Canadian Heritage Committee on May 25th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Good morning. Welcome to the 64th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

I know I've always introduced everyone else, but this morning I will say that I am Gary Schellenberger. I am chair of the standing committee, and I am very pleased to be here in Montreal. This morning I am going to try to read French.

This morning we are hearing from the Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, the Fédération nationale des communications and the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada.

Welcome.

We will go in order. Could we have our first presenters, please?

Thank you.

[Jacqueline Turgeon, President, Syndicat de Radio-Canada, section locale, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Jacqueline Turgeon, and I am President of the Syndicat des employés de bureau de Radio-Canada, of the Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique. With me is Michel Bibeault, Union Advisor and Coordinator, Communications Sector at CUPE. We are pleased to be able to discuss with you a very important issue, the role of the public broadcaster in the twenty-first century. From the outset, we would emphasize that the role of a public broadcaster will be all the more relevant for twenty-first century issues. Media fragmentation, specialty channels, on-demand services and the Internet will mean fewer gathering places where citizens can meet and discuss their communities, be they local, regional or national.

In this new media universe, consumers will increasingly have access to an enormous selection of audiovisual products. The question that will then arise is this: what product do you choose? In a fragmented market, Radio-Canada has a not negligible asset: recognition of a brand name that is an expression of our identity values and a guarantee of high quality in programming and information.

In the name of social cohesion, we must ensure that this public place, the public broadcaster, continues to exist. It is our view that the mandate set out in the Broadcasting Act adequately reflects the mission of a truly national public broadcaster. However, the Broadcasting Act, more broadly, could be amended to give clear priority to news programs and information. Section 3 states the objectives of Canada's broadcasting system as a whole. An amendment of the wording to reflect the importance of that type of programming would be desirable.

The communities far away from major centres such as Montreal regularly express their dissatisfaction over the more frequent broadcasting of the information from Montreal. There is a decline in the spread and especially gathering of local news. In Quebec, we call that the “Montrealization of the airwaves”, and Radio-Canada's airwaves are no exception.

A similar recommendation was made by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in its final report on the Canadian media, published in June 2006. Promoting information in that way would be beneficial not only for Radio-Canada, which excels in this niche, but also for the broadcasting system as a whole. We must now ensure that the necessary tax and regulatory parameters are put in place to support and defend the values expressed in the Broadcasting Act. The annual subsidies paid by Ottawa to Radio-Canada declined from $946 million to $877 million between 1994 and 2004. This gradual withdrawal by the government leads us to fear the worst, particularly at a time when it should be more of a presence on a larger number of platforms.

For the public broadcaster to be effective, it must be independent of political influence. Thus, to ensure its stability, parliamentary allocations should be paid on a multi-year basis. In addition, Radio-Canada's budget has been cut, to the benefit of independent producers, and the impact of that on the industry as a whole has never been measured. Independent producers are benefiting from a system that continues to favour them, despite the fact that they are not accountable to taxpayers. To understand the scope of the problem, consider the following example.

Our members who work in the television production field have informed us that a program that used to be produced by Radio-Canada and that today is produced outside the corporation now costs approximately 25% more to make.

A program produced outside undeniably costs Radio-Canada less because it only pays 20% of the production budget to broadcast it over its airwaves. However, the question must be asked: is that the best way to spend public money?

Thirty-seven percent of the Canadian Television Fund budget is reserved for independent productions that are broadcast on its airwaves. However, we believe that Radio-Canada should be able to access this money for its own productions in order to foster creation and production by public broadcasting artists.

This change would be even more pertinent seeing that the CTF funds four distinct categories of programs: drama, documentaries, youth programs and variety and the performing arts. Radio-Canada's mandate requires it to broadcast exactly these types of programs. Consequently, it should be granted the means to carry out its public function and fulfil its mandate, thus doing its duty to society.

As an introduction to our discussion today, we simply wanted to reiterate our main ideas and concerns. We are now available to discuss with you the subjects we have just raised or any other question concerning the role of the public broadcaster in the twenty-first century.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much for that.

We'll move on to our next presenter.

Pierre.

[Pierre Roger, General secretary, La Fédération nationale des communications]

My name is not Chantal Larouche, but rather Pierre Roger, and I am General Secretary of the Fédération national des communications.

FNC is affiliated with the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and has 7,000 members from roughly 100 unions. In that respect, FNC is the largest and most representative union organization in the communications sector in Quebec. The federation represents member technicians, journalists and presenters of the main private and public Francophone broadcasters, that is Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec, TVA, TQS, Radio Nord, Astral and Corus.

As I said at the start of my presentation, Ms. Larouche could not be here today. I will be making the presentation for her.

