaking youth on the airwaves. We believe that this is still too rare.
Radio-Canada has nevertheless adapted to new contexts by offering a common digital platform for the three territories called Grand Nord. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that this platform reaches young francophones in the territories.
On the other hand, Meta’s decision to prohibit the dissemination of news on social networks has likely reduced access to Radio-Canada. Although Radio-Canada has developed new online media tools, I don’t think that they reach the majority of young people, as I was saying earlier, or that they really see themselves in what’s broadcast. So a serious effort will have to be made in that regard. Despite its fundamental role, Radio-Canada is facing a number of challenges in remote regions like the Yukon. We think budget constraints, lack of resources to produce local content on a sustained basis, and a difficulty in ensuring effective media coverage —
The Chair: Ms. Salesse, your time is up. Thank you.
I’ll now give the floor to Mr. Beaudry.
Jean-Michel Beaudry, Executive Director, Société de la francophonie manitobaine: I’d like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications for inviting me to appear today.
My name is Jean-Michel Beaudry and I am the Executive Director of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine (SFM), the organization that represents the community at the provincial level.
Today I’d like to focus on two main themes: first, the long-standing disinvestment in Radio-Canada’s regional stations; and second, the promise of the new WebOuest digital broadcasting platform and funding for community media.
First of all, I’d like to point out that Radio-Canada’s work is an essential ingredient for the vitality and sustainability of Manitoba’s francophone community.
That being said, we’re seeing a worrisome trend that leaves major gaps in our minority community, which is to say, disinvestment. For example, there’s been an almost complete decline in local and regional production, with the exception of journalistic content.
While Radio-Canada provided rich local programming from its inception in 1960, today, the vast majority of production decisions are made in Montreal. Therefore, Quebec’s interests take precedence over those of our minority communities.
Here’s an example of that impact: Manitoba’s flagship local journalism program, “Le Téléjournal,” was cut from 60 to 30 minutes a day and eliminated on weekends.
There’s also an alarming decline in audio and visual production, which has made it difficult to find French-language content produced by and for our communities. This leads to a gradual erasure of the collective memory of minority francophones, whose artistic and cultural dynamism has never ceased to exist.
Even the main actors in the miniseries on Franco-Manitoban author Gabrielle Roy are Quebeckers. Manitobans see and hear their accent too infrequently.
That’s why, in the face of a growing media vacuum, SFM worked with its community partners to create WebOuest. WebOuest is a French-language digital content delivery platform launched in the midst of the pandemic.
It provides free content on all francophone communities in our regions, from Victoria to Iqaluit and from Saint-Labre to Dawson City.
Through more than 95 partnerships with organizations across the West and North, WebOuest provides an exceptional showcase for the cultural vitality of our communities. The team works with Les Productions Rivard and other local and national broadcasters to produce very high-quality content.
This content is designed to promote the discovery of our francophone communities online and to showcase our artistic and cultural products in the long term. WebOuest therefore increases returns on investment for the arts, while providing an innovative business model, given the current state of the media environment.
WebOuest is also very economical when compared to the production costs of media giants.
I repeat: Radio-Canada is an indispensable medium for the development of our Manitoba francophonie and the Canadian identity. We must continue to support it at all costs.
However, Radio-Canada doesn’t seem to be interested in investing in production by and for our communities, with the exception of news. This means that even if we still hear about ourselves, we are rarely genuinely approached.
That said, we must do more to ensure that emerging media such as WebOuest and community media, such as our newspaper La Liberté and our radio station Envol 91 FM, can be adequately funded.
The SFM would like to congratulate the federal government on the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, which makes it possible to recognize broadcasters like WebOuest and their role in the promotion of French and the development of OLMCs.
We are convinced that WebOuest serves as a model for encouraging the creation of new funding programs that promote the emergence of new platforms and the sustainability of community media.
So I’ll stop there. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you.
I’ll now give the floor to Senator Miville-Dechêne to begin question period.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you all for your very compelling testimonies.
I’ll start with Mr. Beaudry. I didn’t know about WebOuest. Is CBC making efforts to work with WebOuest? You say that Radio-Canada doesn’t speak much about your community. Do they receive funding? Do they put their content on WebOuest? How does that work?
Mr. Beaudry: For the time being, there have only been partnerships on the training side. So far, Unis TV and other similar broadcasters have been more present around the table. WebOuest content is really for francophone populations in the West and the North. This is a bit of a contrast to what we’re used to seeing on Radio-Canada, because it’s sometimes content produced in the West and the North, but intended for a Quebec audience. Greater cooperation would certainly be desirable when dealing with this type of production in official language minority communities.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is it still true that Radio-Canada, particularly platforms, siphons off the advertising market? About two years ago, I heard that, in official language minority communities, your opportunity for advertising is low, and that Radio-Canada takes most of what is available.
Mr. Beaudry: I can speak for Manitoba, and that is the case. Our local newspaper La Liberté mentions it as does the community radio station. There are partnerships, but that often isn’t a collaborative effort. There are one-time projects where there are partnerships. However, there is no real strategy to enhance local content on Radio-Canada and its websites.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m talking about advertising.
Mr. Beaudry: Certainly. The same is true for advertising. This has been raised. I don’t have any details or percentages. However, that is certainly a reality.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have one last question for Mr. Hébert. You’ve painted a picture. I’d like you to be more specific. Is there disinvestment or more investment in Ontario? There are 800,000 francophones in Ontario. The picture you painted was general. Are there more or fewer people than before? Is there a trend that’s increasing or decreasing? Do you have realistic solutions for better coverage? The francophone community is scattered — I’m thinking of the North in particular. How do you see the future? What is the trend?
Mr. Hébert: There is disinvestment in Ontario. What has been talked about in terms of innovative solutions has been done through downsizing. For example, in London, they took the programs that were created locally and gave them to the Toronto station. The London people are the ones who said that they didn’t really relate to people in Toronto, but rather with those in Windsor. The Toronto signal was replaced by the Windsor signal for a community that already had a station in London. So disinvestment is taking place throughout the province.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you have any figures?
Mr. Hébert: I don’t have any figures. Do we have any figures? They changed the source of the station.
Peter Hominuk, Executive Director, Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: I’d like to point out that people in London received the Toronto signal, which was replaced by the Windsor signal after a community consultation.
Radio-Canada’s investments have been relatively stagnant for several years. As for the renewal of the CBC/Radio-Canada licence, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario wants to see more Franco-Ontarians. Everyone here today wants to send the message that we all want more Radio-Canada locally, provincially, regionally and nationally. We want to be better represented in the content. There are very clear ways of doing that. We have community media in Ontario that could collaborate significantly.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is that being done?
Mr. Hominuk: Very little.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Whose fault is it?
Mr. Hominuk: Sometimes community media have reached out. In the past, Radio-Canada saw them as competitors. That’s starting to change. However, it will take time.
The AFO has a good relationship with the two regional branches: Ontario and Ottawa-Gatineau. We have regular discussions on better cooperation. However, it will take time, despite the goodwill of those people, because decisions are often made elsewhere.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a very quick question. I’m sorry, I’m fascinated by this. It’s expensive to do television and radio according to Radio-Canada standards. Do you think we should move to a lighter approach? We’re talking about temporary stations, correspondents who travel around. How do you see journalism, if we want to continue to have nimble journalism, where reporters can travel from region to region? How do you see things? Have you ever thought of a solution that doesn’t mean opening offices everywhere?
