Canadian Heritage Committee on May 25th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Welcome this afternoon. It is a Friday afternoon for the 65th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

You will have to accept my apologies before I announce your organizations, but I am trying to speak a little French, and so I will do that.

We welcome this afternoon the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec and the Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec.

I'm sorry for that, but I tried.

Welcome. It's going to be a good meeting here this afternoon.

Who is going to speak?

Ms. Samson, would you go first, please?

[Claire Samson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec]

Good afternoon. I am Claire Samson, the president and CEO of the APFTQ, and I am accompanied by the chairman of the association’s board of directors, Mr. Vincent Leduc, who in daily life is vice-president of Zone 3, one of the largest independent television production companies in Quebec.

As you surely know, the APFTQ represents the great majority of independent film and television production companies in Quebec. Our members regularly do business with all of the Quebec broadcasters, public and private, conventional and specialized. In the written brief that we submitted to your committee last February, we formulated four major general principles which in our view should guide the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in its investigation of the role for the national public broadcaster in the 21st century. I shall first review these few principles and then ask Vincent to briefly explain the reasons why we are proposing them.

The first principle is that it is important and must continue to be important to have a strong national public broadcaster in the environment that exists at the beginning of the 21st century. The second principle is the need to ensure that this national public broadcaster receives a sufficiently large annual appropriation to properly carry out its mandate under the Broadcasting Act. The third principle is the need to preserve the generalist nature of the programming of the CBC’s core television networks, while assigning priority to certain programming categories. And last but not least, the fourth principle is the national public broadcaster’s obligation to play an exemplary and leading role in the use of independent production.

[Vincent Leduc, Chair of the Board of Directors, Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec]

Good afternoon, and a good sunny Friday in Montreal.

Mr. Chairman, in an increasingly fragmented media universe, where the number of classic broadcasting services as well as the number of new broadcasting windows and platforms are increasing, it is more essential than ever to preserve this anchor point which connects all Canadians, the national public broadcaster. A broadcaster whose distinctive, diverse and predominantly Canadian programming is widely available in every region of Canada, in both the official languages, and on radio and television as well as the new media. Recognition of this principle is crucial. For it is at the heart of what has characterized the Canadian broadcasting system for decades and what should continue to characterize it in the coming century, that being the existence of both public and private components that are strong and solidly rooted and that complement and emulate each other, thereby offering Canadian citizens a true diversity of programming and editorial voices.

It goes without saying that such a national public broadcaster cannot fully play its role unless it has the appropriate financial resources at its disposal. In our view, it is very important that the majority of those resources come from the State, from parliamentary appropriations. Essentially, what distinguishes a public broadcaster from a private broadcaster is that the former is not primarily dependent on market forces and commercial revenues. It is this independence that allows it to give precedence to the public interest and the social and cultural objectives of the Act. It is this independence that guarantees the distinctive and complementary character of its programming and its capacity to fulfil its public service mission.

Furthermore, the financial resources that come from the State must be substantial enough to allow the CBC to carry out its mandate under the Broadcasting Act in full. On this subject, if it is true, as CBC/Radio-Canada maintains, that between 1990 and 2005 its parliamentary appropriation increased by only 2.3% in current dollars and decreased by 33% in constant dollars, that is, by close to $375 million, that is matter for concern. An adjustment is urgently needed: CBC/Radio-Canada must be restored the resources to realize its ambitions and full capacity to fulfil the mission it has been entrusted by Parliament. It is also essential, in our view, that the CBC’s core television networks continue to be general-interest and to offer the Canadian public a diverse and balanced range of information and entertainment programs in all genres.

The CBC must attempt to reach all of the socio-economic segments and age groups of the Canadian population by offering programming in a variety of genres likely to meet the needs, tastes and expectations of Canadian men, women and children. Of course, this generalist mission is not incompatible with the need to assign priority to certain programming categories that are not sufficiently represented in the private component of the broadcasting system or that are of exceptional importance in promoting Quebec and Canadian artistic creativity and cultural identity. In the current context, we feel that the CBC should make special efforts to encourage the production of original Canadian programming in the following sectors: drama, children’s programs, documentaries and cultural programming.

The Broadcasting Act stipulates that the programming offered by the Canadian broadcasting system must make substantial use of Canadian independent producers. This obligation is contributing to an essential diversification of producers and in return offering thousands of freelance Canadian creators, artists and artisans a variety of entry points into the Canadian broadcasting system. These are essential gains, which must not be called into question or compromised.

In this era of constantly rising private-sector concentration of ownership, convergence, vertical integration and multimedia cross-ownership, it is essential that the national public broadcaster play a heightened and exemplary role supporting the development of a versatile, varied and dynamic Canadian independent production sector.

That is why we believe that a growing portion of CBC/Radio-Canada’s annual spending on original Canadian programming should be allocated by statute to funding independent programs produced by a wide variety of Canadian producers in every area of programming that we have identified as a priority.

