Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you this morning. I'm delighted to be here.
I am a producer at Productions Virage, a production company that has been in existence for 22 years now and that is mainly known for the production of documentaries on major social issues. I am also President of the Documentary Section of the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec. The Documentary Section represents approximately 50 Quebec production companies in Montreal and the regions, that is in Abitibi, the Gaspé Peninsula and Quebec City. I am also Vice-President of the Observatoire du documentaire, an organization that has been around for three years and represents all the main national organizations, in Quebec and Canada, that are advocates for the documentary genre: producers associations, the APFTQ, the CFPTA, DOC, directors and broadcasters, Radio-Canada, the CBC, the Astral stations, Télé-Québec and the National Film Board. Lastly, I am also a citizen of this country and I watch television.
It is somewhat as a wearer of all these hats that I'm going to offer you my thoughts and comments on the mandate that you have to explore.
My comments will focus essentially on four ideas. You have a mandate to conduct an investigation into what a public broadcaster should be in the twenty-first century, but need I take the trouble to repeat that it is extremely important that the public broadcaster stay around. We know that there are questions about the relevance of having a public broadcaster in the twenty-first century. Is that necessary, at a time of major upheavals in the media and communications fields, where we also see a reorganization of networks, convergence, concentration? Some question the relevance of a public broadcaster.
I think, on the contrary, that we must reassert the relevance, the necessity, more than ever, of having a strong public broadcaster in television, radio and new media. It is precisely because of the major changes that we observe around the world and because the supply has developed to such a great extent, literally exploded that, to maintain—and here we must meet this objective—a minimum of social cohesion and identity, we must have a public broadcaster that can do that.
For my part, I unhesitatingly ask the committee to reassert forcefully that it is important to have—and this is part of Canada's identity—a public broadcaster. Radio-Canada and the CBC have helped build this country's identity. It is a reference point for citizens, particularly since the Canadian population is undergoing major change and mutation. The segment of the population that is of foreign origin is constantly increasing. Precisely because of this diversity, we must have a gathering place, and only the public broadcaster can provide that.
I'll tell you right off the bat that I work for all the broadcasters: a lot for Radio-Canada, the CBC, RDI, but also for public broadcasters. The private broadcasters, which also do good work, have other interests, pursue other objectives, which are commercial objectives. As a result of that, of course, they cannot carry out a mission that goes beyond those strictly commercial objectives.
The second point is cultural diversity. Canada is a country that is proud and boasts of having been in the forefront of promotion of a convention on cultural diversity. While it was not the first, it was among the first to sign that convention in 2005. I think that, all parties considered, we were proud of that initiative. Consistency therefore requires that we be logical, that we respect that signature and that we maintain in our own country a cultural vehicle that is a vehicle of popular culture, which is conveyed mainly by radio and television.
We must also emphasize the excellence of radio and new media. This cultural diversity, which is that of Canada and its various components, must be able to find a cradle, a place where it can be expressed, produced and encouraged. That is the second principle.
The third principle is programming. I know that many people have just made recommendations to you on various types of programming and have told you that there should be a little more of this and a little less of that. That's normal. However, I think it has to be kept in mind that an enormous number of reforms will probably be announced in the communications world in the coming year or 18 months. There are a lot of regulatory agencies that have review mandates. There is the CRTC, but there is also your committee, which is important and which is studying the question right now. There will be others. The Canadian Television Fund is also in a perpetual review process.
So it is important, precisely for the two preceding reasons, that the programming on CBC/Radio-Canada television remains general-interest programming. The current trend is obviously toward specialty and hyper-specialty programming. That is the case, in particular, with cable television networks, which are also doing a good job. However, there has to be a general-interest television that has the resources to produce things that could not be produced elsewhere because they do not necessary meet narrow commercial criteria or please narrower audiences.
Radio-Canada's programming must therefore remain general-interest programming that still emphasizes four major genres. I'm not talking about information. The CBC/Radio-Canada plays a public broadcaster role that must be maintained in the area of information. However, in terms of original productions, that programming must be of general interest. It must reflect the country's diversity and new realities. In fact, if there's one thing that should be improved, it is that aspect.
Someone referred to Little House on the Prairie. That's a first. I think we have to be able to find that in all genres: drama, youth programs, cultural programs and documentaries. In the area of documentaries, we have always done a little better in order to raise, reflect, interpret this new cultural diversity.
I'm now going to talk to you a little about documentaries because I am a documentary producer. You have no doubt received submissions concerning documentaries. In recent years, documentaries have become popular again around the world, and that is not for no reason. We live in a complex world. In Canada, as elsewhere, we live in a world that is changing and where it is not necessarily clear and easy for everyone to understand all those changes. The documentary genre makes it possible to ask questions differently, to sift through the major social issues more than in an ordinary news report on a news broadcast or in a news feature, and to ask questions about a situation in a different way. It's said that the documentary is reality film; it means taking a look at the world.
I think that it is the role of a public broadcaster to encourage this genre, to broadcast documentaries in prime time. It is its role not only to present documentaries, but also to ensure that the public debate, the debate among citizens that can arise over documentary productions also be broadcast on that broadcaster's airwaves. In my view, that's extremely important.
To be able to do all that, it goes without saying that the public broadcaster must not be constantly limited, restricted by solely commercial imperatives. It's base of parliamentary appropriations must therefore enable it to produce on the basis of a broader, more complex and more comprehensive mandate than that of its competitors. That's extremely important. Otherwise, there's a spiral, a logic whereby there will be fewer and fewer different or original productions, and we'll move toward the easiest path.
Someone previously said that we would go to the major centres. Obviously, those are the great population pools. We're going to opt for the most entertaining programs, which are also good—I don't disdain that genre at all—but they are easier.
I'll give you an example. Right now, I am working on an enormous project that is currently in production and that has brought together 100 creators: 50 poets, 11 filmmakers, 11 musicians and 24 photographers. It's a multi-platform production. Only one public broadcaster could support me in this kind of production, and that was Radio-Canada: RDI, Espace Musique radio, the Première Chaîne, Nouveaux Médias. This is a cultural project in which a private broadcaster would obviously have been unable to get involved because it was too commercially risky. But at the same time, this is an example of a production that is necessary and important in order to stimulate and encourage creation, but also to remind us of a certain number of identity issues.
Lastly, I would simply like to say that the world is very much changing in the technology field. Radio-Canada must absolutely continue to seize the opportunity to develop those new technologies and that must also be a way of making ourselves known in the world. We Canadians aren't the only ones who look at what we do. This is extremely important, but it must also be a vehicle that enables us to convey to the world an image of what we do, of what we can do and, especially, of our way of seeing the world. I believe that only a public broadcaster can do that.
Thank you very much.