Canadian Heritage Committee on May 25th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

I want to stress that we should keep the next questions and answers relatively short. We have time for only two more questioners.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

If I've correctly understood, there are five RDI employees in Quebec City.

[Alex Levasseur]

There will be five left. There are currently nine.

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

Exactly. How many persons does Radio-Canada employ in Quebec City? Is there an overlap?

[Alex Levasseur]

There is a certain degree of interfunding between RDI and the Première Chaîne. Some employees of television's Première Chaîne do things that are broadcast on RDI. It's not perfectly divided. We are in the same building. The number of employees in Quebec City is approximately 190. They do local production and less and less national production. Only the program La Semaine verte is produced in Quebec City. Everything else has been moved from Quebec City to Montreal over the years.

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

All the witnesses talked about exercising greater control over the broadcaster in order to achieve certain major objectives such as regional programming and youth programming. Others came to see us to request more documentary programming. By setting objectives and specific controls for all these areas of activity and by requesting the necessary budgets, won't we be creating a static and bureaucratic structure similar to a public service department?

[Michel Bibeault]

We virtually do not have a choice. Radio-Canada is currently restricted by ratings. The only way to make it financially is to have good ratings and profitable advertising. The big ratings are in the major centres, Montreal and Toronto.

Considering Mr. Angus's example, if Radio-Canada invests in news operations in northern Ontario, the Francophone population pool won't be the same there as in Montreal. So it is more profitable for it to do that in Montreal. That is why it needs stable, recurring, multi-year funding and a clear mandate.

A number of ideas were advanced, such as the idea that 25¢ or 50¢ should be given to each person. We don't have a choice. The money has to go to the regions to ensure that there's regional information and youth programming. Otherwise, Radio-Canada managers will have no other choice but to resort to advertising in order to make ends meet. Advertising is done in the major centres. It is more profitable to do something in Montreal, which has a population pool of three or four million inhabitants, than to do it in the Atlantic, where there are 500,000 Acadians. It's mathematical. It will result in a little bureaucracy, but it's enough to have a clear mandate, and the managers will implement it.

[Robert Fontaine]

I would point out to you that Mr. Rabinovitch, the President and CEO of the CBC/Radio-Canada, is asking you precisely to set the priorities of the 10-year contract that he is requesting. He himself is asking to comply with his contract. If he enters into that kind of agreement, we have to be able to know whether he is complying with it.

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

I understand that we're talking about regional production, but if we add, we add and we add... In any case, I'm going to give someone else a chance.

You told me to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. To please my Chair, I'm going to ask you four questions in quick succession. If you want to take note of them, perhaps you can answer them.

We know the present degree of media convergence and concentration. Can one of you shed some light on relations between the press and Radio-Canada? That's my first question.

I'll ask my second question. We are here to review the CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, the role of a public broadcaster. One of you said that it should be reviewed quite frequently. How often should that mandate be reviewed?

As for my third question, I think it was Mr. Turgeon who said that criteria and guidelines concerning appointments should be put in place. Perhaps it was Mr. Roger who said that.

[Pierre Roger]

Both of us said it.

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

Pardon me. Both of you said it. You talk about criteria and guidelines for appointments, to both the Chair and the board. Could we have some examples of ideal criteria and guidelines. Can you give us some examples that have occurred outside Canada? Perhaps that's been done elsewhere, at the BBC, for example.

Lastly, I'll ask you my fourth question. Discussions are currently underway about the distribution of royalties with independent producers. And we know where negotiations with the artists stand. Do you know that?

Those are good questions, aren't they? Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It was great to have a short question, but four questions? You tried to trick me here.

I have to say this—

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

You can answer us in writing, if you wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If you could send, through the clerk in writing, the answers to the questions that have been asked to me, the chair, that would be great. We do have more witnesses coming up, and it would only be fair to them that we end this part of the meeting right now.

Thank you very much for your presentations and for your answers. We look forward to hearing from you. Have a great day.

We'll recess for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Order.