Mr. Hominuk: There’s a balance between the two. I’m the former executive director of a community radio station and I was president of the Mouvement des intervenants et des intervenantes en communication radio de l’Ontario (MICRO) more than 12 years ago. We’ve always been open to exchanging ideas. Radio‑Canada does a very good job with the news, national and provincial news. This is something that community radio stations can’t afford. Community media is very good at local content. There could be an exchange of stories or a sharing of staff. A number of things could be done on the ground.
My answer is that a hybrid of the two would be interesting; we are in an extremely rigid situation and we could be more flexible without being totally flexible. There are standards to be met. In a world where there is so much fake news, Radio-Canada standards remain important.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Even though I’m not really bilingual, I try to ask questions in French every time. Forgive me in advance if I make a mistake or if I don’t find the right word.
My first question is for Mr. Hébert. I’m very familiar with Alberta’s francophone community, particularly the one in Edmonton where I lived, as well as the local Radio-Canada station. Do you think that the people who work in the Montreal offices and the senior managers think that Franco-Ontarian communities are almost the same as Quebec communities? Do you think there is recognition in Montreal that those two communities are different? Do you think they believe it’s enough to have broadcasting from Montreal?
Mr. Hébert: It’s hard to know what people think. However, I can tell you that we don’t see ourselves in the content, which leads us to assume that people don’t know us and aren’t aware of the reality of Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans or Franco-Yukoners.
I come from a Franco-Ontarian family, I’m a proud Franco-Ontarian, I was born in Ontario and my family has roots in Quebec. If it were not for the fact that we live in Ontario, they would never have been exposed to the Franco-Ontarian reality and they wouldn’t know that there are Franco-Ontarian communities. Yet they listen to Radio-Canada and the francophone media regularly.
That means that the vehicle isn’t there to convey that knowledge or give that exposure to the reality of francophone communities outside Quebec. In my opinion, the answer to your question is that the team that manages the content in Montreal is probably not very familiar with the reality of the pan-Canadian francophonie. That’s why it doesn’t appear in the content.
Senator Simons: My next question is for Mr. Beaudry. As I mentioned, I’m from Edmonton. You listed the cities that WebOuest serves; what about Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, or Saskatoon?
Mr. Beaudry: We tried to make an X, so we went from northeast to southwest, and then the opposite, and we made an X. That certainly covers Alberta. We want to expand to that area, but we decided on the content with all our northern and western counterparts.
Senator Simons: As Senator Miville-Dechêne mentioned, everyone says that Radio-Canada is absolutely necessary, but at the same time, it’s a kind of competition for you and it’s more difficult to do new activities in the presence of an incumbent. Is it the same word in French?
Mr. Beaudry: I understand; there’s no problem. In the case of WebOuest, there’s no competition because they don’t do journalism. Unfortunately, in the West and the North, Radio-Canada produces very little content that isn’t journalistic; there is, but very little. So that’s not competition. There could certainly be more collaboration, as Senator Miville-Dechêne mentioned. There are reasons to do so. When we talk about the quality of content, Radio-Canada doesn’t need to broadcast all content produced in the West and the North, but there’s an opportunity to take part of it, put it together and broadcast it. Radio-Canada would find very interested audiences throughout the West and Canada.
Senator Simons: I only know the children’s show “ONIVA!,” which is from Edmonton. I’ve never seen a film about Franco-Albertans.
Mr. Beaudry: To my knowledge, there are none.
Senator Simons: Thank you. Coming from Whitehorse, I’d say it’s too far ahead.
The Chair: Ms. Salesse, do you want to add anything? You’re on video conference and it can be difficult to participate in the debate.
Ms. Salesse: Yes, I would. I took too much time to speak earlier.
I’d like to add something to my colleagues’ message. What concerns us the most is that, all too often, Quebec and Montreal are mentioned on Radio-Canada stations. Not only is it frustrating that we aren’t being talked about, but it also doesn’t contribute to Radio-Canada’s mandate, which is to talk about the entire francophonie and the diversity of Canada. This keeps Quebec in the dark about the entire francophone community across Canada. That’s a real shame, because Canada is rich in French-speaking communities everywhere. In the Yukon, the francophone community has been growing since 1971 and its demographic weight has increased by 87%; Quebec doesn’t know that. However, we know that at such and such an hour, someone was killed on Sainte-Catherine Street.
I find that regrettable, because it doesn’t allow for this exchange and this learning about what Canada is really like. French isn’t just in Canada, it’s everywhere. That’s one of the points I want to make.
Then, regarding what Radio-Canada can do, I’ll give three examples that are quite interesting, that have to do with good practices when you’re out in the field, when Radio-Canada is travelling.
In the Yukon, I’d like to say that we’ve not had any cuts; on the contrary, we’ve had an increase in the number of journalists. We now have two, whereas for a long time we had only one. With the cross-sectional approach in the three territories, they can replace each other when someone is on vacation; for example, the Yellowknife journalist could cover French news in the Yukon. They try as much as possible to cover all the events, but so many things are happening that that isn’t always the case.
In the Yukon, there’s nonetheless a desire on the part of the CBC to work with the community, but it’s at a higher level that things most often get blocked. We’ve already heard that the Whitehorse news is of no interest to people in Vancouver. So, with that mentality, we can’t move forward. We need to be open and to ensure that we have coverage, that we’re talked about, that we know that francophones in the Yukon exist.
Senator Cardozo: Welcome, everyone, and thank you for being with us today.
My first question is to the four organizations. You talked about the additional resources needed, but the proposal is about cutting the CBC. How would that affect the operation of Radio-Canada in French if CBC no longer existed?
Are there producers who create content in both languages? We’ll start with you, Ms. Pilon.
Ms. Pilon: The majority of APFC members produce in French only. One of the reasons for that is that there are funds available for francophone minority television productions, which are provided or managed by the Canada Media Fund. So this envelope was created 20 years ago and encourages French-language production in minority communities.
It’s a fact that, at first, many productions came from Ontario and the Atlantic provinces. Today, we’ve seen an increase and development in productions from the West linked to the new Unis TV channel, which has been added to the broadcasting package and has an important inter-regional mandate.
As for bilingual production, there isn’t much demand for that kind of content, although Radio-Canada has a French and English service, as do many of the private channels; CTV and Global TV also have channels in Quebec. However, that’s not a trend, because the two markets are very different and the audiences for that content are very different.
So, there have been a few examples of production adaptations, but they are often concepts that have been adapted and then sold in English, or vice versa.
What I could tell you about the elimination of CBC funding is that I don’t know how you could cut it in the regions without cutting Radio-Canada funding in the regions. Staffing, infrastructure, and technical resources are shared between the public broadcaster’s two sectors, although the programming is separate. In terms of resources, we don’t use 40% of a studio to broadcast a newscast, but we use 100% of the staff. So if we were to cut funding to public broadcasters by two thirds, I don’t know how we could maintain the level of service, especially since we want better service. That would be devastating.
Mr. Beaudry: My understanding of the operation of regional stations is that the whole thing is so intertwined that if we were to cut funding to the CBC, it would be catastrophic for Radio-Canada in the regions.