Claire, do you want to conclude?

[Claire Samson]

Thank you.

We hope that these few simple but basic principles can help the Committee clarify the role of our national public broadcaster and convince the Canadian Parliament to provide it with adequate financial resources to carry out that role. We believe that the implementation of these four principles is essential if Canadians want to maintain a broadcasting system that is dynamic, effective and open to diversity.

I thank you for your attention. We will be pleased at this time to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We will move now over to Monsieur Jean-Pierre Lefebvre.

[Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, President, Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec]

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I would like to introduce Lise Lachapelle, who is Director General of the Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec. Thank you for having us.

We could simply walk away because we agree with what the producers have just said. Moreover, who will say that we don't agree with them? So there will be unanimity, in a way, between what we have to tell you, what we have written for you and what the producers have just told you.

I would remind you that we represent approximately 550 freelance film and television producers in Quebec and that we are recognized for all of Quebec for all films made in all languages, except those made in English, which belong to the Quebec Chapter of the Directors Guild of Canada. So we are Radio-Canada's first customers. We are in the front line with the producers. For that reason, we virtually hope that the same things will continue on both sides and that they will increase in other sectors.

I will briefly read the preamble that you no doubt have in your hands. Every since its founding, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has unquestionably played an historic and crucial role in the development of communication and creativity in Canada. This may be even more true in Quebec, where the French arm of the CBC has made it possible for a language and culture unique in North America to take root and to blossom.

Certainly the landscape of television, which is what concerns us directly, has been substantially transformed over the past 40 years with the arrival of private networks, pay TV, specialty channels and the Internet. These upheavals, however, far from threatening the CBC’s role have on the contrary demonstrated its absolute necessity. They have shown that, like the model on which Canada’s public broadcaster was originally based, the BBC, it must remain the preferred locus for democratic exchange and creativity free from political and commercial constraints. We would even assert that the CBC will survive only on condition that it stand out from its direct and indirect competitors and that it open its airwaves to the diverse peoples and cultures that inhabit Canada, from sea to sea to sea.

Lastly, while the television landscape is our topic here, we consider that the CBC Radio model, with its various -- and varying -- channels, points the way to follow, by largely devoting itself, so appealingly and effectively, to news and culture.

I won't read the 11 principles and recommendations that you'll find in our brief. We want the CBC to be independent, pluralist, that it not be privatized, that it be a state-of-the-art television network that leads by example, a popular network, but not populist.

I will perhaps emphasize one point, recommendation 8, which states:

The CBC must do more to assist the growth of Quebec and Canadian cinema by investing substantially in film development, production and distribution; this could perhaps be made mandatory for it.

It is curious to say, but I think that would help it a great deal, especially in English Canada, if such a measure existed. You know that English Canada has a lot of difficulty making contact with its audience. Quebec is much more successful. Nevertheless, it could also benefit from a joint venture between the private feature film industry here in Canada and the Crown corporation.

That system exists in a number of other countries in the world. The French model, in particular, produces an incredible number of feature films for television. We have always seen it as a way to put forward larger numbers of productions and also train technicians of all levels, actors and even the public.

In conclusion, we say that Radio-Canada must be the preferred vehicle of information, knowledge and culture among and for all Canadians. We emphasize the fact that, as I said, it can be a popular television network, but it must avoid the traps of populism at all costs.

Without Radio-Canada, without the CBC, we do not see how culture could be maintained and progress in Canada. Culture is something that is cultivated, that is taught. Look at the state of gastronomy in Toronto today, relative to 40 years ago, and you will realize that English Canada has made an extraordinary leap. So we must not consider giving people the cultural fast food they demand at any cost, on the pretext that it's more profitable than culture. We must not fall into that trap. On the contrary, the CBC and the federal government must increasingly affirm their mission as informers, Canadian cultural agents for all and among all Canadians.

That was the essential part of what we had to tell you, in addition to what I didn't read. Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We will go to the first questioner. Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome and thank you for your presentations.

In fact, I believe that everyone here is on the same wave length. We all understand the role of the public broadcaster, and we want it to affirm culture, diversity of opinion and general interest, not superficial programming. We are all in agreement on that point.

Obviously, a lot of groups like yours are appearing before us, in some instances, to request additional funding to support their public broadcaster. Some would say that you are lobbying for your own interests. You say you want to develop more products, and CBC/SRC is the only network interested in Canadian cultural works. That has to be said, I believe. So, since the government is the distributor of funding, you would like it to give Radio-Canada more. You mentioned the idea of granting a dedicated budget envelope to film production. I think you are right in that sense.

In addition, we have to talk a little about accountability. Perhaps you didn't mention it, but others said that, at the same time, advertising is being taken away because the commercial imperative must be removed if we want a really good cultural product. So where does accountability come from? In the long run, who will judge the relevance of the product that CBC/SRC broadcasts? Who would prevent CBC/SRC from diverging into a field where Canadians no longer are, so that that plays against its long-term interests? Canadians might say, at some point, that, since they are not watching it, why should it be subsidized? We have even heard from people who hate CBC/SRC. I know a lot of people who don't watch CBC/SRC. They increasingly wonder why we subsidize it.

