Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I know your particular interest, and you have spoken to the fact that it is what you've presented here. I think you can be very helpful to us, because I think we have common cause. I know how important Radio-Canada and other francophone expressions have been across the country.

I come from New Brunswick, where this is very important.

I think your experience in recognizing how important it is in the context of minorities within Canada and various parts of the country is an experience that Canadians in the continent have, being overwhelmed in the same way with American cultural and values expression. Francophones, Acadiens in New Brunswick, would have the experience of being overwhelmed with anglophone influence, and it is a very difficult balance to find.

You were here for the last two witnesses. To some extent I'm struggling with an instinct to try to isolate ourselves by restricting what's incoming. I don't know the level of possibility of restricting it.

I've got two kids, 20 and 22, whose world is just completely different from mine in the context of inputs. I don't know if it is trying to bail out the boat with a teaspoon. The reality is that maybe what we really have to do, and I think that's been the experience, is to use your experiences in analogy for ours. I think that's been the experience. It has not been that we're resisting as much as we're building alternative opportunities.

Because we have new technology, perhaps we can embrace that new technology to build alternatives, which is not to say that I find some of the stuff I see any more deplorable than Mr. Angus does in terms of some of this programming. I just don't know that...what we really need to focus on, in addition to restrictions, as much as you can restrict it, is good solid alternatives, so that Canadians can see expression. The former witnesses talked about Canadian values in the context of all the lists they presented in their presentation, but in reality that isn't just a matter of measuring what's coming at us in the context of those things, but offering alternative content that contains those values.

Am I on the right track in this?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

The word "protectionism" has a certain negative connotation in this regard. In my opinion, Canadian society must above all refer to a principle which is more and more present, that of cultural diversity, following the signature of the convention.

I think that from an international standpoint, we recognize that every country must have the means to have artistic and cultural production reflect its specific nature. It must also have the means to protect that uniqueness. There are societies that are stronger than others, and we have to prevent this homogenization of everything world-wide rather than promoting diversity. Instead, we should engage in positive discrimination. We have to make choices about the values of our own country.

In my opinion, we have to establish foundations with regard to regulation. Some will say that this is protectionism; I would qualify it as positive discrimination in order to protect this diversity and to avoid promoting homogenization. From that starting point, we can open up to the world to offer choices to our citizens so that they can be informed of what's going on in the world.

I think this is regulation that must be based on values. In my opinion, the Broadcasting Act in Canada already expresses that very well. On that basis, we could open up to the world. Personally, I think that we are already very open to the United States. It is not necessary to be even more open than we already are. As a matter of fact, I think that we should be a bit more open to countries other than the United States, all the while protecting who we are, without forgetting that we have challenges too, as I mentioned earlier. However, Radio-Canada was forced to play a role as a commercial television service rather than a public broadcaster. I believe that that has forced Radio-Canada to close in on Montreal. We must therefore give it the means to open up to the entire Canadian francophone community.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

This is a powerful argument. This is a powerful argument, I think, for resources, and I think we agree on that point. A lot of the success of the renaissance among Acadians in my part of the country over the last 30 or 40 years has to do with duality in the education system, and so on.

I'd like you to respond to questions about crossover between Radio-Canada and CBC. When does it become unhealthy to do that kind of crossover, or have we matured beyond that?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

Are you talking about promoting greater cooperation between the CBC and Radio-Canada? Is that the crossover?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Yes.

[Pierre Bourbeau]

I would tell you that it would certainly be to the advantage of Radio-Canada to do so. I lived in Alberta for 4 years and in the Yukon for 12, and these are two places where I saw very good cooperation between the CBC and Radio-Canada. In the North, among others, when I was Director of the Association franco-yukonnaise, in the case of CBC North and Radio-Canada, we fought to obtain a bilingual journalist, quite simply, who could serve both communities very well. In that manner, we managed to have a win/win situation. Earlier, in Alberta, when Mr. Denis Lord was the Director, there was a great deal of cooperation between the CBC and Radio-Canada, among other things for capturing images or things like that. In my opinion, that was very beneficial.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois is next.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning sir, madam.

