Evidence of meeting #65 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Welcome to the next session here in our afternoon meeting, our 65th meeting. I would like to welcome the Union des artistes and Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma.
Mr. Legault, would you like to go first, sir?
May 25th, 2007 / 2:35 p.m.
Raymond Legault President, Union des artistes
We've already submitted a document to you. I can read it in full, if you wish.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Could you keep your presentation to somewhere around eight to ten minutes? Is that about what it is, or a little less maybe?
2:35 p.m.
President, Union des artistes
I'm going to address the main points of the document instead.
The position of the Union des artistes is that of artists, but also that of Canadian citizens. In a world where convergence is increasingly a fact, the role of the public broadcaster is major, if not fundamental. The mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada is very broad: it must cover the regions, linguistic duality, indeed plurality. This mandate must also ensure that all regions and Canadian values, our Canadian identity and regional identities are represented right across the country. I don't think that private broadcasting or television corporations are able to fulfil the role carried out by CBC/Radio-Canada. In our opinion, it is important that CBC/Radio-Canada be maintained and extensively funded, perhaps even more than it is now, in view of the scope of its mandate.
In addition, I'd like to talk about the presence of women. Gender equity is one of the values advocated by Canada. If that equity exists, under CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, we must ensure that it is visible on the screen. That is important for the Union des artistes and, I think, for all Canadians.
In addition, the CRTC has recently deregulated a number of objectives related to the production of television serials, serial dramas, dramatic programs and youth programs. We note that, since that deregulation, programs of that kind have been on the decline. However, if there's one place where CBC/Radio-Canada could distinguish itself, it is in those fields.
We also see that our television, generally—and I'm not talking about CBC/Radio-Canada here, which is broadcasting increasing numbers of programs in foreign formats—is broadcasting programs that are slightly adapted to audiences here. We think that is harmful for Canada's identity as a whole.
You'll find our position on most of the rest of the issues in the brief we have submitted to you. I could read it to you, but I imagine you've had the opportunity to read it yourselves. Repeating it to you would add virtually nothing to what we've said or written thus far.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
As we go forward and there are questions, I'm quite sure I'll give you a little extra time so that we can embellish whatever the questions are. That's great.
Mr. Grégoire.
2:40 p.m.
Marc Grégoire President of the Board of Directors, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
We represent writers, who form the bottom of the pyramid of television culture, since it is our members who write the scripts. Among other things, the Broadcasting Act provides that the broadcasting system should:
(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming [...]
That act has been in existence since 1991, and we feel it is still entirely current. Radio-Canada's culture mandate is very important. It has served the Francophones of Canada well, particularly in Quebec. It is often said that English-language television doesn't operate as well, which suggests that French-language television has no problems. In our view, that idea is false.
In the case of French-language television, nine of the 10 most watched programs in 2001 were dramas. In 2005, that figure fell to three. So there has been a decline. Of course, I'm talking about dramas because, of all the priority areas, drama counts the most for our members, the writers. It makes it possible to express Canadian culture through stories written by and for Canadians.
The CBC/SRC played its leadership role well in the twentieth century, and we believe it should continue to do so in the twenty-first. With regard to the creation of dramas, it should consider culture as the very basis of its existence. It must of course be granted the funding that will enable it to pursue its mandate, but it must also be ensured that the cultural objectives are the same for the new technological platforms. A business model must therefore be found that will enable the new platforms of the twenty-first century to be profitable for everyone, so that everyone can live off it and Radio-Canada can receive from those platforms the funds enabling it to continue generating dramas. Let's not forget that both private and public general-interest television networks, including CBC/SRC, are, in 95% of cases, those that generate the funds for the licences that make it possible to create the programs that are watched by Canadians.
In 2005, the specialty channels allocated only $1.9 million out of $41 million to the creation of dramas. They cannot be expected to increase that figure considerably. Nor can we expect private general-interest producers to think of culture first rather than their shareholders. Consequently, to protect this cultural universe, there is still CBC/SRC. That is why we strongly support the past, present and future mandate of the CBC/Radio-Canada.
