Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Ronald Cohen]

.. to each broadcaster, and in fact, this is an act. If you want to be protected by the Broadcasting Act, you can indeed invoke this licence.

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

There was a 37% drop in complaints over violence on television between the years 2001 and 2006. Is that enough? If there were a law, would the drop not be greater?

[Ronald Cohen]

There wouldn't be any change. Why? Because a law doesn't change anything.

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

Time will tell. If this bill is adopted, I think there will be a difference. That is my opinion, and you have yours.

[Ronald Cohen]

It is not a matter of opinion, but in this case it is an opinion that we do not share.

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

Absolutely, we live in a democracy, after all.

Earlier, you talked about multiculturalism. To your mind, does the promotion of multiculturalism within the broadcasting sector help people live together, share a common identity and common values?

[Ronald Cohen]

I think that the various communities in Canada do not necessarily share the same values,the same traditions, but generally speaking, the traditions of each of these communities should be promoted.There are certain exceptions when it comes to law and order that have to be made in certain areas. But generally speaking, multiculturalism should include the protection of communities' traditions.

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

Television is an overly powerful media instrument that affects the individual and collective psyche; it shapes behaviour. Are you not afraid that by promoting multiculturalism within the audiovisual space, we are leading people into a form of cultural balkanization which over the long run, may shape up to be a situation similar to the one prevailing in England currently, whereby there is ethnic confrontation and conflicts between ethnic groups and the host society?

[Ronald Cohen]

I'm not a sociologist, but I would say that generally speaking in Canada, this is a good thing. To my mind, the way multiculturalism is practised is a good thing for society, and I do not see how it is tantamount to the balkanization of communities.

I believe that traditions are preserved to a certain extent, but there's also a general approach of canadianizing our communities. It's quite different from the notion of the melting pot in the United States. This way, I believe we can slowly reach our goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

This has been a very productive day, and I thank you for your testimony, particularly with the debate on Bill C-327 coming up tomorrow.

If I may, I'd like to return briefly to the actual purpose of our hearing today, which was the “full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century”, and that is certainly not a criticism of your response to the questions; your response has been very helpful.

My question is whether, in your judgment, it would be of value for the CBC to join the other 690 stations and become a member of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council--not under the control of it , but taking some direction from it.

I realize your answer could be taken and construed as being self-serving, and I hope that readers of this transcript will not take it that way. I'm asking that question because it seems to me that if there are standards on public broadcasters, they have the eyes and ears of exactly the same people as would be watching the CBC, and it strikes me that we might be lacking some continuity here.

[Ronald Cohen]

I think the question is a very good question. I don't know that it would be up to us in any way to advise the public broadcaster of what it should do, but what might be important, Mr. Abbott, is to look at it from the point of view of the Canadian people, of the population of this great country. There's necessarily some confusion when they don't know where to go and when they don't know if there is a standard set of rules that applies across the country. It would seem to me—and it was one of the two points I had hoped to make regarding the contribution that the CBSC makes—that it would be less confusing, and useful, if the CBC were to have and follow rules rules such as those that we apply, and had an independent body to deal with them.

At the moment, every decision taken by the CBSC is taken by a panel of no less than 50% members of the public. It may, in some cases, be slightly more. It would seem to me that it would be very useful from a public perspective for the CBC to have an equivalent system in place, whether it was a part of our system or an equivalent system that it set up both as to content and as to procedure. I think that would be a useful thing.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

That's really very helpful, because not infrequently we have complaints—at least I certainly have complaints in my office—from people who feel that the CBC considers itself to be above their perspective. You're suggesting that the idea of having at least 50% on a board or on some type of recognized organization to receive complaints about the CBC and their broadcasting standards is a good idea. However, I think it's pretty obvious that for the CBC to duplicate something you already have in place would be an extra expense and really quite unnecessary. That's the implication I'm taking from what you're saying.

[Ronald Cohen]

I would prefer to leave you to take such an implication, if I may. I can speak to the validity of the system, and so on; whether it should be we who undertake such an activity on behalf of another broadcaster, the public broadcaster, is not a decision for us to initiate.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Good. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

I always try to leave myself a little time for a question before we close.

One thing you talked about was the news, and that there might be some complaints about some news. The biggest complaint I've had was about some of our news specialty channels that have come in from, say, China. I don't know how many questions or problems you receive with that, but I've received quite a few that some of these new channels that have come in are propaganda channels, and I don't know how you police that. Is there a way to police any of it?

[Ronald Cohen]

There is. We use, first, the CAB code of ethics, which in clause 5 deals with news and in clause 6 deals with the full, fair, and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment, and editorial. We also use the Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada code of journalistic ethics, all of which require balance, fairness, and a number of other issues—non-mixing of news and editorial, for example.

How do we deal with it? Assuming that the news services in question are Canadian licensees—and they may well be members of ours, as most stations are—we would deal with any such complaints under those codes without any difficulty.

