Canadian Heritage Committee on March 29th, 2007

[Anthony S. Manera]

Yes, Parliament can ask all kinds of questions. It has always recognized that—and I think that you can prove—

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I was talking about the details of accountability.

[Anthony S. Manera]

There are some details that even Parliament has thought it best not to sort out because the philosophy underlying the creation of the CBC/Radio-Canada is its independence with regard to the government. We must find a balance, at the risk of having some kind of political interference. We must not go too far. I believe that we currently have greater leeway. We can do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Neville.

[Bill Neville]

If I could add a quick comment, I think there's an important issue here in terms of accountability. It's slightly different from what Tony has been emphasizing.

It seems to me there's a real gap in the accountability line for the CBC. You have a mandate spelled out in the act, which by necessity is struck in fairly broad language. It's a question of how that broad language is defined and practised as a programming philosophy.

In my experience there's nothing between the act and what comes next. It tends to be a series of annual corporate plans, which is one of Ottawa's great charades, frankly. Every year the corporation produces a plan. It tables it with the minister, and nothing is ever heard about it again. When I was on the board, nobody ever got any feedback from the government about the plan. There was never any attempt to call the corporation when that year was up and say, “Okay, here's what you said you were going do. Did you do it, and if not, why?”

It seems to me that somebody has to play two roles here. One is to take the general language of the act and apply it, whether that's this committee.... Given the kind of media world we live in today, maybe it's the board of directors, whose role I think is too minimal at the moment. There has to be some way to check performance against promise. I don't see that in the present system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Before I go to Mr. Angus, I must say that this committee produced a couple of reports that went to the ministry. An election came along and the ministry didn't have to respond to the committee. We reintroduced those reports to make sure we got a report back. I think if you're mandated to make a report, there should at least be a response to that report.

I just wanted to inject that. I'm sorry for that. The chair shouldn't do that, but I did.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you. This is a very interesting discussion this morning.

I am going to begin with a few general comments, because I only have five minutes.

On the issue of accountability in the governance structure, I think you've nailed it. I'm really hoping that our committee will take that seriously as a recommendation. If we're going to improve performance standards, we have to have that level of accountability in the governance structure.

In terms of your points about moving out of local news programming and how to better deal with television, I can look in my region, where CTV does an excellent job of doing the regional news. That's what they do, except on the francophone side, where Radio-Canada is the only voice for television regionally.

On the issue of how we use our television dollars, we're trying to go head to head with the U.S. on drama, the issue of sports, and these are big issues. I find your suggestion about how we look at telling regional stories to the rest of the country very provocative, because I do believe people will listen. The problem that I see--you would know this probably much more than I do--is this. When I was in television, I was working with a production company to basically do that--regional documentaries, our own stories. We wanted to tell the great stories that haven't been told and do it in a fun way. We had some great plans. But it costs a lot of money, and whether you're going up against CBC or private broadcasters, it's a lot easier to put on a cooking show or a talk show, because you just have the camera, you have the light, and there you are. To get out and do good regional programming that can tell the kinds of stories that radio does very well is expensive.

So my question to you is, if we were going to take that step in television, how would we do it, if we're not looking at reliance on advertising revenues?

[Bill Neville]

As I said in my comments, there is only one alternative, frankly, and that is in some form of public financing.

I think that if you believe we need a public broadcaster, then implicit in that is the commitment that it's not going to be simply a commercial broadcaster as dependent on advertising as this one happens to be at the moment. If you think the CBC should be as heavily in commercials as it is, maybe it doesn't need the subsidy. Maybe we don't need a public broadcaster. That's a point of view one could argue, but you can't play it both ways, I don't think.

Thirty dollars a head, given Andy's point about the sheer physical coverage involved.... As you know, this is one of the most extensive broadcasting operations physically in the world in terms of language: four networks, two languages, Northern Services in several, etc., and for $30 a head versus $120-something in the British system in a much more compact, physical, one-language situation.... At some point you either believe in it and you're willing to support it or you're not. I don't think you can beat around the bush on it.