In your brief, you state that the Société Radio-Canada has played a crucial role in building our Canadian identity. Can you tell us how it played that role?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

It is because of the regional services. What differentiates Radio-Canada from other networks are these regional services. When you look at what is going on in the provinces, the regions, the Atlantic and in Ontario, it is very difficult to point to strong trends, but francophone and Acadian communities are generally satisfied. At least we are satisfied with the work done by Radio-Canada. At the regional level, Radio-Canada bears witness and reflects the francophone reality. People see themselves on television and hear their voices on the radio. I think the work being done with the radio is very much appreciated, because it is a medium which is very inexpensive and because morning, noon and late afternoon shows, or prime time shows, focus on local and regional issues. I think people appreciate this a great deal.

When it comes to television, there is one issue. We are only covered for 30 minutes per day, in the news, and during this half hour, only 2 minutes are spent covering the arts and culture. So there is some discontent in that we feel it is not enough. The bases are covered, but it is not enough. Why not? Because of limited means. It is expensive to maintain such regional infrastructure, but then again, it is a matter of values. If you want to reflect the regions, for people to relate and for television to bear witness, you have to provide the means for it to do so and do it well. In the Atlantic region, for instance, we find that a television show like Brio is a great idea, but this program does not have the means to fully meet its mandate.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

You're touching on—

[Pierre Bourbeau]

We can say that the bases are covered, but we must now do more, at the regional level.

The weakest link is at the national level. As I've stated, people now see Radio-Canada as being almost Radio-Montreal. Radio-Canada needs to pull away from its Montreal central clique, it needs to get rid of the perception that the best in arts and culture can only be found in Montreal, within a 10-kilometre radius from CBC's head office. They have to look beyond and see what is going on elsewhere in Canada.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I do not want to be mean, but committee members have gone across the country; we went to Yellowknife, Vancouver, etc. Almost all francophone groups expressed disappointment. They cannot criticize the CBC, the fact that they are not getting enough services from the Corporation, because it is all that they've got. That said, they all said they were disappointed with Radio-Canada's local and regional coverage in their communities, specifically in Yellowknife where Radio-Canada is using a francophone group's antenna to offer its broadcasts, without spending a single penny.

You say that the CBC needs to have the means to operate, yet that the Corporation should forget about commercial considerations.

Do you think there are alternatives available to deal with the revenue shortfall the CBC would experience if it set aside commercial considerations?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

This is why in our brief we mentioned the idea of a royalty, which exists in France, for instance. In other words, it is a type of tax worth 500 or 1,200 francs or euros per household, to fund public television. There are other countries using this type of system. That is why we suggest this as a possible solution. Obviously, when you start considering new taxes, you generally get a rather negative reaction. But we believe it is a fundamental way of maintaining strong public television, it is a possible alternative.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

But Canadians are already paying a certain amount of money in taxes, up to $1 billion, to fund the CBC. You would consider adding another tax?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

That is a possible solution. If this were to happen, we would be looking for people to buy into public television, to give people a sense of responsibility for public television. Conversely, public television will feel beholden to Canadians, more so than it would having to focus on commercial interests.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I do not have much time, but perhaps, during the next round, we could discuss governance.

[Pierre Bourbeau]

Very well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here with us today. Last week, we had a meeting with Franco-Manitoban organizations, and I think next week we will be meeting with the ACFO from Timmins. Their message is quite similar to yours. We have heard that the SRC does a good job of promoting Quebec culture, but that it is not the voice of francophones in other provinces of Canada, nor does it reflect their experience.

Do you have a concrete recommendation to make in order to improve this situation?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

Yes. This is a process which I think we began over one year ago. We met with CRTC representatives in order to see what type of consultative mechanism the CRTC could use to meet its obligations under sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. One recommendation was for a position to be created specifically to deal with sections 41 and 42, and for the CRTC to gain a sense of responsibility, internally.