When we talk about the resources needed in regional stations, I can’t have an opinion on the number of resources that CBC/Radio-Canada needs.
However, even with greater investment in CBC/Radio-Canada, investment in the regions decreased. The question of prioritizing the regions should be considered, regardless of the CBC’s financial situation. Streamlining everything in Montreal and Toronto had an impact on the attachment of anglophone and francophone communities to their regional stations. I believe that’s something to think about.
Mr. Hébert: If I understand correctly, you’re asking us to either restructure and downsize the CBC or to stop funding it. At the same time, we want to maintain the CBC in its entirety. So we’re maintaining all the necessary infrastructure for all platforms and broadcasting. Then we’ll end up with an exponential cost to keep Radio-Canada, because we’ll have stopped funding the CBC and we’ll be in a situation where people will say that keeping Radio-Canada is too expensive. We’ll have completely eliminated production costs on the anglophone side. To keep francophone production and infrastructure, Radio-Canada will have to absorb more costs associated with maintaining the platform. So we’ll be back before the committee in two years to defend or justify the investments needed to maintain the CBC platform. In my opinion, cutting funding to the CBC will create a very difficult situation in terms of maintaining Radio-Canada’s services, because the two are not separate entities. They are strongly linked and they share all the platforms.
Mr. Hominuk: When we look at locally produced content, I can’t imagine that there will be as much local content produced in Windsor, in Sudbury or in other Ontario communities. That proximity is often what creates the next generation. While young people are in the field and decide on their careers, this sense of belonging to a radio, television or media outlet is extremely important. If we lose that, we may lose future journalists who could work in those media outlets.
In a minority community, very few elements tie us to our community. The francophone media in Ontario are extremely important, whether it be Radio-Canada or the others, to provide a sense of unity to Franco-Ontarians. Without this local, regional and provincial media, the Franco-Ontarian community could even crumble. The same is true for communities in the other provinces.
Senator Cardozo: I have the same question for Ms. Salesse.
Ms. Salesse: The Broadcasting Act stipulates that the corporation’s programming must be offered in English and French in a manner that reflects the unique circumstances and needs of official language communities, including the specific needs and interests of official language minority communities. I don’t know how we can justify getting rid of the CBC, because it’s also a legal issue.
Furthermore, in the Yukon, that’s exactly what we were talking about earlier, which is to say that space and resources are shared with Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada has only two employees in the Yukon. The others are anglophones. So I don’t see how Radio-Canada could survive if the CBC disappeared, because there is a pooling of resources between CBC and Radio-Canada in the Yukon.
The CBC in the Yukon sometimes also covers francophone news. This aspect is important because it allows anglophones to hear about the francophone community and to make the majority aware of the reality of francophones on the ground. In my opinion, it would be very risky to eliminate the CBC or to significantly reduce its operations.
In closing, I’d say that this also supports reliable information. Eliminating a public media outlet may have an impact on access to reliable information in English.
Senator Cardozo: Ms. Salesse, you talked about the Broadcasting Act. If a government decides to cut funding to the CBC in the future, it will be possible to amend the act with the consensus of Parliament, will it not?
Ms. Salesse: You can always amend the act. However, the process is often longer than it is fast. It all depends on political will. Currently, the act that’s just been revised specifies this element. Regardless of the government in power in the future, I would hope that it would respect this legislation without wanting to change it. There are much more important elements to consider before changing this legislation. I don’t have a crystal ball to confirm that, but I hope that won’t be the case.
Mr. Hominuk: I’ll add to what Ms. Salesse said. In addition to the Broadcasting Act, there’s also the new Official Languages Act, which makes important commitments to francophones, particularly in minority situations. The new act talks about enhancing the vitality of Canada’s English and French linguistic minority communities and supporting their development by taking into account their specificity, diversity and historical and cultural contribution to Canadian society. I’m not going to read the other obligations, but when I look at the new act and what it wants to accomplish in terms of official languages, I think that the loss of one of the two networks could be catastrophic.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to our witnesses. First of all, I’m not an expert on broadcasting, laws and regulations, and I apologize for that. However, I would like to learn more.
Cultural changes are long and difficult. I understand your point of view on Quebec content, if not Montreal content. When I travel around Quebec, people in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and Abitibi tell me that the media talk about Sainte-Catherine Street and Montreal too often and almost never about the regions. I certainly don’t want to minimize the situation you’re experiencing, because it’s very different from that of the Quebec regions.
Have you made any representations to the CRTC? What other steps have you taken to voice your concerns? Unless we say that CBC/Radio-Canada is divided in two with a Radio-Canada Quebec entity and a Radio-Canada entity outside Quebec, the culture won’t change easily. You’ve turned to other authorities. What was their reaction to that?
Ms. Pilon: As you know, the CRTC is renewing all Radio-Canada’s services at the same time. We made a case for French-language services and asked the CRTC to require the public broadcaster to allocate a larger share of its expenditures to the production of Canadian French-language programs outside Quebec—which they did.
When we looked at the figures in detail and the original production in French by independent producers, we saw that a definition had been added in another process. We asked the CRTC to impose this definition on Radio-Canada and also to impose specific spending thresholds. Previously, OLMCs and the Quebec regions were grouped together in terms of the targets that Radio-Canada had to meet. For the current period covered by the licence, Radio-Canada had to spend, in the first year, 3% of all its expenditures on French programming. That’s not very much. We’re talking about 3% on French-language programming in the first year. In the second year it went up, and in the sixth year it was 6%, and this year it’s 4%.
The reports are filed with the CRTC every year. The broadcaster must meet its obligations in that regard. The CRTC also has a responsibility to monitor broadcasters to ensure that they are meeting their obligations.
We’ve seen major series such as Le monde de Gabrielle Roy in Manitoba, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. We’re seeing progress, but there’s a lot of pressure on the public broadcaster.
As you know, all broadcasters are experiencing declining advertising revenues, among other things, and that puts pressure on production budgets. French-language production budgets are much lower than their English counterparts for independent production and on-screen entertainment.
Senator Gignac: Is there a percentage for local news, either daily or weekly, that is imposed on Radio-Canada? If I’m in Manitoba, has the CRTC imposed a percentage of local news in Ontario?
Ms. Pilon: It isn’t a percentage expressed in dollars. As I understand it, it’s in air time.
Senator Gignac: Does it exist?
Ms. Pilon: Yes.
Mr. Hominuk: In Ontario, we regularly meet with the regional director for Ontario, who is in Toronto, Zaahirah Atchia, and the director of Ottawa-Gatineau, Yvan Cloutier. We have regular discussions with them about what they’re doing and what could be done.
There’s still work to be done; there are too few resources, but I can see that efforts are being made. When we ask for more content, we’re often told that Franco-Ontarian content is on the website and that people can go and consume it when they want. There’s less of a presence on the air, despite the efforts that have been made in recent years.
At the time of Radio-Canada’s last licence renewal, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario (AFO) had asked that the Ottawa and Gatineau licences be split in two for radio, to have separate news broadcasts for Ontario and Gatineau.