Good morning, and welcome to the second session of our 64th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I am Gary Schellenberger, chair of the standing committee. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

I welcome here this morning you lovely ladies from Productions Virage and from Réalisatrices équitables.

I'm not very good at French; you will have realized that. This morning when I went to my door, there was a copy of La Presse outside. I sat down and read it for half an hour, and I kind of got an understanding of what it was.

So I apologize for not being able to say your names properly, but we do welcome both of your groups here this morning.

The first presentation will be made by Monique Simard.

Monique, please.

[Monique Simard, Chief Executive Officer, Productions Virage]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you this morning. I'm delighted to be here.

I am a producer at Productions Virage, a production company that has been in existence for 22 years now and that is mainly known for the production of documentaries on major social issues. I am also President of the Documentary Section of the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec. The Documentary Section represents approximately 50 Quebec production companies in Montreal and the regions, that is in Abitibi, the Gaspé Peninsula and Quebec City. I am also Vice-President of the Observatoire du documentaire, an organization that has been around for three years and represents all the main national organizations, in Quebec and Canada, that are advocates for the documentary genre: producers associations, the APFTQ, the CFPTA, DOC, directors and broadcasters, Radio-Canada, the CBC, the Astral stations, Télé-Québec and the National Film Board. Lastly, I am also a citizen of this country and I watch television.

It is somewhat as a wearer of all these hats that I'm going to offer you my thoughts and comments on the mandate that you have to explore.

My comments will focus essentially on four ideas. You have a mandate to conduct an investigation into what a public broadcaster should be in the twenty-first century, but need I take the trouble to repeat that it is extremely important that the public broadcaster stay around. We know that there are questions about the relevance of having a public broadcaster in the twenty-first century. Is that necessary, at a time of major upheavals in the media and communications fields, where we also see a reorganization of networks, convergence, concentration? Some question the relevance of a public broadcaster.

I think, on the contrary, that we must reassert the relevance, the necessity, more than ever, of having a strong public broadcaster in television, radio and new media. It is precisely because of the major changes that we observe around the world and because the supply has developed to such a great extent, literally exploded that, to maintain—and here we must meet this objective—a minimum of social cohesion and identity, we must have a public broadcaster that can do that.

For my part, I unhesitatingly ask the committee to reassert forcefully that it is important to have—and this is part of Canada's identity—a public broadcaster. Radio-Canada and the CBC have helped build this country's identity. It is a reference point for citizens, particularly since the Canadian population is undergoing major change and mutation. The segment of the population that is of foreign origin is constantly increasing. Precisely because of this diversity, we must have a gathering place, and only the public broadcaster can provide that.

I'll tell you right off the bat that I work for all the broadcasters: a lot for Radio-Canada, the CBC, RDI, but also for public broadcasters. The private broadcasters, which also do good work, have other interests, pursue other objectives, which are commercial objectives. As a result of that, of course, they cannot carry out a mission that goes beyond those strictly commercial objectives.

The second point is cultural diversity. Canada is a country that is proud and boasts of having been in the forefront of promotion of a convention on cultural diversity. While it was not the first, it was among the first to sign that convention in 2005. I think that, all parties considered, we were proud of that initiative. Consistency therefore requires that we be logical, that we respect that signature and that we maintain in our own country a cultural vehicle that is a vehicle of popular culture, which is conveyed mainly by radio and television.

We must also emphasize the excellence of radio and new media. This cultural diversity, which is that of Canada and its various components, must be able to find a cradle, a place where it can be expressed, produced and encouraged. That is the second principle.

The third principle is programming. I know that many people have just made recommendations to you on various types of programming and have told you that there should be a little more of this and a little less of that. That's normal. However, I think it has to be kept in mind that an enormous number of reforms will probably be announced in the communications world in the coming year or 18 months. There are a lot of regulatory agencies that have review mandates. There is the CRTC, but there is also your committee, which is important and which is studying the question right now. There will be others. The Canadian Television Fund is also in a perpetual review process.