These are good words indeed, but if the necessary money is not there to support them, what happens when a pipeline is closed down will happen to our culture. In 15, 20 or 30 years, it won't be there anymore.
Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you for that.
We'll now move to the first question.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I didn't entirely understand what you meant when you talked about adapted works. Are you uncomfortable with those works? Could you give us more details on the subject?
2:45 p.m.
President, Union des artistes
On the specialty channels, but especially on the available private sector television networks, there are increasing numbers of American television programs that have been translated and dubbed. I'm also talking about purchased American formats. The format is purchased and redone to suit audiences here. Le Banquier is an example of that. That's what I was alluding to. I don't mean that these programs shouldn't exist, but, with the disappearance of CRTC regulation and with the new objectives regarding youth and drama programs, these types of programs are entering into Canadian content.
So, with deregulation, we have witnessed a shift in air time occupied by the stations. It is therefore becoming all the more important in my mind that there be a public television network and that it keep the objectives with regard to what Marc Grégoire said earlier, that is to say concerning a culture from here, writers from here, and that they be able to find a place where they can express themselves. I'm thinking of high-cost series, which are probably more costly, but the quality of which is higher than what is done on the whole. I'm thinking very much about the BBC model in England. The BBC's funding enables it to produce high-quality programs that are sold around the world. So I don't think that investments in high-quality programs are necessarily a losing proposition.
There are markets for television in the world. The new platforms that are developing increasingly need content. This could be a good opportunity for CBC/Radio-Canada to produce programs with what could be global content, somewhat like the BBC model. The BBC is obviously subsidized to a large extent out of television fees. Could we possibly think of other models that would enable the CBC to get the money that would enable it to carry out this mandate? The mandate is so broad, but at the same time, within that very broad mandate, I think there is an opportunity to find ways to fund even more production by a corporation or organization that is more neutral and less subject to the laws of the market in terms of profits and shareholders.
Currently, in the context of the development of new technologies, I can even see an opportunity. I've often had occasion to go on the Canada Web site, and even that of Quebec. All the information provided there is phenomenal. This affords each region of Canada an opportunity to have a window through which it can display its specific character, since Canada is a very big country. Vancouver is very different from Montreal, Moncton and Fredericton. These new technologies can accommodate the contribution of a vision that we could have of Canada's regions as a whole. If CBC/Radio-Canada, which is already present on the Internet, is able to find other ways to enhance the regions' presence at lower cost... Managing to have each region present on CBC/Radio-Canada television is often a problem under the CBC/Radio-Canada mandate.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Talking about the regions, we heard from one group—they must be your counterparts—writers, actors from English Canada, who lamented the fact that the CBC no longer does any local production in the regions. That was a fairly reliable source of employment for them. They could find quite regular work on radio, writing radio dramas and other programs.
We've just come back from a brief tour of the Radio-Canada offices in Montreal. We saw that Radio-Canada commissions productions from outside the corporation, as they do in Toronto, I imagine.
Where do you stand on that trend? Do you think it's as profitable to have productions done on the outside by independent producers? Do you see any reason to correct CBC/Radio-Canada's policy? Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with anything?
2:50 p.m.
President, Union des artistes
Yes. We're talking about regional diversity and production methods. Obviously, in Quebec—I'm more familiar with the situation in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada—some production centres are obviously more significant. Montreal is a production centre. Even independent production is mainly done in Montreal. There have been some productions in Quebec City, but there are obviously groups of artists in Quebec City as well. I think that's another production. There are also production centres in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean that could eventually benefit from that. In general, it amounts to the production of the news broadcast, which is much more local, but there is no other production apart from local production.