As you can see, people in Toronto or Sudbury get a 100% Ontario newscast, while people in Ottawa, which is one of the largest francophone communities in Ontario, get half a newscast and sometimes less. So there are things that could be done with new technologies; with digital technology, it would be possible to do things like that, without necessarily adding major costs.
Senator Gignac: Ms. Salesse, on the Yukon side, is a percentage imposed on local news? How does that work at your end?
Ms. Salesse: Not to my knowledge. However, every day, Phare Ouest mentions the weather in the Yukon. Generally, that’s pretty much the summary, the weather in the Yukon.
Once every two weeks, someone from the Aurore boréale community newspaper gives us an update on certain information about the Yukon on that program.
However, for the hourly news, there isn’t much about the Yukon unless something really important just happened, a scandal or something else. At that point, they’ll talk about it, or else the regional news won’t talk about what’s happening in the francophonie. It’s very rare.
I don’t think there’s a quota. We always take part in Radio-Canada’s consultation meetings, but it isn’t necessarily a platform that allows us to express a lot of things. However, in the past, we had someone from Radio-Canada who systematically came to Radio-Canada Vancouver’s annual general meeting and asked to meet with us the day before to discuss our issues.
So we’ve always managed to get the message across, but I’d say that compared to some of my colleagues around the table today, we’re still fortunate enough to have a little more content. We’re so much smaller that it’s easier for Radio-Canada to cover what we’re doing than it is in large regions.
The Chair: I’m concerned that all the witnesses who come before this committee or the stakeholders I talk to quite often who come from French Canada always say, “If we ever stop funding the CBC, the English network, it’s going to be catastrophic.” I have a hard time understanding that.
At the end of the fiscal year, I don’t see the same enthusiasm on the part of CBC for Radio-Canada and the francophone regions.
The French language is in decline in Canada; that’s obvious. I see that CBC has been receiving more money from taxpayers, year after year, for 10 years. At the same time, they reduced the budget for the francophone network, particularly in the regions.
Can you explain why CBC, which makes all kinds of decisions, is being so enthusiastically defended? I never see a decision to promote the minority language, particularly outside Canada. I don’t see any enthusiasm from the head office in Toronto to spend more on regional media. At some point, we have to ask ourselves what all this means.
I don’t understand why there’s a reluctance to understand that, today in Canada, to defend the French language and more particularly official language minority communities, we need a public broadcaster, and that their concern should be only that, not with the same amount of money they have now, but with more than what’s being spent. The CBC receives $1.4 billion a year.
When you look at the ratings, year after year, it’s almost ridiculous on the anglophone side. Radio-Canada’s ratings are always very respectable. It just makes sense. Spend more and focus your efforts where there’s a public demand and need. We agree that the English language and the English-speaking community in Canada have a great deal of choice on media platforms right now. Would you agree with that reasoning?
Mr. Hominuk: When you come to the regions, what you see are very small francophone offices within CBC/Radio-Canada.
For us, it may be difficult to imagine how the small francophone office will be able to continue without the infrastructure of the large office that accompanies it. That’s what I see. That’s what scares me: thinking that the small office alone will be able to survive without the infrastructure that goes with it.
If there are enough resources to make it possible, I’m all for it. But since I worked in community media, where people are always told to do more with less, my concern is that we’ll have so little that it’ll be impossible to fulfill the mandate. It remains to be seen what investments would be made in a Radio-Canada that is independent of the CBC or detached from the CBC. Those are worrisome issues: losing what little you have when you have so little in a minority region. That’s why we use the word “catastrophic,” because we have trouble understanding how our francophone section will survive without the rest of the entity.
Mr. Hébert: I think you’d hear a different message if we knew that there was a clear desire to fund the francophone network, regardless of the anglophone network. What we’re afraid of is the reality of the operating costs of a francophone network, which is on a much smaller scale and won’t benefit from the economies of scale of the larger network.
As a result, we’re going to find ourselves in a situation where people are going to say, “Now, it costs too much for the francophone network, so we’re going to defund it as well.”
If the government commits tomorrow morning to fully funding the francophone network, my position would be that we support the creation of an independent francophone radio network. I’d have no problem supporting that. However, we need the infrastructure to do that.
The Chair: So do you agree that if Radio-Canada had more power, more freedom and more money, it would make sense?
Mr. Beaudry: I agree with what was just said. The only caveat is that the trend over the past 40 years, both at CBC and Radio-Canada, has been to disinvest in the regions, to remove resources from the regions. That’s worrisome because we already have very few resources. We’re talking about additional investment, but that isn’t the trend, and giving Radio-Canada more freedom won’t make them choose to invest in the regions. We’re very concerned about that.
The Chair: I’d like to clarify that I was talking about more decentralized regional francophone services in my beautiful Montreal.
Mr. Beaudry: We like Montreal.
The Chair: I’m listening and taking notes.
Ms. Pilon: If we’re concerned about Radio-Canada’s Quebec centrism now, take away the weight of the CBC in the regions and I don’t think we’ll be going in the right direction. No, in fact, the CBC doesn’t talk enough about its francophone community in its newscasts or current affairs; we fully agree with that. However, they still have some weight in Canada’s regions that we would have trouble balancing if regional stations and infrastructure were no longer there. To maintain it in terms of funding, there would certainly be a backlash of some kind from the Canadian public, who would have to fund the production and capacity required to maintain our French-language services at that level.
Even if we cut two thirds of CBC/Radio-Canada’s funding, more will have to be invested to maintain service in the regions. It would only be a service in one language, which would violate the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act. The latter is a quasi-judicial act designed to protect both official languages across the country. A national public broadcaster could hardly obtain the funds or parliamentary appropriations needed to operate in only one language.
In addition, Radio-Canada provides services in Aboriginal languages. But they have made progress in that regard. Those services would also be at risk.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Very briefly, Mr. Beaudry, I want to make sure I understood you. Our study is on Radio-Canada’s local services and its relationship with the community. Did I hear you correctly say that the alienation, the criticism directed at Radio-Canada or CBC’s low ratings are related to the fact that CBC/Radio-Canada is too centralized and not listened to in the regions? I’d like to hear what you have to say about that. What evidence do you have regarding that? That’s an opinion, but how can you justify that? It’s interesting in the context of our study, but what is the basis for that opinion?
Mr. Beaudry: It’s anecdotal. I don’t have any data for you. As Senator Gignac said a little earlier, the disinvestment in regions across Canada, at both Radio-Canada and the CBC, has meant that the proximity link to local stations has eroded over time. In the past, Radio-Canada Manitoba didn’t have a station in Manitoba. That was part of our community infrastructure. It’s not that it doesn’t exist anymore—there’s a local team that’s doing great things with the very few resources they have—but there’s been a local disinvestment by both CBC and Radio-Canada. We’ve seen the results of this strong trend in recent decades.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s those strong trends that we see more in the polls and ratings on the CBC side than on the Radio-Canada side, but it’s very difficult to measure Radio-Canada’s ratings in Manitoba.
Mr. Beaudry: In fact, I don’t think we have the ratings for Radio-Canada Manitoba, but I imagine that it would at least partly follow the trends of the CBC.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for clarifying that.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for sharing their knowledge and perspectives with the committee. It’s very much appreciated.