So it is important, precisely for the two preceding reasons, that the programming on CBC/Radio-Canada television remains general-interest programming. The current trend is obviously toward specialty and hyper-specialty programming. That is the case, in particular, with cable television networks, which are also doing a good job. However, there has to be a general-interest television that has the resources to produce things that could not be produced elsewhere because they do not necessary meet narrow commercial criteria or please narrower audiences.

Radio-Canada's programming must therefore remain general-interest programming that still emphasizes four major genres. I'm not talking about information. The CBC/Radio-Canada plays a public broadcaster role that must be maintained in the area of information. However, in terms of original productions, that programming must be of general interest. It must reflect the country's diversity and new realities. In fact, if there's one thing that should be improved, it is that aspect.

Someone referred to Little House on the Prairie. That's a first. I think we have to be able to find that in all genres: drama, youth programs, cultural programs and documentaries. In the area of documentaries, we have always done a little better in order to raise, reflect, interpret this new cultural diversity.

I'm now going to talk to you a little about documentaries because I am a documentary producer. You have no doubt received submissions concerning documentaries. In recent years, documentaries have become popular again around the world, and that is not for no reason. We live in a complex world. In Canada, as elsewhere, we live in a world that is changing and where it is not necessarily clear and easy for everyone to understand all those changes. The documentary genre makes it possible to ask questions differently, to sift through the major social issues more than in an ordinary news report on a news broadcast or in a news feature, and to ask questions about a situation in a different way. It's said that the documentary is reality film; it means taking a look at the world.

I think that it is the role of a public broadcaster to encourage this genre, to broadcast documentaries in prime time. It is its role not only to present documentaries, but also to ensure that the public debate, the debate among citizens that can arise over documentary productions also be broadcast on that broadcaster's airwaves. In my view, that's extremely important.

To be able to do all that, it goes without saying that the public broadcaster must not be constantly limited, restricted by solely commercial imperatives. It's base of parliamentary appropriations must therefore enable it to produce on the basis of a broader, more complex and more comprehensive mandate than that of its competitors. That's extremely important. Otherwise, there's a spiral, a logic whereby there will be fewer and fewer different or original productions, and we'll move toward the easiest path.

Someone previously said that we would go to the major centres. Obviously, those are the great population pools. We're going to opt for the most entertaining programs, which are also good—I don't disdain that genre at all—but they are easier.

I'll give you an example. Right now, I am working on an enormous project that is currently in production and that has brought together 100 creators: 50 poets, 11 filmmakers, 11 musicians and 24 photographers. It's a multi-platform production. Only one public broadcaster could support me in this kind of production, and that was Radio-Canada: RDI, Espace Musique radio, the Première Chaîne, Nouveaux Médias. This is a cultural project in which a private broadcaster would obviously have been unable to get involved because it was too commercially risky. But at the same time, this is an example of a production that is necessary and important in order to stimulate and encourage creation, but also to remind us of a certain number of identity issues.

Lastly, I would simply like to say that the world is very much changing in the technology field. Radio-Canada must absolutely continue to seize the opportunity to develop those new technologies and that must also be a way of making ourselves known in the world. We Canadians aren't the only ones who look at what we do. This is extremely important, but it must also be a vehicle that enables us to convey to the world an image of what we do, of what we can do and, especially, of our way of seeing the world. I believe that only a public broadcaster can do that.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll move on to the next group. I couldn't say your name, and I apologize again.

Ms. Lepage.

[Marquise Lepage, Producer, Réalisatrices équitables]

Marquise. It's easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It is easy.

[Marquise Lepage]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee members, thank you for receiving the members of Réalisatrices équitables here this morning. I am here with Lucette Lupien, Marie-Pascale Laurencelle and Isabelle Hayeur, who have come here with with me this morning and who will also be able to answer questions following our presentation.

First of all, I won't dwell at length on the obligation to fund Radio-Canada adequately, as Ms. Simard has so brilliantly shown. In our opinion, that is very important. Radio-Canada must not be forced to follow the same dictates as commercial television broadcasters. It must be different, have its own voice and reflect the values of all Canadians in the world, and not be confined to genres that would be “more popular”, but that would marginalize everything else.