I'm not sure I clearly understood the meaning of your question on independent producers.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
What they seem to be telling us is that they prefer the good old days, when the CBC produced virtually all its programming in house, in Toronto, Saskatoon or elsewhere. For the writers and actors living in the regions especially, it was more profitable than the present system, under which the CBC commissions independent productions. There's less job security, if you will. Even though those people didn't work for the CBC, they were on contract, for all intents and purposes.
2:50 p.m.
Louise Pelletier Member of the Board of Directors, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
Radio-Canada, unlike the CBC, was, until recently, a major in-house drama producer. Raymond and I had the opportunity to work together on one of those series, which ran to 60 episodes or more, because Radio-Canada, since it had the studios, had the opportunity to plan for the long term. Marc also wrote one of those series. Whether we work for the Radio-Canada producer or an independent producer, it's the same writers, the same actors.
2:55 p.m.
Member of the Board of Directors, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
No. I don't know how it is for the actors, but what makes a difference for the writers is that the producer is the broadcaster. For the writer, the fact that no other fund, like the Canadian Television Fund or Telefilm Canada, intervenes means that decisions are made quickly and that there are fewer stakeholders. Moreover, Radio-Canada has had major successes and has built a faithful audience with those series. That's no longer the trend at Radio-Canada. Most of the people who work there permanently on direction were virtually laid off. In a way, that's unfortunate because it's hard for Radio-Canada to plan for the long term with the form of funding it has now. It depends on outside resources, on the Canadian Television Fund and so on. So it can plan 13- or perhaps 26-episode series. When you see 13 in Radio-Canada's programming, you wait for six months before you see the next 13. And the audience, since its habits have been broken, seems to do what CBC's audience has done, that is to say it switches to other television networks. In an ideal world, Radio-Canada would have the resources to do in-house production as well and to be able to provide greater continuity with private producers.
2:55 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
At SARTEC, we have always advocated a diversity of production sites for reasons of quality and competition. In the case of Radio-Canada, there should be a balance between in-house productions and productions bought from independent producers, because we believe that a diversity of production sites will put people in competition with each other and incur greater creativity and probably lower costs.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you very much.
Throughout this discussion we've been having across this country, there has been an underlying sense for many people that there was a glory period of CBC, especially in English Canada, and that now we've lost that. They tell us about how much people used to watch. Well, I remember those days too: we all watched because we had only one station. The shows weren't necessarily fantastic, but when that was all you watched, everybody watched.
Now we have a thousand-channel universe. So if we have 10% of that thousand-channel market, people say, “You used to have 40% of the market when you had two channels, and now you have 10% .” We're trying to find the validity of having a public broadcaster in the multi-platform, multi-channel, multi-station world. It seems to me that more than ever the need for a public broadcaster should be self-evident.
Take radio, for example. I live in my car mostly, because my riding is the size of Great Britain. I listen to the radio all the time. What I hear from private radio stations is that people listen to radio because they want to hear their own voice; they want to hear their community; they want to hear their announcements. In the morning and afternoon, there's lots of great local programming. And then it sounds like a switch is flicked, and suddenly that radio station sounds like 600 other radio stations across the country, because the owner of that station owns 600 other radio stations. We have vertical integration of media. Now we have the same columnists in 300 newspapers, because one owner owns 300 newspapers. Why have 300 columnists? Just have one, and he'll be in every single paper.
So there's a homogenizing of voice and a disappearance of place. It seems to me that radio with CBC and Radio-Canada has become extremely effective because of its distinctiveness. People listen to it because it has content.
I'm wondering again why, with television, we are still struggling to replicate what radio has done so well. In a world where all the voices are starting to be the same, and there's a flattening out of a thousand choices--meaning going nowhere--there is a need to have a strong broadcaster with distinctive programming that will actually naturally attract people, because people want content.
I'd like your perspectives on this.
2:55 p.m.
President, Union des artistes
Pardon me, but I'm going to answer in French.