[English]
Honourable senators, for our second panel this morning, the committee welcomes Richard Stursberg, Chief Executive Officer of Aljess; and Kim Trynacity, a journalism instructor at MacEwan University and former CBC/Radio-Canada Branch President at the Canadian Media Guild and former CBC Edmonton journalist.
Welcome, and thank you both for joining us.
We will have five-minute opening statements from each witness, and then we will turn it over to my colleagues for a Q and A session.
Mr. Stursberg, you have the floor, sir.
[Translation]
Richard Stursberg, Chief Executive Officer, Aljess, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee; it’s an honour. I’ll speak almost exclusively in English, but if you have any questions for me in French, I’ll be very happy to answer them.
[English]
By way of background, I have spent most of my life working in media. During the Mulroney government, I was Assistant Deputy Minister for Culture and Broadcasting. Later, I was head of the Canadian Cable Television Association; chair of the Canadian Television Fund, now the Canadian Media Fund. I was the CEO of Cancom-Star Choice, the direct-to-home satellite television provider; executive director of Telefilm Canada, the government’s film financing corporation; and head of English services at the CBC. I am presently co-chair of Hollywood Suite, a Canadian television service.
I understand that I have been invited here because of an open letter that I wrote to Marie-Philippe Bouchard, the new president of the CBC, providing some thoughts on how she might want to approach her job. It focuses on the challenges facing English television and the problems of news. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have about the letter.
Before doing so, I would like to make two broad points about the CBC.
First, it’s important to understand the current media environment. The emergence of the digital giants — Google, Facebook and the others — dramatically shifted the Canadian advertising markets. In the past, newspapers and television were the most important recipients of ad revenue. Over the last 10 to 12 years, that revenue has increasingly flowed south to Silicon Valley. The result has been a financial crisis for the newspapers. Dozens and dozens of community and local papers have failed, and the remaining big city dailies are emaciated versions of their prior selves.
The loss of advertising revenue has also become a crisis for the conventional private broadcasters — CTV and Global — who are wholly dependent on ads. Their situation has been compounded by competition from the vastly rich unregulated streamers — Netflix, Apple, Amazon and company.
CTV and Global have been losing money for many years, forcing them to cut back their news shows aggressively. In Canada, we are increasingly living in a news desert that is filled with disinformation from TikTok, Facebook and all the other social media.
For a while, CTV and Global were cushioned by being members of big groups that owned many specialty channels financed by cable fees. Global sat within Corus and CTV within Bell Media. Now, however, cable is dying and with it the fees that supported these groups. In 2021, Corus was trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange at $5.86; last week it was at 11 cents. It is basically insolvent. Three weeks ago, Bell Media wrote down its assets by $2.1 billion. It is currently milking down its channels, cutting costs and laying off staff.
In five years’ time, maybe sooner, I will be surprised if there are any private broadcasters still working in English Canada.
I say all this because it is essential to understand that when we talk about the future of the CBC, we have to understand it in the context of Canadian media more generally. It may soon be the only Canadian broadcaster still standing. If we want Canadian news, whether local, national or international, there may be almost no other places to go. The same can be said of Canadian drama, comedy, documentaries, public affairs and kids’ shows.
For those of you who are interested, all of these problems are discussed in some detail in my book The Tangled Garden: A Canadian Cultural Manifesto for the Digital Age.
Second, successive governments have failed the CBC, not just in terms of financing but, more importantly, in terms of direction. No government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has ever told the CBC what to do or how to focus its efforts. The Broadcasting Act is no help, since it tells the CBC to be everything for everyone. There have been endless studies but never any conclusions about what the CBC should be.
In Britain, the BBC is subject to a Royal Charter that defines its role over 10 years and the financing to discharge it. It is a contract negotiated between the government and the BBC to provide it with clear direction and stable funding. At the end of the seventh year of the 10-year contract, a process begins to define the next Royal Charter. It involves submissions by interested parties and public hearings. On the basis of these, the government and the BBC agree the next 10 years.
In Canada, the CBC needs something similar. Ideally, all the major parties in the House of Commons would agree on the overall role of the corporation and set its budget accordingly. This would stabilize its finances and, more importantly, depoliticize its operations.
As the private broadcasters collapse and there are no longer any alternatives, it becomes more important than ever that there be agreement on what the public broadcaster should do and how to finance it.
Thank you for your kind attention.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Kim Trynacity, journalism instructor, MacEwan University, as an individual: Thank you very much. I was going to set my timer to avoid running over time.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you here today. As indicated, I am a long-time former political reporter from CBC. I started way off in private broadcasting at a time when we had ashtrays on our desks next to the rotary-dial telephones and typewriters.
I’ve been through this industry. I started off as a sports announcer, sports reporter, probably one of the first females in Canada to do that way back in the 1980s. I have done documentaries, news reporting and I have worked up north and across the Prairies, and I even had stints here on Parliament Hill. I’ve been in broadcasting a long time.
I have always been a strong proponent of public broadcasting. I see it as a lynchpin to democracy. But I’m deeply worried about the fragmented media landscape that all your witnesses this morning talked about and that Richard referenced. I’m deeply worried about not only that, but also the political interests to demolish CBC taking with it Radio-Canada in the process as well.
I’m currently teaching journalism at MacEwan University and my students are engaged, curious and interested. They get all their information and their news from TikTok and Instagram, and have very little knowledge of any other outside media, including CBC/Radio-Canada.
There was a reference, Mr. Chair, you made about newspapers before the session began. My students know what newspapers are, but they don’t even know how to read a newspaper. They can read the words. In fact, I devoted part of my class recently to taking apart a weekend section of The Globe and Mail saying, “This is the pursuit section. Here you’ll find information about business.” They were astounded to see there were so many opinions in a newspaper.
Going back to my prepared remarks, there are a lot of things about CBC that I do support, but I think over the years, it’s clear to say that they have lost their way in a lot of different areas. It’s not as closely aligned to the community as it once was. There are a number of different reasons for that. It became too big in one area, too small in the others.
The previous panellists talked about a disconnect between Montreal and the regions. I think in the regions on the English side, there is a disconnect between Toronto and the rest of the world as we see it. Being based in Edmonton for many years as I have been, it would not be uncommon for someone from Toronto to pick up the phone and ask us in Edmonton to go out and grab a shot this afternoon of something in Grande Prairie or Fort McMurray, which on a good day might be an eight-hour drive, something like that. There is a lack of awareness.
There are some exceptions. When I say they are not a part of the communities they once were, every holiday season, CBC locations undertake major fundraising campaigns for organizations such as the Edmonton’s Food Bank and other places, raising millions of dollars from the community for worthwhile causes.
In times of crisis, that’s when the public does turn to CBC in very large numbers. An example would be the burning of Jasper in Jasper National Park this summer, and, of course, the massive evacuation of Yellowknife the summer before from wildfires, and flooding — not in Yellowknife but other places across Canada. They turn to CBC where journalists are on the air day and night on all platforms.
When I joined the CBC, I was exclusively doing television, but my job over the years morphed into television, radio, web, podcasting and everything else in between. If viewers, readers and listeners are frustrated by what they see as a repetition of content, it’s because everything has been watered down. One reporter, one story now files for numerous different platforms. There is a lot of repetition on the airwaves and on the website. That’s because there are only so many people to go around to do one story.