The current context is such that the relevance of and need for a strong public broadcaster as an alternate source of news and information programming are greater than ever. We believe that the public broadcaster has to do more and to it better as far as the regions and communities are concerned, but we realize that the CBC sometimes has to make unpopular choices because of its situation.

The problem is not so much the CBC's mandate as the framework in which the CBC has to operate. On the subject of governance of the public broadcaster, criteria and guidelines must be established for appointments to the CBC.

It is hard for the CBC to fulfil its legislative mandate with its current parliamentary votes and revenue. Since 1990, the corporation's financial capacity has diminished significantly. The CBC needs stable, continuous funding so that it can remain a public benefit not-for-profit corporation.

The public broadcaster is known especially for its general programming and news and information services. Amid today's proliferation of broadcasting platforms and new media, there is a high risk of Canadian society becoming fragmented. In that context, the public broadcaster can play a determining role in ensuring social cohesiveness and protecting cultural identity by using the different broadcasting platforms.

The melding of radio, television and the Internet can work in the broadcaster's favour relative to other competing services. However, this strategy must not be applied at the expense of the quality and credibility of content. The CBC must endeavour to provide television viewers with programs that offer Canadian content, which tend to be under-represented in the programming schedules of Canadian broadcasters, especially in dramas, music programs, children's programs and documentaries, which the CRTC recognized when it renewed the CBC's licences in 2000. The CBC cannot be compelled to focus on complementary programming without adequate, stable public funding.

The emergence of new media poses many new challenges for conventional media. The new order is not only having a financial impact, but is bringing about cultural changes as well. Preserving the current funding rules for television production could make it extremely hard for the CBC to position itself on new media.

The allocation of payable royalties creates real problems, however, and could ultimately foster a return to in-house production. The current system also raises the important issue of the future of Canada's television heritage. The government has chosen to place the production and ownership of television programs in the hands of private independence. What this means is that we are using public funds to deprive Canadians of ownership of material some of which has great heritage value. We believe that the television production funding system is no longer in tune with reality and that it needs to undergo a comprehensive review to make sure that it is meeting national cultural objectives as a priority and that it actually takes the latest changes into account.

In conclusion, public broadcasting remains an extremely important tool for ensuring the viability and vitality of a strong and unique national culture. The cultural sovereignty of states is being threatened at a steadily growing pace because of technological and industrial changes, in particular the concentration and joint ownership of media outlets.

The need for Canada to have a strong and effective public broadcasting system demands a more comprehensive and systematic assessment of the obligations we have to set for a public broadcaster and the financial resources it needs to meet its objectives.

While the cohabitation of public and private broadcasting services has proven itself, we have to keep it going, especially in a context where private sector media outlets, which are highly concentrated, tend to subscribe more and more to the notion of shareholder return over public interest.

The objectives of democracy set out in the Broadcasting Act mean that the CBC has to be supported as it should so economic ups and downs do not affect its choices at the expense of the public interest.

Finally, the Fédération nationale des communications believes that it would be good for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage studying broadcasting and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to act on the analysis and recommendations made in the past decade.

We believe it is essential that these major exercises, carried out at taxpayers' expense, be taken more seriously by government representatives.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Our next presenter is Mr. Fontaine.

[Robert Fontaine, Former President, Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my name is Robert Fontaine, and I am outgoing President of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, which represents nearly 1,500 Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton.

I would like to introduce the people here with me: Alex Levasseur, the union's president elect, and Wojtek Gwiazda, our union's delegate to Radio-Canada International and spokesperson for Radio-Canada International's Action Committee.

Our committee is aware of the importance that the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage attach to the role that Radio-Canada should play in order to reflect and better serve the various regions of the country. That concern is not new. It has been conveyed for years by parliamentarians concerned with Canadian Heritage, and our union shares it entirely.

On March 22, the President and CEO of Radio-Canada asked you to determine as precisely as possible the priorities that you would like to see the public broadcaster meet in a contract that it proposed to establish for the next 10 years. He asked you to set priorities, but, when you questioned him about the way in which Radio-Canada could be more present in the regions and you told him your wish that Radio-Canada would open more to the regions that serve them better, Mr. Rabinovitch systematically took refuge behind the corporation's budget constraints.

Don't go thinking that the union is unaware of our employer's financial problems and that it does not support its demands for increased funding, particularly for the funding it says it wants to allocate entirely to increasing its regional budgets. The Syndicat des communications is pleading in favour of granting those additional votes, but given Radio-Canada's current centralizing tendencies, it is also arguing that those additional votes be combined with a rigorous form of control, so that you and Canadians have assurances that that special budgetary envelope will actually be spent for the benefit of the regions.