I don't know how that works. I don't know the English situation well. I know that, on the Francophone side, a lot of programs —and I'm not talking about the old Radio-Canada; I'm talking about the present Radio-Canada—have had ratings of 1.2 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4 million viewers. Obviously, markets are fragmented now. People increasingly watch... Canadian television also has to develop other markets, develop specialty channels. Private television—not to mention it, TVA or Quebecor, and I imagine that Shaw must do it in the west—does a more general-interest style of television, more specialized. Radio-Canada must also be in those contents, must also ensure its presence there.
How should I put it? In my opinion, that's extremely important. At some point, our Canadian identity and culture must transcend the narrow notion of profit. However, many choices are made solely on the basis of profits. That is why I was talking about programs that are repeats of U.S. formats served up for a Canadian audience. In your case, there aren't really any repeats, since the program is sold as is. Even Canadian Idol is a repeat of American Idol. In that sense, we must promote artists who are from here so that they don't necessarily go and enrich American culture. We have to have our own identity. I think we in Canada have a different cultural identity from the Americans. We have to rely on that to strengthen our sense of identity and of belonging to our countries. What better than culture, in my opinion, to make all that happen?
3 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I have just one other question on this point about the possibilities that exist with a public broadcaster that don't exist with a private broadcaster. It seems to me that especially the younger generation wants to relate to media in a participatory way. They want something they can put their fingers in, and mould, and move, and change.
We have the infrastructure with our public broadcaster. At the studios in Montreal, we saw grade school classes from here in Montreal who come and make their own radio programs. That would be an impossible situation in any other context. There is the ability, for example, to have a national discourse on radio, as we do with Rex Murphy's show: on English radio we have two hours every Sunday during which people from across the country debate really difficult issues, and everyone is able to participate.
I see that possibility with a public broadcaster, and it seems to me that is indicative of where people want to go with media. They want content. They want something they can participate in. And if it's just a wall of sound that's coming out of Los Angeles, they will tune it out and go to their iPod instead, because they'd rather choose what they want to listen to. They don't have to listen to the traditional broadcast.
I'm just looking to see if there's a sense from you, as writers, that we have an ability and an opportunity to move forward with public broadcast in a really innovative and interesting way. Given the challenges of our universe, it might be even more interesting now.
3 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
You talked about radio. Of course, the golden age of radio, when there were serial dramas on the radio, is over. I don't believe it will be back soon, unless we want to have nostalgia radio. So I think that radio is no longer the most appropriate medium for writers or for stories to tell.
However, Radio-Canada's French-language radio has been an enormous success for a number of years, first because the content is important and people who take part in it are of high calibre from an intellectual standpoint, and second because there is no advertising. You have to realize that advertising is a monstrous irritant on television and radio. We're forced to live with it, since our system has been modelled somewhat on that of the Americans, but if we had modelled it on the BBC, we might be better off today. But that's the way it is. So one of the major arguments of French-language radio, at least here, is that, when there is no advertising for 60 minutes, there is 60 minutes of content, which is wonderful.
With regard to news on the economy, culture and the life of the Quebec community as a whole, radio is extremely prominent and listened to. Radio-Canada's morning program C'est bien meilleur le matin was number one in the ratings a few months ago. Last year, it was second or third. So it's extremely dynamic radio.
However, I don't think we can go back to dramas. At SARTEC, contracts received for dramatic works on radio don't even amount to $100,000 a year. In my opinion, it has disappeared, and I don't see how it will come back.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Have you completed your questions, Mr. Angus? Thank you.
Mr. Kotto.
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here to assist us.
This is a difficult exercise, as you must expect, precisely because of the profile of this public broadcaster that must both please and not displease at the same time, while playing to an audience that is extremely broad and diversified on the basis of identity, origin and gender.
Now I'm going to ask you a question and I expect a simple answer. Apart from the women factor, which will have to be seriously considered in redefining the mandate, as we speak, is the mandate, as defined theoretically on paper, satisfactory from your perspective?
3:05 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
I think so. The CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, as defined on paper, which states that it must be a leader with regard to Canadian values, is still valid, in our opinion. It can be improved, but, simply stated, I would say yes.