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

I'd like to ask your experience from being on CBC, because I look at where CBC Radio is extremely successful: certainly local programming, so taking local aside, comedy...comedy out of CBC, I think, is second to none. We have some correlation in terms of that in television as well. Music: new music breaks on CBC often long before it breaks on private radio. People listen to CBC because they are hearing new things. I'm not hearing that same new music kind of programming on television. Drama: well, on television, of course, it's the argument of whether we're challenged or not. Documentary: we're second to none. You put radio documentaries from CBC up against any public broadcaster in the world, and they would hold their own.

In your experience, why is it that CBC hasn't looked at the success of radio and where they're strong, and why haven't they applied that to the television model?

[Bill Neville]

I think, first of all, you have--and I'm sure you do understand--two quite different media in this respect. Radio people set their dial and stay there. You have a station you listen to. In television, you pick your loyalties one hour at a time. You sit there with your clicker, and you flip around. So there's a quite different phenomenon at work in terms of audience building.

But more fundamentally, and I think very importantly, I think CBC Radio accepts the fact that it's not there competing with the private sector, that it has a niche that it's established for itself that it's happy in and that it's building on. Interestingly, its audiences are going up in both languages for both Radio One and Radio Two. It's not out there trying to draw away the top-50 crowd.

In television, if you look at the working level in the CBC in Toronto, I'm telling you their number one concern is competing with CTV. That's what they think they're there for. It's partly a reflection of this commercial reality and partly, I think, a historical thing from back in the 1960s and 1970s when they were king of the hill, and they'd like to think they could stay there.

I think that's essentially it. There's quite a different philosophy here. CBC Radio has a public broadcasting view. I'm not sure the same thing applies in television. In fact, I've often thought a great experiment would be to bring somebody from the U.K. or somewhere else with a public broadcaster, and hand them a radio and a TV set and say, find me the public broadcaster. I think they'd find you the CBC on radio in 10 seconds, and it would be a fluke if they found the CBC on television in the first hour.

[Anthony S. Manera]

Mr. Chair, I would just add something very briefly. I think Bill has obviously hit the nail on the head.

There's no advertising on CBC Radio, except in very rare circumstances, whereas on CBC Television, over half their budget comes from advertising. So that has a big impact on that.

But having said that, I think we also have to acknowledge that CBC has made tremendous progress in the last number of years in terms of breaking down a lot of the old silos that existed. There's much more collaboration within the corporation between radio and television. You've got people like “Sir” Rex Murphy. He's on television, he does radio, he writes a column in The Globe and Mail. So a lot of the barriers are breaking down, and that's a positive that we need to acknowledge. More needs to be done--there's no question about it--but we should not neglect to acknowledge the positive things that have been happening.

The other thing too is that with the Internet, which is the future essentially, you have a blurring of the lines. You have a medium now that is not strictly video, it's not strictly audio, and it's not strictly print; it's all of them pulled together. So as time goes on, this convergence of media is going to accelerate. You're going to have all of these platforms. You already have them. There will be tremendous opportunities here, and I'm delighted. I think the CBC should be commended for the leadership it's taking in terms of new media.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, that's a perfect segue into my questions: the whole issue of new media.

I sense from your comments that what you're talking about, if you boil it down, is a clear delineation between the roles of the public broadcaster and the private broadcasters.

You've just talked about new media. In your recommendations you addressed the challenges of new media and said that the new media are challenging some of the traditional business models that have been applied in the past. I want to quote from your recommendations. You say, “In light of this reality”--being the new media--“the appropriateness and relevance of various tax subsidies and credits as well as Canadian content requirements for private broadcasters should be reviewed”.

Mr. Manera, a few months ago you also wrote an article in the Ottawa Citizen. You were much more blunt, and I'd like to quote from that as well. You state that “The federal government should cancel all tax subsidies and credits now going to private broadcasters.... It makes no sense for taxpayers to subsidize for-profit broadcasters.” You go on to say that this would require a relaxation of Canadian content requirements for private broadcasters, “who should be free to offer whatever mix of programming best suits their commercial objectives”.