Back to the public disconnect I was talking about, way back when, production was moved from the regions to Toronto. There once was a time when we had big shows coming out of Edmonton or Winnipeg, whether it be a high school game show — “Reach for the Top” was really popular. I’m going way back. People really watched it. It was part of the community.
Talk shows, political panels, it was all consolidated in Toronto. When you lost that ability to reflect local production, you lost another connection with the community.
Here is a really small way that they lost connection — if you go to any location of CBC, now you’re greeted by a security guard ,not a receptionist. I know we need security guards, but come on, put the public back into public broadcasting. Public broadcasting is a public service.
Another thing that is really causing a disconnect is the payment of bonuses to managers and non-unionized staff. I know I’m out of time, but that’s a critical issue. Nothing ticks the staff off more than to see something like that. Talk about disconnecting with the public, it’s a public service, not as a way to get rich. I know my five minutes are up. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll have ample opportunity to explore all of that.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our two witnesses. You each mentioned TikTok. I peeked at my LinkedIn this morning. I see that the CBC is bragging with great glee that they have now reached 1 million subscribers on TikTok. To me, just seeing that encapsulated so much that has gone wrong, not just with the CBC, but with journalism in general, where media both print and broadcast assumed that platforms like Facebook, X, or Twitter as it was, would be there to help them connect with readers and listeners and viewers.
I’m wondering what you think about the idea that CBC is still attempting to chase younger viewers by adopting a platform like TikTok, which is an extremely problematic platform for all kinds of national security reasons. What do you think of that as a measure of the nature of the problem that we face? Mr. Stursberg, I’ll ask you that first and then Ms. Trynacity.
Mr. Stursberg: The problem is not unique to TikTok. I think the problem is also being on social media platforms. The difficulty is that we know that the sources of corrosive disinformation and hate speech are largely social media platforms. My concern is that when you are on those platforms, it becomes difficult to distinguish what is true and false, and when you swim in polluted rivers, inevitably you get dirty yourself.
I have written about this at some length and also suggested in the letter to Ms. Bouchard I think it might be a good idea to create a national social media platform for news. The general notion would be that anybody, whether it’s the CBC, the National Post or The Globe and Mail, anybody prepared to respect traditional journalistic standards, which are easy enough to monitor, can be on the platform. Then you would monetize the platform on a want basis of whatever is used off the platform. The promise in the platform would be that if you come to this platform, things will be, to the best of human ability, true and fair.
If we don’t find a way through this crisis with respect to disinformation, hate speech and falsehood — which is only going to get worse — then we will find ourselves in a crisis not just of democracy, but dare I say a crisis of reality.
Senator Simons: Yes. In full disclosure, Ms. Trynacity and I worked together as colleagues and competitors for many years.
Ms. Trynacity: At the Alberta Legislature, just down the hall. I think a lot of those offices are empty unfortunately. That speaks to the media reality we’re in now.
I think CBC/Radio-Canada has to keep chasing younger viewers, listeners and watchers, but how do they do it? I think Richard’s idea is a good one. I agree that it is a crisis. What we have talked about in my class, we did a whole session the other day on trust, the lack of trust for everyone and everything from political leaders to journalists to you name it, authority figures. And without trust, there is no engagement. How do you build that trust?
Maybe you go back to basics. Maybe you instill in people the need to verify. That means that everyone has to take much more responsibility, but that’s difficult. Everything is becoming more complicated. Download an app for this and an app for that. Just walk through the door and get it done.
It’s putting more responsibility on the viewers, the listeners and the public, but CBC does have to go where the viewers and listeners and watchers are; the young people are on social media. If they put forward a platform of strong, verifiable information, hopefully that message could get through at some point. But it is being crowded by all the non-information, the misinformation, the disinformation, the “deepfakes” and everything. I think they have to keep on going.
Senator Simons: I worked for years, as Ms. Trynacity will know, for the Edmonton Journal for Postmedia, and I used to liken it to being on a life raft where you are taking the logs off the life raft to light a fire to keep yourself warm and to send up flares. Eventually, there will be no logs left on the life raft and you will sink.
I went through this at the journal, seeing them cut and cut local news, replacing it with wire copy and stuff from the Postmedia Network until no one in Edmonton saw much of their own community reflected back to them in the pages of their own paper, and subscriptions declined.
I’ve watched the CBC — as a former CBC employee and then as a CBC consumer — seemingly doing the same thing, cutting and cutting and cutting local production both in news and features until people didn’t feed a local connection to the CBC.
Mr. Stursberg, I wanted to start with you for that question because you were in charge of English programming for some time. Is there a way, do you think, to put the local back in, to build trust of audiences back in local communities?
Mr. Stursberg: The news that matters to people most is local news. It matters more than national news, and it matters more than international news. The table stakes for local news are personal security. It means weather, crime, fires, et cetera? Can you tell me that I’m safe? I need to know that.
Senator Simons: Is school safe for my kids?
Mr. Stursberg: Is school safe more my kids? Exactly. That’s what we want to know.
Now, the crisis of news is a crisis more deeply of local news even than it is of national news in Canada. There is no doubt that across dozens and dozens of communities, they’ve lost not just their community papers, they’ve lost their local papers, many of which have been in place since the 19th century. I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
There are ways, within the existing budget of the CBC, to probably approach the local news problem a little bit differently from the way they have. There are three forms of local news. One is local radio, one is local online and one is local television. We know that local television news is far and away the most expensive of all of these.
It may be that it would be wise to wind up the local television news and reorient the resources back into local radio and local online, but with local radio you have this terrific bullhorn. You have to push aggressively from local radio to the local websites so that people know they’re there. That doesn’t happen right now in terms of the CBC. It simply doesn’t happen.
The local websites have to be local websites to reflect what it is that people need from local news, which is, fundamentally, security questions as well as everything else that’s going on locally.
But more than that, nothing is going to happen unless there is actually more money. It’s always a question of money. As you know, if you were to look at the split between English and French networks, on a per capita basis and how much money the government puts in, the English network is the second-worst financed public broadcaster in the world. The French network is one of the best financed, almost at the same level as the BBC.
Now if we want to be able to deal with this problem, there is no doubt that more money is going to have to be put into the corporation.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Actually, I was going to pick up on the theme that you’ve just started. Instead of hearing about more revenues, in fact, we’re hearing about just the opposite. There are lots of calls for CBC to give up advertising. I’d like both of your opinions on that.
Of course, when it comes to the public purse, we can all see down the road and what may well happen, which may be the defunding of CBC or CBC English network. That is on the horizon.
First, Mr. Stursberg, if the scenario that is unfolding is not more revenue as you just called for but, in fact, the opposite, what do you think the priorities of CBC, especially CBC English, should be? Should it be continuing with culture and entertainment? Should it be no news and public affairs at any level? Should it be local regional programming? What should it do?
I have another question after that.
Mr. Stursberg: My view would be that these are all equally important matters, but again you have to put this in the context of what’s happening to the English media more generally. If CBC English television is defunded in the current context, it will be defunded at a time when Global and CTV and the rest of the specialty channels in English are in a state of utter collapse.
It seems to me it’s a kind of funny thing because people say “Well, of course, it’s always the private broadcasters,” but that’s actually untrue. There are no more private broadcasters, and there will be no more private broadcasters in the sense that we’ve known them for the last 50 years. We have to see the CBC in this context.