While the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reaffirms the importance it attaches to the need for Radio-Canada to better reflect the regions, and Mr. Rabinovitch does his utmost to convince the committee that its priorities are or will also be his, Radio-Canada's regional stations are constantly make cheese-paring economies in order to make ends meet.

Last month, Radio-Canada Atlantique decided to stop broadcasting a regional newscast on statutory holidays. However, in the week preceding the Easter holiday, seven soldiers from the base in Gagetown, New Brunswick, were killed in Afghanistan. The reactions of the families and other soldiers on the base were widely covered. They made the headlines on the ATV and CTV news broadcasts, but not Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada Atlantique had decided not to broadcast a news program on Good Friday or Easter Monday. Our journalists in New Brunswick are wondering whether Radio-Canada's decisions for the Atlantic Region are not designed to assimilate the Acadians.

The Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada would also like to make you aware of the fundamental changes that have been made on the sly at Radio-Canada International. When the Broadcasting Act was amended in 1991, the CBC's obligation to provide international service was one of its conditions of licence. That amendment became law just after the virtual disappearance of Radio-Canada International, which was ultimately saved thanks to Canadian parliamentarians. The future of the CBC's international service is still under threat. The Radio-Canada International Action Committee sounded the alarm in 2002, and it was sounded again the following year in the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Until the Broadcasting Act has been amended to protect RCI's mandate, which is to present the Canadian reality to foreign audiences, there will be nothing preventing the CBC from changing its international service. In fact, that has already started. In 2005, the CBC's board repealed all its policies requiring Radio-Canada International to present a program designed for a foreign audience. Last fall, the resources and priorities of the international service were amended mainly in order to serve newcomers to Canada.

That was a break with an information and public affairs tradition that had made the reputation of Radio-Canada International for more than 60 years. On the RCI Web site, for example, instead of finding new background items for foreign users, as used to be the case, you now see links to other CBC news sites intended for Canadians. We think that the erosion of the CBC's international service must stop and that the original mandate of Radio-Canada International must be reinforced.

The Cree-language northern service is another component of the CBC that seems to be going to the dogs. Its employees are already overworked, and the CBC tells us that it is abolishing the position of the only journalist who writes the news broadcasts for the radio programs broadcast in Cree. You must decide whether CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate in the twenty-first century should be a second class mandate for the country's Aboriginal communities.

Despite the little time at my disposal, I cannot pass over in silence the other important points that we have shed light on in the brief that we submitted to the committee. As you will see, if you have not already done so, we are very much concerned, as are our colleagues, with the virtual almost disappearance of programs other than information programs by CBC/Radio-Canada television and the increasing privatization of the content of public affairs programs. CBC/Radio-Canada programming currently includes only one drama which it produces itself and four entertainment programs. Even excluding the information programs, that original production does not even represent 15% of the public broadcaster's programming schedule.

CBC/Radio-Canada management recently stated that it was going to give renewed prominence to youth programs, a sector in which original in-house production clearly distinguished Radio-Canada from other broadcasters, but which has since been abandoned. Will Radio-Canada be producing these new youth programs itself, or will it contract them out to independent producers, who offer their concept to both public and private broadcasters?

Without questioning the promotion of private production that was decided on in the late 1980s, we consider the system to be in need of rebalancing. This private production is very expensive for taxpayers. As you know, independent producers in Quebec are reinvesting only 3% of their own funds in production.

Furthermore, the exodus of advertising revenue to the new media and the imminent massive arrival of high definition television via the Internet are threatening the funding of our broadcasting system and the country's cultural sovereignty. In this context, a reaffirmation of the crucial role of the public broadcaster is necessary.

The way the CBC operates must also be reviewed. The members of the board, holding no real power over the administration of the day, are chiefly persons appointed on the basis of political considerations. Furthermore, these persons are rarely known for their personal commitment to the public mission of the broadcaster. We unreservedly support the following recommendation made by the Heritage Committee four years ago, and I quote:

In the interest of fuller accountability and arm's length from government, nominations to the CBC board should be made by a number of sources, and the CBC president should be hired by and be responsible to the board.

Lastly, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada believes that the public broadcaster's presence in new media should be part of its mandate in the twenty-first century. In this century, it is likely that the Internet, which is not regulated and the Canadian content of which is beyond any control, will replace television as Canadians' main source of information. It is high time the competent authorities realized this and provided the CBC with the means to distinguish itself on these new platforms without jeopardizing its other services.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andy Scott]

Thank you everyone.

Mr. Scarpaleggia will ask the first question.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here this morning.