You're quite blunt there. You're saying to get rid of the subsidies, get rid of the Canadian content requirements for the private broadcasters, and focus more on CBC's mandate, make sure it's funded properly, and move forward from there.

Am I characterizing that correctly?

[Anthony S. Manera]

No, I plead guilty to being blunt. And Bill, having worked with me for about 10 years at the CBC, knows that I can be quite blunt, and stubborn at times.

You've quoted me absolutely correctly. I haven't really departed fundamentally from the position that you have just quoted me on, from the opinion article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. I have modified it somewhat as a result of further reflection.

But the point I want to make here is that in Canada the private for-profit broadcasters do receive substantial assistance in the form of tax breaks, subsidies from the Canadian Television Fund, and provisions of the Income Tax Act that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. So it's not just the CBC that receives financial support from the government; private broadcasters do too. And that's a direct consequence of the economics of television production in Canada, because we're a relatively small market.

Now, the private broadcasters have been given certain obligations for Canadian content. They're obviously not as onerous as the obligations of the CBC, and quite rightly so. But I'm saying I believe in the free enterprise system. I happen to fundamentally believe that is the system that generates the greatest wealth, prosperity, and also it's the system that's most compatible with freedom, which I also happen to believe in.

So I say let the privates do what the privates do best, which is to make money. And I'm not convinced that we should eliminate all Canadian content requirements, but I think they could be looked at a little bit more realistically. I think if the CRTC were to do that, private broadcasters would still do some Canadian content--maybe less than now, but they will do it whenever it meets their commercial objectives, and they should be free to do that.

But in exchange for that, fund the CBC properly, because it's the CBC's mandate to provide Canadian content. So don't ask the private broadcasters to do things that go against their commercial objectives, but at the same time don't put the CBC in a position where it's doing what the private broadcasters do best, which is to make money. They're two different things.

That's my point.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That leads me to the next question, and I gave you a bit of a heads-up on this question.

As you know, the CTF was established really around a quid pro quo. The private BDUs wanted to be able to charge more in subscriber fees. In return, the federal government agreed and said, listen, you're going to contribute to the CTF.

Do you believe there is a role for the private broadcasters to play in helping fund public broadcasting?

[Anthony S. Manera]

I think the funding for the public broadcaster should be primarily from parliamentary appropriations. It's Parliament that created the CBC, and having created the CBC, it's Parliament's responsibility to ensure that it is properly funded. The rest is details. We've come up with a few ideas here as to how funding can be redirected. As Bill has indicated, if you don't like our ideas, fine, come up with some new ones. We don't care.

When Parliament passes laws saying they are going to create a public broadcaster, then concomitant with that decision there is a responsibility to fund it properly. There is not much point in our having a piece of legislation that says, do all these great things, and then we let the CBC try to sort it out for itself. That's where the responsibility lies.

If Parliament decides that somehow or other the private broadcasters should help do that, that's fine. We have no position on that. We're simply saying, the current model isn't working. It's broken. You need to fix it, because if you don't fix it, what's going to happen is that the CBC is going to become more and more of a commercial broadcaster.

If that's what Parliament wants, then all it has to do is declare that the CBC is going to be privatized, and I can tell you, to privatize the CBC would make money, lots of money. It would go into the market and start competing aggressively to buy U.S. shows like CTV and Global do. It would raise up the price, put more American shows on television, and CBC would make a tonne of money. If that's what Canada needs, then go for it and privatize the CBC.

I personally don't think Canada needs another private commercial broadcaster to put on more American shows that we can easily get by watching the American channels in the first place. And right now the private broadcasters are being subsidized, with the simulcasting rules, for hundreds of millions of dollars. Under provisions of the Income Tax Act, it's hundreds of millions of dollars. Through the CTF, hundreds of millions of dollars are coming out of taxpayers' money.