Having said that, we are going to address our main subject, which is the place of women, particularly women directors, in our public broadcaster. Although the description of its mandate is praiseworthy, Radio-Canada, among others in the case of cultural diversity, fails to mention the importance of representing more than half the population, that is to say women. Last year, Statistics Canada announced again that we formed 51% of the population. Since all the citizens of our country are deemed to be equal, someone might respond to me by saying that, in the view of Radio-Canada and the government, women are included in that designation.

However, when I look at the statements in greater detail, I see that in (ii), it says that the corporation must “reflect Canada and its regions”, that, in (iv), it states that it must reflect the needs and circumstances of each official-language community and that, in (viii), it states that it must “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.” Why was it necessary to name these realities? No doubt because parliamentarians realized that, without specific rules, the major centres tended to be favoured to the detriment of the regions, as was said earlier. They also probably tended to think that the citizens of different cultures might not find their place and that the two official languages might be unfairly represented. They thought it wise to state that specifically in the mandate.

Now we would like the government to concern itself with the unfair amount of space made available to women's imagination on the screen and the unequal presence of women directors on our national television network.

It is my turn to apologize, Mr. Chairman, because we had to change our brief slightly, particularly the tables, which are easy to understand. If you read La Presse, you should be able to find your way through it very easily. These are mainly figures. Table A represents the CBC/Radio-Canada's current situation, in the spring of 2007, and Table B represents other aspects of the system that are unfavourable to women directors from a production standpoint. As you can see, the gaps are quite significant, 63% and 37% for Radio-Canada. These tables are on pages 9 and 10.

Do you have Tables A and B on pages 9 and 10?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It's okay.

[Marquise Lepage]

In my opinion, those gaps, which are in the range of 90% and 10% for fictional feature films at Telefilm Canada and 63% and 37% at CBC/Radio-Canada, all genres included, and for all members of Réalisatrices équitables, these figures are unjustifiable in 2007, in a sector that is 100% subsidized by the government. We haven't noted everything, but these figures, among many others, confirm that the existing systems are highly unfavourable to women and result in unequal incomes for women directors, not to mention the unequal representation of women's imagination on the screen. I entirely agree with regard to cultural diversity, but it is also essential that we think about half of the population.

The figures in Table A were compiled from the spring 2007 programming schedule. As you can see, the CBC/Radio-Canada is far from giving women directors the same amount of room as male directors. In addition, most women directors are confined to magazines. There are virtually no women in the drama sector: 1.5%.

Some will tell us that a number of women screenwriters often see their fictional works put on the screen. That's true. We might be pleased about that if we didn't see that the vast majority of screenplays written by women are directed by men, whereas the reverse is not true.

The director's trade is poorly known, and it is just as essential to the creation of a work as its writing. It isn't just the story that is different, but also the treatment, the viewpoint, the approach and the 1,000 artistic choices that that entails.

Of course, the CBC/Radio-Canada is not solely responsible for the present situation of half the population and of women filmmakers, but it has a very great influence and is part of a set of systems that do not favour women, even in everything that is done and funded by other bodies in “private industry”. We put the words “private industry” in quotation marks because, in a way, that industry is virtually non-existent in Canada, being subsidized in one way or another by the taxes of all of us, that is 50% or more by women.

In Table B, you see the gap between the amounts invested by Telefilm Canada and SODEC in Quebec in projects by men and women directors. Why does our national broadcaster have such a decisive role in these figures? Because, under the rules laid down by the Canadian industry, television, by the purchase or pre-purchase of licences, determines the projects that will be produced and the people who will produce them. Television also very often dictates production budgets, because they are calculated based on the licence granted by the broadcaster. Radio-Canada is thus part of the decision-making process that judges and gives its approval to the production of a large number of so-called “private” projects. It is also its managers and staff who discuss the orientations of the projects and target audiences that will be favoured. All those decisions are clearly decisive in the choice of programs, films, series and documentaries produced in Quebec, even for projects financed mainly by other bodies. In particular, the CBC/Radio-Canada manages nearly 40% of the Canadian Television Fund's budget.