Do we think it’s important for there to be local news? Of course. Do we think it’s important for there to be national news? Of course. Do we think that there should be international news that makes sense of what’s going on around the world for Canadians? Of course. Do we think it’s important to have Canadian drama, Canadian kids’ shows, Canadian comedy, Canadian documentaries, Canadian public affairs shows? Of course.
Now, you have to decide which of these are you going to choose? I’m not sure that it’s even wise to put the proposition that way. It’s like saying, “Okay, let’s cut the baby in two. Which one do you want? You want the head or do you want the legs?”
This is an English-Canadian cultural crisis, not a French-Canadian cultural crisis yet. This is an English-Canadian cultural crisis, and if we are not very careful, we’re going to find ourselves in a circumstance where we have no Canadian drama, no Canadian comedy, no Canadian documentaries.
We have to be careful when we think about defunding the CBC. It would be exceptionally unwise.
Senator Dasko: It’s difficult for me to put it in other terms because that’s the way I see the environment unfolding. You suggested that government should each try to get more input but also provide more direction. How do we find a consensus about this, because opinions about the CBC are quite diverse as to what it should do?
Mr. Stursberg: They are diverse, but my impression is that most of the controversy surrounding the CBC over the last 40 years or so has really been around the news, and there has been hard feelings on the part of both the Liberals and the Conservatives that somehow the news was unfair to them.
[Translation]
You’ll no doubt recall that the governments of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chrétien both said that Radio-Canada was indeed a nest of separatists.
[English]
Now, in the case of the Conservative governments, whether it’s the Harper government, they’ve had considerable concern about the fact that the CBC has been too left wing.
There are ways of resolving these matters. I’ll tell you a little story, because, for me, it’s a fascinating story.
I was very concerned when I was there to make sure that the news was, in fact, accurate and fair. I thought the way to do it — this was during the Harper government — was to commission a panel of international experts to do a content analysis of the CBC’s journalism across radio, online, TV, et cetera, and to see the extent to which it was canted one way or another with respect to favouring Conservative views versus favouring Liberal views.
We did this huge study. As far as I know, this is the only time this kind of a study was done. At the time, I had actually gone down to see Jim Flaherty, who was then the Minister of Finance and who I knew was particularly preoccupied with this problem, and said, “Look, this is what we’re going to do, and this is how it’s going to work, and these people are all independent people.” Some of them were from Canada, but some of them some were, in fact, international. You remember them. You remember the study.
The results of the study were curious in a way. What we discovered was that to the extent that there was any cant to the news coverage, it was canted very slightly to the Conservatives.
Now, this study hasn’t been done again for a long time. I was very worried at that time that the Liberals were going to take this as a stick with which to beat us.
I said, “Fine. Here is what we’re going to do. We’ll put the study results online, and we’ll put all the underlying data from the study online, so if anyone wants to reanalyze the data, they can do so and ensure it was analyzed properly.” It would be 2008 or 2009, thereabouts. In any event, it was not that long ago.
The reaction was curious. I said we would put out a press release. I thought this would be the subject considerable controversy, and everybody would want to know, and people will be running around with their hair on fire. The truth of the matter is that absolutely nothing happened.
I thought to myself that there it was only one of two things. Either this is not a serious conversation, or the results were so balanced in terms of the CBC’s coverage that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals thought, “What are we going to make of this?”
There is no reason why this kind of study can’t be done systematically year in, year out, to ensure — and it should be the case — that the CBC’s coverage is fair, and it should be accurate.
I think that the way that we weave our way through this problem of disagreements about the CBC is really by focusing on making sure that the news is monitored in a way, independently, to show that it is fair, that it is accurate. If it’s not, then management can take initiatives to prove it.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: All of that is fascinating.
I have a more specific question. You emphasized the differences in the percentage of funding between Radio-Canada and the CBC, which is about 44% for Radio-Canada. My question isn’t so much about the exact figure, but about the fact that this figure must be contextualized, to the extent that Radio-Canada must serve not only Quebec’s francophone population, but many small minorities in very small numbers everywhere. To say that we’re very favoured in terms of funding seems questionable, to say the least. Since I worked for a long time at Radio-Canada and even abroad with the CBC, I can tell you that budgets for international coverage are far from favouring Radio-Canada. In my opinion, those figures must be taken with a grain of salt.
Mr. Stursberg: If we compare the figures, we must also take the context into account. The context for English services is more difficult, in that the level of competition in the English-speaking markets is almost unimaginable for Quebec. We have all the American networks here in English Canada and the major streaming services, such as Netflix, Apple and the others, that operate almost exclusively in English.
The challenge for CBC is to deliver the goods in an incredibly difficult context, more difficult than for Radio-Canada in Quebec. In that sense, what I’m proposing isn’t to cut CBC/Radio-Canada—it’s not a good idea and it’s almost impossible politically—but to put the same amount of money on the English side. Currently, the English service receives $33 or $34 per year per capita. On the francophone side, it’s $70. If we bring the anglophone side up to the same funding level as the francophone side, then we’ll have something that will meet the major challenges we talked about this morning.
[English]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We may disagree on this, but this is not a problem. I don’t think you can compare dollar to dollar, because we have to serve a very dispersed, very small French minority because of our laws, because of the Official Languages Act, because of the mandate. But I want to hear you on another matter, because we could discuss that all day.
[Translation]
Mr. Stursberg: There are remote areas in English as well. We have regions across Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, but you have a larger population in general. We are a minority, we are OLMCs. You said that the government never told the CBC what to do. You’re right. I’ve reviewed the mandates; they’re very broad, and they cover everything at the same time. That said, remember the debate on the fact that the CBC’s mandate was to strengthen Canadian unity. We want freedom of expression. However, in a country where we want a free crown corporation, isn’t it dangerous to have a mandate that’s too specific? You said that we had to tell Radio-Canada what to do. If we tell it what to do, we’ll get closer to what we call state television.
Mr. Stursberg: Indeed, if we look at what they did with respect to the BBC, there’s no problem.
I’d like to come back to the proposal to promote Canadian unity that was in the former Broadcasting Act. I was there when Marcel Masse was minister; I was his deputy minister. We discussed this problem at length. As you know, Mr. Masse wasn’t entirely comfortable with the idea that one of CBC’s roles is to promote Canadian unity. We changed the law to say that it had to reflect the reality of Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There you go.
Mr. Stursberg: I was absolutely in favour of this change, in that the CBC needs a mandate that will retain its freedom of expression. If we insist on promoting Canadian unity, then we’re saying that we support a certain point of view as far as the country is concerned. That isn’t a very good idea. CBC/Radio-Canada must remain neutral on those issues.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course. But what would you keep from the mandate? You say the mandate was never specific enough. How strong does the mandate have to be for Radio-Canada to get close to it? Should a percentage of the budget be allocated to local news? Should we have mandates as specific as that?
Mr. Stursberg: In the United Kingdom, they determined that the BBC would have four major channels and that each channel would have a specific mandate, including a news service. All of that is determined.