What I'm saying is, if we're going to put taxpayers' money into Canadian content, let's put it into the one organization that was designed specifically by Parliament over 70 years ago to do precisely that. That's the kind of choice that Parliament has to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

I see that our time has come to an end.

[Anthony S. Manera]

We have a lot more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I know that, but I will offer you this little bit of time at another time. The CBC is a big issue. We found your comments and your forthrightness this morning to be very interesting.

We hope to be able to call back various witnesses. As for whether or not we can get a full report done in a short time, I don't think so. When we do an interim report or a report at a later time, we hope to have you back, as well as various other witnesses. It will perhaps be in a different format, through a round table, where various sides can come together.

We'll take a short recess.

Thank you very much for this morning.

[Anthony S. Manera]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciated the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Welcome back, everyone, and welcome to our new witnesses here this morning from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

Ms. Beaulieu, are you going to be the spokesperson first? Welcome to both of you here this morning. I'll let you go forward with your presentation, and then we'll have some questions.

Thank you.

[Marielle Beaulieu, Executive Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you, and good morning Mr. Chairman. Good morning also to the members. I am pleased to find myself here once again and to be addressing the extremely important subject of Radio-Canada and its future. With me today is Mr. Serge Quinty, who is the Director of Communications for the FCFA du Canada and who will assist me in answering some of your questions this morning.

I would first of all like to thank you for having invited us here this morning to share our thoughts on the mandate of the public broadcaster in Canada in the 21^st century. As you have read in the brief we submitted to you and as you certainly heard in the presentations of other groups, Radio-Canada has a special importance for all of the francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. As you can imagine, these communities often have very limited access to local television and radio content in their language. The SRC therefore plays a critical role for us, in the cohesion of communities, it goes without saying; the SRC also to a large extent supports their ability to live in French.

That is why in this submission, we have concentrated on three particular components of the CBC's mandate. First of all, there is the obligation to report on the regional diversity of the country, both at the national and regional levels, while serving the special needs of those regions. Next, the service must be offered in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities. Finally, it must be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means.

Let me say at the outset that for the FCFA, these three parts of the CBC's mandate are always relevant. In fact, they are more and more so. We absolutely want to have a public broadcaster in which francophones, regardless of where they live in the country, can see themselves; a public broadcaster that creates connections, encourages dialogue and, through this, contributes to building a stronger country. We want a public broadcaster that is an embassador and an international showcase of diversity and linguistic duality as fundamental values reflecting the reality of Canada.

This vision of Radio-Canada/CBC, reflected by its mandate, is therefore still relevant. The problem lies in the crown corporation's ability to fulfil its mandate. My first observation is that the budget cutbacks of the 1990s compromised this ability. Even though the situation has been restored from several perspectives since that time, budgetary restraints have caused Radio-Canada to operate in a market-logic context, in a competitive market and, for us as is the case for many others—this is what we heard earlier on—this is not good news.

In the logic of commercialization and the profitability of productions, the francophone and Acadian communities always come out on the losing end, since they cannot produce impressive ratings figures. It is therefore clear to us that steps must be taken to ensure that Radio-Canada no longer be obliged to operate in a market-logic context. It is moreover this need to be able to operate independently of the logic of commercialization that justifies the public financing of the major public broadcasters like the BBC or Radio France.

Removing the corporation from the logic of commercialization however is not the same thing as the corporation no longer seeking to make greater inroads with its audience. On that point, I must mention the excellent work done by several regional Radio-Canada stations. In several provinces, particularly out west, francophones take a very positive view of regional radio services and the care taken to reflect the reality and concerns of the community. However, there are difficulties that remain, two in particular.

First of all, let us talk about the lack of resources. In our opinion, this is definitely what is compromising the capacity of our public broadcaster. In Prince Edward Island, for example, we were told that despite efforts by hosts to offer francophone content relevant to the community, the team appears to be so under-equipped that the audience has to listen to English radio for the news that affects their day-to-day lives. I think you mentioned that earlier.

Secondly, data from the BBM showed that Radio-Canada's ratings remained quite low in many regions, particularly in Ontario and the Atlantic. In a number of these regions, community radio stations play a key role as sources of local radio content in French.