In the interests of everyone, how could we guarantee accountability? Perhaps advertising should be retained in order to determine whether sponsors find the programming relevant, though without going too far and without that becoming a commercial imperative.

I'm asking you a kind of philosophical question.

[Vincent Leduc]

As a general-interest broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada currently relies on public funding and depends on the market for a certain portion of its revenue. As the saying goes, this keeps it honest, and it is in its interests that it stay that way. I think everyone wants a strong CBC/Radio-Canada. I agree with you that it must also be relevant. Part of its relevance will come from the fact that the public watches it. CBC/Radio-Canada plays an important role as a leader in the television markets. That is where the best television in Canada has always been done, and that is where the standards, the markers against which the others are measured, are established.

I think that, in Quebec—and Jean-Pierre will agree with me, I believe—the better Radio-Canada performs and the higher the quality of its products, the more the other stakeholders in the industry will head in that direction. It's like a Hygrade sausage, if you will. In CBC/Radio-Canada's current funding mix, public funding predominates, which preserves the corporation's independence, boldness and creativity, as well as cultural notions. The commercial aspect, which generates a portion of its revenues, balances its relevance. I don't think the current model is bad in itself.

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

You aren't satisfied with the existing model?

[Vincent Leduc]

Of course it could be refined. If you asked me my opinion on a program or a given area of jurisdiction, I might say that I don't want anything to do with it, whereas it would be the opposite for someone else. The fact remains that, on the whole, I think the current model is—

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

Are you satisfied with the programming?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, I think Mr. Lefebvre would like to say something.

[Jean-Pierre Lefebvre]

Since we absolutely want CBC/Radio-Canada to remain a general-interest television network rather than become the equivalent of ARTV, Télé-Québec or PBS, advertising must clearly be one of its components. The Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec absolutely does not advocate eliminating advertising. Radio-Canada's big mistake, at least in French-speaking Quebec, was to do away with hockey, which the CBC did not do. Thank God, the Ottawa team will be taking part in the finals, which I'm at least certain of seeing on CBC. I won't be seeing them in Montreal. It costs my son and me, who are sports fans, $700 a year to watch sports that used to be broadcast on Radio-Canada. We were able to start measuring the impact of this situation on Radio-Canada's airwaves last weekend.

I cite that example to emphasize the fact that Radio-Canada absolutely must not become dry and focus solely on ultimate forms of culture and art. Good taste is in everything, whether it be in sports or culture. But I mean “good taste”.

Earlier you asked how the CBC and Radio-Canada could determine whether the programs it broadcasts are good for the audience. I think it's obvious. When you work with the public, consult it and know its preferences, you can orient programming in such a way as to satisfy its good taste. Certain cooking programs broadcast on the advanced cultural networks such as PBS, Télé-Québec and Radio-Canada are really popular around the world. For my part, I watch them all.

We want a general-interest television network, but we must not fall into the area of bad taste. Good taste is hard to define, but we more or less know what it is. I'm going to cite some examples of the contrary. It would be easy to talk to you about specific channels or even certain CBC and Radio-Canada channels. That's bad taste and it doesn't work. It goes without saying that the people who do the programming at Radio-Canada or the CBC are competent and that they have to listen to their co-workers, who in turn have to listen to the public. By working in this way, the CBC and Radio-Canada will survive. This is one of the essential television networks in the history of the world.

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

But if—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You can have one quick question.

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

This morning, we heard from the group Réalisatrices équitables. Those people were seeking greater participation by women directors.

Do you agree that progress has to be made to ensure that more women directors present and distribute their products? Do you support their position?

[Lise Lachapelle, Director General, Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec]

Absolutely.

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

Do you think there is a gap to be filled in that area?

[Lise Lachapelle]

Yes, and I think other associations as well could eventually support those people.

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

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Lefebvre]

That's an association that comes from my home.

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

Indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Did you have anything to say on that?

[Claire Samson]

Vincent and I are former Radio-Canada employees. I don't know whether that's the case of Lise and Jean-Pierre. There are 12 of us around this table. If each of us went off on our own and prepared our own optimum programming schedule, the result would be 12 or 18 different proposals. Radio-Canada has to offer something for everyone, whether it be international information, scientific magazines, youth programs or major Canadian dramas. There has to be something in it for everyone, perhaps not constantly, but part of the time. That's the reason why Radio-Canada is in a way condemned to succeed.

If that success enables Radio-Canada managers to generate independent advertising revenue, I don't see why the broadcasting system would deprive itself of that. It is its ratings success that generates that additional revenue. It would be hard to justify doing without it, in view of the fact that the potential is there, in the same way as any other resource available to the country.