So far, we have learned that the person who is responsible for Canadian francophone issues at the CRTC was also responsible for a dozen or so other issues, francophone issues being one of many. Moreover, because of a rotation, the file gets transferred from one person to the next on a regular basis. That is why we recommended the creation of a core position for someone to deal exclusively with section 41 and section 42 related-matters. We also recommended setting up a consultative process between the CRTC and Canadian francophones.

That was a long time ago. Unfortunately, I have not seen a written report. You have taken me somewhat by surprise this morning. I do not have up-to-date information, but I believe a specific position was created to deal with sections 41 and 42 issues. With respect to consultation, I think that is something that is being set up.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

At the moment in Northern Ontario, francophone culture is quite vibrant. A number of organizations, including the ACFO, support the development of artists, festivals, schools and the public radio. With respect to television however there is a lack of resources. This is a serious problem in my region. The role of francophone television is quite limited. I also think there is a lack of resources for regional production.

Do you have recommendations to address this situation and support the development of francophone programming in the North and the West?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

Like the APFTQ, we believe that there must be increased funding for the Canadian Television Fund. The work that has been accomplished in collaboration with the APFC has been a success, but more must be done. As you know, from the Canadian Television Fund $200 million go to anglophone production and $100 million to francophone production. Under the contribution agreement between Heritage Canada and the Canadian Television Fund, 10% of the $100 million set aside to francophone production must be dedicated to Franco-Canadian production. To our mind, this is a beginning, but the amount should certainly be increased to 15%. Indeed, for a national envelope targeted specifically to the francophonie, one should consider that francophones represent 15% of the population in Canada. Therefore, 15% of the national envelope should be set aside for the Canadian francophonie.

What we are talking about, then, is increased funding for the Canadian Television Fund and an increase from 10% to 15% for Franco-Canadian production. I feel that Louis Paquin, from Winnipeg, has already described in detail the kind of limits the 10% proportion poses to producers. I would also say that the figure restricts possibilities of co-production between Franco-Canadians and other partners. Yet, co-production is one way to increase the number of productions. Rather than relying on one single source of funding, there would be several.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Go ahead, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to something Madame Bourgeois raised earlier, the whole issue of funding. One of the suggestions you made was that perhaps we could use royalties in order to provide additional funding to the CBC, which is essentially just more taxation, government money, to do that.

There are other funding models that could be used. Earlier we heard witnesses suggest that private broadcasters should no longer receive any public money; however, the trade-off would be that the private broadcasters would receive the benefit of relaxed Canadian content regulations. Another suggestion was that there is a role for private broadcasters in strengthening the CBC, and in ensuring there's a robust public broadcaster in Canada.

First of all, are you supportive of additional creative ways of finding funding to ensure that the CBC has a long-term future? Second, coould we have your comments on some of the proposals other witnesses have made as to getting the private broadcasters out of the public funding business and also perhaps contributing to a public broadcaster?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

I will try to answer your question in two ways.

Firstly, one basic principle is that a public television broadcaster such as SRC/CBC, should receive greater government financial support if we want it to fulfil its role as public television. If this were done, the broadcaster would be significantly less reliant on advertising income. This would also have a beneficial effect: since there would be competition to receive advertising income, private television would have more leeway. In our opinion, SRC/CBC has all the resources necessary, and the freedom to develop the specific programming we are looking for. Funding is at the heart of the issue.

As regards the means to reach that goal, should public funds be increased? Should we consider what other countries are doing with respect to royalties? Should we combine the two systems? That is an entirely different debate, but the goal is to give better tools to the public broadcaster.

Secondly, in order to promote Canadian content, it is very good that private television broadcasters continue to have access to funds such as the Canadian Television Fund. This allows for more diversified Canadian content.