From this reality we draw two conclusions: first of all, in order to balance the Canadian broadcasting system, it is essential that we better support community radio stations which are playing, we have seen, a central role in the vitality of the francophone and Acadian communities.

Next, it is very important to reinforce the capacity of Radio-Canada's regional stations so that they can really connect with their communities, to ensure the relevance of Radio-Canada in every region of the country because the issue, once again, is our public broadcaster.

It seems particularly critical to us to reach out to youth who represent not only the next generation of Radio-Canada's audiences, but also the next generation of francophones in the communities. That is why it will be increasingly important for regional stations to develop strategies in the short and medium terms for offering an increasingly dynamic and interactive product focused on both the concerns and feedback of the community served. In this regard, new technologies represent promising potential for making Radio-Canada a flexible medium focused on the francophone communities of each region of Canada.

I would like to express a few thoughts concerning Radio-Canada's television service, and above all, the crown corporation's national network. Generally speaking, the francophone and Acadian communities feel that Radio-Canada's national content is too focused on Montreal. Furthermore, many of us refer to it as Radio-Canada-Montréal, for both news and variety programs. In this regard, the crown corporation must meet the challenge to ensure that it is truly reflecting the regional diversity and realities of Canada, and stimulating a dialogue between Quebec society and the francophone and Acadian communities. This appears to us to be an extremely important component. If we want francophones across the country to talk to each other, to know each other, we need to do that kind of work.

These challenges are among others to ensure more coverage of community current affairs on national news programs, to ensure a greater presence of community personalities on variety programs; and to ensure a greater presence on the screen of French-language dramas produced outside Quebec.

There has been progress made in this regard by the crown corporation. I'm thinking particularly about the national broadcasting of the series Belle Baie, produced in Acadia. I am also thinking of the new coverage formula for news at RDI, which we are following with great interest.

And finally, I have in mind the communication and collaboration we have established between the SRC, the communities and the FCFA.

But the crown corporation can go further in taking positive steps to promote the development of minority francophone communities in Canada and support their progress.

In our brief we recommended the development of an accountability framework, and in this regard, once again, we agree with the statements that were made during the first half of this morning's meeting. This issue has a direct link with a component identified by the crown corporation itself in its results-based action plan for 2006-2007 for the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

It refers among other things to a better coordination and harmonization of performance indicators for all of the services offered by Radio-Canada. It is in this sense that we talk about an accountability framework, that can set clear qualitative and quantitative objectives as well as performance measures to achieve a greater reflection of the regions, and above all, of the official language minorities on the national network.

This mechanism would also allow the crown corporation to better report on the results of its strategies, and obviously, on those of its regional francophone stations, to ensure a better connection between the communities and the SRC and an increase in ratings. Above all, such an accountability framework would take into account the new part VII of the Official Languages Act and the need to take proactive steps.

As I said earlier, Radio-Canada has taken a certain number of steps in this regard. However, we can and must go much further because the francophone and Acadian communities need Radio-Canada to ensure their future vitality and because a strong Canada is made stronger by a public broadcaster that reflects the diversity and realities of our country.

It is in this regard that the FCFA and the communities it represents are determined to increase the constructive collaborative ties they have with Radio-Canada in order to build a public broadcaster we can all be proud of and whose mandate remains as relevant as ever in the 21^st century.

Thank you, members of the committee and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

First question, Ms. Keeper, please.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to the issue around the cuts made in the mid-1990s that you speak about and the impact they have had for the francophone community throughout Canada, and in particular the west and the north.

We recently had a hearing in Yellowknife, and I represent a region in Manitoba that includes all of northern Manitoba. Certainly the statement has been made very clearly throughout the north--and in particular, I'm sure, in the west as well--that there is no local French input, that the programming is based in Montreal, and people feel, as you mentioned, that their local issues are not being represented. Could you speak a bit more on how those cuts have affected that local voice and perhaps what kind of recommendations you have specifically for that?