I found your presentations very succinct and clear. We clearly understood your point of view. Ms. Turgeon, you said that the independent productions commissioned by the CBC now cost 25% more than when those programs were produced in house.

[Michel Bibeault, Union Advisor and Coordinator, Communications Sector, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique]

I'll answer.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Can you tell me why? We still think the private sector is more efficient.

[Michel Bibeault]

We think that, yes. When a union says it costs more to have it done by someone on contract than to do it in house, one is often inclined to think that the union is lobbying for itself. We're saying that there have been a lot of independent productions in the past 10 years or so in a number of fora. Unfortunately, we didn't have any concrete examples. We said that the private sector was more expensive, that it was going to cost more, but the same stars were not involved, there were outside filmings, the number of hours was different, the sets were not the same. We never had any specific cases.

However, we conducted a study and we have a specific case. For the 2004 season, a half-hour program, Virginie, cost $60,000 to $68,000 at Radio-Canada. In September 2004, production of that program was contracted out to Ms. Larouche's production company. It cost $86,000. They used the stars, and the program was produced in the same studios, using the same technicians. It was still produced in Radio-Canada's studios. It was the same cameraman, the same director of photography, the same sound man. It was cost-effective for Radio-Canada because it cost it only 20% of the total cost since it was produced by an independent producer that received assistance from the Canadian Television Fund. It was cost-effective for Radio-Canada managers, but it had just cost $18,000 more for a half-hour program.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's—

[Michel Bibeault]

Unfortunately, that's the only case we have.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's a good example. What was the cause of that increase? Was it management expenses, administrative expenses? Did the stars ask for more money because it was a private producer?

[Michel Bibeault]

No. When you request copies of the contract in the private sector, competition is cited as a ground for refusal. Ms. Larouche's production company will not tell us what its costs were. We only know the amount of the cheque made out to the producer. We know that the Radio-Canada technicians who worked on the production were the same and that their wages were the same. We know that the same stars were used. They normally request the same fees.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Did they use another studio?

[Michel Bibeault]

No, it was the same studio. The program Virginie was produced in Radio-Canada's studios with all the Radio-Canada technicians. When it was contracted to Mr. Larouche's production company, it was produced in Radio-Canada's studios with all the Radio-Canada technicians. The only difference was that, since this was an independent producer that had access to the Canadian Television Fund and was entitled to its 15% profit like any producer, it cost $18,000 more for half-hour program.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That $18,000 amount may correspond to the time the producer spent filing an application with the Canadian Television Fund. Could that be the reason?

[Michel Bibeault]

That is part of the producer's administrative costs.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

We heard from certain witnesses, including Mr. Bensimon, former Director of the National Film Board of Canada. He said to forget the infrastructures, that that was not important. In his view, Radio-Canada and the CBC must broadcast internationally as much as possible using partnership models. He seemed to be opposed to the idea of preserving this production infrastructure and to be more in favour of a certain amount of flexibility in order to be able to act better and more quickly in the new technological context, which is more dynamic than it used to be. Your view is diametrically opposed to his.

[Michel Bibeault]

Yes, we are at opposite ends, especially in view of the following context. When Radio-Canada decides to fund a production, whether it produces it or finances it, it takes all the risks. I'll give you a recent example. Radio-Canada financed Le ring intérieur, a drama on boxing that was broadcast in prime time, on a Thursday at 8:00 p.m. It was a failure. The program drew between 200,000 and 250,000 viewers. This kind of program, which costs $800,000 an hour, should usually have drawn one million viewers. It didn't work.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes.

[Michel Bibeault]

However, Radio-Canada paid for the whole thing. The independent producer received $800,000 per program. Of that amount, according to the funding rules, it is entitled to 15% profit and administrative expenses. That means that the independent producer made $120,000 profit per program, and it was a failure. The same producer owns the resale rights. It's going to make DVDs. It will at least be able to make some money by launching a DVD. The 200,000 or 300,000 persons who watched the program may buy 20,000 or 30,000 DVDs. They are also talking about eventually making a film based on that drama. Who will the resale rights belong to? To the independent producer. In the meantime, Radio-Canada, which took all the risks, has no resale rights. That is why this isn't really a partnership, it's a win-win partnership for the independent producer. I understand why it defends—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Perhaps the administrators at Radio-Canada are a little more cunning in negotiations.

[Michel Bibeault]

They can be as cunning as they want; it's illegal. The broadcaster is currently not entitled to negotiate resale rights. Even if it wanted to, it's illegal. The only case in which there can be resale rights is when it produces a program itself. Furthermore, if it contracts it to an independent producer, according to the Canadian Television Fund rules, it is not authorized to negotiate resale rights.