Indeed, at that point, the BBC begins a conversation with the government to decide on the funding needed to achieve those objectives. In that sense, if it’s possible to imagine, we could have a contract; I’m not saying it would be a contract with the government as such, but a contract between the House of Commons and the parties, including the opposition parties, and the CBC. You could say, “Here’s what you need to do.” It’s limited, and it’s not just for everybody. Then you can imagine negotiations between the CBC and the government or a committee of the House, let’s say, to decide how much money is needed to fund it. After that, a contract is signed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ve taken enough time. Thank you for your excellent French, which you’ve managed to maintain.
Mr. Stursberg: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you both for being here. This is a great conversation.
You’ve talked about news deserts that are growing, which leaves more space for disinformation. You’re suggesting — and I think you both agree — that the private sector broadcasters are in trouble and could be gone within a few years.
At the same time, the viewer numbers for CBC are reducing sharply, as for others. I would see that, to some extent, the CBC does go to where the viewers are, to use the term you’ve used, and that a lot of CBC/Radio-Canada content is what you see on social media in various ways, and you can tell me if you agree with that.
The idea of a news media platform is interesting. We’ve talked about that, and whether it would be paid for or not is an issue, but I’d like you to comment on a couple of things. One is, of course, local. As I understand it, local broadcasting has been cut continuously over the last few years. That’s what we’ve heard. I’d like to hear your views on that.
The other major challenge it’s facing is the issue of bias. I would suggest to you that conservative-minded Canadians, not just the political party but people who I find are moderate to libertarian, all believe that the CBC is biased against it and that — and here I’m extrapolating. Maybe it’s their view that we’re better off without the CBC and nothing else than having the CBC. Maybe you can comment on that, and if you can keep touching on local in that context.
Ms. Trynacity: Absolutely. Thank you for your question. CBC television locally has been bled dry over the years. That’s not a reflection of the people who try to put on local shows at six o’clock and late night every night. They do what they can to mount something, and that means curating content from anywhere they can find it from across the country, running stories that have been on “The National” a few minutes earlier or a week ago, that kind of thing. It has been very difficult for them to maintain a presence.
It’s very clear that local is very much needed, especially in the areas of municipal politics. As we know, cities’ budgets are huge, really massive. These are issues, as Mr. Stursberg was talking about, that are very close to home, very close to the people, whether it be your garbage collection or your security, things like that. I think the CBC really got out of municipal reporting. It’s very important that they get back into it and get closer to the people where the decisions are made.
You talked about the bias and the mistrust. I think there needs to be even more transparency. It’s kind of ironic that in this day where we can digitize everything, there is still a need for more transparency. How are these decisions made? How do you decide which new story to put up? What goes first? What goes second? Invite the public in.
The other day, my students were talking about a lack of connection in the context of the discussion about trust, and they were talking about how there isn’t that personal connection with people who deliver the news anymore. Way back when, there was that connection to your local anchor and whoever it might have been at the time. They were kind of D-list celebrities. Right now, if you read something online, who is it written by? They might have a photo at the end of their story, they might not.
If you invite more of a personal connection to the people, the authors, those who present the news, then you are opening up the gate where they could be subjected to harassment, taunting, everything that we’ve seen a huge increase in. It’s tough for journalists. It’s tough for presenters. Not every one of them, but a lot of them. If they publish a story that a certain group doesn’t like, then there is a real onslaught, and that has an impact. When I was union leader during the pandemic, I saw the mental health needs and requirements surge. It was really sad, and now this is being addressed.
The point is, if you want to bring people in and create a closer connection, how do you do that without exposing people to all the elements where they could find themselves the subject of harassment, such as harassment and trauma? I think the local need is greater now than it ever has been. With municipal politics, small and large — not so much the larger cities but smaller centres — there’s no oversight. If there is no local paper and local columnist who would sit there week after week if you had a weekly newspaper; those resources have dried up too. You don’t know until after the fact that a development has been approved and your tax dollars or your property taxes are going up. There is a huge need, and it’s local.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
The Chair: Your time has elapsed.
Senator Clement: I’m going to be brief, if you want to go ahead, Senator Cardozo.
The Chair: Senator Clement is ceding her time.
Senator Cardozo: I will ask Mr. Stursberg the same question.
Mr. Stursberg: I have two quick points. One is that Ms. Trynacity is absolutely right. All the studies show that when local news resources are withdrawn from a community, two things happen. One, local participation in municipal elections falls, and number two, local corruption increases.
With respect to your broader question about bias, when I was talking to the senator in French earlier, I think that the right way to do it is to have an independent panel of experts established who would review CBC’s news and Radio-Canada’s news annually to be able to determine if it is fair or biased or not, and then to make all the materials public, including the underlying data, just the way we did it 10 years ago.
That then also creates the materials for having a coherent debate about whether it’s fair or not. Right now, too much is anecdotal. There is no systematic look at it, so I think having a systematic look at it would dramatically improve the ability of the CBC to be better and also reassure people that they were not being unfairly treated.
Senator Cardozo: Don’t we have programs such as “Face Off” — this is going back a while — with Claire Hoy and Judy Rebick, who would each invite a guest and they would have a set about the issues of the day?
Mr. Stursberg: Yes, sure. Those are great programs. It was very interesting. At one point, I tried to get a bunch more right‑wingers into the CBC because I was concerned that it was actually too left wing. People would say, “Why would I go and join that communist network?” I’d say, “Well, if you won’t join, then how on earth are we going to create better balance?”
I think those kinds of programs are great, where you actually ventilate the views and allow people to have an opportunity to exchange, for sure.
Senator Cardozo: If entertainment is not being watched, as much as we would love to keep comedy and drama, should we let it go?
Mr. Stursberg: No. If you look at what people actually consume on television, what they consume overwhelmingly is comedy and drama. Comedy and drama is —
Senator Cardozo: But it’s not necessarily Canadian.
Mr. Stursberg: No, that’s exactly the problem. You’re exactly right. If you want to have a culture, how you have a culture without having drama and comedy is completely beyond me.
The Chair: I hate to interrupt, but Senator Clement, they’re eating up a lot of your time, so you have a couple of minutes left. Generosity doesn’t always pay.
Senator Clement: I’m well aware. Such smart witnesses. Thank you.
Ms. Trynacity, to your point about city budgets, I used to be the Mayor of Cornwall. The city budget for Cornwall, which is a city of 48,000 people, is over $200 million. That is more than the budget of the Senate of Canada. These budgets are huge. They merit much more coverage, so your point is right. I’m glad you’re speaking to students about trust.
I wanted to come back to this study that you talked about, Mr. Stursberg, that you did in 2008 or 2009. What was the cost of that?
Mr. Stursberg: I can’t remember. What we did was basically to get five or six international experts. A couple of them were Canadian, and one was from Holland, but I have forgotten the details.
Senator Clement: It’s not a prohibitive cost, is it?
Mr. Stursberg: No. At the end of the day, even if you spend $300,000 on this —
Senator Clement: Every few years.
Mr. Stursberg: Well, I would do it annually, actually. It’s trivial in comparison to the amount of money you’re spending on the news. It’s trivial in comparison to the centrality of people’s trust with respect to what they are hearing. So, I don’t think the budgetary issue is an issue. The underlying issue is to spend the money to guarantee that people can actually know that the CBC news and journalism are fair.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses for coming and sharing their knowledge and time. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)