The current imbalance does not just harm women who have decided to choose direction as an occupation. The impoverishment of content, lack of diversity of viewpoints and the shrinking of imagination have obviously had an impact on society as a whole. In 2005, a group of women actors stated that claiming a greater place for women in the collective imagination was an essential battle for the democratic and economic survival of our society. We agree. The battle of the imagination is just as important as the battle for wages and support for families.

We also believe that the inadequate place granted to women on our screens and behind the camera does much to influence the perceptions of the public, who tend to believe that women are less important than men in our society. The stories and concerns broadcast on television are models for all young Canadians, girls and boys. For everyone, but particularly for our children, we must build a national television that fairly represents society as a whole. It must give as much space to the girls and women of this country as it does to its boys and men. According to a recent survey conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies, 94% of Canadians said that gender equality was one of their priorities. In fact, in the minds of Canadians, gender equality is the second most important value, immediately after health. For Quebeckers, it apparently ranks first, even before health.

The shortcomings. After what we've just revealed, we believe that the CBC/Radio-Canada is failing to meet a number of its statutory obligations.

Paragraph (ii): the CBC/Radio-Canada does not reflect Canada, since 51% of the population is under-represented.

Paragraph (iii): the CBC/Radio-Canada does not contribute actively enough to the flow and exchange of cultural expression. Gender diversity, in our view, is essential.

Paragraph (vi): the CBC/Radio-Canada does not contribute adequately to shared national consciousness and identity, since equal rights for men and women are a core element of Canada's national identity. We already knew that, but that was confirmed in a poll the results of which appeared this month.

In a concern for fairness toward all women and to address a public priority, we recommend the following amendments to paragraphs (v) and (viii), which should read as follows:

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French and to achieve balanced funding for, and broadcasting of, work by men and by women;

(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial character of Canada, also taking into account the equity between men and women in this country.

Concrete measures. In order to quickly correct the present imbalance, bolstering of the mandate's principles should go hand in hand with concrete measures. We suggest that the CBC/Radio-Canada urgently adopt incentives that openly promote the achievements of women in all production sectors where women directors are under-represented, particularly for dramatic series and fictional feature films, where they are even scarcer.

Rules requiring real representation of women's imagination would not hurt freedom of expression, so dear to some, or diminish the quality of products on the small screen. On the contrary, we would find ourselves with even more diversity and a real plurality of perspectives and talents.

As was the case in 1991, when the Broadcasting Act was amended to request that a larger share of productions be done by the private sector, and we witnessed an explosion in the number of production companies and independent producers, we think that incentives such as including in the act an obligation to call on more women directors in all sectors will result in an explosion of female expression and talent. In addition to having a positive impact on the industry as a whole, that will benefit the entire population, of all ages, origins and languages.

We are convinced that an equitable presence of women's viewpoints, stories, concerns, backgrounds and roles on television would be a tremendous stimulant for a society that wants to encourage equality of opportunity in all areas of human endeavour. Society has everything to gain from promoting women's imagination as much as that of men. All Canadians would benefit from having a national broadcaster that showed equity leadership.

In closing, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is definitely important to discuss new technologies and funding for the CBC/Radio-Canada, but we believe that it is even more urgent to examine this significant imbalance, which has only been aggravated in the past 20 years, believe it or not. This concerns us in our capacity as directors, but also affects us, like the majority of the population of Quebec and Canada, as spectators and citizens.

On a personal note, I would add that this also concerns me as a mother of twins, a boy and a girl 10 years of age. I hope that, in 20 years, they will see Canadian society representing them equitably and offering them both the same opportunities.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

I must remind everyone that this session will be over in about 26 minutes.

I'm going to ask Ms. Bourgeois to give the first question. Let's try to keep our questions and our answers as short as we can, please, so that everyone has an opportunity to ask those questions.

Ms. Bourgeois.