If, on the other hand, the undertakings fall on the list of basically exempt broadcasters—broadcasters that are foreign and remain foreign—then there is no way for us to deal with them, any more than there is for the CRTC to deal with them. There's just no way to cope with services that are and remain foreign; it's only if that programming comes in on a Canadian licensee.

You may remember the case of Al Jazeera that the CRTC was called upon to deal with. They set up very special circumstances in order for that particular service to be imported into Canada. Otherwise, if they are, as you say, a Chinese service coming into Canada, all one could do would be to apply in due course to the CRTC to suggest that they aren't entitled to continue on the list of services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your presentation and your answers this morning. I thank everyone for the questions around the table.

We'll recess for five minutes before our next witnesses. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Welcome back, everyone.

I'd like to welcome our next witnesses, who are from the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française. We have Mr. Pierre Bourbeau, director general, and Ms. Annick Schulz. Welcome this morning. We'll welcome your brief and then we'll take questions.

[Pierre Bourbeau, Director General, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française]

Thank you.

Firstly, I wish to thank you for allowing us to appear before you. It is a great pleasure, and it is very important for us to be here. Through our presentation, you will be able to see that the SRC indeed plays a very significant role in shaping Franco-Canadian identity.

From the outset, I would like to ask exactly how much time has been allocated to me, in order to properly organize my presentation. Is there a time limit on presentations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You have 10 or 15 minutes.

[Pierre Bourbeau]

Since this is the first time the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, or FCCF, appears before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I would like to give you an overview of who we are. I will then present our brief.

The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has been in existence for 30 years now. In 2007, we will be celebrating our 30^th anniversary. The mandate of the federation is to strengthen the arts and culture sector in a more global perspective, which is to promote the development of the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada. Since our organization was born out of the existence of official languages, our scope of action focuses primarily outside Quebec.

To fulfil our mandate, we have the support of 20 members. Thirteen of them are provincial or territorial members, meaning that we have members throughout Canada, from British Columbia and the Yukon all the way to Newfoundland. These provincial and territorial organizations work in the area of cultural and artistic development. Added to these are seven national members, who specialize in sectors such as media and visual arts, song and music, publishing and theatre.

We have two members in some disciplines. For example, in media arts, we have an association of francophone producers in Canada that appeared before your committee in Winnipeg. We also have the FRIC, the Front des réalisateurs indépendants du Canada. We therefore have two stakeholders in the area of media arts. With regard to song and music, we have the ANIM, the Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale. We also have the Réseau national des galas de la chanson.

That gives you some idea of our network.

Through our 20 members, we reach over 250 provincial, regional and local organizations that work in cultural and artistic development. According to statistics of Hill Strategies Research, we also reach about 3,200 French-Canadian artists outside Quebec.

You've received a summary of our brief. I'm pleased to hear that it has been translated. I'd still like to highlight the main points.

The primary goal of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française (FCCF) in submitting this brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is to show that now, more than ever, Canada needs a strong, more structured public network that will broadcast high-quality programming that reflects our cultural and linguistic identity. This is a societal choice that we must make together, with pride and conviction.

To this end, Canada's public broadcaster must focus on fundamental principles which, although defined long before the proliferation of channels and the era of specialization are still relevant today. Accessibility, diversity and independence are still as important today as they were in the past. A fourth principle—one that is especially important when the public broadcast must coexist with commercial broadcasters has been added to these three: the principle of specificity. In our opinion, the management of Canada's public broadcaster must redefine these principles. These principles must be reinterpreted in a world that is now dominated by what many refer to as media fragmentation.

For the sake of Canada's French-speaking community and for the sake of our artists, creators and cultural players, the SRC/CBC must assume and continue to play a leading role in promoting Canada's francophone identity. The SRC/CBC must be given the means and the framework to carry out this mandate. To ensure that it remains relevant and to protect its raison d'être among Canadians, the SRC/CBC must become a truly francophone, distinct and unified media space that is accessible to everyone. It must become a citizen's forum, a place for open dialogue and free speech, a space that reflects a sense of identity and belonging. It must ensure the continued existence of Canada's linguistic, cultural and social networks, while at the same time maintaining a balanced representation of the various components of our society.

In closing, we believe that we must bring together and obtain the support of all the players in our civil society to prove the pertinence of a new concept of public broadcasting in Canada and to ensure its ongoing existence amid the new paradigms that are emerging.

Moreover, we must do so as quickly as possible. I'd like to open a parenthesis here. I've presented the mandate and scope of action of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française. You will understand I'm sure that we're talking about CBC/Société Radio-Canada. Our intervention focuses more on the francophone side, namely the Société Radio-Canada.

With 28 services offered on platforms such as radio, television, the Internet, satellite radio, digital audio, not to mention its recording and music distribution service and its wireless messaging service, there's no doubt that Radio-Canada is indeed a national institution, which is influential throughout Canada.

Having said that, here's the question we are asking. In fact, and more specifically for the francophone artistic and cultural communities throughout the country, has the Société Radio-Canada really assumed its responsibilities towards each aspect of its legislative mandate?

At the outset, I must tell you that we greatly appreciate the cooperation that exists between the Canadian francophone community and the Société Radio-Canada, but we firmly believe that the corporation has to be given better means to fulfil its mandate toward the francophone community in this country and as a public television service.

As a public broadcaster, it is important that the Société Radio-Canada be accessible to everyone throughout the national territory. That is a profoundly egalitarian and democratic objective, in so far as it puts all citizens on an equal footing, regardless of their status or income. It's high time that the CRTC address this problem and force cable companies and satellite broadcasters to give space to SRC signals so that all Canadian francophones have equal access.

In this regard, the labour dispute at the Société Radio-Canada in 2006 highlighted the weakness of its distribution networks and demonstrated the fragility of access to television services in French for a significant number of francophones in this country. The time has also come to eradicate once and for all inconsistencies in certain situations such as that which exists in Ontario, for example, where some francophones only have access to the Radio-Canada channel from Montreal, or in Western Canada where Saskatchewan receives the news programs from Alberta.

The public radio and television program must be popular, not in the pejorative sense of the term, but rather that the public forum, the citizen's agora which it represents, not be always reserved for an elite group. In our communities, we say that Radio-Canada must not always be Radio-Montreal; it must genuinely be Radio-Canada.

The Société Radio-Canada must aim for the entire public in the final analysis, not with every single one of its programs but through its overall programming in terms of diversity. When watching the programming of this public service, the quality and the uniqueness of its programs, the public must recognize what makes it distinct from others. Without excluding any particular genres, the point is to do things differently. This principle should lead the Société Radio-Canada to innovate, to create new niche markets, new genres, to play a role as a driver in Canada's audiovisual universe and—why not?—thus encourage other radio and television services to follow suit.

Lastly, while the public broadcaster is a forum where ideas must be expressed freely, and where information, opinions and criticism circulate freely, its independence must be preserved; that is its independence in the face of provincial pressures and political power.

As we've said, the Société Radio-Canada must do things differently. Its mission must also be seen to include concurrent objectives which allow citizens to gather information on various subjects, acquire new knowledge, always within interesting and attractive programming. But it would be to deny the corporation's vocation to try to limit its mission as a public broadcaster to solely educational and cultural programming in the narrow sense of the term.

With regard to governance, one of the other aspects that is of great interest to the FCCF—and it doesn't involve only Radio-Canada, but all federal cultural agencies—is that the Canadian francophone community be represented on the boards of directors.

We've noted that right now, on the board of directors of the Société Radio-Canada, no one represents the Canadian francophonie, meaning the francophone community outside Quebec. We firmly believe this must be corrected. This situation should be directed not on an ad hoc basis, but permanently.

With regard to the challenges and issues at stake in funding the public broadcaster, we want to state in this brief that we believe that the cutbacks to which the corporation was subjected has unfortunately led it to become more and more a commercial television service and to resemble TVA and TQS more and more. If we really want to have public television, we have to give the Société Radio-Canada the means to play that role as a public broadcaster, and therefore to present programming that is specific and that can be distinguished from that of others. That will allow it to stop playing this game that it has had to play the past few years, namely to worry about its ratings and build its programming in order to obtain higher ratings because it depends increasingly on advertising revenue that it can only earn through higher and higher ratings.

In order to give it increased funding, we are suggesting certain solutions, because many debates can take place on that subject. We have to find a way to encourage the public to subscribe to public television. Many studies have been conducted. One study that took place in 2005 regarding radio and television indicated that among the 10 countries examined, Canada is seventh when it comes to investment in public television. The other countries under investigation were among others Germany, Sweden and Norway, if memory serves me.

These countries have found different ways to ensure strong public television service, and we should be inspired by these models which in some cases combine public funds, that come from the government, and a royalty system. This is a debate that could be launched, and we could discuss it further, but always with the objective of ensuring that we have public television that offers specific programming that reflects the specificity of Canada.

In that regard, I should like to mention—although I don,t have the sources in front of me—a study that was conducted and which demonstrated that Radio-Canada can be a very strong tool to develop identity. Around the late 60s and early 70s, Radio-Canada decided to start its Téléjournal by presenting what was called the Quebec news and then go on to national and international news. It has been proven that the fact that Radio-Canada carried out this project enabled it to be the vector of a strong identity for Quebec society.

If that foundation is correct and true, Société Radio-Canada must become a strategic and strong instrument to develop a Franco-Canadian identity which will reflect its specificity, its regional diversity and the increasing multiculturalism that it reflects and that has become a force from a demographic standpoint. We must also give it the means to reflect that image.

There you are. I think I've taken up about 10 minutes so I will now conclude my presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

If we can hold our questions and answers to five minute, maybe we can get more questions and answers in.

Mr. Scott, you're first, please.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I won't take that personally.

Welcome. Is this the first time you've appeared before this committee?

[Pierre Bourbeau]

I've been the executive director of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française for three years now and it is possible that the federation appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the past. I know that we appeared regularly before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, but this is possibly the first time we appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.